# Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism
**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108
**Category:** Elliot Temple
**Tags:** bot, curiosity-blog
**Created:** [September 25, 2025, 7:11pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108 "2025-09-25T19:11:21Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 11
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 1:31am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/206 "2025-10-07T01:31:07Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Okay yeah, my impression is that these apps are much more useful to their users. And yeah that seems most relevant.
Just to clarify, it is an app that has heterosexual options and people on it, not e.g. Grindr.
It isn’t exclusively for gays or lesbians. I chose it because it has lots of filters related to various queer sexualities. Also, for more clarity: I am a man and I do not use it to meet men. Since I am not sure what ways you expect these apps to be better I wanted to make sure you were dismissing it for accurate reasons.
So straight people are welcome and do use it. The main thing IMO is that its user base are skewed towards any flavor of queer or queer-friendly.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 3:22pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/207 "2025-10-07T15:22:54Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> > [@anonymous105](#):
> >
> > Put bluntly, I don’t think you need to hear more criticism of women right now. That doesn’t seem like it would be good for you, and so far it hasn’t seemed relevant to the points I was making.
>
> Well thanks for your concern. But it’s annoying, condescending, and anti-truth seeking for you to do that. Please stop, I’m not interested in what you think I need to hear. I am interested in actually understanding the world.
>
> Even now, you are evasive about your biases. You have been every time I’ve brought it up.
>
> I feel like we’re getting to an impasse.
It’s “annoying, condescending, and anti-truth seeking” for him not to post things he considers irrelevant?
If you think someone is biased, a good option is using a debate tree. Then bias matters less and it’s easier to get clarity about the debate.
Another option is considering: do you know how to write an essay (quickly and easily using pre-existing knowledge, no new or ad hoc ideas) saying what bias is, how to detect it in yourself or others, how to double check when you think it’s present, how to communicate bias claims effectively, how to provide clear, compelling evidence/arguments for bias, how people should respond to bias accusations, what to do about bias, why, etc? Do you have a lot of expertise about bias, with enough practice and mastery that you expect your expertise to hold up during a difficult conversation? If the answer is no, then you should recognize that you don’t know what you’re talking about and bring up bias in an uncertain, tentative, explorative way, if you bring it up.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 3:54pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/208 "2025-10-07T15:54:00Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> I basically don’t believe redpill YouTubers to accurately self report at all, but I reserve a small possibility that they could be honest sometimes. What’s a good word for that as an alternative to “really really fucking skeptical”?
I think no single word captures that and intensifiers don’t solve the problem. You could say they’re _lying by default with rare exceptions_. I think communicating that idea clearly requires at least a phrase like mine. You used a two independent clause sentence which I thought was clear.
In less intellectual contexts, where clarity is less important, a strong word like “incredulous” can work better than using “really”. Sarcasm is another informal option that can do jobs that “very” can’t.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 3:56pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/209 "2025-10-07T15:56:44Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Re: number of sexual partners, if your metric is reasonable, then surely reasonable women would reject you for the same reasons, right? Which means any woman with a lower partner number than yours ought to reject you for having a higher count. If they didn’t, that would make them unreasonable, and you shouldn’t want to date them then. So the correct number of sexual partners for a woman to have isn’t less than or equal to yours, it should just be equal to yours. Any more or less would be unreasonable. Right?
No. I’m guessing @anonymous45 thinks there’s a gendered asymmetry here.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:06pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/210 "2025-10-07T16:06:19Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> The important part is that there is a breakpoint that separates guys that get a lot of likes from the rest of us.
This is a controversial premise. When you make various statements based on it, that’s called begging the question (aka assuming the conclusion). It’s generally not going to be productive to talk about issues based on this disputed premise instead of debating the premise itself.
Did you fail to recognize that many people disagree with your premise? Were you unaware of controversy? If so, that’s a sign of being in an echo chamber. If that’s not it, then there could be an issue with how you approach debate or something else going on.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:31pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/211 "2025-10-07T16:31:43Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Then watch videos from non-redpill channels. There are plenty more people talking about this than redpill influencers. Here’s some youtuber with a more-indepth-than-usual video:
> [_Are Dating Apps Pay-to-Win?_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Ss76rFInw) [29:54]
How did you determine whether or not that channel, @ZackarySmigel, is redpill/manosphere/biased?
I reviewed their titles and thumbnails. They were inconclusive. There wasn’t open redpill/etc, but nothing contradicting it either and a few small hints they might be redpill/etc. And it’s a chronically online single 30ish year old white guy with 262k subs whose channel description is “a mix of: social science, bad jokes, and internet culture” (so plenty of redpill stuff would be on-topic; it isn’t e.g. a math channel). So the prior probability of redpill/etc there is significant.
The comment section for the video you linked has potential incel signs:
And it sounds like they failed to get a partner from over 100,000 dating app swipes. For a guy who is successful on social media, who is presumably charismatic, to fail that much at dating suggests potential redpill, both as a cause (misogyny alienates women) or a consequence (people who fail at dating are more likely to get into redpill).
Why aren’t they dating one of their many fans? Did they try and fail? Is their channel audience 90% male?
Do they not really want a partner very much? That is a potential redpill sign. While it could be fine in general, that’d make it bad to do the dating app video.
I watched none of his videos.
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:37pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/212 "2025-10-07T16:37:48Z")
The 3 x 0 = 0 comments are due to a joke in the video. Hinge advertises something like _get 3x as many matches with premium_, and he got no matches/dates. I don’t remember if he got 0 matches or some matches and 0 dates.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:40pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/213 "2025-10-07T16:40:30Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> The 3 x 0 = 0 comments are due to a joke in the video.
I considered that it might be in the video but I didn’t want to make an accusation just based on that guess.
Are you trying to imply that it’s _better_ if the YouTuber himself made an incel-friendly joke than if it’s just in his comments?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:41pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/214 "2025-10-07T16:41:39Z")
I watched some of the video but did not finish it.
Initial impression is he was blaming apps for being scammy and deceptive, not blaming women. But I probably got 1/4 or 1/3 of the way through, so he may blame women later.
If he is blaming the apps & app is one making that advertisement, joke could arguably still just be targeting the app, not commenting on women per se.
Edit: I agree the joke does appeal to incel biases though.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:45pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/215 "2025-10-07T16:45:22Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> joke could arguably still just be targeting the app, not commenting on women per se
Yeah but that doesn’t matter.
In general, successful social media creators have target audiences in mind and target them. If you make incel-friendly jokes, you get incels in the comment sections on all your videos and elsewhere. If you want to reach other audiences, you target your material to them instead.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:51pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/216 "2025-10-07T16:51:36Z")
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Initial impression is he was blaming apps for being scammy and deceptive, not blaming women.
_Dating apps are scammy and don’t work_ is an incel-friendly claim. It shifts blame for their loneliness from themselves to society. How are they supposed to meet women when dating apps are terrible? Also third spaces are dying, they aren’t supposed to hit on coworkers, various criticisms of bars and clubs (or the women who go to them), etc.
It helps excuse incels who try dating apps and fail because of their character flaws. They can blame the app instead of their own behavior using the app.
It also excuses incels who don’t even try dating apps because they’re too anxious, insecure, cynical, resentful, etc.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 4:57pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/217 "2025-10-07T16:57:52Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> Then watch videos from non-redpill channels. There are plenty more people talking about this than redpill influencers. Here’s some youtuber with a more-indepth-than-usual video:
> [_Are Dating Apps Pay-to-Win?_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Ss76rFInw) [29:54]
How did you find this video or channel?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:04pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/218 "2025-10-07T17:04:56Z")
For this one, I’m not sure. I had seen at least one video of his before, it might have been suggested or it might have been via searching for videos about dating apps in general (which I’ve done a few times as research).
Also the 3x thing [starts at around 9:58](https://youtu.be/02Ss76rFInw?t=598)
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:06pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/219 "2025-10-07T17:06:56Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> > [@Elliot](#):
> >
> > Was this ad hoc?
>
> I don’t think so
When did you come up with the idea about prioritization and decisiveness? While talking in this forum thread or in the past?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:09pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/220 "2025-10-07T17:09:59Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> Are you trying to imply that it’s _better_ if the YouTuber himself made an incel-friendly joke than if it’s just in his comments?
No, just explaining why it’s a common comment. It seemed relevant considering you mentioned not watching the video (or any of his).
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:10pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/221 "2025-10-07T17:10:35Z")
So the YouTube algorithm knows you watch redpill videos and put this channel in front of you, and you knew this video contained an incel-friendly joke and incel-friendly overall theme, and then you shared it as a definitely-not-redpill, definitely-outside-your-echo-chamber example?
---
### Author:  [@anonymous105](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous105)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:11pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/222 "2025-10-07T17:11:11Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> No. I’m guessing @anonymous45 thinks there’s a gendered asymmetry here.
Yeah, good point.
I assume then @anonymous45 would answer my very first question with “no” — quoting for clarity:
> [@anonymous105](#):
>
> Re: number of sexual partners, if your metric is reasonable, then surely reasonable women would reject you for the same reasons, right?
Women should not use the same standard and thus should not reject him for the same reasons.
So it follows that everything after that question is also a no and/or irrelevant, since I was building from that question.
(I think this is why you often recommend just asking short questions and not long posts trying to argue/explain lots of stuff.)
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:15pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/223 "2025-10-07T17:15:09Z")
So basically you had a premise that it should be gender-symmetric, and you didn’t recognize or take into account that the premise was controversial, so some of what you wrote basically begged the question (assumed the conclusion).
I just said something similar to @anonymous45 at [Comments on The Boyfriend's Introduction to Feminism - #210 by Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/210)
---
### Author:  [@anonymous45](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/anonymous45)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/224 "2025-10-07T17:26:19Z")
> [@Elliot](#):
>
> So the YT algorithm knows you watch redpill videos and put this channel in front of you, and you knew it contained an incel-friendly joke and incel-friendly overall theme, and then you shared it as a definitely-not-redpill, definitely-outside-your-echo-chamber example?
Not exactly, for that post I searched for videos. I had seen at least one of his videos before, though I can’t remember if I’d seen that one before (I watched it the other day in any case). The time I was introduced to him could have been via feed or via searching. I don’t recall.
I don’t think it being incel-friendly is a good reason not to share it or to dismiss it. For example, if some truth-seeking unbiased scientists set out to analyze dating app dynamics and found that there were problems and biases that roughly align with what people complain about, then would that not be an incel-friendly result?
Maybe I misunderstand and you mean more the jokes, tone, and subtext rather than the results themselves?
I wouldn’t call his channel a redpill channel or him a redpill influencer. Maybe he is appealing to that market in that video, though. His video was more in depth and detailed than the others in the top few search results, so I shared that one. He also includes data (his own) going back like 2+ years.
---
### Author:  [@Elliot](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/Elliot)
#### Post date: [October 7, 2025, 5:26pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108/225 "2025-10-07T17:26:56Z")
> [@anonymous45](#):
>
> This depends on someone looking to do SA (a small % of men)
This is another controversial premise. It’s used as a premise in passing while making another point. I don’t think it’s being recognized as controversial and meriting debate even though some of the talking points that contradict it are well known.
There are women who claim that SA is common. There are surveys. You’ve probably heard [1 in 4](https://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.html) before (which doesn’t strictly contradict it being done by a small % of men, but is often accompanied with claims that it’s not a small % of men). And there are men who claim that ~all men want to do SA and would do SA if they knew they could get away with it.
[Previous page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108.md?page=10)
[Next page](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/comments-on-the-boyfriends-introduction-to-feminism/2108.md?page=12)