It is a complicated issue honestly.
What is clear is that feminism has totally shifted the relationship between men and women.
Let us remember that there are underlying biological realities here, which feminism does not consider whatsoever, after all the goal of feminism in an ideal world is equality of men to women. Of course we all already know this is not reality as the two are quite different natured.
Nevertheless let us consider the situation under feminism.
Under feminism the normal relationship between men and women is abolished and the only utility that remains for the other from either side is one of pleasure. It is no longer a functional, necessary, productive relationship with a higher long term purpose, under feminism the relationship is purely one of pleasure.
After all, both parties are autonomous and also free from any obligations (such as producing and raising children) so they no longer have any non pleasure purposes to interact. They do not even have a need per se to interact although they may do so if desired for pleasure purposes.
This changes the whole ballgame as men are no longer necessary, and they no longer have access to natural purpose and meaning derived through wife and family along with their leadership and responsibility role which they would normally have to fulfill.
They also no longer derive purpose from a career or other providing endeavor, usually in the company and cooperation of other males, for providing for and sustaining their collective tribe/existence which also provides great meaning and purpose.
Under the pleasure system there really is no "tribe" except one self, in a free society that has no other goals than pleasure seeking.
The new male is now just another consumer unit in the market of pleasure, stripped of further utility.
Their role is oppressive and restrictive of the human freedom of females, who are equal to them as human beings, therefore that role must be abolished and made illegal so that females are no longer oppressed from pursuits outside of their female role.
Of course the system does not actually function in this way in reality, as females often end up in a weird middle place between their natural instinctive role and their desired freedoms, along with the fact that they impose upon the freedoms of men in a manipulative fashion for their own selfish gain under what should be a fully egalitarian system, but we are only discussing the ideal right now.
Remember too that the new system is incompatible with natural male instincts and behavior, so that must now be repressed, by force and law if necessary, for the sake of the freedom of all the parties in the new system.
Thus males and females are left with no purpose for one another, other than pleasure. Additionally since females derive pleasure from submission, much of the new pleasure activities still conform to the old systems roles, but stripped of other aspects of it (e.g. child production and care).
Women have the freedom to submit, casually, for pleasure, but only insofar as they allow and no more. Their submission is a casual act, removed from the full original experience, the same as a roller coaster still retains some aspect of primitive fear, but does not retain the full original true experience of facing real death. People still have the system though that responds to such things, so the sanitized safe modern version that retains the thrill while removing the risk, is kept for the indulgence of modern citizens at their discretion.
Additionally this new egalitarian system has a great flaw. That is, the citizens within it do not all share the equal ability to attain the pleasures of the new system, as the ability to do so is based upon ones merit by the systems rules, of which not all citizens are born of the genetic capability to achieve the same level of desirable pleasurable outcomes.
So it is not really egalitarian, as the pleasure resource is not distributed equally, but rather based off at least partially if not even further, genetic merit.
Additionally this society has no obligations or responsibilities or expectations in regards to sacrifice and long term progress, it is not centered upon higher purposes or progressing beyond what it is, it is only concerned with satisfying pleasures and that is the purpose of the society.
Thus a incel or beta male within the system, has no way to win, as no individual can be compelled to provide their pleasure, as that would be oppression, and their inherent qualities make them unappealing for casual purposes in regards to women in the system, although they can still contribute to the system in other ways and receive financial compensation for their efforts, however this does not generally satisfy their inherent desires in the long term.
They provide great value to the system in many ways, but they are not appropriately compensated by the pleasure system for their efforts since women are free and under no obligation to do so. Remember in this system we cannot infringe upon people's freedom, even though mother nature has infringed upon there's.
It's a thorny problem as the unattractive males contribute much, but they can never be compensated. What ends up happening for now is that they are sacrificed for the benefit of the system at the cost of themselves. Generally by believing falsely that they can be compensated in the future as a result of their efforts and being unaware of their inherent inability to be.
Even if the unattractive male is compensated by women, at the cost to them of having to be sexual with someone they are not attracted to, it is still not the same as ideal compensation as they do not experience true, deep, raging female desire but rather dissatisfying forced sexuality.
The incels and betas are just not attractive. And women are just not attracted to them. On a deep, instinctual, primitive level, it is not a decision or a choice. It is a cruel design of nature rather. That of creating creatures that desire deeply one another, but are are repulsed by one another.
There does not seem to be any solution to that really, aside from eliminating unattractive males once and for all through human progress if that is possible.
Of course the other alternative is to discourage hedonism and change people's goals purposes and directions such that it is no longer centered around primitive human behavior and desires, e.g. the system of hard religion and monogamy. Of course this will always be a constant struggle, as human nature says different.
Additionally there is the problem of hedonism, that is that hedonism pursued to an extreme often leads to paradoxical destruction of happiness and total brokenness of soul and spirit.
Not to mention the functional problems introduced from a society of non reproducing hedonists who do not continue in the responsibility of creating and maintaining the human race at large.
Humans may have advanced to some degree, but biologically they are still the same primitive creatures they were thousands of years ago. We have advanced only externally, not internally.
This creates a great conflict between our advancements and our nature, as our nature is not in tune with our modern advancements and is put into dysfunction by them.
External progress should not be without concern to internal function.
Modern feminism is an unnatural system, one which seeks to liberate humanity from human realities and constraints and necessities, but does so only externally not internally, thus it is a dismal failure, a broken machine that still functions to an extent but only partially sub optimally, like a scratched CD that still plays music but it constantly skips and distorts and tortures the music.
Additionally this is even assuming females are equal to males, and does not even address the actual fact of feminism being equivalent to other movements where weaker people are given special privileges and support so that they can have as much as other stronger groups, at the cost of the stronger group who must pay for it and be weakened by it, since they must carry not only themselves, but the weaker group as well.
The same would be true of a beta or incel movement, at least if it was demanding sexual support that is a negative cost to others to provide. That is literally sexual welfare, someone has to pay for the sake of someone inferior getting something they cannot attain on their own.
The people who would pay in that situation would be women, as they would have to suffer being with these men, despite no attraction for them.
A man would feel the same way, if compelled to have sex with women he was not attracted to and disgusted by.
I believe that humanity should ideally turn it's attention away from squabbling with each other, and rather turn it's attention to the source of all these problems in the first place, that is mother nature.
We should unite as one to solve these problems through great human progress, rather than fighting amongst ourselves, as the true source is not other human beings but rather reality itself.
Of course this may not come to be for various reasons, but it would be the ideal response given the facts.
If not then the other alternative is to make human progress, but it will always be a ghost of what it could under a united human federation whose ultimate purpose is the advancement and prosperity of humanity.
This would be the same as globalism, however it is the anti thesis of modern globalism, which is to create a human federation as well, but for the purposes of control and power by one small group of master humans over a larger group of slave humans, with no regard for human prosperity or progress, just control, rather than for the purposes outlined above.