I find this somewhat refreshing as the primary grievance among men who subscribed to incel thinking is almost always some structurally-enforced lack of sexual fulfillment framed as an eternal, almost metaphysical struggle between "Alphas" and "Betas" over explicitly-commodified women who, in the context of this mythology, both have the agency to deny men sex but not enough agency to make sound and well-informed decisions.
The remedies proposed are either full divestment from "the game" (MGTOW, which is, whether or not they accept it, a complete resignation to circumstance) or the procurement of sexual services, neither of which serve to fulfill the desire you expressed: emotional and intellectual companionship.
I have a feeling this will fall on deaf ears, but... there are plenty of women out there willing to give you the time of day. It's just that you don't notice them, because they're not even on your radar. Outside of the context of this forum I would have indulged conversation with you. But for the sake of conversation, let's run down the list of things you suggest women deny you for not having, okay?
1.
Money. Is money important to a woman? Well, unless you disagree with the notion that
women are people, then it depends. There's a myriad reasons that a woman might prioritize the financial assets of potential partners. On the more dreary end, she may come from or exist within a more vulnerable socioeconomic bracket. She may have children, or a disability, or belong to a stigmatized class or marginalized group (hem hem, she may be trans). In these cases the idea of a potential partner may to her (in addition to companionship) mean safety: someone who can split the rent, utility bill, groceries, etc. If you're put off by the idea of that being important to a woman, then don't date women who look for that. Generally speaking, however, since we're irremovably enmeshed in the morally-destitute hellscape that is contemporary capitalism the inability to contribute to basic and mutual needs isn't exactly an endearing quality. On the other hand, a woman may have a career, be well-paid, and in a relatively secure socioeconomic position; in this case she may not be looking explicitly for a partner with
money, but rather one who can operate within the norms and expectations of her socioeconomic bracket. Similarities of class, wealth background, level of education, et cetera, all serve to form cohesive bonds between individuals within a
symbolic interactionist framework. Ultimately, the reality remains that, contrary to what we see in romantic comedies, lasting relationships don't tend to develop between people of wildly disparate socioeconomic backgrounds as the behavioral and value differences between them invariably become unresolvable.
Tl;dr, it's complex, but certainly not reducible to some quirk of biological psychology that renders women predisposed to like money. Like most sociological phenomena, it's tied to class and culture.
2.
Toughness. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Physical toughness? Emotional toughness? You'd have to define what you mean more explicitly. But from the context, I assume you're referring to the typical Western embodiment of toxic masculinity: that is, the culture of boys and men socialized throughout their lives into maintaining a toxic standard of emotional stoicism, even, or perhaps especially, among the people they're closest to. In which case, no. Gross. This is a matter that has nothing to do with women as a gender. No one wants a partner who is either perpetually emotionally distant or perpetually emotionally exhausting. People look for mutuality in a relationship, a system of "support and be supported." No one finds a partner who is nothing but emotional dead weight to be endearing. Neither do people want one who is completely emotionally divested. I think that's common sense.
3.
Risk taking. Again, not sure what you mean here. It also seems highly individualized, and the word you probably want to use is "spontaneous." Personally my idea of an awesome evening is pizza + wine + cuddles, and maybe a few episodes of Doctor Who. I might feel the occasional call to adventure now and then but there is by no means some universal attraction of women to men who "take risks."
4.
Cockiness; sarcasm/casual meanness. So, again, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. By cockiness/sarcasm, are you implying that women like witty men? Well, duh? Most people like to be around others who make them laugh or engage them intellectually. Isn't that kind of a given? Are banality, anti-intellectualism, and incuriousness generally qualities that YOU look for in a partner? Yeah, thought not. As for the meanness, I don't know where you get the idea that women like mean men. I've never met a woman who is attracted to flippancy or anti-social behavior in general, though they certainly do exist (see: women who stan serial killers). But you can ask most any woman and they will tell you that casual meanness is a turn off. For me personally, one of the biggest red flags to look for on a date is how the guy treats the wait staff. "Pleases", "thank yous," and general small courtesies are more than good manners; they're indicators that a person is capable of thinking outside themselves and possesses a well of empathy. That, in short, is hot.
Incels inherently treat dating and relationships as a zero-sum game. They maintain an abysmal self-image that fatalistically roots them in a lower social category than the men whose advancement in this game, they falsely believe, comes at their expense. They see dating and relationships as incomprehensible (and in some cases, metaphysical) frameworks of reality: unnavigable shoals they they lack the skill or talent to safely traverse, and so they resolve to avoid them entirely. Because it's all framed as game, they refuse themselves entry either by claiming it is rigged or by insisting that "the only way to win is not to play." But the pathology is ultimately sourced in seeing natural and healthy human interaction as hyper-atomized competition to be won at the expense of the loser and lost at the gain of the winner, instead of an opportunity for growth and self-exploration, even if the "end goal" is not always a given. They won't heal until they start to dismantle this harmful mental map of reality and begin treating dating not as competition between individuals, but as cultivation of the self.
And, I guess that's all.
