politics

IMO this just comes across as Feminist tailism. Are incels (as in the original definition of incels, not Tate adjacent men) failed by the patriarchy? Yes. Is it correct to still reject them, keep them away due to the danger they pose? Also yes. To any degree to which incels have ever organized with each other as communities of men who are frustrated with being denied their slice of the pie, they're a reactionary force and opposing them has been the right move.

Incels represent a crack in the reality of Patriarchy. They are a reactionary departure from its logic. In rejecting the project of claiming women, abusing them, and upholding their place as men, they negate patriarchy, yet they are far from a progressive splinter since they still define themselves in the shadow of what they actually expect masculine self actualization to mean, doing those exact same things. The negation of the negation of the original incel is the current incel, the Tate adjacent types, that actually come back to hegemonic masculinity with redoubled force, the "sigma males" who are even more antisocial than the prototypical patriarchs the original incel failed to become.

If the feminist movement attracted incels through its promise of abolishing the patriarchy, they would have to abandon the label and radicalize their view of gender. It's on them to catch up; slowing down and trying to make space for them inside feminism is putting the cart before the horse.