The Demonisation of the Undersexed

I don't get it.

Obviously, misogynist men have long liked to demonise 'sad lonely cat ladies', but, thankfully, most leftists and progressives frown on such cruelty (although that doesn't stop people from continuing to use 'homely' and 'ugly' as shorthand devices to demonise women on social media and popular culture).

However, the demonisation of undersexed men seems to be a 'legitimised' form of hatred among certain parts of 'respectable' and 'politically correct' society.

I understand the demonisation of right-wing, misogynist 'incels' who blame their failures on women, and engage in virulently nasty and sexist rhetoric, but I just came across an article for The Independent about so-called 'Chads', that says "Just as Western society reserves little empathy for the men who have too little sex, so it has an uncertain relationship with the men who have too much."

It also talks about "We all know about the men who fail at dating apps. The men we sometimes call incels. The men whose Hinge acts like it’s stuck in airplane mode. The men whose only experience of eye contact with a woman happens on TikTok. The men with no likes. The men who cope and seethe online. But what about the chads?" as if it stands to reason that men who 'fail at dating apps' and have 'no likes' will automatically turn to misogynist hate.

Isn't that what's called 'victimisation'? We're assuming that because someone's unlucky or had bad circumstances, they're going to turn out to be evil. We wouldn't do that with any other marginalised or disadvantaged group, so why homely, ugly and awkward men?

I think the assumption (and it's the reverse of the one misogynist men have for 'lonely cat women'), is that if a man is not turning a woman on, he must be a waste of space, or that since no woman's judgement can ever be wrong, single men must be innately awful people.

But this isn't feminism. It's female supremacy. It assumes (just as the misogynist who won't acknowledge that they/men in general can be at fault) that NO woman ever makes a mistake or has poor judgement. It's also fundamentally ANTI-FEMINIST, because it treats sex like a reward for good behaviour, rather than recognise that the heart wants what it wants, and morality, reason and good judgement rarely comes into it, whatever gender one is (and, fwiw, that's not a criticism; it's just LIFE).

Such demonisation makes little sense, because in my personal experience, undersexed men tend to be more progressive and left-wing than oversexed so-called Chads. Anxious and neurotic people, who are sexually underconfident, tend, in my experience, to be more socially-conscious than 'big dick swinging' types. Look at Trump, as ghastly as he may be for many women today, he was having a lot of sex back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Your typical, sweet-natured, ultra-'woke' Zillennial (to their credit) are a lot more cautious about asking women out. The irony is that this is behaviour that is scorned by the far-right likes of Jordan Petersen and Andrew Tate.

So, like I say, why are we making lonely single men OR women, feel bad about themselves? They're usually the good people, but also usually the ones with the lowest self-esteem and worst mental health. We should pick them up, not dump on them.

Is this yet another example of the left being its own worst enemy?

And just to be crystal clear, I am NOT defending self-identifying incels who engage in misogynist forums and groups; VERY far from it. But there's a big difference between an entitled woman-hating incel (i.e. a genuine bad guy), and a guy who likes and respects women, but is simply 'unlucky in love', and as a consequence may be somewhat undersexed.