In this video an anonymous youtuber hidden under the ironic nickname Cuck Philosophy (cuck is a slur for leftists) tries to find a philosophical solution to the “incel question” by suggesting that the only problem of this “community of misogynists” is to satisfy the desire for recognition by intensifying its social relations.
Well, the mountain gives birth to a mouse: albeit the promising title, in the end the only suggestion to lonely males who want to be “appreciated by a human female” is… to get into the friendzone! Sadly, the political orientation of Professor Cuck demeans all his insights: for example, the impressive interpretation of the relationship between incel and women through the Hegelian master-slave dialectic should have been developed in a philosophical and not political sense (“Incels are reactionary because of their lack of interaction for recognition”), thus it would have led to the conclusion that the women-masters need the incel-servants in so far as they contribute to marking their selectivity (hypergamy).
From this he would also have to deduce that the only way for an ugly male to achieve “recognition” is precisely to identify himself as an incel. Instead, changing his tune, Cuck Philosophy proposes to the “involuntary celibate” to become (coincidentally) a cuck, a friendzonee, an orbiter: it’s pretty much the same misunderstanding Slavoj Žižek faces when he states that sexual inequality is the condition for the possibility of universal human rights (“The universality of egalitarian human rights implies its own exception, its own reversal – the domain of sexuality which should by definition remain unjust”).
Another platitude suggested in the video is that incels don’t recognize women as human beings: slyly Cuck Philosophy quotes Elliot Rodger (“Girls were like completely foreign creatures to me”), leaving aside thousands of positive testimonials from single males who just wants to be mirrored in the eyes of a looksmatch. Now, if that’s not recognition…
Finally, the biggest hypocrisy of all is to recognize a “balance of power” through Hegel and then reduce it to a psychological problem (probably the author does not even realize his own conclusions). In any case, it is not through mental efforts that the involuntary celibate will find a wife (or that a doomer will turn into a bloomer). Beyond the gynocentrism of contemporary society, since humans started to differentiate their nature from that of animals, women have always been the “sexual gatekeepers”, which means that the survival of the species depends on them. This is the real balance of power that makes all others necessary (“patriarchy” included), this is the “Purloined Letter” that Western philosophy has always had before its eyes but has always refused to see.
For example, as Žižek puts it in The Puppet and the Dwarf (2003),
“Love itself can also function in the mode of universality and its exception (you truly love someone if you do not make him or her into the direct center of your universe, if you Iet it be known that you are ready to drop him or her for some higher Cause). This is one of the great melodramatic themes: a man deserves a woman’s love only if he is strong enough to resist the temptation of abandoning everything for her, if he lets her know that he can survive without her—if he drops everything for her, and follows her slavishly, sooner or later she will start to despise him.”
Spot the incel! It seems that the philosopher, struggling with the natural predators of the beta male (women), despite his success and “branding”, never had the the upper hand. It is not so difficult to perceive a hint of discouragement behind those detached remarks (not to mention the subtle misogyny masked with the alibi of the “higher Cause”).
Žižek presents the correlation in almost “mechanical” terms, as if it were an objective dynamic of the relationship between sexes and not an interpretation of it. But unfortunately it is only the loser who must “oblige” himself to the Cause (which in the end would be the Lacanian Thing, Das Ding), while “Chad” doesn’t care anything, he doesn’t even care about himself (it’s part of the “Higher Cause” the illusion that one’s sexual failures depend on how he dresses or combs his hair, not to mention the lack of self-confidence and “social intelligence”).
In conclusion, there is an unpleasant feeling that even philosophers have a perverse core, and that their puppet show has been set up just for a bit of pussy. That’s their “higher Cause”, the only one which allows them “to resist the temptation of abandoning everything for her”…