Incels. Why is this online group becoming so popular?
Involuntary celibate is a self appointed term to describe men that are celibate against their will because they deem themselves not attractive enough to the opposite sex. They believe this is objective, fixed and unchangeable.
Is this an emerging mental condition? What is fuelling the upsurgence in men that self identify as incels?
Do you think that perhaps the way dating apps are designed has some influence? Are we becoming too objectifying as a society? Is the incel "movement" dangerous? To whom and why?
So many questions on this bizarre subject.
Is this an emerging mental condition? What is fuelling the upsurgence in men that self identify as incels?
Do you think that perhaps the way dating apps are designed has some influence? Are we becoming too objectifying as a society? Is the incel "movement" dangerous? To whom and why?
So many questions on this bizarre subject.
Comments (341)
What changed is societal evolutions making being incel even more undesirable (MeToo, male-centered values devaluated etc etc), and technology like social media making it easier to organize around whatever.
Is it like a concentrating of mysogyny from what was once more systemic but less extreme into a small, little awful and extreme nugget?
How would one go about defusing that? Is ignoring it not making it worse somehow? Their whole premise is being ignored or unvalued. Is there a way to promote self esteem/a healthy respect for being a man in this group of individuals without accepting nor permitting their continued misogynistic premises?
For me it sounds a bit handmaid's tale. That's quite scary.
The term originated from "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", a website created by a woman to discuss her sexual inactivity.
More radical by todays standards maybe, but not in an absolute sense I don't think, they used to form roving warbands, were recruited in the army, or started insurrections... now they are merely a nuisance like an internet-troll is considered annoying. Their frustrated energy is re-directed mostly into verbal aggression, instead of physical aggression, which is probably a win for society... unless it has some yet unknown toxic effects downstream.
I'm not sure what to do about it, other than generally providing for more community-alternatives that can provide support and maybe some meaning. These seem to have eroded for everybody, not only incels, and leaves a lot of people that get sidetracked without any direction or guidance.
Conservative norms vs changing norms with the catalyst of the internet as a radicalization system.
We live in a time that has rapidly transformed what it means to be a man. We've recognized how most of these gender norms are, frankly, pure bullshit. Mostly formed by institutions to control society, mostly formed by the privileged to keep power.
So, just as we've started to wake up from institutionalized religion's dogmatic hold over society. The further effect it has had on society is to disrupt the traditional principles people lived by. Part of those traditional principles is gender norms. How each gender behaves according to the dogma of religious society. So you first dismantle religion and people start to live without that institution since that's basically just a decision in a nation to move power over to governments in a secular manner. But traditions are harder to disrupt in such fast ways, and it changes over generations rather than overnight. And throughout generations of traditions that no longer function in relation to older power structures, people start to notice norms that seem to exist without any rational reason.
It's no coincidence that women in Western societies managed to reach equality in voting around the same time as religious states in the West became more and more secularized.
Throughout the 20th century this awareness of how some norms and gender norms have no real reason other than to function as power structures increased among the people, and because of this change happened rapidly. Equal rights quickly became a moral norm because philosophy couldn't find any reason why not. There was no evidence in science, psychology etc.
When the internet was invented, information started to spread like wildfire. This means that the disruption of traditions that have happened on uneven time scales throughout the world clashed together and erupted into the conflicts we witness today.
These incels come from a traditional point of view of norms that remained in their families and communities. When communities on the internet, like Facebook, forums etc. started to normalize being honest in identity and opinions, these incels started expressing their traditional opinions more openly and since women have progressively moved much further in understanding equality and living by it, there's no place for these incels to express their traditional perspectives on gender and race.
Women simply aren't interested in going back to such a darkly oppressed time of gender norms that these incels ascribe to. But these incels function exactly like anyone else who's locked into unchanged thinking, they project blame instead of doing that change. So they blame women for not being attractive, they blame them on the grounds of old traditional views on norms, thinking that men need to be in a certain way in order to attract women and that women only get attracted by these special men.
It's the whole foundation for the Sigma, Beta male concept they invented.
In essence, it's just a bunch of men who are unable to live in a modern world of equal rights. They've learned, growing up, "to be a man", and had role models of men to be a certain way, and now they can't use any of that because people say those norms are outdated.
Men either go in one direction or the other. Either they change and function normally, they recognize how old traditional norms are bullshit, just like women have, and they change with the times.
Or, they are unwilling to change and they lock themselves in harder with traditional views. They gather together with other men who believe the same thing and form a culture around those outdated traditions.
Why do you think that people like Andrew Tate become such a role model for them? Or the strict "make your bed, clean your room"-daddy-figure of Jordan Peterson?
It is quite obvious where all this is coming from. And they gather in numbers because the internet is such a powerful tool for radicalization and grouping together people globally. It is a global movement that is also, knowingly or unknowingly behind ultranationalist movements such as Proud Boys, nationalist politics, Brexit, Trumpism etc.
They're all part of the same pile of bullshit longing for old traditions.
To be honest, I'd say, let them rot and let women and marginalized people who managed to overcome this historic toxicity reign free and claim power where they can. Incels are a dying breed of men who are just holding on to traditions that the rest of us have already moved away from.
God, you really have drunk that progressive kool-aid.
It's not just a matter of a bunch of guys holding onto an outdated ideologies, I think you underestimate 1) how biology played a role into forming these traditional ideologies in the first place, and 2) how their frustrated biological drives now plays into forming post-hoc misogynists rationalization. I bet a lot of incels coudn't care less about traditional norms and values... they're mostly frustrated, and invent stories to make it more bearable for themselves.
Yes jealousy definitely seems to be an underpinning facet of Incel psychology.
It's ironic also in that it's a vicious feedback cycle.
Seething with jealousy and an self constructed- inferiority complex comes across for most as "unattractive" which in turn is the anticipated/expected validation an Incel is looking for to support their "justified state of jealousy".
So in that sense they're selectively deaf to alternative considerations and ideas. They only see through the lens of expectation.
In small communities in which everyone knows each other, choice is limited and people know what each other are doing. So you get a couple of decent wealthy handsome guys, but the less attractive women know that they won't end up with them, one of the few young nice wealthy women likely will. So as not to waste their time, they go for one of the less attractive guys straight away. Basically everyone can see all the pieces in the game, and they know what pairings are likely to work out.
With dating apps, and a high general population, you get a completely skewed impression of the market. As a woman sitting in your room on your own, you enter your filters, and you get a menu of 50 nice handsome men to choose from. You shag a bunch of them and maybe one stays with you, maybe not. But you never even bother with a whole bunch of less attractive men because you don't think you need to, because you think you can get one of the ones your dating app is showing you.
Does that hang together? Or is it bollocks?
See I'm not so sure tbh. Because, the more innate a belief becomes in ones mind by compression/condensation - by others and how they view you (be it positive or negative) the more likely it is to influence ones physical actions. No?
If you construct a mental paradigm off a fundamental emotive source (a basic belief/ principle/tenet) like "I am ugly and unlovable" - that deeply rooted source of contempt, pure anger, hostility and frustration, is bound to a). Corrupt all your other beliefs that are secondary to it and b). influence your behaviour as a whole.
Especially when it targets a specific group of people - a scapegoat (sounds familiar to a certain someone in 1930/40s Germany).
So I'm concerned that if the system of dating apps, as well as social media etc is accidentally marginalising and compressing/ reinforcing negative beliefs in incel groups, they may indeed become so radicalised and extreme that what was as you said "verbal aggression" may become "physical aggression".
In 180 Proof's utopia, we'd castrate and/or lobotomize incels. Or maybe, less invasively, heavily medicate the shits with opiods & sedatives. I suppose the more bleeding-heart lefty factions would advocate for the least fiscally responsible solution: AI-Companions (age & body type-specified gynoids / androids à la "pleasure model Replicants"). However, like porn, even fully immersive VR "sex-on-demand" likely won't scratch the incel's misogynistic itch for long. :strong: :shade:
Maybe Benj, only the future can tell.
Beliefs are interlinked with the body, and do influence our actions, yes. But as a society we generally condemn physical violence rather strongly now (relative to past societies). And so as members of these societies condemning violence, even if marginalized in the case of incels, it is still a big obstacle to act on these beliefs.
I note the diffenrce between the small community and the social media app as being one of presence (the subjective element)
In person, in a small community, "knowing everyone" as you say, it's not just about looks. It's about financial security, safety, charisma, humour, kindness, the way one composes themselves in social groups, what others say about them in the group. You learn a lot more about a person and their character in that case and a lot less on an app with a few pictures that is designed to objectify the person, to market them as a product to swiped on.
It's fair to say some men are handsome and some are not.
That's nature.
But it's also fair to say that that is only one facet of someone's eligibility as a partner. Other huge ones that are under ones control unlike their genetic makeup is comedy/humour, intellect, career, views on politics, family, # of kids they want, religion or lackthereof, common interests and hobbies etc. And a match has been made on less. None of these qualities generally transpire online.
So back in the day, men had an arsenal of ways to seduce. Now, online, you need to be hot, tall and affluent. Because there's nothing else to go on.
I think this is what incels are complaining about. The system has become more efficient (swiping) but less wholesome (interacting with people you may not initially find attractive but later develop a liking for).
There is also a high risk that one robs you, one beats you up or even kills you. And no guarantee that any of those guys with a nice picture is nice in person, or literate or well-mannered - and none at all that any of them are compatible in temperament. (I don't know about you, I was never, not even when young and nubile, inclined to "shag a bunch" of virtual strangers.)
Quoting bert1
And you get an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, as we see in some isolated populations. Tribal peoples have been aware of this, so they held - and still sometimes do - gatherings of young people to find mates; in many cultures, they routinely exchanged adolescents of either sex or both with another group. Stratified civilizations are more restrictive in the choice of mates - selecting permissible pairings by race, caste, creed, class and even to the point of strictly brokered marriage without the consent of one or both partners.
That's true ChatteringMonkey I think the culture is pretty much standard anti-violence in most places and I reckon now is the least violent we have been as a populus compared with hundreds or thousands of years ago. But I also think this is why very brief, sporadic and horrific events are occurring randomly. Like school-shootings. Mass shootings in the locations where the pent up rage/hatred spills over the social anti-violence precedent that usually is sufficient to counter it.
Done.
Or, maybe just organize a healthier society in which to raise children, so they don't go off the rails in the first place?
Okay wow. Haha I'm taking this as satire/ humour because it swings to the opposite extreme and I suspect I know you well enough to assume this isn't serious.
But interestingly it does raise one good point against castrating/medicating or doing anything harmful to incels or any societally perceived unattractive person.
And that is: look what happened when we tried to make pedigree dogs based on aesthetics. Eugenics has turned out to go horribly wrong in practice.
And it's very nazi-esque anyways.
Two attractive parents can birth and raise unattractive offspring and two unattractive parents can birth and raise beautiful offspring depending on gene recombination/complimetarity if the pairing in any given individual.
So sadly, the so called "unattractive end" of the spectrum is here to stay both biologically and as a mutual and neccesary opposite, also beauty is at least semi-subjective, and it's also genetically good to have diversity.
How does that look for you. Have we corrupted the beauty ideal as a society? How do we ensure every child grows up feeling attractive/ with good self esteem?
Yes that's what I suggested in my first post:
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
But ultimately the problem is not totally solvable by acceptable means I think, there will always be those who will miss out because they are less attractive/charismatic/rich than others. A healthy society doesn't solve the frustrated desires of those. Historically this has always been a problem.
And I don't think we really want the unacceptable means of dealing with the problem, like say castration, putting down, genetic alteration etc etc.
This is very good point! I like the link between stratification and inbreeding. Never registered on my radar in the discussion so far. Good addition
This is a bigger problem in the US than say in Europe, and is more because of US gun laws and the place of violence in that society. I think one needs to look more at that relationship with violence, than at the specific problem of incels.
I think increasing social atomization is at the root of this, basically forcing young people into an artificial dating scene that for obvious reasons doesn't appeal to nor suit many of them.
The way this topic is treated in regards to young men is especially worrying, and some of the replies to this thread are an indication of that. Trying to force people who are clearly suffering into silence through derision and shame is exactly what creates resentment and pushes people over the edge to commit terrible deeds.
Ha! Yeah, I probably should have said something like 'carefully get to know before shagging' instead of 'shag' but the basic point remains.
I never jumped into bed with loads of women either, but that's because I'm an incel.
Quoting Vera Mont
I do think limiting the range of options helps greatly to cope with the burden of choice, especially when that choice is unrealistic or illusory. But paradoxically, and perhaps foolishly, we still crave maximal choice, at least for ourselves.
If that is what they are complaining about (and I'm not sure it is always) then they have a point. The tricky thing then is what the hell do they do about it? As you say, in a small community you can cultivate and display other traits and skills than height, wealth and looks. Is there a shortage of arenas men can display on? Is that the issue? Or is it really cultural after all?
Obviously, when I refer to incels as 'they', I do of course mean 'I'.
Then one must look to prehistory.
Physical attractiveness is not of paramount consideration for women, nor is charisma, compared to dependability, kindness and patience with children. Often men, too, prefer an affectionate, cheerful woman to a beautiful cold one. Both come in a range of appearance and character; there is no reason, if the numbers are not too skewed by unnaturally high death-rate (like war decimating a generation of young men) that all who want mates can't find one.
Look at the pictures on the wedding announcement pages of a newspaper. They're not all pretty people, nor rich, but they look happy -- for now.
More women tend to be left unmarried than men for reasons of physical undesirability, but that doesn't poie a societal problem, because spinsters perform vital services to family and community.
There might, however be rogue males that become destructive - and not only for lack of mating opportunity.; they also tend to have ego issues. In animal societies, they're simply cast out. Human societies have nowhere to put them except prison, now that the army includes females.
Recent revolutions in population genetics suggest that a relative minority of men have had reproductive privilege historically, so i don't think looking to prehistory brings us closer to a solution, on the contrary i'd say.
"Progressive kool-aid" just sounds like the normal reaction fallacy you get from these people and it's beneath me to dance by such low quality.
1) Why does that matter whatsoever? We have loads of biological things that we don't blindly follow just because it's biology because we have a society that requires us to function past our mere flesh. To say that biology played a role in forming these traditions (and religious institutional dogmas as well) is of course a correct historical observation, but they have no relevance to modern society and it's no defense of traditions of suppressed women's rights and kept people of color in slave chains. The closest you can get are some minor differences in physical strength in some fringe cases, but other than that it's quite clear that the diversity of all is much more effective when tackling the complexity of modern societies.
2) How come not all have frustrated biological drives? Why are just some men jumping on that bandwagon and not all men? How does that also explain the racist angle that is just as prevalent as the misogyny? You're describing a frustration that is just as easily and more coherently explained by the dissonance between their drive and how society moved away from a society in which their drives could be met. If you ignore the fact that society has indeed changed over the last hundred years and believe that such a change has no cultural impact on people, then I'd suggest looking into psychology.
You argue as if these incels know about these traditional perspectives as some outside observer. They're in it, they live within it, it is part of their reality, their perception. People who grow up in a closed society tend to be formed by that society. To break out of such traditionally formed ideas demands a lot of introspection and understanding of the conflicting perspectives outside of that place. And people generally follow the group, the group thinks. Going against the grain is something very few people do.
So, this is not some Kool-Aid, I think you're dismissing a lot of basic psychology and trying to boil it down to some simple answer that is just a shallow observation of this phenomenon.
People with guns have power.
Not a whole lot because the military and the police have more and bigger guns. Social power is were it is at.
Yeah, big fat tongue in my cheek ... but I am intolerant of the intolerant (even antisocial with regard to the antisocial), what I call 'responsible freedom' (i.e. engagée). IMO, radicalized violent misogynists / racists / fascists ought not to be coddled or excused, medicalized or given any quarter whatsoever.
Someone, maybe here on forum, pointed out that if you ask Chat GPT to make a joke about men, it has no problem but if you ask it to tell a joke about women, you get a lecture about not being disrespectful. Now, why do you think this came to mind now?
Christoffer, I disagree with the whole way you look at these things, because I'm a materialist/physicalist, and believe ideas usually follow the physical and biological reality more that the other way around. Obviously it isn't that simple or unidirectional, but I think ideology are more post-hoc rationalization than that they are causes. So I don't think we will get past that here.
It probably goes a bit beyond the beauty ideal, but it's certainly a part of it. Consider rates of plastic surgery for example, but also the photoshopping that happens on social media and the image of success that is forwarded in popular culture. It's depressing.
It's like we're teaching kids from a young age to be narcissists (ergo, lacking core self-esteem and instead deriving it from the perceptions of others), turning the successful ones into social vampires and turning the others into anemic dregs. With narcissism social interaction is a zero-sum game.
Social media plays a huge role in this.
Maybe they should get off their cellphones and go out to the baseball park or volunteer to pick up roadside garbage or join go a voter recruitment drive. You won't develop intimate relationships without meeting actual people in the actual world.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It wasn't a tough decision.
Nobody's marginalized for feeling unloved. They are rejected for acting like jerks - and much or worse. It's just that women who are 'marginalized" in the same way - i.e. have no sexual outlet - don't go around "punishing" - attacking - people.
Isn't the truth of that dependent on context though? What if a woman has lots of support and an independent income? Bags of security, no need of that from a partner. Might they not prioritise the fun stuff more?
Quoting Christoffer
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm feeling a bit queasy. That happens when I read knee-jerk, pseudo-historical, pseudo-psychological, pseudo-political claptrap hatred for men. I'll cut Vera Mont some slack - Women lacking respect for men is run-of-the-mill. When men do it, it's just pitiful.
Maximise the skills talents and positive traits you do have. No one, I think, is without any. They're just either not identified or cultivated.
The moral kernel here I think is that looks really are not everything. But they are the most initially apparent. So those without them need to nurture charisma to overcome the initial barrier.
I do believe women in general are the more empathetic gender. They are open to being shown kindness, humour and deeper levels of beauty than what's face value (excuse the pun). Thank yourself you're not trying to attract meaningful relationships from other men. I bet they're more superficial and objectifying toward eachothers than women are to men. And I hear lesbian relationships have the highest rate of fidelity/faithfulness. So there ya go.
There's nobody at the baseball park. They're all on their goddamn phones. My son is having this trouble. He can't attend school, but there are no children messing about outside like kids used to do, throwing stones and showing their bums to the peado in the bushes and fun stuff like that. So he can't even meet people that way.
Interesting you mention volunteering, he was actually so lonely he went and walked around the streets picking up litter hoping that someone would talk to him. Guess what happened. Nothing! Not even a good stoning from the local disaffected youth.
Heck, I'd consider glue sniffing under a bridge to be an acceptable social outcome for him at this stage.
And he's too old even for a paedo now. That ship has sailed. Fucking sad.
Certainly, but it's not that simple.
Social media, cellphones, the internet - all of these things have hijacked young people's minds, and their capacity for social interaction has diminished correspondingly, leading to a surge of mental issues like social awkwardness, anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, etc. Many of these also lead to self-isolating tendencies, further compounding the problem.
The solution 'just go out and meet people' is a major barrier for the young who were caught up in this mess. It's their entire mental wiring that's messed up.
It's not only because they are jerks that they are marginalized, they are generally considered low status because they are single, and perhaps don't have a lot of charisma, attractiveness and/or social skills to begin with. It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem... they don't become jerks in a vacuum, it's a bit of that good old resentment playing a role here.
EDIT: And the difference with femcel women is predominately testosterone I'd say.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Political and historical insight leavened with a little compassion. Thank you.
I think it's not even so much actively teaching children to be narcissists. I think it is the fundamentals of social media that alters our behaviour.
In essence what it does is widen the community to which one must conform to be seen or heard. Thus expectations are much higher across such a broad sphere than they ever would have been in a small close knit circle of friends.
Being aware of global society from our phones, we are aware of greater heights of beauty, greater depths of skill - from extreme sports to cooking to all sorts. We see the best of the best in every discipline going viral.
When faced with myriad masteries of skills and beauty, it is hard not to compare it to oneself. The way we interact socially has fundamentally changed in a drastic way as of the last 40 years.
What used to be genuine popularity for your authentic self has become being a brand, self promoting, being all things to all people, and if you can't, fake it till you make it/edit the shit out of yourself, and this just isn't a true social relationship like the ones that evolved for millenia.
That would be the minority, just as well-off, attractive men are a minority.
Quoting T Clark
I have plenty of respect for the men who deserve it, just as I have none for women who don't.
Quoting bert1
I don't think the incel movement started with Covid lockdowns, nor will it end with the pandemic.
Quoting Tzeentch
They shouldn't be expected to do it all on their own. What happened to their support network? The adult mentors and community organizers, coaches, teachers, scout-masters, den-mothers, big sisters and brothers, and church-ladies?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes, egging one another on; reinforcing resentment and blaming others for one's own shortcomings, instead of encouraging positive change. Charisma is rare and accidental and unreliable; courtesy, interest, versatility, tolerance and humour are far better assets. And of course, acceptance of the fact that everybody isn't ever going to get first pick.
Oh...wait... Oh!! I get it.
It's an interesting dynamic, but I'm not convinced of its importance. For example, weren't high standards of beauty already available to everyone before the era of social media, through things like magazines and TV?
I think the more important dimension is the one you address here:
Quoting Benj96
And on social media platforms, what one shows to the outside world is malleable.
It encourages young people to adopt fake personas - something that almost always goes hand in hand with the rejection of the authentic self and leads to a myriad of mental issues.
Oh, that's interesting. I got the impression that kids avoided light and air before the lockdown as well, but maybe you are right. Hmm. I can't remember very well. My son didn't have any friends before either, but he didn't really want any.
A good question.
My take on this is that parents are more overworked than ever, and lack their own support network to fall back on, which in previous generations was provided by for example grandparents and the extended family, perhaps even an entire neighbourhood. Again we see social atomization.
The more people who are genuinely involved, the more balanced the child's upbringing will be. For today's young it's more likely to be the opposite; that only their parents are involved.
If they even have both parents. The number of single parent households have been steadily increasing over the last decades, and I'd be interested to see if there's any link between that and the many problems plaguing today's young. I'd wager a bet that there is.
Yes but here's the crux of the situation. Never before have these things been as impossibly un-ignorable.
There has never been such integration of socialising with force-feeding of content.
Where once we had clear separation between beauty magazine, TV and social platform to contact friends. Now the social interaction is the magazine, it is the TV, the theater.
And when all your friends are on social media and demand that you are too, even to the point of finding you strange and socially outcast if you don't, it's either play game or be isolated, so logging on, you are sucked into the algorithm that learns you, your interests and hobbies, desire and dreams and starts you walking on the treadmill of personally curated content for your individual dopamine hits.
And thus depletes all your cognitive reserve, much like a drug does. Leaving you in your room, mentally exhausted by entertainment, and having done nothing else with your day. Withdrawal symptoms, that are avoided by going online again to get your next fix of wonder and awe.
And all your friends too are exhausted from intense scrolling. When all the dopamine and serotonin is used up, you're left in a spiral where comparisons have been made, self esteem dips and loneliness kicks in. That drives you back to the apps.
Yes that would be a more positive reaction, some obviously don't have the mental strength to avoid the pitfalls... I guess what bothers me is that the total lack of attempt at understanding and empathy is deemed fine in this case, whereas generally it is literally the basis of our morality.
I'm also going by reality as a source for how things are, but the reality is also that humanity has formed culture and society on top of delusions and fantasies as well as power structures created by the ones privileged enough to set the rules. To ignore that is to ignore much of what caused conflicts in history and we live in history. Reality is as much of a cause for things as the delusions that our biology invents. You can't ignore human psychology and how it functions since it's just as much part of reality as anything else and requires analysis in the same manner and on equal terms.
The fact is that people create culture and society, we form ideas based on either delusions or rationality and everything in between. And people can be downright stupid.
This is an interesting topic. I agree, that when the roles and responsibilities that used to be typically met by men are now met by women (more independence/ autonomy) the considerations they are likely to make become more about appearance, height, skills in the bedroom, personality, as you put it "the fun stuff".
The irony here is those were the expectations of men towards women when they had less independence and equality.
How does it feel to be objectified as a man, by women that earn more, have higher social status and influence.
Now we might finally empathise with what they had to put up with for centuries. It's not nice to be underestimated, undervalued or for all the value to be placed on superficial qualities like looks - as an arm piece.
We used to only care about whether they had child bearing hips, whether they had elegance, a pleasant and quiet demeanor while the men talked business.
Now they might expect us to have a whole set of head hair, some good brawn/muscle, to be tall.
It's tit for tat. Karmic really..
I have zero issues with that. It's merely the system swinging from one state of affairs to it's opposite. About god damn time too.
Patriarchies taste of its own medicine.
Luckily for us tho, I think women are more inclined to entertain our emotions and feelings on the subject and to support us in being equals rather then becoming as toxically matriarchal as patriarchy has been towards women in the past. We have shit to learn from women. We should listen up.
What respect should we give misogynist and racist people? I have no problem understanding how things got where they are historically and seeing how people fall when society changes, but at the end of the day, the actions of these people are still their own and they have to face consequences for it. One such consequence is at least a lack of respect from me.
So, are you defending these incels with the idea that women have some built-in disrespect for them but men should absolutely show them respect... because of... some arbitrary reasons?
What exactly is it that you are defending here?
None. I look forward to the day that men are properly humbled by the clout of women - their intelligence, their strength and resolve - strong fierce mothers, exceptional wives, admirable daughters. Feminity has always moderated the testosterone fuelled recklessness of man. And it was always undervalued, considered weak for that fact.
How many wars have been started by women? I'm not saying they can't be. Of course they can. But I think the masculine and feminine are not at odds with one another, but an incredibly potent synergy. A symbiosis that ought to be fostered for everyone sake.
The most manly of men, in my opinion, are those that willingly submit to the power of the feminine. It's a demonstration of confidence and self esteem. Opposite to oppression and mysogyny which simply reflects the insecurity of man regarding their "manlihood".
Quoting Christoffer
This is what triggered me, I don't think this is how it works. In fact I even think Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism following it, played an essential role in the formation of enlightenment ideals of equality, giving rise to individual rights and feminism. In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before).
Aside from that, the biggest contributing factor I think for emancipatory values accelerating in the west, was fossil fuels, the industrial revolution and the technology build on that, creating material conditions that made these new ideologies possible.
But this is, as I said a big topic, and doesn't exactly fit here in this thread.
It probably doesn't help that social media software is almost exclusively designed by the nerdy types that are mainly interested in numbers and maximizing the effectiveness of algorithms, and seem to lack awareness that their products are affecting are actual people.
I agree. Reality is one thing. Delusion regarding it is another. It is part of reality for sure - delusion that is - but it isn't the truth of it, truth being how things actual are (reality itself).
We convince ourselves of all sorts of justifications for things, but if they aren't a). Coming from good intentions and b). Rational and logical in execution and expected outcome, then all we have is delusion - either conceptualised on poor intention, or with good intention but bad execution and thus bad outcome.
Absolutely, at the end of the day social media is a business. It's about maximising engagement with products through advertisement.
Algorithms are preoccupied with ascertaining who is "vulnerable or receptive" to any given product. Thus maximising profit. What they fail to consider is the human component - that it is or ought to be a human right not to be manipulated insidiously towards any one political view, service or product.
This is why law is playing catch up to exaggerate/ notify reveal or clarify the product placement in social media posts. To highlight that such a post is designed as advertising. Misinformation is another target of law to reduce the radicalisation of the public towards specific political agendas.
If both of those are kept in check, then social media becomes at least a little bit more benign.
Only the bad/criminal kind. Using the fear of death as an threat/influence may be effective temporarily, but long-term it is asking for intense revolt and ammendments to law concerning gun ownership.
Love thy neighbour (gender/sex unspecified). Spirituality and religion does something that science cannot, appeal to intuitive sense of moral and greater good. No objective proof required.
"The proof is in the (quite sensible/obvious) pudding"
I agree. You see a clearly harmful set of affairs that can come to no good. And have little tolerance for it. I would include myself in such urgent cause for reprimand of such groups.
However I'm a passivist. I believe the pen is mightier than the sword. That is to say, fierce, overt and public verbal humiliation and condemnation based on clear, well reasoned and articulate denouncement is often sufficient to placate such "nastiness" rather than getting physically involved.
If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better?
Restrain yes, harm no.
That's not the question at hand here. The correct question is "What respect should we give people whose behavior we don't approve of or understand?"
Understand it, and act accordingly. I believe in hearing people out and applying reasoning to show them the result of their claims/beliefs.
Often when someone sees the rational result of an idea, they change tact, if that outcome makes sense but the result is undesirable.
It does rather seem to drag on. But that guy drove the van onto the sidewalk in 2018, by when the incel movement was pretty deeply rooted, so it can't have been related to this form of isolation.
I hope that doesn't signal a problem. Some people need more privacy than others. Some, because their talent and interest inclines them to solitary pursuits: graphic arts, literature or academic study; some because they have matters to contemplate, ideas to work through; some due to particular fears or general lack of confidence; some because they're hypersensitive, so that their feelings and perceptions are overwhelmed by too much interaction, or more simply, they lack access to a compatible pool of potential friends - that's more likely if a child is exceptional in some way. It might be a good idea to investigate the reason - it's possible the boy could use some help. Or he may be quite content until he's ready to move on to the next phase.
Quoting Tzeentch
The economic landscape is not helping.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It never seemed to be an issue when spinsters were despised, even if they didn't whine about it, even when being a footloose bachelor was envied. It didn't seem to be an issue when homely women were caricatured and called names.
I don't think this is a special case of marginalizing (though it may well feel that way if you put yourself in the category. I don't mean you, personally; I mean anyone. Nobody has to assume the label; they can choose their own designation, develop their own perspective on their situation, and figure out what they can do to improve it. Punishing strangers won't accomplish that. )
It's hard to empathize with people who abuse entire classifications of other people on the basis of something like gender, race or religion; even harder when the abuse is threatening or physical. If you're unappealing, the women in your early life may be to blame, but the women you haven't met today are not. As a "culture", self-designated incels have done very little to engender understanding or sympathy and quite a lot to draw ire. Individually, men and women who lack social skills, physical and material assets or charm can be heard and perhaps helped by more adapted elders and peers. Everyone is capable of self improvement. But the problem of aspiring to an alpha mate when one is a gamma is insoluble: the number won't crunch.
:100:
He's autistic like his mum and dad. He'll be OK, just needs to find his tribe, like I had to. It was just a lot easier for me because I could cope with school. We're trying to set up a DnD group at the moment, hopefully that will work out.
Pretty shitty. They're not interested in my personality.
EDIT: My most recent partner only liked me for my broad shoulders, rugged looks, ability to cook, trim shrubs and maintain bicycles. When I expressed my personality I told her I was submissive, that her right-wing views were disgusting, that she was ignorant and unwilling to learn, and that sometimes I hated her, she dumped me.
I think this is a moral imperative, rather than an anthropological observation. It will tell us how we ought to behave, not why inceldom is becoming more popular (if indeed it's becoming popular). In the interest of systemic critique, there should be structural reasons for why inceldom is becoming more popular, rather than individual moral failings. Things that are true now of society that weren't true "then", whenever then is.
The underlying reasons I've speculated about are as follows. Can group them into two categories. The first is what I'd call "exposure" related, and tries to show the increase in inceldom is overstated. The second is what I'd call "generative conditions" - things that generate inceldom and make it possible.
Exposure related:
1) There aren't more incels now than there were, we're just more exposed to extreme ideologies more often.
1a) A bloke being frustrated at dating being a horrifying, alienating experience for them can sound a lot like being an incel.
1b) Talking about differences between men's and women's (het) experiences dating can also make you sound like an incel. EG the statement "women have all the power of selection" might make you sound like a misogynist to uncharitable ears. To charitable ears, as far as online dating goes, it's a question of realised match given desired match being more frequent for women.
Generative conditions:
2) Means of finding a romantic partner have now been disrupted by the current configuration of capitalism and patriarchy (or social gender norms, whatevs).
2a) Dating media's success piggybacks on the current configuration of capitalism and current gender norms.
2b) Current gender norms leave men, often, without any intimate friends or support networks. Especially networks that allow deep emotional disclosure. That role, traditionally, was held only by intimate partners. If you lose your partner and cannot find a new one long term, in those conditions you easily become isolated and alone; I call this the "old man pub principle". This style of relationship is now seen as "toxic", and regardless is antithetical to current dating culture.
2c) Current gender norms enable women to have more casual emotional disclosure, that creates deeper bonds in extant social networks and forms new ones.
2d) The latter two points create an asymmetry of emotional dependence. Prosaically, men have demand for women to gain greater emotional intimacy, women have supply but don't wish to "produce" the good of "toxic" asymmetric relationships.
2e) The degradation of traditional gender norms makes those "toxic" relationships undesirable - or alternatively, reveals them as having been undesirable/stifling all along.
2f) Dating media takes the demand for emotional intimacy, from men, and commodifies it. Their algorithms control exposure of men to (what is often seen as) their only means of intimate expression.
2g) Dating media have come to have a monopoly on obtaining intimate partnerships.
2h) Dating media's monopoly on obtaining intimate partnerships derives from a fragmentation of social life; the nuclear family is dying, birth rates are going down, the desire to "home make" and "settle down" is rarer and rarer. Simultaneously, people work longer hours, social activities are becoming more expensive in real terms (median real wages have been stagnant or declining since the 70s). That blocks access to social spaces and diminishes social time.
2i) People are more likely to find intimate and satisfying relationships when they have access to suitable social spaces and have time to do so.
tl;dr - capitalism, death of social norms regarding family and courtship, the norms dying "slower" for men, fragmentation of social life.
I don't know anyone who is or claims to be an incel--meaning just that I can't identify anyone that way. How many men are thought to be incels? Why doesn't auto-correction recognize the word 'incel'? Is there a female equivalent? Are there any rational justifications for the incels's claims?
Contemporary society is a thoroughly alienating experience for many people -- not everyone, but a good share. Social media, dating apps, etc. bring the chilly competitiveness of business to the more intimate business of finding friends and sexual partners. It's great for the winners, not so hot for the losers.
The images of men and women (in many contexts) that the businesses of social media and advertising project are often very distorted, and the projections are pervasive. From media that is designed to promote consumption (of goods, services, and other people) it's no wonder that some people feel like they are the left-overs from a clearance sale.
Who doesn't?
Maybe not, but we can refuse to be worse by doing nothing to stop those a*holes from harming anyone. Watch out for that pacifistic false equivalence, Benj it has only ever encouraged bullies, segregationists & fascists.
This sensitive-new-age-guy thing you've got going on is creepy. The strong, stubborn, competent women I know think it's creepy too.
Quoting Benj96
Your clear ignorance about the people you're talking about puts the lie to this.
Quoting Benj96
Strong women don't want to hang around with men who "willingly submit to the power of the feminine." They recognize how disrespectful the male feminist bullshit really is. Grownup women want to hang around with grownup men.
Please site your "prehistorical sources.
The sex demographics are complicated by education demographics. According to Pew Research...
Rates of marriage are further complicated when race is figured in, not to mention gays and lesbians or cohabitants vs. formally hitched.
Quoting Tzeentch
Atomization and anomie seems to be on target.
That was my strategy as a young gay guy. Lots of shagging (which was great on its own) to shake out a good prospect, who, as it happened, came along several times -- the last being good for 30 years.
Market values and money to be made is a big part of the problem.
There are market values and money to be made in bars, too. Why don't bars result in more happily married couples? Because the raison d'être of bars is to sell alcohol which fairly quickly impairs judgement and helps sell even more alcohol. That said, I've met some very decent guys in bars, and alcohol served as the necessary lubricant.
:100:
Benj's guide to developing irresistible CHARISMA in 21 days!
Try these techniques to build DYNAMITE CHARISMA!
Manage your nerves.
Pace your speech.
Talk about what you're passionate about
Listen with intent.
Practice eye contact.
Ask clarifying questions.
Demonstrate a genuine interest.
Express deep caring about asylum seekers.
Remember little details.
Keep things positive.
Practice empathy.
Ooze sincerity.
Right. I looked her in the eye, kept things positive, spoke at a pleasant pace, and talked about Marxism passionately. She was asleep in 3 minutes.
Not a bad question. A friend and I discussed years ago that one thing the internet did was erase taboos. It used to be a taboo to be an incel. In public, you would never have confessed your feelings of hatred and loathing at your lack of obtaining women. And if you have, the rest of society would have ridiculed and shunned you.
The internet frees you from the physical proximity of being shamed. Words are not the same as the personal looks of disgust and rejection from people in your community. Further, you can find like individuals like yourself, so even if you later experience that shame in person, you have people you can go back to. The internet can make an extreme minority seem bigger and more impactful than it is as well.
Finally, if you appeal to a person's lower desires, you will always find takers. Tell someone they're a victim. Tell them they have a right to be angry, to feel hurt, and to take that out on others. Feels gooooood. We used to call that the devil's temptations. Again, people around you would ward you off of those bad things. Now you can privately be tempted in your own home and give in again and again until you start to believe in your own rightness of your cause.
No, it came out of a questioning of old norms. Even Stuart Mill questioned why women didn't have equal rights and I don't think the suffragette movement came out of Christianity, most at the time wouldn't consider them acting in a "Christian manner" and they wouldn't have had to if the church or other religious institutions had pushed for such ideals. And you didn't understand what I wrote about traditions, I said that the secularization of power made traditions no longer follow state praxis and instead became traditions in of themselves. Over the course of over a hundred years, since the suffragettes succeeded in getting women voting rights, these traditions have been slowly dismantled over generations since it is easier to question traditions when they only exist as cultural behaviors. I don't think you can give credit to Christian values for this since Christian values have been precisely what's been working against this progression since secularization first began.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
And in line with what I've written. The industrial revolution emerged out of secular ideas, since "industry" before that was deeply connected to the power structure of a nation. The modern type of capitalism that raised up from the ashes of monarchy and religious institutions exponentially sped up progression and was able to further finance intellectual institutions outside of elite corridors. What happened was that more people had the ability to question the status quo and it started to influence women to do so themselves which led to things like the suffragettes movement.
Quoting T Clark
I understand the behavior fully, hence why I emphasized the importance of psychology and an anthropological look at the recent history (hundred years). And with that understanding, I can conclude that while a tragedy that these men didn't get better guidance in life, they're not victims of war, nor victims of oppression, they are able to act by their own accord, and their acts are misogynistic, racist and sometimes even with violence.
Do you approve of that behavior? Do you respect them based on that behavior? Again, what is it that you are defending here?
Or should we maybe promote better ideals for men? Ideals that aren't stuck in bloated delusions of "manly powers" in the spirit of Andrew Tate?
Quoting BC
Years of studying these different subjects and some hours digging into the dark corners of the web to get a grasp on why this culture has grown over the past few years... I don't recommend the latter.
Quoting BC
It mostly depends on the social group you're around. Incels are generally loners, have low social skills, and seek their social connections online instead. It's there where they become radicalized. So most likely, if you know of anyone from your past who maybe went silent socially and people have little knowledge of where they went or what they do today, that man could have ended up in such a position. But it's not a given. However, incels are just the bottom of the barrel, it's the ones who're at risk of extremist radicalization. The rest is a gradient in which we find many nationalist movements like I mentioned, Proud Boys. But we also have fully functional men who might even be in relationships and have families who keep a dark corner of their mind online where they spew out hatred for women, especially those with power. It's the holistic view of all of this that shows where the ideology comes from and why it has risen up so notably these recent years. There's no number on how many there are, but it's not small, not if we include the gradient. There's a reason for the increase in nationalist parties that are almost entirely made up of men and whose voter demographics are almost entirely men. It's a global phenomenon.
Why you cannot see the word on auto-correct I don't know, maybe not all nations have officially approved it as a new term. Some nations have though. And no, there's no justification for their claims. It's misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic nonsense analyses and eugenics with some plain hardcore racism. It's the same level as flat-earthers trying to prove the Earth is flat by providing theories that any sane person would just laugh at. Don't fall into that rabbit hole, it's a singularity of stupidity.
Very happy to hear you're on top of the situation! A whole lot of parents are bewildered.
Quoting bert1
Astonishing! You'd think the cooking would have clinched it!
Quoting Philosophim
Somehow, hatred and loathing don't sound all that enticing in a prospective date.
Hey-this is America -- we have no national institute approving or disallowing new words. Here, it's the province of Free Enterprise -- most likely, some sub-operation of Google.
BTW, even corporate auto-correct systems do not start (or end) with an official list. Autocorrect is built by "scraping" the key-strokes of billions of people who are typing away. I type "incel"; autocorrect changes it to "Intel" or "inches" (in this local, present tense situation). I back up and change "Intel" or "inches" back to "incel". The systems that "scrape off information" from our activities on line sees how I dealt with its suggestion. After a few more million times that this happens, it will start accepting "incel" as an acceptable word.
The fact that "incel" is still an unacceptable word to autocorrect suggests to me that it actually isn't being used, detected, and corrected all that much.
"Scraping" data from our content is de regueur, even though it marks "regueur" as misspelled and wants to replace it with "regular".
Thanks, Vera; that's valuable intel for everyone in the dating scene. Romance will blossom.
Of course, hating and loathing the same thing can be quite attractive. I require prospects to hate and loathe Republicans.
No, they generally don't. Incels have stopped trying. They've given into their worst impulses of bitterness and hatred.
I'm wondering why. Have they sublimated their sex-drive into violent fantasy? Most of them will - I assume - never act on these impulses to "punish" women for their own inadequacy, so they'll just languish for years and die bitter old men. Why? For the brotherhood? I'm sure most of them could do a whole lot better than they're doing, be happier than they are. Why do they choose to be miserable?
I remember reading years ago that statistical studies have shown that two highly intelligent parents tend to have less intelligent offspring, too very tall parents tend to have shorter offspring and two very beautiful parents tend to have less beautiful offspring. The same goes in the cases of low intelligence, short and ugly parents; in reverse of course. If this were not so, humanity would have long since separated into two races: very tall, beautiful geniuses and very short ugly morons.
Quoting Vera Mont
Because they're short, ugly morons...
:wink:
Not good enough! I've met short ugly morons in happy marriages - and not always with short ugly morons.
Vera Mont
Right, but that short ugly morons may have a greater tendency to become miserable incels than tall, handsome/ beautiful geniuses do, does not entail that all short ugly morons will be miserable incels, or that all tall, handsome/ beautiful geniuses will not be miserable incels.
That said, being an involuntary celibate, miserable or otherwise, does not equate to identifying as an incel; the latter would seem to entail a very special blend of viciousness and stupidity.
They've lost all hope. Since in their mind its impossible for them to succeed, they double down on bitterness and anger, then send it against the world. Lets say someone told you to lift 2 tons. You might see others effortlessly doing it, but everytime you get to that bar you fail in front of a large group of people. You feel them jeering at you behind your back. Women despise you. Society despises you. So why not despise them? Make them hurt.
Not justifying it, just trying to see it through their eyes.
That's what I'm thinking. Maybe not so much the viciousness and stupidity - okay, I called it odious and loud or something - but attitude. There seems to be a choice involved, just as taking on the label is a choice - not every unattractive man or woman is beyond the possibility of being loved by someone; not every unloved person turns bitterly hateful - that has to be motivated. I think the culture of rage and hate is questing for fresh fields to conquer.
But seriously, I agree; much of the viciousness and stupidity is culturally fomented and ideologically, economically and politically motivated.
Haha :) Alright I get it. Seems a bit personal. Not like I'm the only person that agrees that a lot of traits are malleable/workable.
The social stigmatization, which is on full display in this thread, is probably a large part of the reason.
The term 'cycle of abuse' comes to mind.
Bit harsh but you're entitled to your opinion I guess.
Quoting T Clark
Male feminism is bullshit? If that's the case it's just divisive and pigeon holing all men inti a category of inherently non-feminist in values. Or mysognistic by virtue of being a man. Doesn't seem fair or rational.
Ive had very different experiences of what women like or don't like. Perhaps you should ask them for their opinion? Just you know... A thought.
The world is changing. You can call new age more sensitive men naive, immature or whatever. I call it acknowledgement that the ways of old were cruel. What worked then doesn't now. And shouldn't now
The world is alienating for many people, I agree with this, but then it doesn't seems to be acceptable to point this out if we are talking about incels. Anyway, I pretty much said what I wanted to say about this, I don't want to be an apologist for their behaviours either.
I do think it came out of Christian values. Even the notion of the 'secular' only really makes sense in a Christian context (and etymological came out of that context), which is why all of these emancipatory rights came out of the western tradition, and not universally everywhere. If you want to dig deeper into this, you might want to read some of Tom Hollands stuff on how Christianity shaped our world :
https://www.amazon.nl/Dominion-Christian-Revolution-Remade-World/dp/0465093507
https://www.gethistory.co.uk/historical-period/general-history/why-the-secular-cant-exist-without-christianity
With Holland, Nietzsche pointed out even earlier how weird the Christian inversion of values really was in a world historical context. The dominant values across the world generally were those of the ruling class. To put is a bit to simple perhaps, good was what was powerful/victorious, and bad was what was weak, the victims... For the Romans the cross was a symbol of humiliation and contempt, the lowest of the low, and specifically in Christianity it became the basis of the whole western value system. Without this inversion of values, none of the emancipatory movements we saw in the west make sense.
Quoting Christoffer
First, as I alluded to above the secular came out of Christianity. Christianity with its valuation of the Truth, and Protestantism with its turn to individualism, rather than being in opposition with, also helped pave the way for the scientific revolution. I don't see these things in opposition to eachother, but rather as a continuation.
Second, the industrial revolution had a lot of causes. Cultural climate no doubt was one of them, which was I think influenced by Chirstianity, but more important were other material conditions like the fact that Britain had a lot of readily available coal, had a lot of surplus workers because of the agricultural revolution, and also had a lot of excess wealth because of colonial trade.
I'm not saying these emancipatory activist forces played no role whatsoever, I'm just saying that one shouldn't overestimate their role either. If we are to believe the likes of Nietzsche and Holland, Christianity had in it own valuations the seeds for its own demise, structurally giving rise to revolutions that question the existing power structures on emancipatory grounds (reformation, enlightment, French revolution, socialism/communism, woke-ism? etc etc..).
:up: :up:
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, I think it's important to try to understand it as a new phenomenon. So I say let's have more sociology and less moralizing. One can do this at the same time as being intolerant of the intolerant, in the words of @180 Proof.
A good analogy is Islamic radicalism (in fact it's more than analogy, because I think they share some underlying causes). There are academics, organizations, and policies specifically aimed at working out why some young Muslim men are attracted to violent fundamentalism, and working out how communities can help them avoid it. It's no use saying oh, that's just regressive dogma. It might be that, but it's more than that.
The incels represent a resistance to the liberation of women, but this is its self-image, its ideology, a manifestation of an underlying problem--and, I would say, a self-consciously countercultural reaching back to a patriarchal worldview that they have not in fact developed naturally from their communities (which again parallels Islamic radicalism). There are specific reasons why in the current situation, the liberation of women might be seen as a problem to these young men. If this is not accepted, and we are merely dismissive, then we end up just blaming, say, the innately sexist nature of men. That is, we lapse into moralism.
And what said. :clap:
Quoting BC
Yes. I think we're used to thinking of capitalism as an old system that arrived fully formed or transformed society in a short while, but in fact, the commodification of life has actually been quite a gradual process, and the associated social fragmentation and atomization is still happening. I realize it's facile to answer the problem of incels by saying "it's capitalism!" but I don't have anything else. has put some insightful flesh on that bone.
Problematic behavior almost always stems from suffering, and in the case of incels that's pretty clear. Recognizing that doesn't make you an apologist.
Quoting Jamal
I would interpret it differently.
Incels' resentment towards women probably has little to do with any real social theory, and more to do with something as simple as continuous rejection, or the perception of such. "You hurt me, I hurt you."
I say perception, because probably a great deal of these 'incels' aren't quite as undesirable as they believe to be. As many have pointed out, people of all shapes and sizes find partners and get married, and that has always been the case. So the question is where they get these notions of worthlessness and undesirableness.
Perhaps it's communicated implicitly through popular culture, which floods the young with artificial imagery of what success looks like. Perhaps it's through lack of a father figure or male role models. Maybe it's a combination of both.
I have personal experience of it. In my youth I was unsuccessful with women, and I noticed I was feeling a rising resentment about it. I knew this was wrong so I didn't let it develop too far. At the time I did not have many friends, let alone female friends. All of the toxic feelings disappeared once my sex life became as astonishingly rich and exciting as it remains today.
That was 30 years ago. What is different now? Would I have become a misogynist if I had been exposed to the "manosphere"? I don't think so, actually. The answer to "why not?" might be more than just "because I'm a nice guy". That is, it might be to do with the positive social constraints or influences that prevented it, which might not be in effect as much today.
What is different is that you can state that you are an incel far more easily. No wonder that "incels" became a thing in the net. All those hours in front of a screen. Besides, being unsuccessful with women wasn't something accepted in the old male culture. Or to be more precise: you simply didn't talk about these things or refer to some group as you can find now, hence it wasn't just "male" culture.
Now you have discussion groups. Like if you like philosophy. :razz:
Quoting Jamal
Well, being lonely is the issue. Usually it isn't so that a man with a lot of male friends and the ability to get friends then suddenly would have a problem with women. But now we have this habit of compartmentalization. Which in my view, has become ridiculous.
If your shy and lonely and simply have accepted your state, suddenly you are deemed to be an incel. And then the woke idiots go after these incles " misogyny, misanthropy" and make paint these guys as part of a hate group and the usual stuff.
Quoting Tzeentch
More like social media that does it.
But instead of these being constructive platforms, where the members support and encourage each other, they're like a masochistic group of men tearing eachothers self esteem down to bits and propagating harmful beliefs about themselves and one another.
Why would anyone want to actively seek a place known for being highly critical and debasing?
Like I've heard of them posting pics of themselves just so other incels can point out everything wrong with them. Further reinforcing their state of feeling undesired. It's like virtual self flagellation.
Same. I'm going through a period like myself actually. Well, I have quite a lot of friends but no romance going on. I get these errant thoughts of resentment. They've all got this character where I take the "isolation/fragmentation of modern life" phenomenon, turn it into a personal failing, then externalise that judged personal failing onto an abstract representation of my "object of desire" - a largely "arbitrary" woman. Ressentiment through and through. Though socially inculcated.
At the time I felt a kind of disgusted resentment at the thoughtwhich I couldnt stop thinkingthat there were women at that very moment having sex with other men. And at the same time I knew this was stupid. But as a socially anxious person I didnt know what to do about it, and it was only by accident that things improved.
Anyway, its probably better to target ones ressentiment at the abstract woman than actual women. I dont know if the former leads to the latter in a smooth progression or if something just breaks at some point based on individual psychology or circumstances.
Show me who first abused single men for being single, or unattractive men for being unattractive. I can recall, not that long ago, unattractive women referred to as dog, battle-ax, hag, etc. and the perennial sex-starved spinster jokes, nun jokes, rape jokes. Women complained about that, but didn't run vans over strangers on a sidewalk.
How would anyone even know about your isolation or history of failure in romance in order to stigmatize you? Why would anyone notice or care? I'm walking in the mall or sitting at a concert, I don't look around and say : There, that guy looks like he hasn't been paid in two years, let's all make fun of him...
Incels started their own cult of exclusion, resentment and violence.
It wasn't the woman you desire and can't have that made you inadequate; it's not her job to repair your ego. Abusers usually do this - and I have some experience. They blame someone else for what they do, and want to do, that they know is wrong. "Don't make me hit you again." is the bad father's mantra.
You are responsible for yourself.
Maybe incels should muster the courage to visit a prostitute at some point. :grin:
I was referring to the social stigmatization. The rejection these men experience probably can't be called abuse in most cases, but their suffering is real. Unresolved suffering may lead to abuse, and an environment which is unable to recognize the dynamic will perpetuate and worsen that cycle.
Yes, and I'm asking who did that to whom, and on what basis. I was there when single women were a routine butt social contempt and ridicule; I missed where and when men became such a class of victims.
It isn't. The label is self-assumed, not imposed. The suffering is real, as I have acknowledged more than once. Lots of people suffer for lots of reasons - illness, disfigurement, disability, phobias, depression, old age, obesity - but they don't all make a cult of it, or abuse and punish other people for it. The blame is misplaced, and as long as someone hangs on their self-identified victimhood, they won't be able to overcome it.
Fifty, documented. Nobody knows how many more are similarly motivated. More expected, because the rhetoric is increasingly vicious.
And they're not, by any stretch, all short, ugly, socially awkward men suffering from chronic rejection. We're not just picking on some poor lonely boys here.
Then I guess the definition "a person (usually a man) who regards himself or herself as being involuntarily celibate" isn't so important as there obviously are a lot more those than who are part of an online-community hate group and are willing to use violence.
Just like people who are environmentalists and those willing to use violence to promote their view of environmentalism, the so-called eco-terrorists, aren't pooled together. Or are only by some fringe right-wing people.
What does this mean? The thread was about this specific internet culture of promoting misogyny. There is no comparison to environmentalists, and it's not about single men who are unhappy; they're no more or less important than any other person who is unhappy about something. The designation - not definition - wasn't forced on anyone.
Looking back over your posts in this thread, I don't see that all. Everything you've written is couched in the language of ideological feminism. That allows you to judge without thinking.
Quoting Christoffer
I feel sympathy for men who are socially lost and feel left out, rejected. That's an experience I can easily understand. I've felt it myself. Most of these men live normal, non-violent lives and don't offend your sensitivities. Do you condemn looters and rioters who burn their neighborhoods in respond to their resentments? I'll ask you - Do you approve of their behavior? Do you respect them based on that behavior?
No, no. I understand the ideology. Any man who doesn't toe the party line is misogynistic just like anyone who doesn't support Israel is anti-semitic, anyone who doesn't support the Black Lives Matter movement is racist, and anyone who doesn't agree with you politically is a fascist.
Do you think I'm talking about lonely men who are non-violent and who act normal? I'm talking about the blatant misogynist and racist incels, the ones who are reported as a growing risk of extremism. I've said it clearly, people are judged on their acts and when they spread their hateful toxicity, then they've lost my respect and should lose the respect of anyone who's normal. I have no problem defending innocent people from these hateful ones. If that's a moral line that seems ambiguous to you, I'd recommend some introspection into what you're actually defending here.
Quoting T Clark
You've not provided any counter-arguments, only these types of answers so I wonder who's judging without thinking. So far in this thread, I've seen much more defense of misogynist racist people than any kind of objective analysis of why incels have grown in the last couple of years or why they have the risk of extremist movements growing out of it.
And pulling the "stupid feminist" card like this just shows what level this thread is gonna be at, so I'm out, I have no interest in going further when things are on this kind of level. This is bordering on an anti-intellectual level and it fits more on precisely the misogynist forums where men can vent their frustrations through hate against women (and they wonder why women don't want them? :shade: )
I thought this thread on THIS forum would have a little higher level of discourse on the subject.
As I noted in my last post, it is standard operating procedure to tag people who disagree with you as misogynist and racist.
You didn't answer my questions about your attitude towards violent looters and rioters.
I'm hopeful you're being ironic, but fear you're not. But I don't want to derail this thread. I couldn't help but take note of these remarkable statements, however.
Well this is called "essentialism". Reducing ones singular action or demonstration of behaviour to a permanent definition.
Social media does this all the time and it's the basis for cancel culture.
For example: John disagrees with one viewpoint of one member of the black lives matter movement. Ergo, John is a racist. Now, John is not necessarily a racist just because he objected to one person's views - a person that identifys with a group but may not neccesarily exemplify that groups values in entirety.
It's the difference between saying "Sam 'is' an assh*le" and "Sam did an assh*lish thing" or "Sam behaved 'like' an assh*le."
These are not equivalent. One acknowledges that behaviour or acts don't ultimately define a person. The other says a person is defined only by a single act.
What say you of people who are ambivalent to any given movements idealogies. How can one justifiably assign them to either parties/oppositions creed when they don't agree with either entirely.
To come full circle: I am a proponent of a male feminism ideal being a man. But this does not mean I agree with all viewpoints of feminists. That however does not make me a mysoginist. Nor do I agree with all viewpoints of those contrary/in opposition to feminism. But that doesn't make me a radical/extreme feminist. I think both groups have there internal flaws and idiosyncrasies.
To essentialise anyone to a given group, a whole lot of sweeping generalisations are made about them, many of which may not be true. There is fluidity/spectrum within definitions/assigned categories.
I can concede that some male feminism is bullshit. Other male feminism not so much. I like to think my reasons for being one are simple and concrete, despite what assumptions may be made about me for identifying as a proponent of it.
You know what CM is saying and you know they mean it. This is just passive-aggressive baloney.
I'm white. What would you think if I characterized myself as member of the black power movement?
I would say that a "movement" (belief system/ideology) is not equal to your innate ethnicity/ definition or characterisation as a person.
I would say that being white doesn't mean you can't be a proponent of the BLM movement. Any less than being heterosexual prevents one from being an "ally" to the lgbt community or being abled prevents one from campaigning for rights for the disabled.
In essence, you don't need to be "X" to desire rights and equality for "X".
If we had a case where you cannot/have no right to campaign on behalf of a marginalised/descrimminated group if you're not from that group, then it is inherently segregated. Any chance at unification is hopeless. As everyone outside the group is an enemy by virtue of the fact that they don't share those traits. No integration can come of such a notion, only self propagating division.
Friends are friends despite their differences. Enemies are enemies because of their differences
You seem an intrusive, prickly, sanctimonious sort. But I hope you're not.
Quite a lot actually. Several mass shootings. If you require references I can cite them.
Now that isn't to say other groups have not committed violent acts based on fundamental principles/beliefs. They range on everything from sex, ethnicity and class to political stance and religion. Not just incel-ship. There are many for sure.
My point would be that taking credence in any intractable definition/characteristic of a person as a basis for violence is always inherently wrong.
It denies the simple fact thay humans are diverse as a species in all areas of society, culture and being. And none of them are more just to impose on others than any other sect/facet of human society.
It is about tolerance and empathy at the end if the day. Without it, we are vicious barbarians, hardly a cohesive society at all. Diversity is the spice of life. And tolerance/understanding is the stability that permits that.
There is no place for extremes (self righteousness) in a group of many unique individuals just looking for a middle ground. You can't see eye to eye from the polar ends of difference, only from the middle - what unites us all. We are human, and deserve to be treated as such.
Not if you actually look at the OP, actually. :roll:
Hence the incel movement should, as you take, be more about internet culture.
Quoting Vera Mont
There ought not to be comparison with environmentalists and terrorists either, as I said.
Put shortly, no matter what someones reasons are, violence towards other people shouldn't be tolerated.
I didn't say BLM, I said black power. Saying you support equal rights for women is not the same as saying you are a feminist.
Alas, I hate to dash your hopes.
It is feminism if the society is inherently patriarchal/misogynistic to begin with. Which it is. Equal rights in a male-biased system is feminist (supports/endorses conferring more power to women to equalise the status quo).
The feminist status ends when the mysoginistic one does.
I did. Here is a more comprehensive look:
If not, then what is it about, really?
I dunno. It would be a nice thought.
Quoting Jamal
Makes sense. I think it's so commonplace it's kinda silly to call it "being an incel" or whatever. It's just getting frustrated at being romantically/sexually unfulfilled and alone. You can see the same kinda attitude in a few "pretty privilege" criticising TikToks from women. It looks like: men are shit because they don't pay romantic attention to me... But if they did it would be objectification, fuck men.
Quoting Jamal
Also yes. It isn't "most of me" that thinks this. I'm very used to having intrusive thoughts of various flavours. My Inner Incel is just trying to stop me from acknowledging my own loneliness and romantic shame!
I can imagine the former leading to the latter, though. If I were to start seeing women under the light of that abstracted object of desire/resentment, it starts to look a lot like misogyny. Whereas the loneliness which underpins those errant thoughts isn't anything of the sort.
Edit: so I guess you can say I'm wary of pathologising it - getting angry about other emotions and hallucinating problems to solve is what blokes grow up doing. But indulging in misogyny is an obvious no-no. Can't a guy just be frustrated at being alone?
Note how the OP was written:
Quoting Benj96
Thus the issue you refer to would be the incel "movement". Not about the other questions above.
It is passive aggressive baloney... what's the point?
No, not ironic. Impervious to irony, it seems.
But I would think it should still be obvious. I think your comments regarding Christianity (which some would say includes Catholicism and Protestantism) are mistaken, remarkably so, in fact. But I didn't want to derail the thread by addressing them.
Well, I guess people don't read what the Bible says about the role of women. And about women in general.
It's still a useful source (the Bible, that is) about Christianity. :smile:
To be consistent with that standard, you'll have to agree it's ok for me to claim to be a member of the black power movement.
It's the movement that created the question. Before the internet, there were married people and single people, happy people and unhappy people, lonely people and people with active social lives, people who were successful in their relations with their preferred category of sex partners and those who were not. In society, there were couples, widows and widowers, divorced people, bachelors and spinsters (of which bachelors were the most frequently considered enviable and old maids, the least). None of these were subcultures or movements.
The whole 'incel' phenomenon started with a website.
This is the semantic equivalent to one of my favorite passive-aggressive southernisms - "Just sayin."
The OP need not comprehensively describe or define incels, since its a pretty well-known subculture notorious for its abusive and sometimes violent misogyny. Its probably wise to look into it rather than throwing around accusations of wokeness. Even just a quick look at Wikipedia would work:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
It doesnt follow from the fact that incel is a word formed from involuntary celibate that when we use incel we are merely referring to people who are involuntarily celibate tout court.
Not your finest comments, TC. Sorry. It comes across as peevish and too personal. @Benj96 starts an interesting thread (and acts as genial host) and gets this. You can do much better sincerely. :victory:
I can relate to a lot of what you say. What disturbed me were the intrusive alien thoughts that I disagreed with, the misogyny in embryo. Maybe youre saying that thats just how male frustration manifests itself (in this society etc.), and that this in itself is not indicative of incel tendencies, though its probably a necessary condition.
EDIT: I just realized that quoting you out of context like that makes it look a bit like youre defending incels. Sorry about that :grin:
I don't doubt your sincerity.
Yet usually we try to answer the questions in the OP, right?
And as @Vera Mont said, this is an phenomenon brought by the internet. So it's much more about internet culture and the ability, thanks to the net, of otherwise quite separate individuals having the ability to get together... (like, uh, people who are interested in philosophy).
Quoting Jamal
Just like if someone uses the term eco-terrorist, the terrorism doesn't actually have anything to do with ecology or environtalism. The real issue is the "activism" that accepts and uses violence to further it's cause and gain media attention. What the cause is doesn't so make a difference. The violence part is similar and if the cause would be, let's say anti-abortion activists burning down an abortion clinic, it doesn't change things.
Similarly, if someone is a misogynist and uses violence, it isn't important what the reasons are for him to act in this manner. It is the action, using violence etc, which is the main issue and ought to be condemned.
No, its not about moralizing, its about understanding what is going on. This is explicit in the OP. It is important what the reasons are, because its a new movement with its own particular characteristics and causes. This discussion, if its good for anything, is about working out what those are.
fdrake incel stan confirmed.
Quoting Jamal
Know the feel bro. "Political is personal" is also in your mind maaan.
Quoting Jamal
Yes. Necessary but not sufficient. I think "the embryo", as you put it, is a similar mechanism to violent or transgressive intrusive thoughts. Like suddenly wanting to whack the person in front of you in the queue for taking too long. I get the feeling misogynist-lite intrusive thoughts are a bit easier to apply to reality; more seductive; but the violent rage at the queue fucker is definitely very visceral. Maybe such thoughts turn to misogyny when the intrusive thoughts become egosyntonic. When anger becomes justice.
Well, why not then start with the obvious: the internet. The ability there to find your own echo chamber. How public discourse has change because of social media where there is no moderation.
One should look first at the general reasons and look what is similar to other hate groups which don't have anything to do with sexuality.
I agree, thats a start. Its also a form of identity politics, which is another interesting dimension.
A scary thought. But then how and when does that happen?
When the person in front in the queue is old and slow, I have ageist-lite thoughts that I never admit to, so its quite a good analogy.
Yes it is.
And as victimhood and being different is so fashionable today, the idea of being an incel isn't so bad, at least in the horrible self-help groups of internet echo chambers.
The extent of my knowledge of the subject is Wiki and until this thread the only proto-incel I could think of was Nietzsche (sorry). I don't think they make an appearance in any of the worlds I inhabit. I guess the question I have is, should I be worried about this - it's not like we're short of resentful subcultures already.
I know a young man who, though definitely not an incel, is now a follower of Andrew Tate and, from the way he talks, has absorbed a lot of his ideas from the manosphere. I used to think of him as a friend but his sociopathic and misogynist tendencies made me back away, partly just because they made him so horrible to be with.
He and his online pals are part of a self-reinforcing community in which charismatic sociopaths bewitch the less disturbed men with their strong opinions and their charm.
So I wonder how much crossover there is between incels and the sexually successful misogynist pick-up artists. Maybe you can graduate from the former to the latter.
I dont know if you should be worried, but its a nasty thing in our society along with many other nasty things, so its probably good to be aware of it.
Not an expert, but I think the pick up artist people sprouted off into the incels. An incel being a pick up artist failure who can't even manipulate women to get laid.
So the interesting thought here, which I think someone else has expressed in this discussion already, is that what is lacking is shame. In a closely-knit real-world community, one avoids shame at all costs, unless one is out of control. There is a clear distinction between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. And now, with social fragmentation, this is lacking. Since the community that these young men feel is most important in their lives is made up of remote individuals who are free to ratchet up the extreme opinions without any personal consequences, they never meet the healthy opposition that they would have met in the old-style community of people, most of whom they would not have chosen to associate with.
Thats the traditional (communitarian) conservative critique of modernity and postmodernity, and it has a lot going for it.
https://medium.com/the-no%C3%B6sphere/i-joined-a-popular-incel-forum-heres-what-they-really-think-of-women-862eda9f2edf
"Plenty of other theories there suggest that its not actually possible to rape or sexually assault women since theyre not sentient enough to understand it, nor do they feel pain, and even if they do, they enjoy it.
Heres what some users have to say about this topic:
One reason women seek out and stay with attractive abusive men is because they enjoy being beaten up.
Rape or any kind of sexual violence should not count as a crime because foids are begging for it.
We must take foids by force like the animals they are.
Females dont care about consent very much; they care about Chadliness and the feelings they get when their instincts detect competitive genes. ( ) thats why females dont mind going to frat houses where raping and roofing are known to be common."
There's absolutely no reason to have sympathy with "incels" in their online incarnation. It's not the involuntary celibacy that's key to understanding them, it's that they blame women for it and hate them as a result. They are not morally superior to any other hate group and the most charitable thing I can say about anyone who doesn't realise that is that they're misguided and/or ignorant.
I agree!
Where I'm coming from in this thread is that I've seen people be called incels online, or in person, when they're blokes frustrated with dating culture. And I'm interested in what creates incels. How do you go from being normal to the resentment pit?
Wasn't aimed at you anyhow bruv. Skimmed through the thread and saw some odd comments that seemed to underplay what's going on so I thought I'd stick my oar in.
But there is reason to have sympathy for young men at risk of becoming part of that subculture. Just like Islamic radicalism.
Cheers pal. I'm super sensitised to this because one of my mates lost a lot of their acquaintances because they complained about a bad run of dates, in public, in a frustrated manner. Entitled, resentment, etc. Rumour spread like wildfire.
Agree.
They were cancelled?
But this goes against the idea that we seem to have taken for granted, that misogyny is a result of a lack of success with women. What youre saying here is that they begin in misogyny.
I guess there's something latent there. Like you and others, I've been through periods without sex and had the common sense to blame myself for it.
Yes. But IRL. Organising meat space meetups, nowadays, follows Twitter logic. When you do it through a meet ups server. It is scary. It might just be my environment though!
Is it another example of what Adorno referred to as pseudo-activism, where what matters is the badges you wear, the signals you transmit, and the minimal action you takeno matter how uselessaccording to templates that define your political fashion?
I think this is approximately true. Though it's also hard to talk in lots of spaces without sounding like a right wing nut job. The reasons being - what you're describing is close to the intended meaning of "virtue signalling", which is seen as a far right canard (it is) which gets used to undermine legitimate activism, undermine even moral disagreements. An act of virtue signalling thus construed makes sense as an attempt to shift the Overton window of public discourse - which is close to the intended meaning of the "culture war" (another canard). I get the impression relatively little of this behaviour happens in grassroots orgs (sample size 1).
Do you see a way to thread the needle here without steering into right wing nut job territory? We were also pretty close when trying to humanise "pre-incels".
I think any heterosexual male who's being honest will admit to the frustrations, challenges, pressures, and stresses of all sorts with interacting with women.
Some sympathy must lie with those who can't seem to figure it out or who are missing the ingredient for success. The consequences are significant. The difference between being single and having a family is tremendous .
The healthy way to deal with that lack of success is to try harder, seek help from friends and professionals, join social groups and other such things. But many aren't healthy and many lash out.
I can't sympathize with those who victimize others, but I do see a not entirely healthy structure in place to assure greater happiness on the relationship front. Some religious subcultures condemn the secular methods used for mate seeking and present their own, but their methods aren't always exactly wonderful substitutes.
But to the question as to why the incels? It's because our system doesn't assure success for too many people.
From the perspective of a gay man long gone from the dating scene, it does seem like these (mostly young?) straight men have a bad case of self-loathing, which in itself is odd and surprising-- that straight white men would be filled with self-loathing--if that's what it is.
I arrived in the big city gay dating scene with absolutely no preparation, no great social skills, no great assets (looks, height, wealth, etc.) and some liabilities. Still, I managed to figure out how to operate in the 1970s milieu and found partners and mates. There were / are gay men who are self-destructive and self-loathing, alcoholics to boot, who seem similar to incels.
What, other than a tendency toward self-destructive and self-loathing behavior, is keeping these guys from succeeding at least at minimal levels? Are they as inept in their occupational lives as they are in their after-hours lives?
Are they just surprised to discover Thoreau's insight--most men lead lives of quiet desperation--actually applies to them? Or is their problem that their desperation just isn't quiet enough?
A discussion of the contributions of the Christian religion to Enlightenment values and the rights of individuals--especially those of women--seems to me out of place in a thread about incels. It's true, though, that the conduct of many Catholic priests serve as examples of the potentially harmful results of sexual frustration, though primarily to children, not women. So perhaps there is a connection of a sort.
Regardless, I'd be happy to discuss those supposed contributions if anyone cares to do so.
@ChatteringMonkey isn't the one who brought religion into the discussion. That was @Christoffer. Then you stuck your head in, spouted out some unsupported and provocative statements, and followed up with "Just sayin." Methinks the laddie doth protest too much.
I quite understand that you'd rather not be an advocate for the claims that were made about Christianity. There's no reason to be concerned about that, really. It's quite alright.
I don't know enough about @ChatteringMonkey's claims to have an opinion. They seem plausible. I intend to follow up with the source he referenced. Unlike many here on the forum I don't have any antipathy toward religion. I suspect you can't separate it from other social factors when considering social history.
Shame is something that the society has put on to people by condemnation... which in the modern case is then viewed as oppression and hence the "positive" victimhood. I'll try to explain what I mean by this.
The emphasis on the "involuntary" aspect of not having sexual relations with women, especially being less attractive than other males physically, is something that underlines this modern positive victimhood. Fighting against the oppression of social norms is seen as being positive, especially when it's something you cannot change (like your appearance). Also what you mentioned as identity politics plays a part here as identity isn't confined to the traditional ones anymore.
Above all, when that condemnation is seen to come from certain groups, liberals, feminists and perhaps in this case the "picky" women themselves, that is something positive and encouraging. It's like when Hillary Clinton referred to the Trump supporters as deplorables, it was the best thing ever to happen to Trumpsters and for Trump. Besides, Trump's rise itself started in earnest with his remarks on Mexicans being rapists, which spurred general condemnation and hence intense media focus. Condemnations creates focus.
Similarly in this case, would there even be this thread if this internet group hadn't evoked condemnation and disapproval? Asexuality would not stir up similar debate. This is how internet and the algorithms of the social media work. We could be talk about a larger and more prevalent issue of loneliness, but that likely wouldn't be so interesting.
Part of it is sweeping generalisation and essentialising. Someone mutters a mere hint of anti-feminist or mysoginistic rhetoric and boom, people jump to conclusions like hopscotch. One becomes defined by what may have been a singular momentary thought or consideration.
The other part is attitude. If some does indeed have a consistent, enduring and caustically negative attitude towards dating or is preoccupied with lamenting over the quality of their sex life, people like to have words for such phenomena especially if they have seen a lot of people with the same behaviour. We by our very nature love to categorise everything from people to places to things into near little groups.
Probably the same reason flat earthers ramped up out of no where. In this hyperconnected era, thoughts and ideas run viral like wildfire. I doubt in a pre-internet era such echo chambers are that easy to come by. It would be like finding the other needles in a haystack.
But now the internet algorithms hastily match-make between groups with similar ideologies. On one side this is great for unifying like minded individuals. On the other hand it fuels cognitive bias and "justification by numbers".
Look how many of us there, thus we must be onto something/ correct. And that is a dangerous precedent
Firstly, its not for me to determine your claimed membership to a group. The one to approach in that case is the group itself and what they accept as criteria.
Secondly there are groupings based on innate characteristics of members - like groups for cystic fibrosis sufferers, groups for women, groups for the elderly, groups for certain ethnicities. So if you don't share these traits you can be an Ally or supporter of course but it's not like you can insist you have cystic fibrosis or are 85 years old when you don't and aren't just to be a member of the group.
Other groups are based on behaviours and beliefs. Like religions, language groups/dialects, sports teams fandoms etc. Nothing prevents one from joining any of these groups because the criterion can be met and is not innate nor biological.
I don't see how this relates to my earlier points. This seems tangential.
All I said is when a society behaves or is biased towards one groups favour. Any alternative groups are easily defined. Eg. Feminism exists much more easily and effectively as a movement in counter to an overtly mysoginistic society than it would if the society was already completely equal between sexes. If every had equal and fair treatment, what need would there be for any movements?
Close to right-wing nut job territory? I dont think so.
Whats better than submitting to the cancelling mob with self-censorship is thinking things through and speaking your mind. If youre not a right-wing nut job but what you say makes people think you are, then those people are the problem.*
But Im the wrong person to ask. I dont much like joining things.
* Its a bit more complicated than that.
My take it that this whole community-forming around misogynist values is a way to cope with their desperation yes.
The idea that they themselves are responsible for their situation, and feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem that come with that, is probably to hard to bear for them. And so they invent stories and a community around those stories that can serve as rationalizations that shifts the blame somewhere else.
EDIT: Put in more Nietzschean psychological terms,
either 1) you try to overcome your situation and learn some social skills and start self-actualizing (not everybody had the mentality to do this)
or 2) you spiral further down a path of lowering self-esteem, depression and inaction (from the perspective of the individual this probably the worst)
or 3) instead of this continued inward directed laceration, you let your resentment become creative and active, and create new standards of valuation wherein your situation isn't considered that bad
Flat earthers are actually the best example of this click bait culture, which dominates the internet.
An argument that can be shown to be false simply by going on to the seashore on a clear day and watch large ships sink into the horizon (and not become tiny specs) because of the Earth's curvature makes the topic easy to talk about. And that's the whole point. As internet groups go, those that are talked about rule. The "notoriety" of the Flat earthers are harmless, not so with other issues.
It's like Ali G interviewing the surgeon general and saying not all people will die... and the doctor believing he really is so clueless. Trolling is fun.
This phenomenon can be seen even here in PF. Just look at how much discussion threads and how long they have been about antinatalism. Antinatalism hits all the similar points. An absurd, easy to comment issue, which creates debate and hopefully heated opinions. Ten months ago @Baden decided to merge the antinatalism stuff together, but just look at how many threads on the bizarre topic there are.
I've no idea why it's so commonplace. My intuition asks that if self loathing is commonplace, what makes so many cis het white men hate themselves? If I knew that I'd be writing an exploitative self help book.
For what its worth, a gay mate of mine has no trouble finding sex through dating apps, but partnerships seem elusive.
Quoting Hanover
I get the feeling that this, as partner finding advice, is quite dated. The last few conversations I had with women about "men approaching you in social venues" is that it's seen as highly intrusive, bordering on... creepy. Consent through dating app swipe seems to be needed for them. Or alternatively, they need to be the one to approach a bloke.
I of course don't know how commonplace this is. (Sample size 6 cis het women).
Quoting Jamal
Yes!
Quoting Hanover
My Internal Twitter is screaming at you for this.
I don't believe my Internal Twitter. My only reason for telling you what it says is to highlight what happens if you say things like that in public. You get uncharitably shat on...
Quoting Jamal
I'm willing to bet that what can happen when you speak up about frustrations/anger at loneliness and romantic failure also contributes to making insular those awful communities, virtually. You get social shunning. People from your life disappear when you appear to have a problematic opinion. Social media etiquette IRL.
My Internal Twitter is telling me that what I just said construes those feelings of resentment as the responsibility of women to address. But it doesn't, if it's true it's simply tragic, no moral obligations involved
One might look at the defining features of such a group and the direction in which it seeks to influence society.
The incel is male, and self-defining as disempowered ( because 'involuntary') as a sexually active person. This immediately implies that there is a male need/right to heterosexual sex that society, (women specifically,) ought to provide and does not.
Incels demand vaginas like wheelchair users demand ramps, and parents of infants demand changing facilities, and black people demand fair policing. If one felt great sympathy with this deprived group, one might suggest state funded sexual social workers, to fill their needs. No one seems to have suggested that here , though. Ordinary private prostitution is the other obvious option for a freedom loving capitalist society, but again, that hasn't been put forward here, and is not indeed considered a solution by the movement itself.
What is left to agitate for, but the enforced subservience of women such that they do not have the right to refuse? This is called "rape culture".
I agree with the first bit. It's easy to be essentialised for one "bad look" in public. Or someone uncharitably shitting on you being taken as truth. I also agree with the second bit, and as a tendency it bugs me.
Incels: a misogynist hate movement so extreme they approve of enslaving and raping women. Living embodiments of rape culture as @unenlightened and @Baden astutely point out.
Bloke who gets frustrated with lack of romance in their life: not a threat, could fester if they don't check themselves.
Really? I haven't explored that online grotto. I just thought incels were disgruntled angry men who can't get a shag. They really want to enslave and rape women?
I think it's because most men growing up initially assume that everyone will have a partner. That there's a match for every person. This is ofc an ideal. Women believe similar also growing up - prince charming or such.
However it dawns on us as we mature that that is not the case. And not everyone manages to secure a partner nor the ability to have children even if they really want to.
For some this is devastating and the worst possible case scenario. For others they're fine with it and believe that life can be fulfilling without having a wife/ husband and children.
In the case of the former, people rationalise why they aren't in a relationship for all sorts of reasons. Often ones from self loathing or low self esteem. But perhaps more dangerously, they also rationalise why they deserve/demand or are entitled to one. How it is somehow societies fault and they are the victim.
Some men genuinely believe it's their unalienable biological right to have children. Which if course it is not. Having children is either accidental or mutually agreed but never forced (or should not be, morally speaking).
Having such an self proclaimed entitlement makes women the enemy in a society where they have their own rights to not have a husband nor have children.
And I think single women are often more likely to opt for no partner and children over settling for an undesirable partner.
I wouldn't say all incels are like this. Ofc not. Some are just disgruntled. Some aren't even incels their entire life and it's just a phase they go through before finding a happy relationship with themselves and with a woman.
Having said that, just as dabbling in incelship can be mild and temporary. It can also be extreme and permanent. And probably there are some malevolent and caustic men in the incel sphere that do indeed propagate a handmaid's tale dystopia where men ought to have total control over women. That having sex is their right.
This is of course the vast minority of cases, the most extreme scenario. But one that likely does exist to some extent
Some questions relating I wish more people would ask. :
1. Is it true?
How many of the incels are really celibate, is it really involuntary, and how can you tell, other then their own self-stigmatization?
2. When I type 'incel' into the search box, the picture that comes up is of a robust, good-looking young man. If he can't get a date, it's not because of his face.
So, what is the reason?
3. Who is being oppressed, in what way, by whom?
At what point in history did it become the social norm to demand physical attractiveness in men? And if women can - and are as a matter of course expected to - make an effort to improve their appearance to attract masculine attention, why is it such an unacceptable imposition on men?
4. What is it the members of this self-designated group actually want from society? What are they demanding? Is that something society owes them and is capable of granting?
5. Is any of that subculture really about loneliness, sadness, low self-esteem or lack of confidence?
That's how the 'movement' started. It was hijacked and sensationalized. Weaponized in more up-to-date jargon. For what purpose?
:up:
I think this is step one for understanding and dealing with the situation. Conflating those two groups isn't helpful. Both may experience self-loathing but the characteristic trait of incels is that they see women as animals to be used and abused for their pleasure and resent any social structure that prevents that.
Quoting unenlightened
@BC
Heterosexual men are of course not entitled to women, but, for the vast majority of men, they do require relationships with women for more meaningful, fulfilled lives. That is both a social and biological reality. The question then is how to best structure society for that to occur.
The flip side, not being discussed because this is a thread about the incel, a male creature, is what women may need for happiness, which is the matter for another thread. But, I will say that women tend to be more emotionally expressive toward other women than men are to men and they may feel less isolated because of that, but I'll wisely defer to women to speak for women.
Dating is a social construction that is obviously informed by biology, but the human mating dance isn't like the peacock's in that it is all biology, but it is also a social construct. What that means is that we can look at different cultures over different times and see how dating has occurred and then we can ask ourselves which has been most effective. These social constructions are not created as @unenlightened points out through state sponsered committees, but they emerge through different means.
How they date in traditional Indian society versus how they date in the rain forest versus how they dated in middle America in the 1950s versus how Muslims, Mormons, Jews, the royal family, the underclass, etc. varies greatly, and it constantly changes. What we're used to in secular Western culture has also seen great change recently. A dating culture typical in my lifetime involved finding a large room that could house available men and women, playing rhythmic music, and dousing it with alcohol. Compare that to what the Southern Baptists might have been doing in their planning an ice-cream social, certain Indian cultures in employing a match-maker, or even those that might purely arrange a marriage.
In Western society, in the past not so many years, we've moved to an online dating culture, which likely advantages some and disadvantages others. In the catalog dating world, you can be assessed on black and white credentials, which helps some and others not. This swipe right / swipe left world may not be the best one in terms of assisting the greatest number in finding happiness.
It is an interesting phenomenon that you can have literally tens of thousands of men and women
ostensibly looking for the same thing, yet so many are unable to find what they seek. That points to a poorly constructed dating culture at least for some.
This isn't to suggest that we should blame the women for not just being more willing to satisfy men because the women are no more to blame for the social constructs than the men. This is just to point out that dating culture is a social creation, and it may just be we're in a particularly challenging time for many men to succeed in it. My expectation is that some creative soul will arrive at a way to assist the incel in their pursuit of happiness. Typically when there is a demand, someone arrives at a way to fill it.
But, sure, an incel doesn't have the right to be a dick to women for his failures, and a woman has nothing to apologize about for in rejecting these men, but I do think there might be a systemic problem if there is a growing number of guys who are stuck in what they feel to be an impenetrable (unintended double entendre) lonliness.
I actually asked the spokesman of the the Incel-movement these questions, and he told me that they want nothing less than world-domination.
In their analysis, sexual reproduction, and the evolutionary downstream-effects in terms of social status, are the cause of a lot of hardship in men.
Therefor they want to abolish sexual reproduction (and as a consequence also women) to tackle the problem at the root-cause, and in doing so prevent a lot of pain, not only for men living now, but also in all future men.
To achieve this goal, a-sexual reproduction via cloning of men, should become the only legally allowed way to create offspring.
Since this can only really work in a globalized world if it is implemented unilaterally across the globe, world-domination should be the first goal of the incel-movement.
We can't ignore the fact that sex has a price in some instances. Sex work exists everywhere, all nations - one of the oldest professions on the world and ofc there is tourism based around the areas or nations that have it legalised.
The Internet and strip clubs also cater not to sex itself perhaps but definitely to a lot of kinks and fetishes and teases.
So, involuntary? No. Not definitively. An obstacle. For sure, definitely for some as it becomes a financial, legal issue and personality concept of ethics/morality for such men.
Okay, I"ll re-iterate why this shouldn't really be a concern other than for the incels themselves maybe.
Social power, the ability to influence large amount of people and maybe sway culture and values in certain directions, is what is relevant here.
I would argue that Incels will never gain any amount of social power to sufficiently alter the culture so it would become damaging to women and our culture as a whole... because they are almost by definition socially inept, unattractive etc. and we have some kind of biological preference for the attractive and the successful.
The idea that Incels might come to pose some kind of danger to society is purely hypothetical, it's not going to happen. People don't take them seriously, it's mostly a sad phenomenon of evolution in combination with our alienating culture.
Compassion may not be appropriate sure, especially if it is seen to exonerate, permit, validate or encourage such harmful ideals.
But understanding them is not an issue. Offering healthier alternatives based on the understanding again also not a bad thing. If we ignore something entirely it goes left unchecked.
I think most people would prefer to know what's going on and how threatening an ideal may be rather than to simply dismiss it hoping or assuming it'll go away by itself
Sure. But what healthier alternative and in what context exactly? And what reasoning are you offering to suggest it would be effective?
I don't agree with this, but this is not the place to take it up.
However, to a great many people receiving daily threats, and those who have already been attacked, it is very serious indeed. The fact that the 'movement' is spreading, growing, recruiting
and increasingly violent in its rhetoric is very serious.
Quoting Benj96
I'm sure lots of people have problems around sex, sexuality, and the need for love.
That wasn't my concern. I just wish people would ask more often: Is what somebody claims on the internet necessarily the truth, or any version of a truth? What is your reason for believing or disbelieving it? What is your reason for extrapolating it to a version you can understand and sympathize with?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
So you and others keep saying. How do you know? What does "almost by definition" actually mean? Might there not be motivations other than self-pity involved?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I've heard that argued about some groups who have since done a good deal of damage. ISIS comes to mind... Society as whole might recover from them; the direct casualties will not. I consider poisoning a large segment of the next generation of men to the whole concept of healthy relationships as a damage.
what I think is important to understand is that the incel movement is not part of the counter-culture, it is part of the mainstream, just as rape is, and just as laws against abortion are. They all function to control women's sexuality in society in support of patriarchy. They are part of the system of punishment for women that are not under the control of a man.
I really wasn't aware of the organized effort of this group in celebrating their failures and then blaming it on women, but I took the term "incel" to more so identify with the disenfrachised male. I researched it some to learn they are more a malicious group than I realized. To the extent an incel is the group identified more formally, fuck them. To the extent they are more just a group of disenfranchised males unable to find a partner, that's what my posts are meant to reference.
It's hard to fathom how vicious their organized online incarnation is but it seems the nature of such groups in such media is to distill down to the most potent form.
Maybe counter-culture vs mainstream is not the right binary and we should talk of explicit and implied culture or something. I'm not sure, but certainly "counter-culture" insofar as it implies a threat to dominant social power structures is utterly antithetical to a phenomenon that, running with the metaphor above, reflects patriarchy in its most distilled form. At the very least that might be a fruitful topic for further debate and analysis here.
I guess I would doubt the degree to which the Incel-movement has an additional effect on these issues. Violence and rape have been a part of our history since the beginning. I don't think we need organisations and/or ideologies to have this be an issue.
Quoting Vera Mont
Well an incel means involuntary single, so you have "almost by definition" guys we are not good at getting in relationships... that is probably because of a number of factors, but high on that list would be things like attractiveness and social skills I presume.
I think the motivation is to feel better about themselves predominately.
Quoting Vera Mont
I suppose there is always a remote possibility, like how Christianity became a world religion against all odds and almost by accident. But still, on the list of things to worry about these days, I would put them very low on that list. There's so much and my time and energy is limited.
But it is the right binary.
1. The culture is patriarchal.
Therefore:
2. The counterculture is feminist.
3. The incel movement is aligned with and has the same goals as the culture.
Therefore:
The incel movement is aligned with mainstream culture.
So I dunno, Incels and the patriarchy just seems like a weirdly forced association.
But appearances are deceptive. Compare with the case of the poor white racist:
[quote= Dylan]The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.[/quote]
Yeah I had been thinking about this specifically. It's an interesting question. It definitely was the case that racism was an ideology of the ruling class and patriarchy originally. But I don't think I would say a white supremacist is part of the ruling ideology or patriarchy these days, if outing oneself as one would probably get you fired in a matter of days in most places. Those who have power set the rules, that is what power means in practice, therefor I'd say if you have to hide who you are, you are not a part of the powers that be.
Here's a question, would you say what is culture and what is counterculture can change over time? And what then would be the criterium by which we judge that? I'd say that criterium would be power.
Yes, I understand, and in retrospect think you're correct. It was an expression of surprise, frankly; one better made in casual conversation than here.
Sure, culture changes. I presume that matrilineal culture was dominant in prehistory, simply because we knew where babies come from - between the legs of a woman. Somewhere about 1-2 millennia BC. patriarchy came to dominate. But I don't know how you measure power in this context. The ruler needs an army; the chess player needs pawns, and the little people are what the culture is made of, more so than the powerful's ablity to control it.
To change the mix of metaphors; the powerful can only blow the dog- whistle that the dogs have already been trained to respond to.
I agree, but admit to antipathy towards particular religions, especially the Abrahamic versions, which I think are especially exclusive and intolerant; often violently so, and similar religions which claim to be the only way.
Modern liberal democracies, while remaining patriarchal, no longer see fit to so self-describe. So, within the mainstream there's an image and reality split, of which organized incels are a symptom. Reality gives them the green light so the image can paint them as an anomaly and in this nebulous lacuna they can fester and grow. This is why I'm thinking in terms of explicit and implied cultures. I don't want to over-theorize but if you take the incel movement as a filter to view society you get neither an entirely clear nor an entirely distorted view. It's something like patriarchy suffering an identity crisis; optimistically, desperation that marks a positive transition; pessimistically, a point of extreme degradation that stabilizes a relatively less degraded whole.
I'm thinking it used to be pretty clear what the dominant culture was (or maybe this is just the benefit of hindsight), but now not so much these days... we are left with a lot of splintering and polarization. Looking back maybe this will turn out to be a transitional period.
Good post.
Quoting Baden
If you listen to the rhetoric, you get a totally distorted view where Kings and queens and politicians and functionaries are all selflessly "serving" civil society.
If you listen to the rhetoric, rape is a terrible crime that must be a top priority to investigate and prosecute.
If you listen to the rhetoric, God, himself is a suffering servant, and He has appointed the great and the good to wisely rule over the people.
The way doublespeak works is that the preaching is "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." but the practice is that it doesn't matter if you cheat as long as you win. This is mainstream culture, and as old as politics and patriarchy. Rape is a terrible punishment for wayward women, that is rarely itself punished because it 'encourages the others'. The incel movement is patriarchy without the bullshit patriarchy exposed. OF COURSE, no patriarch will admit this, even to themselves. We are lovers of women, not haters.
I don't think it's just men, I think it's all kinds of people - perhaps everyone to some extent. It just so happens we are talking about a particular manifestation that is specific to men. Societal expectations are hard to deal with. That's certainly true for me and it has had a damaging effect on my life and happiness. I've been fortunate in how things have worked out. It could have been otherwise.
I don't think this is true at all. Feeling disempowered doesn't imply anything. It is a common and understandable reaction to an unsatisfying life.
A well-thought-out and humane post.
Feeling disempowered implies feeling a desire or need for power. Do you feel wingless? Probably not unless you wish you were a butterfly or an angel or a pilot or something.
A few years ago there was a nasty, bitter discussion which proposed the same measures you are describing, but with the roles reversed - only women would be allowed and men would be allowed to die out. It was called, ironically enough, "A plan for world peace" and it was started, ironically enough, by a man. The thread has been deleted, but there is a discussion I started in response.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3366/should-a-proposal-to-eliminate-men-from-society-be-allowed-on-the-forum/p1
Perhaps, but it doesn't imply "...that there is a male need/right to heterosexual sex that society, (women specifically,) ought to provide and does not.
No, that's implied by the other half of the word IN(voluntary)CEL(ibate). The complaint is that they are disempowered from heterosexual sex. Dude, It's looking like you have no idea what is being talked about. 8 pages in that is not a great look.
The fact I don't agree with a lot of what is being written here is not a sign I don't understand what is being discussed. And I haven't been aiming for "a great look." You are one of the people I respect most here on the forum, but I don't appreciate you trying to shame me into shutting up. The fact that you, of all people, have done that shows me it is important to keep trying to get my points across.
An old joke - Shut up he explained.
I don't think this is a joke at all. Feeling disempowered doesn't imply anything. It is a common and understandable reaction to an unsatisfying life.
I'm wondering why the topic of incels, this legion of unattractive toads, is so popular a thread on TPF.
A weird reverso of Incelitry is B&D, where some mean actually require the abuse of a woman [or in gay S&M, another man] in order to achieve sexual satisfaction. BD/SM is not, in its more extreme manifestation, symbolic -- it involves actual bondage, whipping, beating, and so on. The numbers of people involved in this behavior are fairly large, given what is involved.
I hereby swear on a stack of Kinsey Reports that this information is entirely second hand.
I saw this video by Jordan Peterson, who I'm not terribly a fan of, but his videos have become ubiquitous and I stumbled upon it the other day. It got me to thinking that perhaps these guys we've scoffed off as losers might be suffering more than we considered. I'm not talking about those who are attacking women and are horrible people, but I'm referring to those who have personality flaws that interfere with their happiness to such a degree.
I just think what I take for granted, the ability to form and keep relationships, and the central role that plays in my life, to have an inability to do that. And even worse, to have an instinct to react in a way that makes the formation of those relationships all the more unlikely.
:up:
There's more to be said but seems like diminishing returns when some here insist on wearing their doctor's masks over their eyes.
One's peers may not be living lives of unparalleled satisfaction and happiness, but maybe they are successful enough to maintain a convincing veneer of comfort and joy.
Life sucks for everyone to some degree and in some ways; for some people it sucks a lot more. We can and should be compassionate towards them. That's one thing.
Social media operate through extremely active algorithms which seek clicks and amplify whatever click-pattern gets more clicks. Thus, one ends up getting a lot more offers to look at progressive sites, conservative sites, anarchist sites, dogs-and-cats-being-funny sites, renaissance music sites OR, if one clicks in this manner, crypto-fascist sites, incel sites, nazi sites, ISIS sites, Christian nationalist sites, white supremacy sites, and so on. That's another thing.
Why do social media operate in this way? Media users may provide YouTube, BlogSpot, Tumblr, FaceBook, et al with a lot of free content, but server farms, electricity providers, employees and shareholders have to be paid for. How do social media do that? Mostly through advertising. How much a site can get for an advertisement depends on eyeball volume.
Social media are not social service providers or healthy lifestyle engineers. They go where the wind blows.
The presence of a given type of content tends to validate the views of those landing on a preferred site, be they MAGA Republicans, incels, vegans, philosophical Georgia lawyers, or aged gay socialists. We all fit into someone's market niche, like it or not, click, click, click.
It's difficult to know if you and @T Clark have realised yet how offensive is the idea that women (especially) should be compassionate towards an organized online group ("incels", the subject of this thread) that considers them to be semi-sentient animals who want to be and should be raped by these incels and otherwise enslaved to give them pleasure.
A couple of thoughts:
I've gone back through my posts in this thread and I didn't find any where I suggested compassion towards "an organized online group ("incels", the subject of this thread) that considers them to be semi-sentient animals who want to be and should be raped by them and otherwise enslaved to give them pleasure."
Are you suggesting I should not express opinions you find offensive? Did I write anything in my responses that violated site guidelines? Let me be clear - I'm not writing my posts to be provocative or troublesome. I'm not a troll. I believe the things I've written. I think they are reasonable and humane.
Whatever I've said about my posts are equally true for @BC's. His support for and understanding of the oppressed is unique here on the forum. For you take him to task is a joke.
I don't recollect advising women to be compassionate, or anything else.
Is this your way of saying you never understood what the thread was about or you never understood what incels were? I think it's fair to be curious about who you think you're going to bat for here. Would you also demand compassion for Nazis and white supremacists? Or is it that you never meant incels but as Hanover has specified, unaligned marginalized young men who are not misogynistic etc. I think it's reasonable to ask that that be specified considering there's a significant difference there. I don't believe it is at all humane to demand sympathy for victimizers over victims. Quite the reverse. (Not a mod issue btw, no.)
Point out the comments you find offensive and I'll respond.
Quoting BC
You said "we", not particular individuals. In normal parlance that is a generalised "we" that includes women and everyone else. So this:
Quoting BC
suggests you don't know what you're saying. I don't want to hound you but I think it's fair to ask what you're talking about.
I never said I found any particular comment offensive. I said I found it difficult to understand your position and so I'm asking these questions to clarify where you are coming from. So, please do.
"the victims should be treated with compassion"
Mercy is a component of compassion or forbearance (see forbearance sense 1) shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power. also : lenient or compassionate treatment. begged for mercy. : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder. : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion.
Quoting Baden
You are being pedantic. "We" is the plural form of one individual. If "we" must include all 8 billion people on earth, men and women alike, then so be it.
Quoting Baden
One would think a linguist (you have been accused of being a linguist, I don't have any evidence either way) would have more facility reading.
A psychiatrist was asked if psychopaths (whom can be credited with some horrific crimes) should receive care. His response was that psychopaths suffer from very significant abnormalities and deserve compassionate care. Again, the offer of compassion and mercy does not include approval, any more than forgiving someone who attempted to murder oneself implies approval.
Announcing that what incels are saying is offensive to women (never mind most men) is boilerplate--a rote text, like the rote phrase, "incredibly racist" and a few dozen other expressions,
That's pretty much where I am. I think the level of depravity is hard to understand at first and one might be tempted to conflate them with others with similar problems minus the hatred. But when it's pointed out and others have specified distinctions, an apparent refusal to do so is odd to me.
Well, good luck with the psychopaths. Seriously though, I never said compassion meant approval and if all you are saying is we should always be compassionate for everyone regardless of what they've done or what they stand for then you really aren't saying anything but just effacing all moral distinction.
Are petty thieves more deserving of compassion than those who engage in grand theft? No. Is compassion and mercy something that can be casually granted by the individual without much effort, such that just any Tom, Dick, Mary, or Jane can emit compassion without inconvenience? No.
Further, compassion and mercy are not like "Get Out Of Jail" cards in Monopoly.
You are shallower than I thought you were.
The victims of thieves are deserving of more compassion than the perpetrators of theft. The victims of violence and rape are deserving of more compassion then the perpetrators of violence and rape and the victims of online misogynistic abuse are deserving of more compassion than the perpetrators. You don't get moral brownie points for a pseudo-Jesus act that pretends they are all the same.
Like I said before, I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. But if you do, back this up with reasoning and evidence or I'll just need to put it down to more of the same.
They say... But did they want to? Were they trying? If they were unsuccessful, you assume it's because of factors they can't help and can't change - and that's generous of you. But is not necessarily the case.
Nice guys want to understand things in their own framework, on their terms. So do not-nice ones. So they misinterpret and misestimate one another's intentions.
It is undeniable that many in that group are extereme misogynists. It does not appear though that all those malicious attributes are essential for an incel to exist. Some may just be sad sacks, worthy of some degree of sympathy.
The steelman position here is in defending the incel who lacks the malicious attributes and seeing just the lonely socially incompetent person as someone who might do better if the dating system and relationship rules du jour were different.
I am not convinced that today's online swiping system is the best we've got.
As to the meta conversations about what sympathy ought be afforded the devil, I break the tension with a musical interlude:
Maybe they are not all that socially inept and unattractive, maybe some choose to remain single...but ultimately I don't think even that matters a whole lot. The label Incel itself, regardless of who they are, isn't going to attract a large percentage of the population. And their morally abject ideas certainly aren't going to help... So I can't really see them becoming anything other than a fringe group.
No, they do have an ideology and they are not shy about telling us what it is. You've been given plenty of examples. Stop conflating "incel" with average dude who can't get laid. An average dude who can't get laid doesn't necessarily identify as an "incel" because he probably knows they are an online hate group.
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/incels-involuntary-celibates
"The incel ideology is rooted in the belief that women have too much power in the sexual/romantic sphere and ruin incels lives by rejecting them
Incels are the most violent sector of the manosphere, and have perpetrated a range of deadly attacks against women"
"the label of incel adopted now describes much more than loneness or singledom, including the subset of incels who are consumed by homicidal rage."
"The underlying theme of incel ideology is that the current sexual marketplace gives women too much freedom to choose their own partners. Those partners tend not to be incels, who in turn believe they are being deprived of their sexual birthright. Some incels charge that women who deny them sex are committing reverse rape just as dangerous and harmful as actual rape."
Incels are a hate group no better than Nazis or the KKK.
:up:
Likewise. Very comfortable.
"Much of the knowledge of incel ideology has been derived from observational analysis of online forums which may not represent all or even most incels. There is a question around which posts should be considered and filtering based on popularity and effect compounded by prevalence of deliberately posting for controversy. Some researchers have tried selecting posts for a period of time rather than based on popularity. The attitudes of those who post in forums and those who read but do not participate can be different. In in-person interviews with a female interviewer, incels were found to be more interested in discussing their lived experiences than in discussing anti-feminist
ideology.[75]:?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
It's like you're the definition police that says your definition must control even when others tell you they're using a different definition.
We'll call your icels "Aincels" and mine "Bincels."
I sympathize with Bincels, not Aincels. Does that make us all happy?
It think it's actually a pretty common phenomenon that recurs time and again in history. In Europe for instance, at the start of Islamic State(IS) and the terrorist attacks in European cities, there were a lot of young European Muslim men "radicalizing" and joining the ranks of IS. Looking at their profiles it were mostly young men, without a family of their own, without any direction in life etc etc... I think there's a story to be told that goes a bit further than simple moral condemnation of this particular incarnation of involuntary celibate men, and looks at how societies historically dealt with them.
I'm all for saving anyone worth saving. But yes, we should call out this online world for what it is and not sugarcoat it. Anyway, my point is made. Good night.
[hide]Go ahead you can cry Cornelius!
Of course the victims of crimes against persons deserve compassion--compassion in the form of concrete succor. No one has difficulty in expressing compassion for victims, nor should they. (Well, some people blame the victims and pile on blame.)
It is not the case that perpetrators of crimes deserve "more compassion" than victims and I didn't claim as much. Apparently you feel that they deserve no compassion at all. Quantifying compassion, mercy, and other such terms is difficult.
What does compassion mean when there are actually, physical offenders -- like murderers, rapists, wife beaters, child sexual exploiters who have actually done what incels talk about?
Compassion means
a) we avoid de-humanizing them.
b) we accord them protection under the law (fair criminal proceedings, etc.)
c) we don't grab the accused and lynch them--even if they do belong to the Klan or are verified incels.
d) we don't legally execute them (in most places, at least)
e) we don't lock them up for life without extenuating circumstances
f) we offer offenders (who carried out incel-type acts) therapy and rehabilitation (in many places)
There is no justice in locking an offender up for 20 years in a intensely anti-social institution (prison). until they are even crazier and less able to function in a normal citizen's role--and them discharge them, locked and loaded to be even more dangerous problem.
If we are not going to lock them up forever, then we had best either shoot them right away, or attempt to reform them through compassionate programs.
Quoting Baden
Moral guidance from you? Hardly,
I also support the humane treatment of prisoners. That's a different issue. But the reason I claim compassion is the wrong orientation towards hate groups like incels is that it does nothing to discourage their growth and the more they grow the more harm they can do. So compassion ends up being self-serving for those who experience it (sure, it's nice to feel you're a nice person) and otherwise useless.
People tend to react strongly to social forces so I'm saying the best way to confront clear social evils that we can't jail people for is social opprobrium. And the message to Nazis, racists, incels etc should not be one that in any way facilitates them in claiming victimhood because that's always a large part of the propaganda machine by which they spread their ideologies. You don't fight neo-Nazis who claim to be victims of Jewish conspiracies by taking an orientation of compassion towards them and you don't fight misogynists who claim to be victims of women in that way either. That approach just aids them in turning reality on its head, whereas our focus should always be on trying to stop them and minimize their impact.
As a caveat, I concede that this doesn't mean that if we meet an individual incel, racist etc in real life, compassion is necessarily the wrong way to steer them in a better direction. That's completely context dependent. (I took that approach once with a student who was a homophobe). But to me, that's different to how we talk about the issue in general terms and I reject the idea that compassion is a good in itself. It may feel good to those that wield it but insofar as it aids and abets social evils / dangerous ideologies it's the wrong approach.
https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2836703001/?ref_=tt_vi_i_2
Why not play into this? Because we have set up this Manichean distinction, wherein they are purely victimizers, i.e. the enemy we should fight at all cost, VS the victims we should protect at all cost? Can't they be both victims and victimizers, as they appear to be?
Isn't this essentially the same mistake as the criminal system is making in focusing on retribution instead of rehabilitation?
I agree that the Manichean distinction is counter productive, but I don't think supporting incels in seeing themselves as victims as likely to be more productive. In fact seeing oneself as a 'victim' and commiseration with other 'victims' seems to me to be at the core of incelism.
Life isn't fair, but life being unfair doesn't equate to there being a victimizer. To "play into this" notion that incels are victims doesn't seem likely to get incels out of the victim mentality that is a big part of the problem they have. Acknowledging to an incel that life isn't fair and perhaps they did get the short stick in some regards I'd go along with. However, what seems likely to me to be most beneficial for the incel (and society at large) is for the incel to stop obsessing about being a victim, and start learning whatever they need to learn to improve their social competence.
As an aside, does anyone want to venture a guess as to what percentage of members of this forum believe in libertarian free will, determinism, and anything in between?
Yeah I mostly agree with this, I do wonder (in light of you question about determinism) how relevant the distinction really is that we seem to be making between unfairness caused by non-human factors and unfairness caused by human actors.
Quoting wonderer1
I think a small majority maybe theoretically is some kind of compatibilist determinist, but in practice, in their moral views, most are more on the side of libertarian free will it seems. I mean, I would also call it a useful or even necessary illusion probably, if I was pushed on it.
Good wondering. :wink:
Perhaps it makes sense to see incels as people whose recognition that there is unfairness is valid, but who fail to see the unfairness as being the result of the nature and nurture that resulted in them being an incel, and mistakenly attribute the unfairness to women?
Yeah. I'm a determinist, but that doesn't mean I can prevent my brain's tendency to view people simplistically as free willed agents, or that there isn't a socially pragmatic necessity for viewing ourselves and others as free willed agent to at least some extent.
Yes, I would add to that, they probably originally started from the equally false notion that they themselves were entirely to blame for their failure... and then, to feel better about themselves, invented other stories that shifts the blame from themselves to women or society at large maybe. Blaming the physical world, or acknowledging it as a cause, doesn't quite seem to cut it in our psychology, or maybe that's just the way we are taught to think as a result of being raised in a moralizing culture.
Right. Undoubtedly, for at least some percentage of incels, blaming the physical world would amount to blaming God, and they aren't able to go there.
It's popular because it exemplifies common human fears: ugliness, unlovability, failure to thrive/prosper, social excommunication/pariahism, depression, inequality and failure to successfully bear children/propagate ones lineage.
This is human nature. No, not even human nature, just nature. "Survival of the fittest" and all it's catastrophic possibilities/implications for the supposedly "unfit".
Many other topics or subjects are also popular for the same reason: "if a good god exists why do children die of cancer?" or "antinatalism" or "the wealth gap" or "should euthanasia be a human right?" or "what do we owe eachother?" and of course "incelship".
All pertain to the innate inequality in "right to life" and "ability to survive and thrive" that we as humans face being biological and under the reign of nature.
All in all they come down to human morality. Do we simply look out for ourselves and our immediate people, let nature do it's thing and obey natural selection, or do we go against the grain/tide of nature and try to take control of our human fates. To establish a means to overcome the hurdles of living so we can be proud or free from shame/guilt that comes with being able to empathise with others of our species.
I think civilisation; tech, medicine, law and philosophy are symbolic that we as a species have opted to maximise knowledge, control and ownership of our collective trajectory, rather than let natural selection do our bidding for us as other animals do.
The one constant is: you can't tell people anything they're determined not to know.
Knowledge/wisdom falling on deaf ears is considered "ignorance."
For me society/social cohesion is born of and propagated by a permanent state of autocorrection. Re-evaluation and implementation of corrective measures to bring things back to balance.
On the other side, anti-social barbarianism is just a collection of myriad self-affirmed, self righteous and self interested groups at odds with one another. Where "others downfall is their success."
I for one prefer the idea of a united society based on compromise. It may not be perfect. And for sure it has made grave mistakes in the past. But any sign of actual progress is in acknowledging those mistakes, some apologies, some forgiveness, and ensuring as best we can that they don't occur again.
We live and we (hopefully) learn.
That is a society I'm content to participate in.
When the object of social opprobrium cares about others' opinions, that approach may work. I can cite zero (or very very few) results from my condemnations. The Philosophy Forum, or left wing radical papers are something of an echo chamber themselves, in that the appeal is to a very narrow (and small) group. Hard core racists, christian nationalists, abusive sexists, incels, nazis, fascists, terrorists--the whole cart load of mixed nuts--are not reading you, me, us. They have their own echo chambers.
If condemnation has no significant effect, what does? I wish I knew. Don't we all?
Racism may have been lessened by laws limiting its expression. The same can be said for sexism, in a very qualified way. It seems to take decades of very gradual changing social norms to see major change. Material shifts tend to drive these gradual social changes.
Got to go.
Well I'd say looking at things simplistically and assigning blame on the basis of our simplistic 'understanding' of things is just something all of us social primates do, at least from time to time.
Whether it is incels, feminists, or anyone else wallowing in such a state of mind, it is unfortunate.
Agreed.
You might want to add an intensifier to that, what the Jesuits call "invincible ignorance".
Quoting Benj96
"It's not enough that dogs succeed; cats must fail!"
Quoting Benj96
Yours is a healthy "philosophical" approach. Carry on.
I know, it depends. If you sound like Adorno and you make a point like: "public speech in favour of marginalised identities is often a means of garnering social capital, which appropriates the struggle for minority rights" is spicy, but probably okay. But it's largely the same as: "woke liberals virtue signal just to look good in the culture war".
I find it a difficult thing to think about in general. I'd be very suspicious of the latter on principle. I'd be suspicious of the former if it was used in defence of the latter. But I'm more inclined to think of the former as being... reasonable? Said by a non-ideologue? So I'm positively predisposed to it
That said, there's a decent argument that sometimes not being an ideologue doesn't matter. EG, a good faith poster saying the former as part of a twitter dog pile.
This open access paper, published last month, is quite interesting:
The Rage of Lonely Men: Loneliness and Misogyny in the Online Movement of Involuntary Celibates (Incels)
Four things about it:
1. Incels or proto-incels feel loneliness in three ways: in terms of intimacy, friends, and social status.
2. Their loneliness is transformed into misogyny by means of ressentiment.
3. Joining the incel community exacerbates this loneliness, fostering or producing ressentiment, even while providing some degree of social acceptance. This is because it does not provide the kind of social acceptance that they need, i.e., it does not provide intimacy, real friends, or respectability/status in wider society.
4. Joining the incel community means joining a movement with a doctrine. Thus new members undergo indoctrination.
EDIT: Sorry everyone, I forgot to say: incels are really bad! Grrr! :wink:
Ah yes from Nietzsche. Sublimation of loneliness or envy into contempt.
Thank you for the link I shall have a read through
I also interpreted it like this. But I believe there's an additional element; those three deficiencies get internalised and seen as universal/essential to the proto-incel. Universal in the sense that reality will always treat them that way; they can give up or adapt. Essential in the sense that reality will treat them that way due to their own personal deficiencies relative to perceived norms.
On the other hand, it probably is a symptom of the stress of the social change that's taken place over the last 100 years.
Yes, that makes sense, although I doubt this is always present before joining up. Intuitively Id expect some of them to join while still thinking theyre just going through a bad patch, only universalizing and essentializing it during their indoctrination.
Agreed. So, that's a candidate answer to:
Quoting Jamal
However, Im wary of answers that go something like this: lonely young men are being turned into misogynists by reactionary patriarchal ideology, to which theyre being exposed because of the internet. I mean, I think thats true, but (a) it might deflect the sociological questions, and (b) it might fail to appreciate the ideology as itself something new.
Daryl Davis, a black musician, appears to have an approach that works for him. I've read that he convinced 200 KKK members to disrobe, one by one, through befriending them. I wonder how much of that is due to the power of music.
It's not a very instrumental statement. Reactionary patriarchal ideology's been largely the same for decades, right. The same themes and attitudes, different forms of expression. "Why now?" is the question. Just like "Why now?" is the question for the rice of fascism from reactionary sentiment.
I agree. I'm discomforted by the statement because it's quite individualising. Everyone is exposed to reactionary patriarchal ideology, why do some men react by by becoming incels and others react by joining feminist causes? If you can stop the explanation at individual personality traits, it's no longer structural. There has to be some societal signal in the noise of our bodies.
It's kinda just moralism otherwise. And that can be useful as a weapon.
You two appear to be in an echo chamber wrestling with your own biases. Start with considering the possibility that there are significant concerns driving all aspects of reactionary conservatism.
I think marriage is more about identifying patriarchal lineage. The temple prostitutes have a civilizing effect on the population, according to the epic of Gilgamesh. Sex calms people down.
We don't have temple prostitutes. Prostitution is dishonorable in our world (for the most part). This makes that path problematic for some.
Quoting TheArchitectOfTheGods
Maybe, but whatever the basis might be for the institution of marriage, it has served as a source of stability for quite a while.
It is interesting to speculate whether prostitution might have become dishonorable only after the invention of marriage, precisely to protect the new social institution of marriage. Groups of Chimpanzees or primitive stone age people may have non-dishonorable prostitution, but they don't have marriage, and they would have non-eligible male group members (involuntary not celibate, but companionless, chimpanzees). Apparently what involuntary celibates struggle with is not so much lack of sex, but lack of companionship and perhaps more importantly, lack of recognition by the other sex.
Quoting frank
It absolutely has, which was also my point why I believe it was introduced in the first place, to stabilize the social group. It is therefore interesting to observe the development of current (post)modern society where there are no more forced marriages, only love marriages, which fact could provide an answer to the original poster's question why the "incel" problem is becoming more noticeable and online "incel" groups are attracting a following. Societies which still follow to a large extent the traditional model of forced or arranged marriage (like India or other parts of the world) should have comparatively small "incel" (online) groups, because here forced marriage still arguably successfully helps to stabilize society.
Don't know why prostitution is dishonorable.
If anything, prostitution is selling ones innate qualities (sexual attractiveness/beauty) and personal skills (sex) for monetary gain.
What is the difference between this and being a model (which also sell inherent beauty/sexual attractiveness). Or those that sell innate skills other than sex: strength - wrestlers, athletes etc. Or intellect - academics, professors, scientists etc.
"mind for sale"- the purview if the intellectual, and "body for sale"- the purview of the sex worker or model. Or "skills for sale" - the purview of everyone else, ought not be seen as more or less honorable than one another.
We all sell our strengths and abilities. For some that is sex.
There are two meanings of "incel.". One is a derogatory term for a guy who can't get laid. The other is a self-applied term for guys who think there's something wrong with our society that would be corrected by reducing the autonomy of women.
I think the term for guys who are lonely and want female companionship, but have trouble engineering that, is just: lonely? Socially inept? I don't know.
It also enables misogynistic men to buy a wife/ sex slave/ punching bag and save a ton of money, risk of disease and legal hassle on prostitutes. (You know they're not all voluntary independent contractors, either, right?)
I agree. Why do you think the availability of prostitution does not meet the needs of incels?
Can you provide anything to suggest that you have not just invented this? Wiki has only the second meaning :
[quote=wiki]An incel (/??ns?l/ IN-sel, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate")[1] is a member of an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.[2][3][4] Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment and hatred, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people.[5][17] The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem" that is included in their list of hate groups.[18][19] Incels are mostly male and heterosexual,[13][15][20] and are often white.[21][22][23][24][25] Estimates of the overall size of the subculture vary greatly, ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals.[26][27]
Since 2014, multiple mass killings have been perpetrated by self-identified incels, as well as other instances of violence or attempted violence. Incel communities have been increasingly criticized by scholars and commentators for their misogyny, the condoning and encouragement of violence, and extremism.[/quote]
I guess I could look for a citation. Didn't realize there was any question about it though.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Is+%22incel%22+a+derogatory+term+for+a+guy+who+can%27t+get+laid.&client=safari&rls=en&ei=N1pzZOexOZCR8gKkppHIDA&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwinqYCbkpj_AhWQiFwKHSRTBMk4ChDy0wN6BAgFEAc&biw=1252&bih=598&dpr=2
I'm not sure what you're asking. The term started out as a derogatory term. Eventually it became an online phenomenon where males adopted the label with a sense of victimization.
Like any internet fixture, its population is varied. In general, as I said, the theme is that their problems are rooted in women's rights, which creates strong, independent women who can pick and choose who they have sex with.
It's mostly a ridiculous spray of useless bytes. Could someone commit rape or murder and point to incel culture as his motive? Sure. Make of that whatever you like. My give a damn is busted.
The 'digital age' is doing a number on kids and young adults, by completely socially (and mentally) disregulating them.
Perfectly normal people are unable to find a mate, and are looking for answers why. Predictably, some become very resentful.
My sense is that a certain subgroup of people - extravert, confident, etc. - are still able to go about their social needs through the dating scene/dating apps/clubbing, whereas the more introverted, shy types completely miss the boat, since those types have always relied on a more gradual type of relation-building - something which is becoming harder and harder.
Quoting frank
Wiki says not. Do you have any evidence that wiki is wrong?
Quoting frank
I'm asking as politely as I can whether you have any evidence of its being used as a derogatory term, aside from the derogatory attitude sensible folks have subsequently taken to the online self- styled internet groups?
And I think I have my answer; you got nothing.
Quoting frank
I give a damn, though, that you are peddling blatant untruths on the forum, and thereby derailing and undermining a proper discussion.
Wow. You're getting hard core on this. As always, if you want to know the uptodateslang, you can go to a slang dictionary .
Built like a discord mod. :lol:
Quoting unenlightened
Holy shit, man. Why not just totally flip out about something that really doesn't matter?
There's beauty all around us. We take it for granted.
Why not just retire disgracefully? Why go on defending something you think doesn't matter? Why try and make out that I've got a problem, because I dare to question your bullshit?
Is your ego that fragile?
I agree.
Although just how many incels there really are is an important question. Is this really an important question or not? Or just put up there as an "important" question.
For example in my country every fifth adult lives alone. About one third of adults are single. Half of them want to be in a relationship. So with those statistics, I guess my country ought to be swarming with incels... assuming this many of the single men are indeed incels.
But the amount of people who suffer under the same social problems is probably quite high, especially among the youth whose upbringing has been dominated by the birth of the internet.
I think it is a matter of weak brains that are more susceptible to religiosity, ideology, and magical sophistic and same-sex solipsism. It is no mystery that incels have a direct connection to scientism that supports their delusions and conclusions of females and women, and it is this that directly separates an incel from a sexless man that does not identify as an incel; because to identify as an incel is to accept the ideology of the incel that is cultivated around black pill science, lookism and biological reductionism - in a way, it is more respectable than Manosphere men who reject the realities of how deformity can hinder a man or woman from finding attractive mates, but the incel 'science' is a radicalized delusional form of self-defeatist obsession and OCD, many having a form of body dysmorphia to boot.
On the topic of mental disorder and illness, covert narcissism, OCD, body dysmorphia (see incel 'bone-crushing' and obsession with scientific facial terms and plastic surgery), autism, bi-polar, depression, impulsivity disorders, substance additions, and debilitating social anxiety all exist in these communities, as well as learned sociopathic behavior and inactive antisocial traits - all in which have nothing to do with women or lack of, in addition to being more susceptible to religiosity, ideology, and magical sophistic and same-sex solipsism they also have all these underlying conditions which also have nothing to do with women, nor would having a woman suddenly appear solve these issues. They would simply just be paired up with a woman, and then divorced later. Women and others are not sympathetic because of all that listed, the narcissism still persists it is women and the innocent that are the problems - a cultish form of collective gaslight on the innocent or recipients. This to me is a form of ultimate insanity, expecting or desiring compassion and understanding from the victims you have beat it out of.
Even more so, it is an institutionalized 'sub-identity.' The same as manosphere red pill men is also an institutionalized identity. Unlike Red Pill men that aim to deconstruct the traditional notions of masculinity and redefine them how they see fit under completely arbitrary criteria outside of conservative and traditional norms (which - that is sloppily anti-science and based off patterns of experiences, confirmation bias and ancedotal evidence, the incel identity is developed through a completely submerge in scientism revolving around "Black Pill Science", that plainly states the reasons for a man's inceldom is directly linked toward lookism and a man's physical appearance and not his masculinity, unless the masculinity is referring to masculinization of phenotypical traits and appearances.
Incels believe in a complete biological reductionism of both males and females, and the only way to overcome their shortcomings is to overcome their biological shortcomings, it mostly focuses on a biologically deterministic/reductionist viewpoint, similar to the Red Pill that deviates because it attempts to 'fight back' and 'control the narrative' by first deconstructing Judeo-Christianity masculinity and 'creating their idea of the ultimate man, made by any-man/men' themselves, while being completely at the mercy of evolutionary biology or the 'biology of female nature'. In that way, we see men 'recreating what men should be' in the form of idolized psuedo-identities/characters like Andrew Tate - but this man neither exists in any real way - (not even to Andrew Tate) - which justifies his actions. Which is why you see a lot of distinctions without differences in such men, such as liberating themselves from the 'provider role' while going on to preach to men that through money and materiality, only you can have women - effectively just going from involuntarily servants to voluntary slaves.
In the opposite, Inceldom is a complete shredding of all other identities to completely submerge into the 'incel'. He no is no longer a man, he is no longer Michael, he is no longer anything but an incel, and his identity is now indistinguishable from his ideology.
The reason for that I think is first a weakness for religiosity and magical-thinking in the mind in the first place. As we see with many men in these communities, they are 'religious-minded' first, even as atheists or non-believers, and susceptible to then, fall into these deep forms of magical-thinking and biological reductionism/absurdities.
Male brains that are more susceptible to religion, are also more susceptible to be adopted or indoctrinated into cults, which was no surprise to me when Roosh V (the man that advocated for legalizing female rape), turned to God and religion when his sister died, because there cannot be enough space for both forms of magical-thinking. Religion is notorious in deflection and accountability-eliminating coping strategy, so it does not surprise me one bit that such men would just radicalize in other forms of magical-thought if they were to leave Inceldom or RP rhetoric.
I think it is a matter of weak brains that are more susceptible to religiosity, ideology, and magical sophistic and same-sex solipsism. I think the sooner we fix this, the more we can start getting these men to think more clearly. My advice would be:
1. Tackling religiousity and magical-thinking/delusions, replacing with reason and critical thought.
2. Addressing mental health crisis and better treatment for convert narcissism and cluster B profiles. A majority of treatment is for the victims, and not the narcissists themselves. If you are a narcissist, the advice is basically 'you are doomed' and you are the target of a mass witch-hunt.
3. Learning stoicism.
4. Erasing this idea their issues have anything to do with women and not heavy dependence on religious coping methods.
Because whilst incels may be slightly less sexuallly frustrated/ temporarily subdue their loneliness through purchasing sex, this will only be replaced by the anger at the fact that they had to resort to money to get what they want whilst the "Chad's" or alpha males simply get it for free.
There is an inherent degree of envy involved. I can imagine an incel saying "why should I have to spend my hard earned money to get laid".
Not to mention the fact a portion of incels probably don't earn enough to make buying sex financially viable. Some have such low esteem and are so demotivated that they suffer depression and are unemployed. Living with parents maybe. That's highly restricting both to having a girlfriend or buying sex.
I think these are definitely a very good start. I do think narcissism isn't as fixed as we think though. I believe people can become more narcissistic or less narcissistic depending on conditions, experience and cognitive behavioural changes.
Part of the incel complaint (at least when they were on reddit, their subreddits have been removed now for violent content) was that they show their worth to society by having good paying jobs. This worth doesn't translate to sexual success, though. So though the younger portion of the incel crowd is in high school and wouldn't be able to afford a prostitute because of that, the older ones could. I agree with you that it's envy, and a sense that there's something wrong with our society that would be corrected by turning back women's rights in a far reaching way.
I don't know if you're familiar with Margaret Atwood's fiction, but one of her most famous works, The Handmaid's Tale is about the rise of a branch of the religious right which reduces the role of women to the bottom of society. Atwood claimed that all of the things depicted in her fiction reflect real world attitudes and events. I would say that's how the incel culture goes beyond being a vent for sexual frustration among some white men to connecting to social movements. The base notes are hatred and at least contemplating violence. The higher frequencies mesh with the reactionary right.
Atwood wrote this in the 1980s, while stationed behind the Iron Curtain. The rapid and insidious advancement of this social change she described has similarities with what happened in Germany in the 1930s - a step-by-step abolition of rights designed to restore a sense of entitlement to the unfairly disenfranchised at the expense of a particularly franchised minority: in this fictional case, with the capacity to bear children. For women to possess this capacity and not use it, while so many righteous and otherwise powerful, influential married men were stuck with infertile wives through no fault of their own, was seen as an attack on the stability of society itself. The solution was to remove the means by which fertile women could make their own choices: their basic financial rights.
I dont think the base note of the Handmaids Tale or even Jewish oppression was hatred - it was a sense of entitlement. They were scrambling for a solution to restore what is considered to be a right, necessary for the good of that society as a whole. The idea was that in such a situation we could become extinct if we allowed these fertile women (as a minority) to choose what to do with their own bodies.
As far as so-called incels are concerned, I think their online movement, while despicable and insidious, is increasingly based on a minority argument. No one with any societal influence or power is going to align themselves with a movement based on the inferiority complex of a minority - its why all forms of oppression persist.
Incel is a counter-culture - a reaction to the realisation that identifying with this ideology - reductively that women exist to serve their individual needs - is rapidly rendering them a disenfranchised minority. By identifying themselves as incels - as victims - theyre attempting to protect their ideology as the essence of who they are. If we reject the ideology, we are effectively cancelling them as human beings who are clearly suffering - which, for some of the more compassionate posters here, seems to be giving us pause.
Perhaps thats their entire game plan - a last ditch effort to preserve a dying and ineffective ideology by claiming it as their essential identity. Its a bit like using children as human shields Im not going to open fire, but neither will I condone the behaviour. I still consider someone who self-identifies as incel to be a human being worthy of compassion, but in order to do so I emphatically reject the term as indicative of their identity. Their celibacy is not involuntary but selective, based on a false sense of entitlement. For me, the conversation starts here.
They think they're "owed" pussy. Having to buy it is humiliating. And a lot of them are losers who don't have any money.
Great post. I agree with all your points.
Quoting Possibility
I believe the success of women's rights and the movement of women into central roles in society has put stress on both sexes because of the conflict with old perspectives which hang around like ghosts.
Specifically for men, the conflict is this: in a patriarchal society, men are supposed to be the central columns of society and women are peripheral. Men have to grow up quickly to support this role. They have to go off and die in wars if necessary. They have to support their families and be responsible.
The pay off for this burden is that when they come home from work, they have food on the table and a cleaned house.. Their offspring are taken care of and ideally, if not in reality, they have a loving wife who is entirely dependent because she can't enter in a profession, business, or own property.
So if a young man unthinkingly falls into identifying with the old male ideal, he gets education, he takes on professional responsibilities and all the stress that goes with that, but there's nothing when he gets home. No reward.
I've long thought this larger psychosocial problem is related to the frustration that drives the incel culture. I do have compassion for them, but when a person crosses over into misogyny, they've passed through quite a few neon blinking warning signs that things have gotten pathological. It's really sad that instead of being in circumstances that highlight those warnings, they end up with others who egg them on. That's the internet part. The internet is alive with anger and frustration. You can see on this forum. It's like a cloud looking for an outlet.
Quoting Possibility
You're right.
It's the entitlement thing, yes.
I apologise for characterizing your position as a "pseudo-Jesus act". That was neither fair nor charitable. Here's my dilemma: I'm sitting across the table from a self-identifying incel of the virulent online kind I've earlier described. Let's call him a friend of a friend I have just met. He brazenly begins to expound on his misogynistic world view. What do I do? Is silence complicit? Is compassion complicit? Is polite debate legitimizing? Is opprobrium counter-productive? I'm reminded of Nietzsche's advice that to spare someone shame is the greatest charity but this someone is so immersed in shame and so apparently in love with it, it seems that neither further shaming nor compassion can work. What can work? We don't want them leaving the table thinking talking this way has no consequences but we can't batter them into submission either.
Alas, we do not have effective solutions for all problems! For example:
It isn't that I merely disagree with the right wing fundamentalist thinking of at least two of my siblings, I loathe and detest these views. Argue? Never speak to them? Criticize and berate them? No -- these approaches don't work. True believers are well-insulated from attack by their certainty in their beliefs. Plus, they're kin. Nothing I can do about that either. What we do, most of the time, is carefully avoid certain topics.
The guy sitting across the table from you, spouting incel garbage, is likely impervious to criticism, careful argument, attack, shame, brute-force attack, etc. He is encapsulated in a sick (and sickening) world view. You might be able to do no more than deny him an audience. Leave. Is that an effective response? Not really, but it may be all that one can do.
Apology accepted. In turn, I regret that I was relying on a very limited exposure to the content of incel chatter.
:up:
Youre a true midwesterner. My family is the same.
Wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers.
It depends on what one's goal is.
If one genuinely wishes to help a person, anything that might nudge them in the direction of self-reflection would be enough. Rather than attempting to convince a person of their faulty ways in one fell swoop (such an approach virtually always fails), a single thought-provoking question may be enough to get a person to reflect. Note that asking such a question may signal one's disagreement in a non-judgemental way.
If one's goal is to punish or discipline, then probably one ought to consider first whether it is one's place to do so.
If one is defending against what one perceives to be a threat to one's own beliefs, then the issue lies as much with oneself as it does with the other person.
The latter two goals are in most cases not going to be constructive. One's energy is best spent elsewhere.
Going by the comments I have read on this thread, most seem to pursue the latter two goals, hence the lack of constructivity.
For those interested in the wider social context of this 'incel' phenomenon I would recommend this documentary on Japanese 'hikikomori'; young, socially isolated hermits.
The Japanese generally seem to have a more 'enlightened' way of dealing with social problems. Perhaps the fact that Japanese society at least makes an attempt at helping these people urges them to reflect rather than become resentful, which seems to be what happens in the West.
Those people primarily need to be helped. Incels, on the other hand, as proponents of rape culture primarily need to be stopped because rape culture is a threat in a way that socially isolated Japanese hermits aren't. If helping them is the best way of stopping them, then sure, but I still don't know what that would look like.
Help sounds like a mental institution to me, possibly a Chinese reeducation camp if we can outsource it.