why are incels frowned/hated upon?
Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn't necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?
What am I missing here? I haven't ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don't hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?
Im pretty sure an incel blames women for not being able to get a relationship.
Its the change in mental framing from "maybe i should work on myself" or "i just havent had the right opportunity" to more of a "women hold too much power over me and are playing with me" or "ive done everything right, women owe me this"
Wikipedia sums it up better than i can:
::: spoiler Description of incels
:::
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
So, unless you find yourself blaming/resenting women, then you arent an incel. Your still just figuring things out like tge rest of us!
The term "Incel" started out as just meaning "involuntarily celibate", referring to men who, like you and I, have struggled to form meaningful relationships with women.
The term actually originated in forums that were used as like a support group for men who were feeling alone, isolated, and alienated.
Unfortunately, if you get enough guys like that together, they might start riling eachother up and convincing each other that it's not their fault, it's the women's fault. Remember, the one common trait among all these guys was a lack of ability to connect with a woman.
The word was coined by a woman and the support network she set up was for men and women. Until the space got taken over by bitter men blaming women for all their troubles and, here we are.
The woman who founded the 'incel' movement
Came here to point this out, thanks for doing so.
For all others reading. This is the correct origin. It literally had actual, wholesome origins. That like almost everything, was ruined by selfish, entitled misogynist.
Hey, I don't struggle to get meaningful relationships! Getting laid tho is a different case sadly
@Darth_Vader__
"Incel" doesn't just mean someone who is involuntarily celibate.
It's a bit like how "Democrat" doesn't just mean someone who participates in a democracy and "pro-life" doesn't just mean someone who likes life on earth.
Incels are a specific subculture, it has a violent misogynistic ideology and has spawned several mass murderers.
I am in a similar situation as you, I am 36 and have never been in a relationship, I don't blame anyone, I am a bit sad about it when I think of it, but I can't blame anyone for it, it is just circumstances.
I think that "incels" are defined by their feeling that they deserve a relationship with a woman, that they are being denied what they believe is rightfully theirs and that by just being polite they can convince a woman to fall into their arms.
I don't concider myself an incel, for me based on circumstances if anything I have choosen to not persue a relationship, there are reasons for this, late maturity, being overweight, balding, concern for if I would find a woman who would be fine with me having zero experience in both day to day things as well as intimite moments.
But these are all problems that I have to work on, and I do my best with the tools I have.
Fwiw, about the zéro expérience thing, I hope you know that plenty of women would enjoy helping their partner explore how to share pleasure and day to day intimacy with them. Being inexperienced and realistic about it also means you won't have that overconfidence that leads some men to disregard their partner's personal likes, needs and body quirks, and that can be a very reassuring premise.
Source : this old crone was that woman once.
That is a very good point I had not considered, thank you!
Nope, it's become a self identification ascribed to. Only defining feature of an imcel now is saying "I'm an incel"
And it happens to be that said communities are jam packed full of some extreme bigotry, hate, loathing, misogynistic behavior, etc etc.
Which means a person who identifies themselves with that crowd, can be assumed to be of the same cut of cloth.
In other words, a person like you would likely say "I haven't been with a woman but I ain't no incel though", to signal you don't identify with that culture.
Based on that last bit of your post, it sounds like you may actually not be that familiar with the incel community.
Short answer is that it goes much further than it seems at first glance. So,if you're feeling unhappy about your prospects, I'd recommend looking into other communities for the sake of your mental health.
Honestly, just focusing on a hobby of some kind and making connections with the community surrounding it would be infinitely better for you.
The problem is, the word "involuntary" in incel puts the blame on those who won't fuck them. It's not their fault they haven't had sex yet, it's those who keep denying them. This gives them a reason not to have to change their behaviors or thoughts, which keeps them undesirable. That's why they're frowned upon.
Basically it's the mindset of the Chalmers meme that makes an incel.
As long as you don't subscribe to this line of reasoning, you aren't an incel
Exactly. Incel is not another word for vergin, there are tons of vergins who aren't incels.
I’d argue that not being a virgin also doesn’t prevent you from becoming an incel. You just weren’t always one.
Except some of us are treated like absolute garbage because of this definition. I'm just quiet and chill so somehow that gets defined as creepy. I've taken to just treating people as a reflection of how they treat me. Like I'm not even looking and I get treated as creepy I'd like to be in a relationship, but it really isn't a requirement for me to be fulfilled. This really messes with my self esteem and makes me not want to talk to people for the most part.
I can't speak to your creepiness, but as long as you put the onus on yourself as to why you're single and don't blame others, I wouldn't call you an incel. Do you call yourself an incel?
No I don't call myself an incel, but the definition has been detrimental to my daily life.. Like of I'm out in public not with a girl just doing things as normal I get this stigma and dirty looks.
Can you give an example?
Honestly, it sounds like an anxiety disorder. No one is looking at men walking around without a partner wondering why a partner isn't with them,. No one expects people to be with their partners all the time.
It's definitely tough when you get criticised just for chilling out. My advice is to try and not be offended by those comments unless they come from people close or important to you. Ask yourself: why does their opinion matter/what value does it actually have? Is it jyst a throwaway comment from a e.g. stranger or friend of a friend of a friend. You do not need other's opinions to validate yourself, so long as you're not causing harm to anyone else, keep doing what you're doing because it's good for you and leave the busibodies to their ignorant opinion and to waste only their time and effort on it, not yours.
Ps you share my broad approach of treating others well if they treat me well. Thumbs up for that!
No, if you don't hate women you're not an incel.
No one is entitled to sex. That is not a right anyone has. Thus, the only way to be involuntarily celibate is being force to become a monk under threat or something. The idea that people are entitled to receive the love/sex/intimacy of others is fucked up and betrays the fundamental trust implied by consent. Which is the right of everyone involved to refuse, withdraw, or straight up remove themselves from participating in an intimate situation, at any time, without the need to provide any sort of explanation or justification.
The proposal that these people are entitled to sex gives rapey vibes and naturally generates disgusts in anyone who thinks rationally about the proposition for more than a minute. Because of the implication.
An "incel" is inherently and unavoidably misogynistic. The concept of being "involuntarily" celibate is implying that it is the other woman (or man) at "fault" for not allowing the incel man (or woman) to have sex when the incel very much wants to. Being an "incel" absolves the user of the term of any and all responsibility for their condition and is basically an admission that they will never work to improve themselves or make themselves into an attractive option for their desired mate. It turns their target into a complete sexual object without any other considerations for their own desires.
You can be single and celibate without being an incel. That is just called being single, but open to a relationship or casual sex. It's also called being a normal ass human being who can hold a conversation and develop normal human connections without viewing anyone or everyone as just a slab of meat to be obtained.
Great answer, and to add to this:
There's a world of difference between someone who's single, not satisfied with it, and actively desiring/seeking a relationship (single and looking) and someone who actively self-identifies as inherently doomed to be single due to the actions/perceptions of others (incel).
People in the former category NEVER call themselves incels.
Yup! It's a self fulfilling prophecy life, and then they wonder why they're so lonely.
I feel that your second sentence is too narrow. It goes beyond blaming a woman (or man). It includes society in general and/or any external construct or group. They may blame genetics, the patriarchy, feminism, or whatever other Boogeyman they want.
The underlying issue is that they are absolving themselves of any blame and refusing to accept themselves as the cause. It's unsurprising that this very concept is often a self perpetuating issue. Their incel mentality and refusal of accepting any responsibility pushes any potential women (or men) from a desire to be in a relationship with them. It also builds an "us vs them" mentality that is reinforced by the echo chamber communities they build for themselves.
This is vey true, they have almost as much as a hate-on for sexually successful men ('chads') as they do women in general ('staceys')
Yes, I suppose they can target basically any group, which makes my initial description too narrow. But I was focusing on addressing OP's concerns of misogyny, which is gender focused.
The echo chamber is a very big part of it, you're right. The more validation they receive for thinking that the "other people" are the problem, the more they think it's okay to do.
Exactly. The issue with incels is that they actively do nothing to improve their chances in the dating world, and then instead of looking inward, blame women for their own shortcomings. "I'm a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and my butt smells and... women should still want to fuck me because I'm owed sex."
Fuck these people.
You've already had some great answers, but I'll just leave another point here for you to consider - they are literal terrorists.
Not one, but several have used their "inceldom" in their manifestos before going on mass shootings (often targeting, or trying to target women exclusively) and many other shooters were active members of incel forums (and many active incel forum users who still haven't gone on a shooting spree openly talk about going on one).
I will strongly second whenigrowup356 - stay as far away from these people and their spaces as possible, they are toxic violent terrorists, and you should not only not want anything to do with them, but also not let them convince you to feel sorry for them, because as opposed to what they call themselves, the state they are in is anything but "involuntary".
Lots of good posts here so far. Something I haven't seen mentioned is incel fascination with what is essentially phrenology. "My jaw is only 34% as prominent as the ideal and therefore I will never know the touch of a woman".
It's a loser mentality for losers. They are projecting it onto themselves.
The hatred of women from them.
And the black pill element making it essentially a death cult
It is generally used to reffer to men who blame women for themselves not being able to get into relationships, not everyone who isn't in a relationship
I think it's important that we define what an incel is first and foremost, because the word has lost a lot of its meaning over the past decade.
Incel is short for 'involuntary celibate', or somebody who hasn't had sexual relations not out of a voluntary vow of abstinence, but rather because mental and/or physical factors have made them into an undesirable partner and have left them feeling shunned by society. This could be things like autism, personality disorders, physical disfigurement or major injury as examples.
Many people in that situation refuse to identify as an incel, because the incel community which several mass shooters like Elliot Rodger came from is deeply misogynistic and talks about women as if they're subhuman. They also idolize mass shooters as heroes. So maybe incel refers to that deeply misogynistic sect of the manosphere.
But more recently, incel has become something of a catch-all insult towards low value misogynistic men. Andrew Tate for example has been branded the 'Incel King' for the views that he preaches, even though 1. unlike an actual incel this guy fucks, and 2. a real incel wouldn't have the charisma to run a MLM scheme, cam girl business and an alleged sex trafficking operation.
Uh one correction, Tate rapes.
The claims that Andrew Tate is a huge misogynist aren't even overblown either.
There are legitimately video clips around where Tate is visibly giddy over the thought of women being stoned for adultery. If someone is laughing and cracking jokes over a woman being pelted to death with rocks, they should not be trusted with dating advice.
There are people who can't get laid but who aren't an incel because they don't blame others (especially women) for that.
There's something very unlikable about anyone who blames all their woes and mishaps on someone else.
For incels it's the women who have ruined society, for MAGAts it's the left, for tankies and left reactionaries it's the libs.
The one true facet stringing them all together is their inability to take personal responsibility for their situations (especially when there is any amount of public scrutiny, pride limits their growth potential).
My perception is that sex-starved males are seen as dangerous, and the fear of that easily translates into a stigma.
I recall my recently-divorced friend (with a young daughter) trying to describe this to me: how almost overnight the girly sleepovers and socials went from common & spread across the homes to "silently forbidden" and unspokenly "anywhere but his house". But he was the same guy as just days before, but (so the theory goes) the only change was that now people "knew" he was not being... pacified?
One thing about being a woman (which I am not for the record, I have a lovely wife who explains things) is that you can't just trust men. They can overpower you, and even though most won't, some will and there's no way to tell who it's going to be. That necessarily means women have to not trust men that they don't know intimately for their own safety.
That concept certainly extends to parents of girls. If there is not a female authority in the house, a sleepover with a man and bunch of girls is questionable at best and tragedy waiting to happen at worst, even if that man is one of their fathers.
It doesn't mean that they have to think that man is "unpacified" to call out that specific situation as inappropriate. It's just a boundary your friend now has to be aware of, and agree to let his daughter go to sleepovers in other girls' homes.
That being said, I wouldn't call this specific situation stigma from being a perceived incel, but more like parents being wary of a single man they might not know that well hosting a sleepover with a bunch of girls.
...
Edit: There have already been a couple of real salty men who take issue with the fact that women are wary of men just because they're men. I get it. I've been there.
But I'm not going to rehash the whole argument I just went through because you might think the line of reasoning that you aren't a rapist means it's wrong for women to take precautions.
It's not personal. It's not a reflection of you as a person. It's just something women have to be aware of.
I'm not going to engage this point with anyone else. I posted some resources. I'd urge anyone who comes away from this comment thread with anger or confusion to just get a woman's perspective first and try to be open minded.
An interesting thread. As a father of a young daughter I do share the same concerns and would be cautious with sending my kid to a sleepover like that. That is, if i don't know the guy well enough. And i do not care if anyone calls me a bigot for me being protective for the person I am legally required to protect.
That is, of course this would be not the only possible red flag for me, and until my girl is capable of looking after herself (that may happen earlier than legal age, judging by her strong spirit and success in various sports), I'll continue to be cautious. On the other hand, I'd do my best to not share this line of reasoning with the girl herself. This particular case does not seem like a good learning opportunity for a "stranger danger" lesson.
Thank you. This is the crux of it. I've rehashed this argument countless times with countless men over the years who take personal offense that men on the whole are not super trustworthy. If you aren't a rapist, we aren't talking about you. But, unless we know each other well, there's no way we can be sure. It's as simple as that.
Cudos on being unrelentingly protective of your daughter, while respecting that she may also be able to make those calls herself one day. You sound like a great dad.
I have seen too many absolutists with claims that sound really nice, until they meet the reality. Like the ones who were trying to cancel Rowling, for example. All of that does not mean, of course, that we all should wear bulletproof vests all the time because someone may start shooting any moment (and not only in the U of S, we here across the pond also see someone with crazy eyes stabbing random people from time to time. US is on another level though). Just need to use the brain and take potential risks into account.
Women tend to experience violence from men at a much higher rate than from guns not held by men.
What the hell?
That’s an awful take on life. Replace “men” who can overpower women with a race of people who have larger physiques than the average people or perhaps with those who hail from culture who has had a more violent past. We’re obviously just assuming things, so why not? A generic man can overpower a generic woman just as much as a generic Norwegian person can overpower a generic Korean person.
That’s saying that you can’t trust your kids to sleep over at the house of anybody who isn’t like you. I really hope that you guys aren’t pushing this world view on children.
Is it an awful way to go through life? Yes. Does it lower your risk to go through life this way? Also yes. Sorry, but I'm not risking my kid's innocence to be politically correct.
Not all men, but enough men to be wary of all men.
Concise and to the point. Thank you for understanding this. Unfortunately, the other guy is dead set on not understanding it.
I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.
You are judging half of the population on their physical makeup.
This makes me sick.
Fuck trying to be better than those who have come before us. Fuck trying to build a better future.
I hope our paths never cross.
No, half the population is being judged on their statistical likelihood to commit violence. Their physical makeup is only part of that. Most of it is a cultural entitlement, as evidenced by so many on here getting butthurt that people might be afraid of them because of their life experiences.
I agree with you. This sort of blatant bigotry has to be a right wing psyop to split the left or something. No way that "liberal" minded people could think it's rational to discriminate against half the population
Lmao
You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.
Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.
If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?
That’s the reality women face with men every day.
I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can't trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you're making are called sexists.
^false equivalency. Sexists hate men (or women) on principle. That's not what this concept is. You'd know that if you paid attention just a little bit
Treating someone negatively or positively on the basis of their sex is sexism.
Applying a loose definition to a situation to fit your politics is dishonest
Treating someone differently on the basis of sex is sexism. Treating someone differently on the basis of race is racism. This isn't hard
No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.
Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.
That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.
People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.
Feelings & beliefs =/= statistics
What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?
Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are
We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.
Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?
You can use FBI crime statistics to make "empirical" arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious
And what of abusive women? Women are suddenly more trustworthy in this situation?
Why?
You got evidence it's not just a social stigma that's giving men a bad reputation and ignoring all the instances where women have done the same?.
You're not being cautious. You're being paranoid and propagating a serious social problem that has been around for literally centuries.
99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women
You're not being diligent or "fair" to men to avoid spreading a social stigma, you are blind to the fact that it's nearly 100x more likely to be a man committing sexual assault than a woman.
Accusing this person of being paranoid of a very real problem is ironically pretty ignorant and paranoid on your own part as a man (I assume).
And so you keep propagating garbage. Slow clap.
Anyway:
https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/effectsofsexualassaultsonmen-physicalmentalandsexualconsequences.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02717-0
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X08322632
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/if-love-could-kill/202401/the-last-taboo-female-sexual-abuse-of-children
I doubt you'll actually read any of this. But if you are interested in educating yourself you may need a paywall unlocking extension for some of these.
Perhaps you'll even notice how the subject of men getting raped by women, or children getting abused by women, goes unreported, is understudied, almost never gets funding for study, is never taken seriously, and has more than a little bit of social pressure going against it.
But hey, I guess I'm just blind, huh?
Ok, let's take your garbage source by source, since you obviously think that overwhelming me with data is a viable strategy:
"Violence against women survey shows that 3% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization"
So.. Consistent with my source that estimates about 9% of victims are men (or specifically not explicitly women)?
"The incidence rates of male sexual victimization range widely, from less than one percent to 73%" the reason given in the source is that many incidences are believed to be under reported.
That still doesn't really change the fact that reported sexual assault in the US is overwhelmingly done by men, as outlined by your next source:
Starting at Page 18
"More than a quarter of US women experienced unwanted sexual contact at some point in their lives"
"Across all states, between 23.4% and 42.0% of women experienced non-contact unwanted sexual experiences at some point in the lives"
Perpetrators of female sexual contact are 97.1% Male with nearly 70% of unwanted sexual contact done by an acquaintence or stranger. You know that point I've been making up and down this thread about women needing to be wary of men they don't know? Here it is. In your source.
Page 32 lines out that 86.5% of unwanted sexual contact to men were also perpetrated by exclusively men, with less than 10% of those cases being female only perpetrators.
So.. Also supporting my source that the vast majority of sexual assault is done by men? Even the vast majority of unwanted sexual contact done against men is perpetrated by other men?
(The onus is on you to provide a source not locked behind a pay wall if you want me to read it, not me to crack it. However, I will again point out that the claim I made does not preclude male victims of sexual assault from existing at all)
This one is a little different because it's exclusively about sexual violence toward children, and neither here nor there on my original claim, but:
"Although these convictions are far less than those of male offenders...
While figures in the United States suggest that women account for 12 to 17 percent of the sex offender population"
Yeah, again, consistent with the core assertion that men are far more likely to commit sexual assault.
So in conclusion, maybe you didn't actually read most of these? Because they all (obviously excluding the one I didn't see behind the pay wall) outright state exactly what I said, which is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by men.
Who's pedaling garbage? These are your sources...
Now where's the part where you acknowledge the fact that the source I linked is thoroughly notated and referenced? And that I didn't in fact just make those numbers up?
Or am I the only one required to do any reading?
It's not unreasonable for a parent to not trust a single man with a girl's sleepover because they don't know them.
The fact is, you shouldn't trust anybody who might take advantage of you if you are vulnerable, particularly if they are in a position of authority, especially if they are the lone figure of authority in a dynamic where abuse is known to happen.
You wouldn't go to a sleepover with your boss if you thought he wanted to get in your pants, would you?
I'm not going to dignify the rest of that with a response. You can bark about racial equivalency all you want but you have obviously never been a woman cornered by a man who wanted something from you. The fact that women have to be wary of men isn't an opinion. It's life. Go ask a woman you know.
You didn’t originally state not trusting a single man with hosting a sleepover because you didn’t know them. You said intimately know.
This paranoia about being taken advantage of is insane. How do you function around strangers?
You’re moving the scenario to a sleepover with a boss who wants to sleep with you. Where did that come from? How are you getting to that from a divorced acquaintance who is the parent of one of your kids? That’s a completely different scenario. I thought you didn’t know this single dad?
So.. I guess comparing this situation to something wildly unrelated to illustrate your point is only something you're allowed to do?
The concept is simple, and widely permeates media. I did your work for you and typed in the phrase "why do women fear men" into a basic Google search. Here's some sources for you:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/w3mv8l/do_women_really_live_in_constant_fear_of_men_if/
https://www.tekedia.com/are-women-truly-afraid-of-men/
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/all-women-live-in-fear-and-men-just-dont-get-it/news-story/36f90cbbce4dc8cb8a9795e4a390cb1e
It's not my job to field your hypotheticals while you berate an idea that isn't even mine. I'm a man. I don't know this issue first hand, so maybe you could do like I did and seek to learn it.
In the mean time, I don't particularly care about how you choose to frame it or how ridiculous you think it is. It's not a concept you can just dispel by beating me in an argument. So either try to understand it or don't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it.
I replied to your original comment with why I feel this viewpoint is flawed. Dangerous even.
I used an example as a counterpoint.
Your reply used a different example to argue against mine without actually addressing what I’m trying to say by countering your initial comment.
It’s just as shitty to type “why do whites fear blacks” in google.
If you want to give up on this issue that’s on you, but get off your high horse.
Go actually learn about the viewpoint then. The only one on a high horse is the person making egregious false equivalencies to dilute a very real fear that women have to live with.
And besides that, I'd like to see you argue your "that viewpoint is dangerous" stance to a couple of parents who are nervous about sending their daughter to a sleepover where the only authority figure is a grown man.
If you really don't get why there's a problem with that, maybe ask a woman in your life.
In the mean time, take your misplaced anger somewhere else. I won't be responding to it anymore.
Fear based on immutable traits is always wrong. Not a difficult concept. Kind of the basis of the equal protection clause and liberalism in general
It may be conceptually wrong, but so is rape. So is assault. Those things being wrong don't make them impossible.
Therefore, it isn't wrong to be afraid of those things. In a perfect world, no one would have to be afraid of anyone. But also bad things wouldn't happen.
You can't argue this point away just because you're adhering to a specific political ideology about how the world should be. Reality is what it is. 1 in 3 women experience sexual assault of some kind in their life time. People who rape or assault will almost always pick a target they can overpower.
It might be wrong to be wary of men because they're men, but it's also reality that women have to do that.
I've said it a few times already: Don't take my word for it. Look into womens' perspectives online or ask one you know if they've ever avoided a man that sketched them out.
If you don't seek their opinions, what right do you have deciding what's right or wrong for someone else?
Additionally, I really don't feel like rehashing every single point I just made with the other guy because you also think it's a matter of whether you agree or not. I linked resources. I spelled it out several times, honestly more thoroughly than I should have.
I urge you to look into it yourself. Seek what women actually say and feel and fight the urge to just tell them they are wrong because you feel personally attacked. It's not personal.
I'm out.
Anyone who stereotypes anyone based on immutable traits is wrong. If there are individual women who do this to men then they are wrong. Same as any white person who would do this to an Asian person.
All humans are individuals and should be treated as such. Being prejudiced against an entire race/sex/sexual orientation is wrong under all circumstances
👍
(Sticking to your guns instead of seeking perspective does not merit a response)
The difference is that men do.
I think it's not that sex starved men are dangerous as much as it's men are dangerous. It's not the presence of your buddy, it's the absence of his wife that has changed the other parents' safety rating of the house.
That really sucks to hear. Without any context, it just sounds like the kid has to suffer the consequences of her parents split.
Yea the girls sleepovers stopped because there isn’t a woman present. This isn’t an incel thing, this is an even more prolific lack of trust in men to care for young girls (often times just children in general). And it has nothing to do with him not getting laid by a wife at all. That’s a weird correlation to make.
While the incel movement may have seemed to be just some men who found community in others who haven't been in a relationship, something rather innocuous. It very quickly got hijacked into what it is today. It went from "I haven't been with a woman yet but I'm still looking and in the mean time i have my friends" to "It's women's fault that I haven't been with one and they use sex for power and are horrible people" and it devolved into worse things from there. The incel community was preyed upon by misogynist far right fascist and nazis. They were assaulted with propaganda in their communities, a place they had finally found that they were comfortable in. And when you are around those you care about, and they start espousing bigoted beliefs, some start to agree with it, and then most of them fall for it. It's not unreasonable to want community. Everyone wants that. But the incel community quickly became a community of people who hated that they were virgins and were willing to take their anger out on others. Particularly women identifying individuals.
You say they are lacking in a way they can't get women, I don't think is wrong. They really haven't been taught well by our society how to interact with women. They're trying to get into a relationship using what they've been taught, but they're floundering, reasonably, because society has taught them to view women as sex objects. Incels as a movement are a failure of our society, a failure of us teaching our kids how to act around others, including the gender they're attracted to.
I'm not nearly read up enough to give you much more information, but if you want, there's a book called Escape from Incel Island by Margaret Killjoy. It's really good and helps explain things far more eloquently and fully than me, a random lemmy user can.
Also, never having been in a relationship doesn't make you an incel, it just makes you someone who hasn't experienced that yet. And that's okay, we all grow at different speeds, it's okay to not having been with someone. We attach way too much to the idea of being with your first person. It's important to be able to respect and care about yourself somewhat before getting in a relationship, and it's okay if that takes a while. I didn't have that experience until my mid 20s, but it didn't make me any less of a person. Just remember to respect yourself, and to respect the others around you. And also don't treat women like sex objects, we are just humans, like any other. And there are 100% multiple people out there who will be interested in you, even if it takes a while to find one. I know you'll find someone, especially considering you're asking this question. You're willing to ask about tough topics and that is something a lot of people can't do. So good on you.
This is not true for everyone. Meeting new people is difficult, especially when you’re older. Add to that several (mental) health issues that mean actually going on a date would be practically impossible. Even getting past that, I wouldn’t be able to give a woman the life she deserves.
I don’t blame anyone, I wouldn’t date me either. Can I do things to improve myself? Sure, but not enough for it to matter, the real fundamental problems will remain. Why waste effort on things that give no return on investment?
I generally agree with your comment, but this
I think is wrong.
The whole problem is that the patriarchy absolutely teaches (especially white) men that women are objects, and that men are entitled to women and sex (but that only virginal women are worthy of marriage).
Some men unlearn this shit early on, some remain "neutral" assholes (those who will end up abusing but aren't doing it consciously out of ideology, but still from the same sense of entitlement), and some take the entitlement to the extreme and adopt it as their ideology and way of life, but I think it's really fucking important to highlight that they are in fact not taught anything different by society before that point, they just take their entitlement to another level once they've found others to confirm it for them.
Either way, the name is a complete misnomer - they aren't "involuntarily" celibate, they are celibate because they actively refuse to not be walking entitled pieces of shit.
What you're missing is simply a definition of the word. Read the opening three paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry for "incel".
[...]
I’ve never encountered an incel that wasn’t misogynistic. Generally they blame women for their lack of sex.
I blame my looks and bank account for lack of sex.
Have you tried lowering your standards?
I don't want to be condescending or patronising, however: looks are less important than personal hygene, personal care and charisma, three things that can be acquired quite easily as there is a lot of literarure on all of them. Money certainly enables you to get better clothes and widen your horizons, but alone it will not do much for you. The most important thing though is certainly hygene. And remember that when you go out with someone the first time, usually what they are trying to understand is if you are completely deranged or viable human material. Try to fit the second category and you'll do great. Poor people and ugly people also get laid, so that's not an excuse.
Originally, the label wasn't bad. However, it turns out a lot of pathetic people out there fall into the same description and suddenly the traits they brought along with them shifted the understanding of the words meaning.
Originally it was simply a way for lonely men to get encouragement from their fellow lonely men, hence the "involuntary" part of it all is that they don't want to be in their situation. However, with the evolution of the term and all the d-bags that jumped on it, it now means something almost completely different—certainly not something involuntary, that's for sure.
basically it became it's own sub-culture instead of just being a situational label.
The framing of it as involuntary from the get go was misguided even if the subculture started off apparently innocent. It's a blame shifting phrase and implies that some outside force is responsible for said celibacy like it's happening to them or being perpetrated by women.
It's not surprising at all in light of the above, that they hit critical mass and have become legitimately violent. It was a matter of time. The ideology is inherently toxic.
Terrorism and mass murder. I actually lived near one, a van attack in Toronto.
Hold the fuck on. What?!
There was also Elliot Rodgers or something like that. He was an incel who wrote a manifesto about how the world screwed him over his entire life and drove him to inceldom. So then he went on a killing spree targetting women, then killed himself.
Also George Sodini, who shot up an LA Fitness.
Oh I know about that one. I just wasn’t aware of the Van Attack. Should have been more precise.
Must be this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Toronto_van_attack
Sorry for the mobile Wikipedia link.
What's the what? Go Google it
You know this is something that's super easy to research, right? Like the top answer literally just quoted wikipedia for you.
Just saying in case you're interested in becoming more "resourceful" some day
No need to be mean. It's fair to assume the author of the post could be "just asking questions", but they haven't so far. Yes, the answer is easy to find, and if you don't feel like answering, leave it to others.
There's a crucial distinction between someone that wants to have sex, but cannot, and someone that chooses to identify as that. To really become an "incel" in the negative sense, you lose the desire to have sex because being denied sexual contact by others is part of your identity now.
People that merely don't find others that are sexually interested in them can do things to help themselves, learn better grooming habits, dress nicer, practice approaching and talking to people, etc. Someone that has adopted the identity of "incel" can only help themselves by changing their perception away from the toxic void they found.
An incel blames women for their singleness.
There are some amazing people out there who just, for whatever reason, find themselves without a partner. Confidence, mental health, physical health, family commitments, location.
When they seek solice online they find themselves on the fringes of incel communities. However, it doesn't sit right, because they are not incels. They don't hate-blame half the population. They maybe blame themselves, or see the circumstances that led them to their present state before a blanket blame is cast upon a bunch of people they don't know.
Important to note that many also blame other men.
When they sit there looking at a girl, frustrated and angry that they can't talk to her as they grip their beer with increasing strength... I just walk up and say hey how's it going.
In that scenario, I am a massive asshole that has deprived them of the opportunity to have that woman. I took her attention all for myself and left him none. Even though at no point was he ever going to let this woman know he existed or talked to her.
Do you call yourself an incel? Do you subscribe to their beliefs that they are entitled to sex and superior to women? Do you blame women for all of your problems? If not then you are not an incel. Just unlucky.
The word was originally coined by a woman to describe her own situation. It got adopted by the manosphere, and then the connotations changed over time to what it is today, which is a slur and a stereotype label.
Sorry if I sound like a pedantic linguist here. But the meanings and usage of words can change over time.
There's a podcast called "Incel" that you might find interesting. It's not my cup of tea, but the host does attempt to form a neutral, high level understanding of the incel subculture.
I feel like the term "Incel" has developed somewhat. I guess in the beginning it was used by men struggeling to get into a relationship to refer to themselves. It was used to find others with the same issues, and form a kind of self help group that could provide comfort and maybe even inprovement. If thats what incels were today, they wouldn't be hated like that. Perhaps they would be belittled or made fun of.
But that's not what we understand incels to be today. Incels now seem to be extremely bitter, delusional, pathetic individuals. They don't recognize the issue lies with themselves, instead it's supposedly the fault of the women, who won't accept their place in society. In the mind of an incel, they deserve to have sex, and that means that it should be a woman's duty to please them.
So no, you are probably not an incel, even if perhaps you would have been under the original definition.
Exactly this. I think I remember an interview with the woman (yep) who originally coined the term for herself and her online support group of sorts for people who wanted to better themselves. She has had to watch it morph into what it is now.
Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455
TL;DR:
Misogyny. Inherently hating half the world's population is not going to win you many friends.
prone to violence. Because male-on-female DV isn't bad enough, why not add literal terrorism to the mix?
they're just insufferable. the problem isn't the situation. it's the mindset they develop.
it basically becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for them. they can't get a woman, they develop unhealthy views, related to self-entitlement, and they become walking red flags to normal, adjusted individuals, which drives their isolation, and then feeds into what they think always happens.
a defeatist attitude never gets anything done. being a person is, in part, about self improvement.
if your skills won't get you hired for a job, you need to improve your skills. dating and having successful relationships is not much different. the problem with many incels is that they improve all these other aspects of their life (job, property, car), and then can't understand why the other sex doesn't flock to them. they fail to realize that hitting all these various metrics is just a part of the equation, but not the whole she-bang.
if you haven't had a relationship, maybe you haven't had the right circumstances, or met the right person. the trick is to understand not to necessarily take that personally, as recursive as that sounds.
People naturally don't want to think they are the problem. So, they blame society which leads to blaming women which leads to misogyny which leads to the dark side.
People who label themselves as incels are somewhat accepting that the factors that lead them to be incels are unchangeable ( physical characteristics, limiting standards, social deficiencies, bad luck). So they have taken the steps to the dark side. And vocal incels are more often well on that path.
I don't believe anyone cares for Incels as people just in involuntary celibat letting their day go by with studies, work and their hobby.
Incels who are loud misogynistic is the only people we know are actually in involuntary celibat, and mad about it.
Grown ups don't hate virgins by default.
They tend to be rapy child predators.
I'm sure there is a load of political world-building around it in little corners of the internet but for most people 'incel' is a just a byword for a creepy and desperate guy. If you're creepy and desperate you are therefore an incel. You're saying you're not like that though, so you must not be an incel. It takes a lot of effort as a young man to maintain an immaculate record of never being horny and lecherous, so you might actually be an incel sometimes too. My advice as an older guy is to just not worry about it. I see a lot of young guys on the internet worrying about never getting a girlfriend and blaming themselves. Just be patient and nice to girls and eventually you will get into a relationship. It is basically that simple.
I really don't think you understand how bad it is. 30% of young men are in a relationship, while 65% of young women are in a relationship. Makes things pretty difficult, you see.
This comment is basically the equivalent of telling a depressed person to just be happy.
Where did you get that stat from? With the lopsided numbers I would wonder how accurate it is, or if there is a difference in how men and women classify "in a relationship".
The lopsided numbers reflect younger girls being with older guys who are outside of the quoted age bracket. It's pretty much been like this for all of human history. At the end of the day, the biggest 'losers' in this game of musical chairs are older women. So, the fairest way of making sure that everyone gets matched is to put the old single women with the incels.
As an older woman, I can testify that we totally won the game. We're out loving life while everyone else you mentioned lives in a strange combination of fear, avarice, and disappointment.
Then the incel's quest must continue!
Saying what probably causes the numbers to be lopsided is really not the same as citing a source.
Either it's the way I said it, or there are billions more lesbians in the world than we ever could have known, or there are billions of guys in the world who have more than one girlfriend. Unless of course we've been misled and there are in fact billions less girls in existence than we thought.
Or, and hear me out, the statistic is just something some guy on Lemmy said and was never substantiated and is (at the very least potentially) unreliable.
It might be and we are all fools. Wouldn't be the first time I guess. But more importantly: who would have thought that incels are accidentally helping the general population to practice interpretation of statistics? Not me!
That statistic is wild. I don't understand how people have such a hard time finding girlfriends. I feel like you give a girl a little affection and she sticks to you like glue.
I think incels specifically it makes sense because they have a warped and negative perspective on the world. And nobody wants to spend any significant amount of time with a negative Nancy, much less a deluded one.
No, it's telling a young single guy to be patient. The other thing that statistic tells you is that later on you can expect to have a girlfriend who is significantly younger than you, which many guys would actually be happy about.
I think the problem with your comment was that you summed it up by saying 'it's simple' when it's a time of our lives when we start to have some freedom to explore our desires (sexual or otherwise) without the control/pressures of home and/or school life. There's also ongoing peer pressures pushing and pulling us about. It is nothing like a simple time in our lives (hence why so many people go online and talk about if, as you highlighted).
Yes, I'd agree with the sentiment to keep treating others well and to be patient (broadly what my approach to life has been, now 45 so older like you), but it certainly isn't easy or simple to do especially when there's a lot of seeing others having what you don't.
Sure, and I do agree with you. Being young is really intense and having identities like 'incel' pushed at you doesn't help with that. Saying it's simple might sound dismissive but young guys these days need a bit of hope and encouragement because our culture is doing a particularly bad job of both reflecting the realities of being a typical adult man and of offering a positive vision of what that could be in the future. Each generation of guys has its own challenges (for mine it was alcohol dependence) but with hindsight you can see that all of them do come out the other side with a good haul of girlfriends :)
It's the socially-unaware and self-centered worldview. Not much else as all of the symptoms seem to flow from that.
Your previous sentence answered your question.
There is nothing wrong with being an adult and not being sexually active.
Making your sexual situation become your whole personality and using the obvious regret they feel about it as a springboard to justify hate against others is not.
Stereotypes. That's basically it. The way they go about their dilemmas has left an impression, which isn't unique in the slightest among subgroups of humanity. Especially as an asexual woman, I've had bad encounters with some, and although I recognize not all of them are guilty of anything, the ones that do make things difficult cloud the identity.
That itself would be enough of an issue, but then along comes Jordan Peterson. He is the choice idol of the majority of incels, and he uses this power and esteem imposingly. Without saying it explicitly, he encourages the idea that physical fun time is a human right to receive and a duty for all peoples to give. They cite him frequently and such ideas have shimmied us into a world where asexuality is somehow uncanon in reality, when it shouldn't be hard simply to have a bit of voluntaryism.
Because people who give themselves that label identify themselves with a community that openly spreads hatred and bigotry.
No, not unless you approve of that community and want to be part of it.
interrogation tapes of alek minnasian
Mostly the murder. Murder is generally frowned upon.
I think theres what the word actually means, and then theres the stereotyped version that maybe has more power, ie angry about being celebate, poor mental health, usually hates women because of it.
Perhaps involuntarily celebate and incel mean slightly different things to each other by now.
Explain to me how the basic concept is not misogynistic in itself.
As I've understood it, the idea of the incel movement is that these people deserve to get fucked, by whomever they choose, that they don't have any obligation to change anything about themselves, they are just being treated unfairly.
It ignores the other person completely, they are just some price they deserve, not a living breathing person with their own feelings and preferences.
I realize people have trouble with social interaction, but an interaction with another person is inherently social, no two ways about it.
Incel is a shit person who is unable to have romantic relationships with women and blames/hates them for that. They also tend to hate men who are successful in that regard. They are simply toxic squiggly emo worms.
Go on any incel echo chamber and you'll know.
Because people mostly know about the vocal minority that posts a lot of hateful content, presumably mostly for attention. This is exacerbated by the just world fallacy — people want to believe that if someone is unhappy, they must have done something bad to deserve it.
The word incel has evolved beyond its literal meaning to refer to a specific subset of people.
Also I may be wrong here - but I think the term originated as a self-designation by a group of openly misogynist men? So even when the term originated it would have had that connotation.
Either way, there's a big difference between someone who can't get laid an an incel, even if the terms don't reflect that difference.
Ah, I miss the good old days of r/incelwithouthate. The perfect site for a subhuman like me without the possible terrorism.
Denying oneself sex is an unhealthy practice for mind and body. They are sick people and need help. That’s it. To have a conversation beyond help is just ignoring the obvious and denying treatment. The misogyny is just poor mental health and lack of understanding about women and generally themselves. They’re just mentally and physically ill and refuse help.
Because people like to hate. The internet, 'tis a silly place. I recommend ignoring.
You won't find a genuine answer in these comments. Incels are hated because you can easily make up excuses to.
Here’s one, right above yours: https://lemmy.world/comment/7692893
Their second statement is that cannot be an incel if not as "a monk under threat or something" and you consider that an exhaustive answer.
Sex is part of a human's life. To not experience intimate relationships is detrimental to mental health, independently from the social pressure.
People who declare themselves "involuntary celibate" deserve compassion, not to be frowned upon.
Don’t care if their analogy falls short. They’re right. No one is entitled to sex. Full stop. That’s exhaustive and complete.
The hallmark of a person colloquially known as an incel is someone who believes they are entitled to sex.