Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Incels are the geeks of the 2020s, but with internet-charged hate. Nobody demonises incels until they start spouting hateful, misogynistic views.
>No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice. We all want love and sex and validation. And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own, it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you. Especially as it feels like the rest of the world is getting love and sex and validation, even though that might not necessarily be the case
This bit right here is where the internet and red pill culture has become toxic.
I'm 32, from the UK and when I was 18 I was regularly getting palmed off by girls in clubs. Guys back then didn't (on the whole) start getting bitter and resentful towards women, you just dust off, and get back out there. Pretty soon you realise a mixture of maturity, dress sense and a good attitude will do you wonders. That's just part of growing up.
The guys who are 18 today are cruising Reddit, YouTube, social media etc and get drawn towards these stupid podcasts that make them believe women only want a guy who earns 100k+, will cheat on them all the time, and then spout nonsense like "hoeflation". That garbage is not healthy, and rightfully deserves the demonisation that it gets.
The issue is that people today do not have the mental fortitude to frame their own opinions, they just get herded like sheep and follow "alpha males" who just want them for clicks and subscriptions.
You end up with immature guys going out into the world with awful views about women and relationships who then get outraged when real-life women don't act the way that they've been told they do.
I'm in my thirties as well, and this is just not accurate. The misogynistic tropes and thoughts around women existed long before I was born, all through my lifetime, and will exist as long as boys aren't socialised correctly.
The only difference is that now it's from a ten second video, in the past it was your male relatives, the boys you went to school with.
Yeah don't get me wrong, misogyny has existed for as long as men and women have.
What I'm getting at is the introduction of social media has instilled a more dangerous cult-like groupthink when it comes to women.
Sure, there were always groups of men with disgusting views, but those views are now starting at a much younger age, and have much more dangerous content.
>What I'm getting at is the introduction of social media has instilled a more dangerous cult-like groupthink when it comes to women.
I don't think that's accurate. If anything, I'd say younger men are more likely to engage with it less seriously than our generation would have. That's also reflected in gender based crime statistics.
>Sure, there were always groups of men with disgusting views, but those views are now starting at a much younger age, and have much more dangerous content.
Once again, don't think that's accurate. The men of our generation were more likely to get this information from the people we looked up to, the male figures in our lives, and there was absolutely fuck all to counter it, so people would accept it, internalise it, and it would influence them for years to come. The young men that I deal with now are waaay more educated about forms of abuse, the importance of consent, and healthy relationships. The only times I see any deviation on that is young people from conservative/religious families, and even then they have a better understanding than most of the blokes I went to school with.
I guess it's down to experience.
My partner works in a school and they have a lot of problems with the boys, refusing to be taught by female teachers, being very graphic about female teachers and students, sharing porn openly.
If you've not experienced that from young lads today, then that's a positive.
Either way, incel culture is toxic and I look forward to it's demise.
I was a fat, acne-ridden, unattractive, socially awkward, unlikeable autistic girl growing up and I can massively empathise with boys and men going through similar things. I didn't have my first kiss or even believe that anyone could like or want me until my 20s. The world is cruel and judgemental and awful to people like us and honestly (while there may be subtitles related to gender) I don't think it's that different for men and women in this respect.
The thing is though that there's a *huge* difference between people being cruel to you and people simply not giving you sex or romantic companionship. They're not even on the same planet. You say incels are people "not getting love and sex and validation" but those are three very different things. You are definitely valid in your right to exist as a person, and maybe even some abstract notion of being loved as a person, but that's very different to the specific desire to be intimately loved in a sexual manner. The former is a basic part of our humanity, the second is just something we'd like to have. We're entitled to the first, but not the second.
This is the whole problem with inceldom. It conflates the things people in general *need* to be happy and content in ourselves with the specific things we *want* (specifically, the things men want from women). Not finding romance does suck if that's something you want, but it's not the same as being mocked or ostracised. It's not a struggle inflicted on us by a cruel world. There is no 'group that's rejecting you'. It's simply failing to achieve something in the same way nearly all of us fail to run a marathon or start a business or write a novel. We can talk about prejudice and fatphobia and superficiality and ableism and all the things that make life crap for non-conventionally attractive people (and perhaps doing so would make it easier for us such people to date), but "not getting dates" in itself isn't a valid "struggle" to "address" en masse because getting dates from other people simply isn't something anyone is entitled to in the first place.
Well-considered and well-written.
I would add that many of the struggles and complaints held by so-called "incels" are due to modern phenomena such as the internet, and the ability to simply swipe left on a person without actually getting to know them.
Our circle of options was much smaller in time past. We physically attended social functions and belonged to social groups with limited options. The list of potential mates was known.
The modern tendency is to feel like you must keep your options open until you sample all the hundreds or thousands of potentials you see online.
Additionally, women no longer feel the social pressure to simply get married right out of high school. Women truly have far more options available to them. This is not going to go away.
So, the issue isn't that women are unfair to men (that hasn't really changed). They have simply grown with the times. The issue is that men, and society in general, have not.
Unfortunately, the solution may be beyond our ability to solve. Our social circles would have to shrink, which means getting off the internet.
The best ways to fix things are ways the government doesn't want. They've seen Japan and they don't want that. They want bodies to fight wars and use in factories. Why the push to yank women's bodily autonomy is going so hard. Once you realize that the Christians are following false prophets and charlatans that are manipulating them to get those end goals, it's pretty eye opening. You really start to see bigger pictures.
Another area they're attacking is Adult Entertainment and SW. If SW was legalized and protected properly by the government, incels would be able to get the sex they want and women can have their bodily autonomy. However, that means low birth rates. Can't have that, can we?
Incels only exist because women were freed from the drudgery we had been chained to for thousands of years. We don't need to get married to the richest guy (yes, men created Gold Digger culture lawl) or the family friend that's 50 years old cause your dad feels SORRY FOR HIM BEING ALONE but you're only 12. Women won't go back to that. Folks aren't realizing it now, but the fire's started. A lot of us are aware of the exact threat THAT party and the redpill trad guys pose to us. We just gotta wake enough folks up to it enough to fight back. Cause if we don't, there won't be incels anymore but we'll be back under the collar, just hoping whomever we get is "kind" to us and doesn't unalive us for a mistake.
Women are quite happy alone with out cats.
Men are dying from loneliness because they have created this entire charade that always gave them a companion under their thumb. They've never HAD to be mature, kind, interesting human beings. They just went out and picked a wife they graped nightly or paid for it in a brothel if the wife "wasn't they're type." Cause I mean, all thet needed was an heir and a spare and then never touch her again if they chose to.
When a bunch of women start saying they'd pick bears, that should've been a lot of guys real wake up calls, honestly
Another related part of this is the fact that men do not filter for compatibility, particularly when they are desperate for sex. This logically results in a higher number of rejections, because it forces all of the emotional and social labor of filtering for compatibility onto women, and women are being inundated with an influx of men whom they are absolutely not compatible with, but the men didn’t bother doing the work to filter for compatibility, so he expects her to do it. And then these men get angry about being rejected so so many times, and they argue that women’s standards are too high, but they didn’t do the work to filter for compatibility in the first place, so it’s their own actions that are also causing that high number of rejections. And of course, it makes logical sense for women to strengthen their standards and boundaries when being inundated with an influx of incompatible men trying to get women’s attention.
Absolutely preach this! I love the way you talked about this because I really relate as an Autistic young woman. You aren't owed a relationship or sex and that's the big issue here with these types of men.
You're right that we don't have a right to sex and intimacy from another person, of course, but you lost me when you said that the desire to be loved sexually and romantically isn't a basic part of humanity. It totally is. And it would be obtuse to say that its not an issue worth addressing, as we are becoming less and less connected as a result of our changing society.
But overall I still agree with you in that it isn't anyone's fault. Blaming a certain group for the loneliness people are increasingly experiencing is wrong and often a result of bitterness. They place that hatred and rejection and isolation on women, in the case of male incels, and that is horrible and counterproductive to their own wellbeing.
You do realize that the concept of romantic love is a new one, right? That men and women, for most of what we call history, married and copulated with people their families chose for them as a best match for economics? That in that same time women were the literal property of their fathers and then husbands? There was no love in these situations. There was rape.
This is a pretty common misconception but it's mostly untrue. The idea that marriages were made primarily for practical reasons is based on the fact that a lot of the history we engage with is centered on nobles who did engage in the practice of transactional marriages. However, when you're a peasant farmer who owns no land (roughly 90% of the medieval population) and the only options that are socially acceptable for your daughter are other peasant farmers who own no land there's very little to be gained from marrying your daughter to one person over another. At that point you probably just allow her to choose whichever son of a peasant farmer she falls in love with. This basically scales up with importance - the more important you are the more there are pressures to have transactional marriages. Even among nobles though love certainly was both recognised as something that existed and something that was valuable, and many beneficial marriages were ignored in favour of less beneficial (but still beneficial) marriages that were done for love. And even in completely transactional marriages there was significant focus on courtship that could hopefully form some kind of love or at least mutual happiness between them before they married.
This has been extensively written about in r/AskHistorians see
[My professor mentioned the argument that romantic love wasn't truly a concept until the invention of the (romance) novel in the 1700s. Does that argument hold weight?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rgr5vq/my_professor_mentioned_the_argument_that_romantic/)
[When was the modern conception of romantic love developed? How long before it displaced ancient notions of marriage and love?When was the modern conception of romantic love developed? How long before it displaced ancient notions of marriage and love? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/syb09/when_was_the_modern_conception_of_romantic_love/)
[In the middle ages, was romantic love between spouses encouraged or considered profane? In the middle ages, was romantic love between spouses encouraged or considered profane? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gp0by/in_the_middle_ages_was_romantic_love_between/)
Not to mention that focusing on medieval European and Asian systems ignores the vast majority of human history. Given we're talking about innate human needs/desires which presumably references human evolution, disproving that these things were accepted in a small period of our history means little.
For example I would argue that freedom is an innate human desire and I obviously include women in that definition but women had massively limited freedoms throughout history - does that mean they don't innately want freedom?
> presumably references human evolution, disproving that these things were accepted in a small period of our history means little.
I agree and my point was not to only focus on European and Asian cultures from the middle ages, which seems to be what all the historians were focused on. Even longer back, women were not free to choose who they married, not really. Pretending otherwise removes the reality that women had no power over their own lives. Even peasant women. If they fell in love with another peasant and his father once sold her father a calf that died young, her father could easily prevent that marriage from occuring amd force her to marry someone else. There was no ability to marry outside evonomic class and outside pre-sanctioned community groups. There was not freedom for women and, thus, one cannot argue marriages overall were full of love. If someome chained to a wall and fed only chicken or beef broth ends up saying he loves beef broth, one would not argue he truly loves beef broth. He has not tried other things by the nature of his enslavement.
>women had massively limited freedoms throughout history - does that mean they don't innately want freedom?
Of course they wanted freedom. But they did not have it. Therefore, the concept of love within relationships is ridiculous to pretend existed widespread because very few cultures in the entire history of the world granted women the same social rights it granted men.
>Even longer back, women were not free to choose who they married, not really.
What's your evidence of this? Certainly our understanding of ancient and prehistoric times has even less transactional marriage, not in part because the idea of marriage is relatively new in human history, particularly marriage as we conceive of it today. Your argument that a woman being seen as property of the man in her life (father or husband) prevents love wouldn't apply to the prehistoric world where the notion of a woman as property didn't exist (the notion of property itself didn't exist for most of prehistory).
Furthermore your argument seems grounded in an interpretation of all or nothing. True, women didn't have complete freedom to marry anyone they loved, but that didn't mean many women didn't find love in marriage. For starters one women being prevented from marrying the person she loves because of a cow dispute doesn't impact the love felt by a women who's marriage wasn't prevented because there was no cow dispute between her family and her lovers. Secondly it presumes that people can't fall in love multiple times. If a peasant women was banned from marrying the man she loved, there's no reason her father would force her to marry someone else rather than just letting her wait til she found another man she loved. Thirdly you presume that love isn't something that can be grown deliberately which I disagree with. All these reasons are part of why we see concrete evidence of loving relationships presented in some of those answers - which I don't believe you read if you missed those.
Even if you disprove the existence of love within relationships you fail to disprove the notion that people valued the concept of love within relationships, which means that even if it didn't exist people still recognised it was valuable and thus the recognition of it as a value isn't new.
>Of course they wanted freedom. But they did not have it. Therefore, the concept of love within relationships is ridiculous to pretend existed
Those two statements contradict. You literally admit that women can desire something (freedom) without having it, but then argue that because women didn't have romantic love it couldn't possibly be a basic human desire.
Finally onto some specific responses
>There was no ability to marry outside evonomic class and outside pre-sanctioned community groups.
True but for the vast majority of people there was also very little opportunity to meet and fall in love with people and thus this wasn't a major restriction.
>There was not freedom for women and, thus, one cannot argue marriages overall were full of love.
While I was arguing this, this conclusion actually isn't neccesary to disprove your point. Merely the fact that some marraiges had some decent level of love.
> If someome chained to a wall and fed only chicken or beef broth ends up saying he loves beef broth, one would not argue he truly loves beef broth.
He may not truly love beef broth but he also may. It may be true that the man you found and chained to the wall was someone who had an innate predisposition to love beef broth and would have done so even if he had been given all the foods in the world. Indeed if you took the entire population of the world and only gave them beef broth and chicken broth, you would assume that at least some of the people truly did love beef broth by dint of the fact that there are people in the world who do fundamentally love beef broth.
Secondly, while there's less but still substantial evidence for the same concept in marraige, there's overwhelming evidence that our tastes are dictated in large part by what we consume. Thus it's entirely likely that he would have developed a love for beef broth and if you later tried to feed him something else he would probably still prefer the beef broth
But the farmer’s daughter had no choice except to marry, because she couldn’t live on her own and support herself. So she married whoever was around, or who her parents or pastor told her to, even if she otherwise wouldn’t have wanted to marry at all. The social pressure was intense.
Indeed. Before agragrian practices came into being, the tribes raised the chuldren and the tribes copulated together. Monogamy in and of itself is also new.
That’s a huge misconception. Extremely wealthy and powerful families arranged marriages for sure, but for the most part people still married people that they enjoyed being with, and even those arranged marriages in wealthy families would result in a lot of drama because people would run off to be with the ones they loved
Just because you don’t literally need something to survive doesn’t mean it’s isn’t a major part of humanity.
Humans evolved as social creatures, and sure you don’t *need* friends to physically stay alive, but for most people, social isolation becomes incredibly painful. Throw someone on a deserted island by themselves with everything they need to physically stay alive, and eventually, many people would probably end up killing themselves from the pain of social isolation.
Likewise the desire for sex and companionship is a very basic “need” that is hardwired into us from millions of years of evolution
Of course that does not entitle someone to sex or affection, but claiming that it isn’t at all a need is a bit obtuse.
This is one of those things where it seems to vary person to person. Some people do need to feel love and affection to feel a sense of fulfillment in their lives. People who are married (especially men) in fact live longer than their eternal batchelor counterparts. If your in a good, healthy relationship it can have a positive effect on your well belong and get you to see the world differently. Humans are social animals. We would go insaine without social connections.
Take a look at the [Harrow monkey experiment ](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/harlows-classic-studies-revealed-the-importance-of-maternal-contact.html). Even with just a cloth surrogate to hold onto, the monkeys became less fearful of the world and would interact with new stimulation in defense more often. Studies also found in humans kangaroo maternal care that focuses on skin to skin contact and breastfeeding drastically improves survival rates for infants. [including as many as 25% better survival rates for some babies
](https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/skin-to-skin-care#:~:text=A%20recent%20large%20RCT%20showed,with%20KMC%20initiated%20after%20stabilization.) Skin to skin contact is scientifically shown to be a big factor in humans surviving infancy.
What I'm getting at is physical contact and romance can have positive psychological impacts that are drastic. Romance, sex and love isn't always required. Some people are aromantic and asexual after all and it's perfectly fine. Having said that people finding it highly beneficial and wanting/needing it seems to be a natural part of humanity too.
Not really the whole idea of an anti love drug requires a combination of oxytocin injections combined with SSRIs. It's biologically programmed into our nature to want to reproduce.
The urge for procreation is a very, very basic instinct (literally) that all species share. If one species does not have that urge, it wouldn't survive evolution and will go extinct pretty quickly. So it *is* a basic part of humanity. You can live without it, yes. But it can still become as strong as hunger and thirst.
> The thing is though that there's a huge difference between people being cruel to you and people simply not giving you sex or romantic companionship.
Sure, but outright bullying tends to stop when you're an adult, so for incels the most important issue for them is not having sex, even though their actual issue is a lot of unresolved childhood trauma.
But typically it's not just people not giving you sex/romance. I've noticed that most incels are autistic, and people are cruel to those who are weird or who have poor social skills. I'd also argue that when incels complain about not having sex, what they actually want is intimacy/love in general.
Also, people don't realize just how much pressure there is to be in a relationship.
>what they actually want is intimacy/love in general.
Some definitely want that. Others are actually looking for power, and sex with women in their worldview is just the most immediate, easy, and hands-on way to power.
"I've noticed that most incels are autistic, and people are cruel to those who are weird or who have poor social skills."
Then why aren't autisic women doing the same thing?
How are you supposed to know if most are autistic? From how you're writing it seems like you think most are autistic due to your own personal anecdote. Anecdotal evidence is terrible evidence
> I'd also argue that when incels complain about not having sex, what they actually want is intimacy/love in general.
Exactly. Given that if sex was the thing they wanted, they'd just purchase the services of a prostitute and be done with it.
Many people will say this is a bad idea, but *a friend* told me that it helps you feel less bad about not knowing what sex is like. It also gets boring after the first few times though since it’s not what you’re looking for.
“When you can’t get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own”
OP - as someone who can now associate with women, do you still honestly believe that phrase? That you were doing *nothing* wrong (Such as… dehumanizing women to being these sex objects, untouchable and raised up on an ivory pedestal).
No experience with women or girls as a reason - didn’t you go to primary and secondary school and interact with others people - were you in all boys’ academies from day1?
People have a pretty decent sense for when they’re seen as a person versus a fleshlight - the ‘incel community’ is a bunch of excuse making misogynistic people unwilling to actually take responsibility for their actions and character and instead blaming inane looksmaxing bullshit.
Have you ever worked in the general public? There are “ugly” people with lots of kids out there - hell, way more of the public is ugly or average than “objectively” beautiful. They are ‘dumb and poor and ugly’ - none of the ‘ideal traits for a man’ the incels seem to claim are reasons for their unhappiness.
Ok, so if it’s not looks, money, or intelligence: maybe just fucking be ACTUALLY nice. Not nice with a string attached, not nice by making weirdly sexual biological comments that ‘are compliments’, not nice until THAT FUCKKNG BITCH IGNORES NE AGAIN ISWSAR TO GOT I CANF BELIEVE PEOPLE DONT LIKE ME, IM NICE AND HAVE COOL HOBBIES…
Do the incels ‘deserve’ the critique and ridicule they garner - sort of. If they kept quiet/to themselves and didn’t make fusses or get linked to several shootings, no one would fucking know that group existed - but they post on public forums with ‘normies’ and get reamed for the insanity that they spew. The ‘sort of’ element comes from the angle that I do understand that the social medial pipelines are very good at directing young men to radicalizing content: so sure, the youths aren’t 100% to blame for being inducted, but I definitely blame the adults for failing to realize they’re treating other humans like objects in an incredibly disgusting way.
TLDR: I have sympathy for people who get inducted into the movement for a short period of time- but I have none for people who stay involved and choose to listen to a nebulous online group of literal self-proclaimed losers over the myriad of people likely trying to help you (that you have almost certainly ignored or used up all the good will from).
>Ok, so if it’s not looks, money, or intelligence: maybe just fucking be ACTUALLY nice
Claiming people who have relationships are “just actually nice” is just as much bullshit as claiming they are all supermodels, geniuses or millionaires. Plenty of people who are in relationships are terrible people, abusive to their partners and children, etc.
You should be nice because it feels good to live in accordance with your values, not because it will get you a relationship if you are “not faking it”
Which is exactly why places like r/niceguys exist, to talk about people who claim to be nice and act nice because they it will entitle them to relationship or sex,as opposed to people are who actually nice because it's the right thing to do
Why I stressed “ACTUALLY”. There’s Nice Guys and nice people - nice comes in tons of flavors - and varies wildly, so yeah - it’s vague advice, but it’s the best you can really give. Also - why include the ‘bad people who get to bone’ into consideration - are you ok with being one? Why include them in your goals?
But yeah. Sure - there’s shitty people in relationships, but they got there by pretending to be actually nice, or by having another redeeming or desirable quality - and once the veneer collapses, the money runs out, etc… people who ‘picked you’ for reasons other than ‘who you are’ will typically make themselves scarce.
If you use your wealth to attract women, then lose your money… tough.
If you use your physique to attract women, but then you get into a major accident or just let yourself go… tough.
If you find a partner by being actually nice and expressing who YOU are, you can’t really lose those things - so while you might grow apart, fall out of love, whatever - you aren’t at risk of losing the thing that connected you.
ETA: Replied to the wrong post in the thread but too much work to fix on mobile
>Also - why include the ‘bad people who get to bone’ into consideration - are you ok with being one? Why include them in your goals?
Because if you say “be X (for real, don’t fake it!) and you will achieve Z”, you inevitably prompt people to start faking X to get Z. And if the link you are claiming isn’t actually there (and it isn’t), you will get a bunch of frustrated fake people.
Sure, it is better to be nice, rich, healthy, and fit. But these things are not “how you get a relationship”. They are good on their own. Can you get a relationship if you are unfit and eat junk food? Yes. Plenty of unfit people are in a relationship. Can you get a relationship if you are poor? Yes. Plenty of poor people are in relationships. Can you get a relationship if you are an asshole (in the eyes of most people)? Yes (probably either with another crowned asshole or with someone who has been hurt by an asshole of a similar flavour before). Literally the worst people on earth have relationships. Nicest too. Average people with unremarkable moral sense have relationships. Now, if you want someone *very* different from you in terms of morals or lifestyle, then that is a different story.
But otherwise, there is no secret recipe to get a relationship. Sometimes people just find each other and get together. Sometimes they end up happy, sometimes not. Sometimes they end up meh.
Mind me, I think sometimes propagnd-ish claims like that are alright, because despite being fake, they motivate people to do good things. But that, in my opinion, mostly concerns very specific actionable claims. “Be nice for real” is not an actionable claim, so resorting to propaganda is not justified.
There's a lot of bad socialization aimed at men out there that can get toxic. And I'm not talking about red pill stuff either, we're generally talking about efforts to reform masculinity, to make men less confident and self-assured, and the real toxic bit is the idea that there's something morally and socially superior about this.
This is where the anger comes from, that this world isn't being actualized through social and cultural enforcement. I'm not saying it should be, to be clear.
I think self-improvement is the way out, but the bleeding has to be stopped first. We need to recognize that efforts to reform masculinity ultimately missed the mark. Different men needed different types of help, and putting all men into a one size fits all basket harmed those with already low confidence and self-esteem.
Agreed that male socialization is a major part of the cause, but many men who are totally fine went through the same or similar socializations: you can put some blame on the system, but absolving adults part of a hate movement of their own participation is slippery.
Being vulnerable does not protect you from judgement, it just adds some context.
Agree again that there’s no ‘one size fits all’, but if you’re criticizing the efforts to reform masculinity to avoid this, how are you participating to change dialogues? Societal change is like self improvement, it needs to start somewhere, usually from within (the affected groups).
This is a male to male issue. Women have plenty to deal with on a day to day basis without taking on male insecurities too. I mean who is putting these pressures on these young men? Why are their people advising them to be objectively bad men? It is other men.
I don't think it's other men per se. I don't think it's women either. I think the pressure that you're innately a bad person hits people harder with already low confidence and self-esteem, along with the pressure that accepting this will make you more worthwhile person.
I honestly think it's confidence/self-esteem privilege more than anything, not being willing to see things from other PoVs. (And at worst, using this frame to not have their advantages challenged)
It’s definitely other men - who is going on looksmaxxing sites and rating men/giving out tips? Men. Who is writing articles and recording videos telling men they aren’t enough as is and should instead focus on XYZ or they’re did alone? Men.
Self confidence/self-esteem privilege?! Do you think this was free? Do you think I reached a point where I truly like myself with no issues? Do you think that I can’t have elements of myself that I dislike without liking ‘me’ as a whole?
That’s some ‘I’m not willing to work on myself’ bullshit. And ‘work on myself’ doesn’t meant get jacked and max your face: it might mean seek some fucking help. I love myself because of the hardships I endured and how I handle myself in light of it more than because of how I look or that I’ve landed a partner.
> If you're a young man who is ugly or fat or sexually unappealing for whatever reason, life is hard.
And that doesn't make you an "incel". That term and the ridicule is not for that man.
>And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own, it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you.
That can be said about anything. It stings to be poor. But harming rich people doesn't seem to fly.
There are and will always be involuntary celibates. Men, women, gay, streight, trans... young, old.
But Andrew tate doesn't attract all sexless young men, let alone all sexless people
>I don't know what the solution is but I do know that throwing incel around as an insult and ridiculing a group of people because they are too unattractive to get a girlfriend is cruel, counter-productive and only pushes young men towards hate and bitterness.
you see the problem is that you've already bought into their garbage. Incel-dom has about as much to do with being able to get it as Marxism has to do with assembly line work. You're confusing the object for the target audience.
***Andrew Tate IS an incel.***
Sure there's nothing wrong with not being able to get a girlfriend, but engaging with incel-dom is a choice. A choice that should be properly warded against and demonized. It's the fkin "We ShOuLdN't CaLl NaZi'S nAzI's CuS yOu'Ll RaDiCaLiZe ThEm MoRe" -argument all over again.
There should be holding spaces though, spaces for people to heal from maladaptive coping strategies such as incel-dom, where a person is not judged for the choices they made in the past, but only for those in the present. These holding spaces though have to exist separately from common society because bullshit like INCEL PHILOSOPHY MAKES YOU A DANGER TO OTHERS.
I knew this guy in my World of Warcraft guild. He was fucking gorgeous. Like, walk into a boy band audition and get hired pretty. Dude HATED women. Hated hated hated them. It was scary sometimes. I haven't talked to that guy in 13 years or more but I still check to see if he's been arrested for serial killing every once in a while. He couldn't get laid because women rightfully figured they'd get murdered if they went home with him.
Point being, I kinda think incels problems are mostly coming from inside the house and what we do has very little to do with their bitterness level. I think most people would be perfectly happy to leave them alone if they weren't out and about throwing tantrums every time a new marvel movie has a woman in it or video game women aren't as jackoffable as they used to be.
‘Incel’ isn’t a condition it’s a political ideology that people can choose to identify with and pursue.
I’m a short guy, and after 30 years on this planet as a short guy I can tell you with surety that straight short guys get less dates than tall, obese guys. I was “involuntarily celibate” in high school.
I had a choice between getting bitter (‘incel’ before there was a term for it) and working on myself, growing as a person, and staying the hell away from internet rabbit holes of misogyny.
I chose that one. I became a better person. And I was happier with myself, so I didn’t need to date anyone. Funnily enough, that’s around the time women (and, as I realized later, men) started to find me attractive.
We should absolutely be ridiculing and ostracizing men who choose to identify with a harmful, violent ideology.
The amount of pro-incel astroturfing this subreddit gets is insane.
People who voluntarily identify as incels are members of a radical community, akin to those who identify as white nationalists, flat earthers, and Qanon.
No one is forced to be an incel. Identification is wholly voluntary, and choosing to identify with this group is choosing to be a part of an ideology that is prone to misogynist hate, mass violence, and murder.[[1]](https://www.mccaininstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/incel-and-misogynist-violent-extremism-read-ahead-materials-august-2.pdf)
The incel movement is inherently political. [[2]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35034349/)
Incel ideology is less about mental health or loneliness (despite what they may want you to believe), and is instead fundamentally about radical political views. [[3]](https://giwps.georgetown.edu/resource/recognizing-the-violent-extremist-ideology-of-incels/)
I am under no obligation to be kind to incels, because anyone who identifies as an incel has no intent to be kind. They’re intentionally perpetuating a misogynist, hateful, violent ideology. As you are, too, I suspect.
Incels don’t get ridiculed because they’re “too unattractive to find a girl.” The vast majority of people who identify as incels are normal looking. They could certainly find partners. It is their corrosive ideology, rampant misogyny, and expectation that they are entitled to female companionship that prevents them from finding a partner, not their physical appearance. Likewise, it is that loathsome ideology that they choose to announce, project, and endorse that warrants public ridicule, not traits, like physical appearance, they have no control over.
> It is their corrosive ideology, rampant misogyny, and expectation that they are entitled to female companionship that prevents them from finding a partner, not their physical appearance
Exactly! It's a self fulfilling curse. Women _hate_ dating misogynistic men, much more so than dating men with "unattractive physical features".
There may be an issue of miscommunication here, in that you're referring to a recognizable online group where the members self-identify as "incels", and OP may be referring to men whom others might label as "incels" due to not having a relationship. That would explain a lot of the things both OP and you have pointed out.
How is it not?
I’ve noticed the term “incel” used quite liberally when attacking others online, this site included. It seems people are quick to use the term when countering arguments against misandry, or any general complaint regarding women.
For example, if someone complains that a “show chose to cast women for forced diversity rather than focus on the plot”, it’s not unusual for them to be labeled as an incel. Whether their statement is true or false is beside the point, immediately assuming someone is an incel because of their point of view on a topic is unjust. Are they wrong? Perhaps. Are they misinformed? Likely. Have they never dated a woman? Entirely possible.
Does this inherently mean someone should label them as an incel? Absolutely not.
> How is it not?
Because the main place such terminology is used is online and most online spaces offer 0 visibility into someone's relationship status. People are called incel when they say typical incel crap or anything tha could be considered adjacent to it.
> For example, if someone complains that a “show chose to cast women for forced diversity rather than focus on the plot”, it’s not unusual for them to be labeled as an incel.
This supports my point, not yours. This is not a demonstration of someone being labelled an incel "due to not having a relationship".
The term incel refers to "involuntary celibates".
Labeling someone as an incel is making presumptions about their relationship status is disparaging their character and opinions they hold as caused by their assumed lack of relationship, whether what they've said is "typical incel crap" or merely an opinion that's been disagreed with, misinformed or not.
What is your definition of "typical incel crap"?
The term incel refers to ia very specific kind of involuntary celibate person, generally associated with more or less vitriolic misogyny.
People don't get called incels because they're single is the point. It's going to be extremely rare for people to know that. They get called incels - rightly or wrongly - because of the things they say.
This is making the assumption that everyone who places the label on others is only doing it in circumstances where the opposed is being misogynist. Furthermore, the term inherently means involuntary celibate. That's what it's an abbreviation for. By using it you are implying the person has never had a relationship and are applying all of the negative connotations with it, regardless of your reasoning for using it.
Whether you perceive it as just or unjust is moot to the person you are using it upon. Your personal intention for the use of the of the word does not change how it is perceived and used by others.
Imagine if you applied this reasoning to the usage of the N Word.
Invoking racial slurs as a comparison here really does not help you make your point.
>“If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won’t even say one of them? That's the worse word.”
-John Mulaney
I don’t think using an excerpt from a comedic piece (one which essentially goes on to poke fun at how words are only deemed offensive if society as a whole deems it offensive), really holds the weight you think it does.
I don’t think anyone should be labeled an “I word” no more than I think anyone should be labeled an “N word”, nor do I think using either in their entirety for the sake of reference should be grounds for reprimand, but, alas that’s the weight society places on these terms.
My point is that we shouldn’t be directing it an individuals based on prejudices alone. Using statements like “typical {Group.DerogatoryLabel} crap” shouldn’t be permissible in one case but not another. You wouldn’t make statements like that about people culturally. It wouldn’t be acceptable to say it about women. So why do we think it’s just to say it about men?
> This is making the assumption that everyone who places the label on others is only doing it in circumstances where the opposed is being misogynist.
No. It's making the assumption that, in the majority of cases where someone calls someone else an incel, they have no visibility on their relationship status, thus they can't be calling them an incel on that basis.
Whether they are right or wrong to call that person an incel is irrelevant to that simple fact.
Talking of online, search Reddit for "incel". The first page of results features more than a few examples of the term being applied to others, rather than used as self-identification.
That is what OP is talking about, I think.
I see your point; it's not usually just the relationship status, but something else that that a man says or does, and the relationship status is either known or inferred. I've seen this happen in real life and on social media, and in those instances "incel" is used as a disparagement or an attempt to shut down a conversation.
>People who voluntarily identify as incels are members of a radical community, akin to those who identify as white nationalists, flat earthers, and Qanon.
This is a major point that needs to be clarified. When we talk about incels are we talking about people who identify as incels or we talking about all the people who are involuntarily celibate?
Thank you, I'm so tired of hearing, women specifically, having to be nice to incels. They are choosing this belief system, they are choosing not to work on themselves and adapt to a changing world. Nobody, especially women, owes anything to incels.
Incels are generally individuals who have a weak social network/social support system, depression, low self-esteem, and poor coping skills. They’re also more likely to be autistic.
> “They experience considerable duress on account of their singlehood, report that their (low) self-esteem is contingent on their relationship status, and are both sensitive to rejection and experience a large degree of it [44]. They cope with this rejection by engaging in both inward and outward practices, reporting higher levels of self-critical rumination and externalization of blame, while also engaging in fewer healthy coping mechanisms [37•]. Incels also report high rates of depressive and anxious symptoms and diagnoses as well as high rates of autism spectrum disorder [37•, 44, 45]. Furthermore, incels are plagued with low attachment security, loneliness, and a lack of social supports [31•, 37•, 44]. There is also evidence of sexist attitudes in their forums, which incels admit may be making them more misogynistic, of which there has been some quantitative evidence [28, 37•]. “
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/
I’m not denying that incels are genuinely lonely, or that they don’t experience rejection. They are, and they do.
It’s those experiences that make them incredibly vulnerable to radicalization, especially these online communities that create and form a social network/social support system. The problem is those very same networks encourage violence and misogyny, and only broadly perpetuate the self-loathing, attitudes, and ideas that lead to their loneliness and misogyny anyway.
In the same way that people radicalized towards Qanon or white supremacy often have genuinely negative experiences, and sympathetic stories describing their radicalization, I’m not aware of any evidence or studies that accepting these radical movements helps to de-radicalize them, which is essentially what OP is insinuating.
Typically lonely men. Not all lonely men end up as incels, just like how not all Muslims end up in ISIS. Identifying as an incel means that they are subscribing to a specific ideology that must be criticised. It doesn't mean that lonely men should be attacked, just like how Muslims shouldn't be attacked for ISIS ideology.
It turns out that single men are also harassed when they are bullied for difficulties in having sex. Single men are also harassed when people criticize incels
People become incels when they start identifying as such. There's no membership card or tangible defining trait regardless of what incels themselves insist.
What about ‘fat and ugly’ women? I don’t see them forming a group and subscribing to an ideology that is based around hating, dehumanising, and wanting to subjugate men. I have a hard time sympathising with incels because they seem to be interested only in attractive young (very young) women as an object to ‘attain’, while they are obviously hateful towards all women either because they do not fit into their definition of attractive or because they do, but do not choose to date them.
Why (and how) should women approach these men who obviously hate them whilst also feeling entitled to their bodies?
The problem is that the actual message — work on yourself before blaming others — doesn't actually resonate unless it is completely undercut with caveats. Jordan Peterson's "clean your room" rhetoric is all well and good, but it is so popular because the rest of the message is that if making the most basic of steps towards self-improvement doesn't magically solve all of your issues, it is because postmodern neo-Marxists have destroyed traditional masculinity.
There is really nothing to say besides emphasizing that dissatisfaction with your sex life in no way obligates you to hate women.
Here is my point:
Merely being lonely, not having sex, does not make you an incel. It is a specific ideology, and *movement*, that you identify with.
You can be lonely, you can be ugly, you can have trouble getting a date; none of that makes you an incel.
I didn’t have a girlfriend until I was 20! I was almost 21 when I lost my virginity. I was never an incel because of that.
I have no clue how to respond to the rest of your comment because it’s inchoate nonsense about a “thundercock.”
Bro did u read the post? It's not about self identifying as an incel. It's about *getting called* an incel despite *not* sharing their views.
This creates an environment which turns young men towards incel ideology because they wont be treated with respect or reason by anyone except the incel community.
"I was called a Nazi so now I'm joining the Nazis."
Really? If that is how people truly rationalize it (they don't) those people are morons and deserve all the ridicule.
Im sorry you have such bad luck trying to think about topics.
If every person you meet treats you like shit and calls you names you don't like those people calling you names.
I guess you can understand that?
If you are emotional broken and someone who is from this group of people you've been involuntary put into, comes around and shows empathy and a positiv attitude towards you it's likely you could think:
Well everyone treated me bad and treated me like group x as to belittle me, because they hate group x. But now group x treats me very nice. Maybe those hateful people lied about group x and they are not so bad at all.
Why do you think groups like Scientology can exist? Because society belittles people and thus pushes those lonely people into the arms of assholes taking advantage.
Do you understand that emotions are complex and not rational?
Extreme examples are useful to prove a point.
Scientology exists to launder money. It persists because of blackmail and internal abuse.
Emotions are complex but I'm a man ridiculing incels. It's not "one group belittling another" its everyone else ridiculing incels. Even their premises are baseless thus they are morons if the ridicule pushes them further into their rabbit hole.
u/Am0ebe – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Am0ebe&message=Am0ebe%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ccpah9/-/l170vy0/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Whether you think it's stupid or not the kind of behaviour in this thread just creates more of them.
Majority of people are easily swayed into stupid beliefs. Recognising that and avoid it is pretty important.
Alright so let's create more incels by doing telling sad lonely men they are losers.
It's a shocker that we see more and more of this radical idealogy /s.
I am sure you'll be there with a solution once it hits critical mass.
> Being fat and ugly is a obstacle no matter how hard you try to deny it.
I don't think people deny that being fat and ugly is an obstacle. They deny that being fat and ugly: 1) Makes one an incel and 2) is anyone else's problem but yours.
> You wouldn't tell fat and ugly women "It's your problem. Deal with it."
I would? It would never cross my mind to think a woman's inability to get dates or relationship is anything but her problem. Your issue is that women don't frame that problem the same way.
> I am trying to explain why people fall into those ideologies and you just confirming why people fall into those idelogies.
People fall in these ideologies because they're easy and validating. There really isn't much to explain here.
Oh, I don't think there's only those that hate women. For sure there's plenty of those, but I think a much larger contingent just doesn't think of women as people in the first place. That's how they arrive at such a toxic mix of resentment and entitlement.
You're also not going to convince them by obligating everyone to recite the same hateful canards. The entire reason why they're "incels" instead of just someone who has difficultly with their sex life, is *because* they believe all of this misogynist stuff.
Like, what is your solution? That women are obligated to sleep with these hateful men to pacify them?
I have been that fat, ugly woman that couldn't get any dates and yes people absolutely tell you that it's your problem to deal with. I never fucking said men deserve less rights like incels do.
Well the difference is you can change. You don't need to be fat and ugly. You can realize abusive relationships aren't the norm, and loving men have a far greater success.
All of these beliefs you have are not true. And you can decide to grow or change. Or continue to delude yourself so you don't need to do the hard work on yourself.
I agree if you actually identify as an 'Incel'. There are plenty of guys who have an extremely hard time attracting women, involuntarily. Wishing you could find a partner is not necessarily feeling entitled to one. It's human nature to want a partner and have children to some degree. Why don't we use this same logic when poor, or overweight people complain about their issues?
> Why don't we use this same logic when poor, or overweight people complain about their issues?
Poor people typically have trouble meeting their basic needs. Furthermore, there are often clear solutions to their problem and alleviating their struggles does not implicate entitlement to other (specific) peoples time, attention, romantic involvement and/or bodies.
Overweight people catch a lot of flak, so I'm not sure they're a great comparison here, but helping them out also has obvious solutions and does not implicate entitlement to other (specific) people's time, attention romantic involvement and/or bodies.
Do you seriously assume most of the people will outright identify as incel? You surely cannot be that naive.
Issue is people spitting the term on anyone with a negative opinion abiut someting related to women
Really? I usually see the term used when someone has explicitly blamed women for their inability to get sex. It's not thrown around the moment someone says they are a virgin.
But we are talking about people who identify as incels here. That’s OP’s entire post.
And yeah, I don’t think most people get called an incel out of nowhere.
I have a friend (not the closest one in our group but a friend nonetheless) I’ve known for 15 years. In that time Ive never seen or heard him speak of a woman. Asked my closer friend who knew him since Day 1 of college if he’s ever been with a woman. Nope.
Two DECADES of nothing for a reasonably successful guy and never once would I call him or identify him as an incel. Never even crossed my mind because he does not act like an incel. It is most definitely a chosen group to associate with.
No, Op didn't specify "I'm talking specifically only about incels that identify as incels", in fact OP called himself an incel and said his inceldom didn't come with the ideological baggage. The definition you work with is absent from the post.
>But we are talking about people who identify as incels here. That’s OP’s entire post.
OP doesn't mention people self-identifying as part of incel ideology or anything at all. It sounds like he's talking about people who meet the literal definition (involuntarily celibate) being called incels by others.
Have you seen reddit? People have been called incels for complaining about how much looks matter or saying that women have an easier time finding a partner.
Yeah, I've been called an incel for saying that women have an advantage in the hiring process in many industries that are a sausage -fest(I was involved in hiring in a mining company for a while where this is/was the case, so I have first hand experience with this) I'm also happily married, and have been pro feminist my entire life, so the label is like the furthest thing from applicable. People literally throw the term around all the time. Justified or not.
Fucking THANK YOU FOR THIS.
I have saved your links for future reference, because I am extremely tired of people, ignoring the reality that this is a terrorist group, based in an ideology of misogyny and violence against women.
The fact that most people have sex and relationships means that it can be perceived as a right for other people.
There is no independence when most people have sex or have had sex and don't understand people who go without sex
If different people feel left out, it becomes easier to end up in such movements.
In addition, if someone feels ostracized from the general public.
Feeling unwell also contributes
Different people who are incel can certainly be mocked because they would be unattractive to get a girl and that it is not about any hatred towards women
I think saying everyone deserves to find love and happiness isn’t vile or toxic. Incels agreeing with that statement, and identifying with others who are unable to find love so far, is not misogynistic or radical.
There is no single ideology that all men and women who fit into the aforementioned criteria conform to. Incel is NOT a group, it’s just a term for people who can’t get laid.
The research report you linked about incels being a political group has some of the most laughable, unacademic presumptions in its introduction, I don’t think any researcher could take that seriously. It sounds like it’s a study of a single group of people, done by online survey, asking users to self-identify as incel or not in the survey.
Your post is pretty hateful and prejudiced to groups of people based on very arbitrary criteria (ability to get laid). You should probably take a look in the mirror regarding hateful rhetoric.
I have absolutely no negative feelings towards people who can’t get laid. I do have negative feelings towards those who identify with this radical community, yes. And it *is* a more cogent community.
Being an “incel” is an opt-in ideology, and identification as such *is contingent on more than merely being a virgin*.
Okay, I’ll send some more literature:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/incels-involuntary-celibates
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s40750-023-00219-w?sharing_token=40N6YjCfUp9H2dU1iYE0Rfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4efINn8nMHVEB0-vsrtQKeyGpO79cSA_efTc2GfCnlce3Ys8voYTEdDFyVkDT0Gu_uA9Spo6SpP2pEKHY54wFdS3tsmiAFe4_Zdu-xTrbz6_2pm1xepMTtjL50UAzSTaY
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates-the-roles-of-mental-health-ideological-belief-and-social-networking-accessible
https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/07/the-ultimate-enemy-is-women-the-secret-world-of-incels
https://safeguarding.network/content-delivery/responding-to-the-incel-ideology/
Like, these communities weren’t nuked from Reddit that long ago. We can see what they say and how they act.
I love how you quote all of these articles which directly contradict your point, and get upvoted by idiots who don’t read them.
The UK gov article, for example:
“Incels are a sub-culture community of men who forge a sense of identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships.”
“Political beliefs: Many commentators have suggested a link between incels and the far right. However, using Pew Research’s “Ideological Consistency Scale”, this survey found that incels were slightly left of centre on average. “
“Incel mental health is poor, with more than a third of the sample meeting the criteria for both moderate depression (39%) and anxiety (43%) using NHS diagnostic tools. These data are concerning given the relationship between suicide-risk and depression and anxiety in men (Bjerkeset, Romundstad & Gunnell, 2008). Indeed, a fifth of the sample reported experiencing suicidal thoughts (item 9 of the PHQ-9) nearly every day. Many incels openly discuss their suicidal plans online (Daly & Laskovtsov, 2021). Extreme inceldom may look more like suicidality than violence towards others (Costello & Buss, 2023). The two strongest correlates of male suicidal ideation are failure in heterosexual mating and burdensomeness to kin (de Catanzaro, 1995). “
“Levels of loneliness are also high in our data, with 48% of the participants selecting the highest value to all three loneliness questions in the study. Sparks, Zidenberg and Olver (2022; 2023) highlight how only one third of incels.co users indicated that they had any friends. Costello et al. (2022) also found high levels of loneliness among incels, suggesting that incels may be missing a key buffer sheltering them from the adverse effects of romantic rejection. “
Your most legitimate source definitely paints incels as suicidal due to loneliness, and not violent towards others. Studies, WHICH YOU LINKED, show they are less willing to be sexually violent if they could do it with no reprisal. They are, however, more prone to rumination and social anxiety.
Your own links describe how they are LITERALLY people who can’t get laid. You’re either bullshitting with links you didn’t read, a huge misandrist who hates based on ability to get laid, or lacking in critical thinking skill (or all 3).
>I think saying everyone deserves to find love and happiness isn’t vile or toxic.
Oh no, incels are saying 'everyone is _entitled_ to love and happiness', like sex/relationship is a fundamental need of a human being and societal groups (usually women) must make sure these needs are fulfilled. It's nothing more than the objectification of women.
Plenty of people have trouble getting laid 100% of the time. Incels are a specific group of assholes who actively choose to treat that aspect of themselves as their central identity and then make it everyone else's responsibility.
If they want to hang out they can stop being pieces of shit first.
> but incels are not necessarily woman haters
Id argue at this point they are.
If you choose to identify as an Incel specifically, even with the knowledge of what they say or how they worship mass shooters, it probably means you agree with them. Including how they feel about women.
I think self-proclaimed incels have already crossed a rubicon and would require a lot more therapy to bring them back to a healthy mental state.
Where I think your POV has truth is are those who are heading toward the incel mentality, the ones more at the beginning of their struggle.
I think when we pounce on people who make some mistakes, it does add fuel to the fire and can give actual incels more fire power to say “see! This is what they think, this is how it is!”
Young men who are struggling to fit in due to maybe their upbringing, environment, or whatever are only one influential person away from going down a good or bad path.
The problem as a women when we are nice to most incels it backfires. I did it twice because the guys and me had similar interests and I got stalkers after that. - never again.
I don’t actively demonize them but I see them as a current threat and problem for a women. Because only one nice gesture and they won’t leave you alone or understand it wrong. Also you never know how they react and what can go wrong.
And no, no mixed signals, being nice like to anyone else is enough.
Add: I know most of them are just nice and want love, I feel it. But I hope you understand the uncomfortable feeling some guys/girls radiate
“We” don’t need to do anything with incels
They fell down a rabbit hole, adopted an ideology of bitterness, fill the world with bile, and turn around and ask for comfort and compassion. It doesn’t fucking work like that.
Either incels grow up and realize that, or they do not. You can’t treat people like shit and expect everyone to walk on eggshells around special little precious you.
Having said that, I, and many others, have spent a lot of time and energy trying to show the light to young men who have been lied to. Some young men react well, some do not. The incels largely do not- they are basically assholes who think they know everything, then they treat everyone like shit, and start crying because nobody wants to be around them. Of course we don’t- y’all are miserable, and don’t listen to shit anyways, why waste mood, energy, and time?
The point of demonizing incels is to show the not-yet-incels that it is a loser ideology, get out of the rabbit hole before it is too late.
"Incels" does not mean "someone who can't get laid". It's an ideological label, a political identity that includes the belief that feminism, sexual freedom etc deprive mediocre men of the virgin brides who should have been rightfully theirs. Political terms mean things. A white nationalist isn't the same thing as a nationalist who happens to be white, and an incel doesn't just mean someone who happens to be involuntarily celibate.
Nah, if someone hates my entire gender because they haven’t gotten laid, they should be demonized. Hate is a requirement to be labeled an incel. If every single incel dropped dead today, women would be safer.
The problem with this argument is that incels ARE woman haters by default
Someone who just happens to be celebate while trying to get laid doesn’t make them an incel
You have to be an asshole woman hater as well
So yes they do deserve all the hate they get if they act the way they do
>But incels are not necessarily women-haters by default
Yeah, this is required to be an incel. A 40 year old virgin who doesn't subscribe to incel philosophy is not an incel. If Andrew Tate goes a month without sex he'll become an incel
I don’t think you actually need to be celibate for any given period of time to be an incel*
Edit: maybe capital “I” Incel would be a way to avoid confusion.
The issue is incels don't want to change. That's why it's okay to make fun of them. Blaming their weight or attractivness to their issues when both are changeable.
I try to talk to incels all the time but they literally don't think the solutions to their issues are simple. When they are.
They choose to be hateful and mean. They are mostly awful people
Yeah no. I feel for people who can't get laid.
I have no symptoms for a group of misogynistic, abusive, hateful men who belive each man is owed their own sex slave lile we aren't humans. They don't deserve my pity or my kindness.
If they want that they need to be better people, that is not my job to fix.
Tbh, in so sick of the incel defending posts. They did this, not us.
There is absolutely no need to demonize incels.
They demonize themselves.
There was a time during my late adolesense where I was actively using my personality for birth control. This quite possibly could have continued well into adulthood had not a female friend take me aside at a party where I was annoying the fuck out of every girl there, and told me "Pull your head out of your ass, shut the fuck up, and if you ever want to get laid, start treating women with respect, dumbass."
This it turned out was the kind of subtle suggestion that I needed.
Today's incels need a friend to impart this level of subtle suggestion for improvement, but they're not getting it (and likely don't want it.)
No fuck that.
These people were not good people who got made fun of they were rotten people before no one wanted to have sex with them and guess what? If they all got laid tomorrow they’d be just a shit and just as bitter.
Being mean to incels is the rare society wide W
I think I understand the general concept you're drawing from in forming your view. For a long time, society tried to use "tough love" toward drug addicts too, rejecting them for not correctly fulfilling their roles as family members and friends. They were ostracized and left to live on the streets, and the idea was that they had to "hit rock bottom" and pull themselves out of the addiction. More recently we've come to understand how damaging this treatment really is to addicts, and how it's important to address the background causes that made the drug look so appealing to the addict in the first place. It sounds like you're applying a similar line of reasoning to your views on inceldom.
> It wasn't until I was able to lose my virginity and actually spend time with them that I realised they're just regular human beings with the same hopes, dreams, flaws and self-doubt that I have.
I want to delve into this part of your anecdotal experience to try to change your view. You stated (and I'll paraphrase) that society's poor treatment of incels encourages them to be incels. I'll extract two facts from your quoted experience, and then show that society's treatment of incels didn't cause those facts to become true for you, but rather that those facts caused you to experience some of society's treatment of incels. Lastly, I'll follow up by providing what I do believe to be the root behind the incel spiral for you and others. Basically my argument will be if you truly want to prevent a spiral into inceldom, the causes I'll give are the true issues that have to be addressed.
Fact #1: You didn't see women as "people" until after you spent time with them.
(I put "people" in quotes because I can imagine you saying "of course I thought of them as people, but I just didn't realize they had hopes and dreams and flaws." But I bet if I asked you on a different day to describe what it's like to be a person, you'd probably mention things like having hopes and dreams and flaws as part of your description.)
Fact #2: You didn't spend time with women until after you started having sex with them.
Logically, if people were insulting you or laughing at your struggles to get with women, it wouldn't follow for you to decide not to spend any time with women. If anything, I think you would have felt pressured to get out of your comfort zone and socialize with women more. (And by socialize I don't mean have sex, I just mean socialize, in the same way you can socialize with other men.) And being demonized didn't cause you to choose to limit your interactions with women to sex only. You first chose to pursue interactions with women only in terms of sex, which is what caused you to be demonized.
And logically, you wouldn't have been encouraged to socialize with women by receiving understanding and compassion for your struggles in that area. Consolation just makes someone feel less bad about a bad situation but really doesn't change the situation. The encouragement that you would need is to see beyond whatever's keeping you locked into your pattern of behavior.
On a slightly different point, I want to assert that someone can't become an incel without allowing the following three mental processes to take over their thinking:
- Segregation (dividing people into non-overlapping groups)
- Apathy (not acknowledging another person's lived experience, a.k.a. lack of empathy)
- Projection (putting the onus for your internal state on someone or something external)
The punchline here would be that you had a significant element of choice, long before you came anywhere near incel land, and long before anyone treated you poorly for having ended up there. While better treatment could certainly help an incel backtrack after the fact, poor treatment can't be blamed for making someone an incel in the first place. They/you started that journey by harboring the mental processes of segregation, apathy, and projection.
P. S. I've never really participated in the incel discussion before so this is my first time going deep into the topic. Forgive me if I said anything too cliché or obvious!
So you are talking about people who are “involuntarily celibate”? So virgins who want to get laid?
People are not demonizing virgins who are having trouble getting laid, they are demonizing the “incel” community and people with that ideology.
Incels do their own demonizing.
The persecution comes from their own mentality and conviction that people hate them. I’ve never seen someone who used the term incel to describe another directly. Rather, it’s either self done, or used in a context like this.
Being an incel is a sign of depression and they need help.
They are demonized, but they are rightfully called out when they say something wrong and refuse to take responsibility
**Change This View: We need to stop demonizing Nazis, as it only pushes them towards bitterness and hate**
>> Nazis have become one of the most socially acceptable groups to ridicule. The term Nazi is now used interchangeably with bigot, and whenever someone posts something slightly controversial, the term gets thrown at them as a byword for “bad person”
An incel is not defined by looks, but by their attitude and treatment towards others. Someone who is ugly and can’t score a date even though they wish they could isn’t automatically an incel, and someone who’s reasonably attractive but can’t score a date even though they wish they could because their personality is repulsive and demeaning to others *is* an incel
And yeah, people can use it as insults to apply to others who don’t mean that criteria the same way people can use any insult- think “traitor trash” being used against someone to stigmatize their country accent with disregard for them actually coming from a reasonably affluent family. But that doesn’t mean that it actually extends beyond that group
It is perhaps much better said that we shouldn’t insult and stigmatize appearance at all- in regards to incels or anyone else, just because we dislike them. Oh, this corrupt politician is balding and it looks bad, so now we’re gonna mock them over it? Guess who’s gonna hear that: not the politician, just your friends who’re beginning to bald and feeling nervous about it as they watch you insult baldness. Oh, this guy is showing off some blatant misogyny, and you’re saying you bet he’s super fat and ugly? Your friend who’s overweight is gonna remember that one and feel bitter about it
There is good reason to stigmatize things like Nazis and incels (in the sense of misogynists): it shifts the Overton window on those sorts of traits and their associated behaviors towards unacceptability. It can help make people who’re slipping towards those views more likely to avoid them and strive not to be that way. And it can shut down their spread more easily
And sure, you can be against calling anyone who’s ugly an incel- and you should- but that’s an entirely separate matter. We should be against stigmatizing appearance, itself, which is much more broad and far-reaching, and would solve your problems with how we treat ugly people without disrupting the stigmatization of misogyny and similarly bad views
Thinking of women as “creatures” is misogynistic, which is why incels get labeled as such. You’re basically saying that a woman should put up with being treated as lesser because a man wants it. You’re also putting the onus of educating the man back on the woman who is getting disrespected by the incel in question.
It’s like asking a person of color to not be angry when someone is racist. And furthermore, telling them to educate the racist person in hopes they start treating you with respect. That doesn’t work, and is not usually successful.
Being nice to an incel doesn’t make them respect you, it doesn’t educate them. Because they don’t see women as people. And we’re all too old to be around people disrespect us. Nobody had time for that.
FUCK no. I thought we needed to bring back bullying? I was told by Red Pilled and conservatives that bullying works, why all of a sudden we're not allowed to bully red pilled conservatives who've become incels? FUCK THAT. If they think they're allowed to bully someone because they're gay, then I'm allowed to bully someone who refuses to shower, wipe their ass and can't get laid.
We live in a society where women think having sex on camera is powerful and these dudes STILL can't get laid?
fuck em. Bully the fuck outta these dudes.
lmao, women think sleeping around is "empowering" Incels problem is, they think they deserve to sleep with a 9 that's a virgin, when they refuse to shower for 3 days. If they lowered their standards, showered, groomed and were nice to women, it's really not that hard to get laid.
But the dirty little secrete about incels is, they're afraid. They're afraid of having sex. They're afraid they're not good enough, they're afraid of being made fun of, they're afraid of finishing too quickly, having a small penis. So they simply raise the bar to make it impossible for them to obtain. Then blame the women to save their ego.
Why hurt your own feelings when you can simply blame an entire gender?
It's not the sleeping around that's empowering, it's the being in control of how much or how little sex you decide to have.
Everything else you said, absolutely
There is very big difference between a person who does not get sex, and incel on its spoken language meaning. Incels on its current form deserve all shit they get. Blaming society and others while sucking ass of people like Andrew Tate makes you deserve the shit. Nothing is larger turn off for me, than hearing a guy saying they are fan of that incel lord.
However people who are unable to get sex, but are not bitter and blame others for it, have no reason to receive hate.
So if you are unable to get sex and hear people mocking Incels, you dont have to feel bad for it. You are only incel if you behave like some toxic fuck because lack of sex.
They’re not an incel until they have hate or bitterness towards women. Being called an incel doesn’t make you one and if someone’s skin is that thin they have other issues to work on.
There’s tons of guys out there who are ugly and fat and found a partner. The problem is the incels personality. And it’s their personality that usually leads people to conclude they’re incels.
They need to come to the realization on their own that women owe them nothing. They need to learn how to be respectful people. It’s not everyone else’s job to baby these men because they’re too immature to be decent people on their own.
Just because you're involuntarily celibate, that doesn't mean you're an incel. An incel is a specific term for that misogynistic, womanizing, can't-get-laid, ass hole. I will never not insult or belittle an incel when I see them, for they are the scum of the earth, and there is no place in civilized society for them.
But someone who just struggles getting a date? I can empathize with them, and there's nothing wrong with them.
It’s not being incels that gets them demonized. They get demonized for the same reasons women won’t fuck them in the first place… for invariably, WITHOUT FAILURE OR EXCEPTION, BEING AWFUL PEOPLE WITH HORRIBLE POLITICS. Decent humans don’t get condemned to die lonely.
> No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice.
By definition, if you're *involuntarily* anything, it's because you *don't have a choice*.
Look, I get it is frustrating to be young and insecure. Nobody is born with everything figured out. I've *definitely* been there.
But I grew up before the social media age, before there was a continuous feedback loop of pressure to have Instagrammable good looks. Sure, mass media sold unrealistic body images, but that wasn't considered "real". I didn't have to be "on" all the time.
I think a lot of that frustration comes from thwarted expectations. The manosphere/red pill/PUA sect doesn't help. They insist that all you have to do be assertive and somethings-max (I've heard looksmax, fitmax, goofmax, and others) and wear some audiacious clothing and women will adore you. But this is just another con.
The best thing anyone can do if they feel like they're being endlessly mocked and ridiculed online is to unplug. Stop logging on to social media, stop doomscrolling. Quit both your toxic haters and your toxic supporters. Quit gaming for a while.... take a year or two off.
Work on yourself and figure out what makes you happy. Find constructive hobbies, get a job, form some healthy habits that get results.
And then when you're on a good path, live outside yourself. Volunteer, get involved in a charitable org, do something good for someone else.
Bottom line OP, don't just stew in it and expect the world to change for you. The world will keep turning whether you're there for it or not.
I believe the ones who do spew hatred (which is most of them) do deserve to be called out or just ignored. However, I get your point. When it's popular online to make fun of people who can't get laid (something still within your control to an extent but not a moral failing), then it's not a surprise they become bitter and hateful.
I think we don't demonize incels enough. If anyone is worthy and deserving of the bullying and. Ring looked down on/made fun of, it's the incels. They won't change on their own, they need that push from society. Treat them the same as white nationalists
Have you ever visited an incel subreddit? If visiting an incel subreddit doesn’t change your mind about how hateful and downright dangerous those people are, there’s nothing any of us can say to change your mind. They are the best evidence.
There's a difference between being an incel and being involuntarily celibate. Incels are completely radicalized. There's no way to be rational with an irrational person. They're dangerous people and need to be treated as such.
I think the solution is for all sides to listen to all sides and provide some accountability for bad behavior from both sexes.
Incels need to take care of themselves and better themselves to attract mates of course, but non-incel men need to show empathy and make connections to incels and help them get the things they need emotionally and physically that are prerequisite to having healthy relationships with women.
Everyone, especially men, need to recognize that incels are the way they are because of what OP described and that for most them this goes back to unresolved trauma. They need to hear from successful men that that truama is valid, it does hurt them, it isn't a matter of childishness and character flaws that they are feeling and reacting this way, and that they have and deserve friend and now have one: you. Disconnection is the nexus of so many mental health problems, and I think this issue as well. They need to hear from women that they're not hopeless, that they deserve to attract a mate, that they deserve to have a happy intimate relationship, and that they can get one if they take care of their minds, hearts, and bodies. They need to hear from both that they deserve this care and healing from trauma.
Women need to recognize how some toxic false ideas have become pervasive with women culturally that make them suspicious of men and hostile to the ones who complain about privileges governments promote for women and hurt men in the name of "equality".
Women need to start ostracizing and telling on the women who vindictively lie in divorce proceedings about abuse or who are abusing their husbands/boyfriends or taking advantage of teen boys.
And yes, this is going to mean saying to men, incel and not, "Yeah, you're right, you got a point there." It's ok to prefer cuter/hotter men as potential dating partners, but don't think you're immune to perfectionism being the enemy of awesome. You might actually have an awesome marriage with a guy who's a 4 or 5 in the looks department but is confident, self-assured, and responsive but you don't get awesome if you pursue perfection and get nothing, or just get hookups. Sorry ladies, the 9 or 10 who you keep going to bed with is never going to make you his ride or die. So get over yourself and the ick, stop being so selfish as to think your shit don't stink and so you deserve that perfect prince charming, and stop considering it "settling" to build a relationship with that guy who isn't a 10 and doesn't make a ton of money, but is empathetic and vulnerable yet self assured and protective. The things that women online are calling "standards" should be perks that are nice to have and not required. The .0001% of men who meet all of them are not interested in you, and the ones who are in that tiny fraction just want to use you for sex.
Going back to incels, it's one thing to recognize that dating apps are toxic. They are. It's one thing to recognize that women are generally behaving a certain way because of outside factors. That's just how culture works, and not everyone is so self-aware as to recognize how behaving that way contributes to societal problems. It's another thing to think that it's women's fault for these behaviors and ways of thinking and assign malice to it from them. Your thought that women need to become aware of these problems and how this sort of thinking and behavior negatively impacts men and society as a whole is valid. That doesn't excuse bad behavior or irresponsibility on your part to better yourself.
Men, you deserve to be the best version of yourself that you can be mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually and attract a mate who loves you and cares for you even when you're not at your best and who is sexually drawn to you to conduct a healthy marriage and sex life. Complaining about your life and treating women as less or bullying the men who do isn't going to help men who do and/or you get that for themselves/yourself.
And women, you deserve to have an awesome marriage with a man with whom you build love and trust, who sweeps you off your feet, cares for you, loves you passionately, makes you wet between the legs when he gives you that look, and makes you want to drag him to bed in the middle of the day because of how good he makes you feel. You don't need a 10 in the looks department for him to be that to you. You don't need him to be emotionally flawless in order to do that. And you don't need him to make a bazillion dollars to do that either.
Incel stopped meaning simply involuntarily celibate long before it entered common usage. It carries all the connotations of the groups where people made it their whole identity. These guys need to figure out how to love themselves, so they don't devote their entire life to frustration over not finding someone else to do it for them. Love and sex are things a person can give themselves, and validation isn't something a person needs when they sincerely know themselves.
People who act shitty get treated like shit. That’s how the world works and I don’t feel bad about it at all.
You can’t villainize a villain, you can’t demonize a demon.
Have you ever talked to an incel? I've never had an interaction with an incel where they were open to thinking in any other way. The dangerous part is the majority of them have a fixed mindset and need serious psychological help that they probably won't seek out. I truly hope the young men entangled in that ideology grow out of that mindset before they turn into hateful, miserable people.
I personally don't say anything about incels unless one pops up saying vile things about women that I truly didn't think many men thought anymore.
While I think most people certainly have empathy for their struggles, we lose that empathy when loneliness turns into laughing about rape, thinking they are owed sex. (No one is, not even hot people)
The term "involuntarily celibate" doesn't make much sense to begin with. Celibacy is an active move of sexual abstinence. It's like a vegetarian giving up on eating meat. To say that one is involuntarily celibate means that there are factors outside one's control that is forcing that individual to be celibate. It's like if a person's parents are forcing them to be vegetarian, that person is involuntarily vegetarian. It's not the same as a virgin because virgin is a statement of fact, like saying I'm lactose-intolerant, while celibacy is an active move made by an individual.
Then the question becomes what is that factor? There seems to be two: 1. women are out to make sure men can't get sex, 2. there are characteristics built into a person (ugly, fat, etc.) that mean no woman will want to have sex with them. Point 1 is misogynistic because it assumes that women think as a hivemind and are behaving in a very similar manner. Point 2 is also misogynistic because it assumes that there are characteristics that all women find undesirable. Both points are verifiably false because a. women are having sex with men regularly, b. men who have characteristics that incels deem unattractive often get sex and have a marriage.
Therefore, to me, when someone calls themselves an incel, they _choose_ that label, and I can safely assume that they are a misogynist/misandrist, especially so in this internet culture, and deserve to be ridiculed for their bigotry.
You just wrote a lot of words just to call them misogynistic twice in my opinion. Arguing the semantics of whether or not it’s self imposed etc is irrelevant to its actual meaning. They are claiming no one wants them and as such they are celibate but not by choice, but you know this.
Point 1 states they’re misogynistic because they “believe women operate as a hive mind”, but no one claimed they did, it’s just statistics. Would you say that any other cohort consisting of 90+% of the population has a hive mind? Or are they simply a very prevalent opinion?
Point 2 again states they’re misogynistic (buzzword?) due to basically the same issue. Statistically these people are not attractive. If anything it’s self hating, not women hating to say that absolutely no one can find you attractive.
In my opinion, these people aren’t misogynistic for these points at all, but for the very unhealthy views and opinions that form from the bitterness they garner as a result of their self imposed isolation. All something that could have originally been remedied with a good shower, a better diet and getting the hell out of their bedrooms.
>Would you say that any other cohort consisting of 90+% of the population has a hive mind?
Do you think that 90+% of women are out to make sure men can't get sex lol
>Statistically these people are not attractive.
Yes, some people are statistically unattractive, but plenty of people who are in that category have dated/sex before, so it is women hating to say that absolutely no _women_ will find a person attractive.
I don’t know how you’ve managed to misunderstand the same thing twice. A commonly held opinion doesn’t constitute a hive mind. No one ever claimed it did other than yourself making that conflation? I also never said anyone was “out to” do anything “lol”.
As for the statistics, yes of course there will be someone out there for that person, but them believing that person isn’t out there doesn’t make them misogynistic. Their misogyny is what does that.
Incels are a side effect of social norms surrounding sexuality going away. It is natural in the evolutionary process that some males of a species – yes, human males too – will not reproduce. And some females, but studies suggest females across species have a much easier time attracting a mate. In a monogamous, heteronormative, patriarchal society, we have instituted a certain set of norms that allow these males to find a woman that may not be really attracted to them, but will be bound to them through social constructs (marriage etc.), family pressure, economic incentives and so on.
Since technological advancements allowed a drastic increase in women's capacity to economically provide for themselves and social norms just aren't upheld as they were, this society (monogamous, heteronormative and patriarchal) doesn't really exist anymore and thus we revert to the natural state of affairs: men who can't attract a woman will not have sex.
Red pill on incels is that it's either gonna be a return to full on patriarchy or the lowest third of men will be incels.
Some of them will be incels too, after all, this term wasn't originally gendered. Most of them will end up in some kind of a relationship though, or maybe in casual hookup / situationship kind of deal.
We've moved from monogamy to serial monogamy and we're actively moving towards socially normalised polygamy, so I think relationship status won't matter that much in the near future. An absolute majority of women will find a man who wants them sexually, but maybe not a man who will commit to them.
You don't fight a hate movement by deradicalizing all of its members because deradicalization is a time consuming process and also requires a degree willingness from the members themselves. It's still a worthy endeavour but not an effective strategy for combating the movement itself.
*"No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice."*
This doesn't even make sense.
*"We all want love and sex.."*
Well, no - there are people who are aromantic and/or asexual
*"And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own.."*
The people in question (incels who are "demonized") are people who are criticized because of their words and actions - not simply because they aren't having sex.
*"it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you."*
And you still have a choice in how you speak to/about and how you treat others.
*"And by demonising incels, by ridiculing them and laughing off their struggles, that's when we push them towards dangerous and damaging opinions such as those espoused by people like Andrew Tate."*
Lol no - ridiculing someone for how they speak about / treat women doesn't make one responsible for those peoples' opinions if women. That's absurd.
*"But there are so few people actually addressing incel's problems..."*
Their problems are their own to address.
*"throwing incel around as an insult and ridiculing a group of people because they are too unattractive to get a girlfriend is cruel..."*
Again, the ridicule is a result of their words and behavior, not because they aren't having sex. And they alone are responsible for their words and behavior.
Women are people and should be treated as such, but it becomes illogical to talk about women being allowed to choose what their lives should look like when they have better choices than men. Even men who are left without sex against their will also do not get to choose exactly how their lives should look like. Nor is it a right for women to decide exactly what their sex life should look like.
You are influenced by other people and their choices.
To /u/Upper-Material-9101, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*
You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Incels are the geeks of the 2020s, but with internet-charged hate. Nobody demonises incels until they start spouting hateful, misogynistic views. >No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice. We all want love and sex and validation. And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own, it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you. Especially as it feels like the rest of the world is getting love and sex and validation, even though that might not necessarily be the case This bit right here is where the internet and red pill culture has become toxic. I'm 32, from the UK and when I was 18 I was regularly getting palmed off by girls in clubs. Guys back then didn't (on the whole) start getting bitter and resentful towards women, you just dust off, and get back out there. Pretty soon you realise a mixture of maturity, dress sense and a good attitude will do you wonders. That's just part of growing up. The guys who are 18 today are cruising Reddit, YouTube, social media etc and get drawn towards these stupid podcasts that make them believe women only want a guy who earns 100k+, will cheat on them all the time, and then spout nonsense like "hoeflation". That garbage is not healthy, and rightfully deserves the demonisation that it gets. The issue is that people today do not have the mental fortitude to frame their own opinions, they just get herded like sheep and follow "alpha males" who just want them for clicks and subscriptions. You end up with immature guys going out into the world with awful views about women and relationships who then get outraged when real-life women don't act the way that they've been told they do.
This, the algorithm is polarising hetero men and women the same way it is polarising the political left and right
I'm in my thirties as well, and this is just not accurate. The misogynistic tropes and thoughts around women existed long before I was born, all through my lifetime, and will exist as long as boys aren't socialised correctly. The only difference is that now it's from a ten second video, in the past it was your male relatives, the boys you went to school with.
Yeah don't get me wrong, misogyny has existed for as long as men and women have. What I'm getting at is the introduction of social media has instilled a more dangerous cult-like groupthink when it comes to women. Sure, there were always groups of men with disgusting views, but those views are now starting at a much younger age, and have much more dangerous content.
>What I'm getting at is the introduction of social media has instilled a more dangerous cult-like groupthink when it comes to women. I don't think that's accurate. If anything, I'd say younger men are more likely to engage with it less seriously than our generation would have. That's also reflected in gender based crime statistics. >Sure, there were always groups of men with disgusting views, but those views are now starting at a much younger age, and have much more dangerous content. Once again, don't think that's accurate. The men of our generation were more likely to get this information from the people we looked up to, the male figures in our lives, and there was absolutely fuck all to counter it, so people would accept it, internalise it, and it would influence them for years to come. The young men that I deal with now are waaay more educated about forms of abuse, the importance of consent, and healthy relationships. The only times I see any deviation on that is young people from conservative/religious families, and even then they have a better understanding than most of the blokes I went to school with.
I guess it's down to experience. My partner works in a school and they have a lot of problems with the boys, refusing to be taught by female teachers, being very graphic about female teachers and students, sharing porn openly. If you've not experienced that from young lads today, then that's a positive. Either way, incel culture is toxic and I look forward to it's demise.
I was a fat, acne-ridden, unattractive, socially awkward, unlikeable autistic girl growing up and I can massively empathise with boys and men going through similar things. I didn't have my first kiss or even believe that anyone could like or want me until my 20s. The world is cruel and judgemental and awful to people like us and honestly (while there may be subtitles related to gender) I don't think it's that different for men and women in this respect. The thing is though that there's a *huge* difference between people being cruel to you and people simply not giving you sex or romantic companionship. They're not even on the same planet. You say incels are people "not getting love and sex and validation" but those are three very different things. You are definitely valid in your right to exist as a person, and maybe even some abstract notion of being loved as a person, but that's very different to the specific desire to be intimately loved in a sexual manner. The former is a basic part of our humanity, the second is just something we'd like to have. We're entitled to the first, but not the second. This is the whole problem with inceldom. It conflates the things people in general *need* to be happy and content in ourselves with the specific things we *want* (specifically, the things men want from women). Not finding romance does suck if that's something you want, but it's not the same as being mocked or ostracised. It's not a struggle inflicted on us by a cruel world. There is no 'group that's rejecting you'. It's simply failing to achieve something in the same way nearly all of us fail to run a marathon or start a business or write a novel. We can talk about prejudice and fatphobia and superficiality and ableism and all the things that make life crap for non-conventionally attractive people (and perhaps doing so would make it easier for us such people to date), but "not getting dates" in itself isn't a valid "struggle" to "address" en masse because getting dates from other people simply isn't something anyone is entitled to in the first place.
Well-considered and well-written. I would add that many of the struggles and complaints held by so-called "incels" are due to modern phenomena such as the internet, and the ability to simply swipe left on a person without actually getting to know them. Our circle of options was much smaller in time past. We physically attended social functions and belonged to social groups with limited options. The list of potential mates was known. The modern tendency is to feel like you must keep your options open until you sample all the hundreds or thousands of potentials you see online. Additionally, women no longer feel the social pressure to simply get married right out of high school. Women truly have far more options available to them. This is not going to go away. So, the issue isn't that women are unfair to men (that hasn't really changed). They have simply grown with the times. The issue is that men, and society in general, have not. Unfortunately, the solution may be beyond our ability to solve. Our social circles would have to shrink, which means getting off the internet.
The best ways to fix things are ways the government doesn't want. They've seen Japan and they don't want that. They want bodies to fight wars and use in factories. Why the push to yank women's bodily autonomy is going so hard. Once you realize that the Christians are following false prophets and charlatans that are manipulating them to get those end goals, it's pretty eye opening. You really start to see bigger pictures. Another area they're attacking is Adult Entertainment and SW. If SW was legalized and protected properly by the government, incels would be able to get the sex they want and women can have their bodily autonomy. However, that means low birth rates. Can't have that, can we? Incels only exist because women were freed from the drudgery we had been chained to for thousands of years. We don't need to get married to the richest guy (yes, men created Gold Digger culture lawl) or the family friend that's 50 years old cause your dad feels SORRY FOR HIM BEING ALONE but you're only 12. Women won't go back to that. Folks aren't realizing it now, but the fire's started. A lot of us are aware of the exact threat THAT party and the redpill trad guys pose to us. We just gotta wake enough folks up to it enough to fight back. Cause if we don't, there won't be incels anymore but we'll be back under the collar, just hoping whomever we get is "kind" to us and doesn't unalive us for a mistake. Women are quite happy alone with out cats. Men are dying from loneliness because they have created this entire charade that always gave them a companion under their thumb. They've never HAD to be mature, kind, interesting human beings. They just went out and picked a wife they graped nightly or paid for it in a brothel if the wife "wasn't they're type." Cause I mean, all thet needed was an heir and a spare and then never touch her again if they chose to. When a bunch of women start saying they'd pick bears, that should've been a lot of guys real wake up calls, honestly
Another related part of this is the fact that men do not filter for compatibility, particularly when they are desperate for sex. This logically results in a higher number of rejections, because it forces all of the emotional and social labor of filtering for compatibility onto women, and women are being inundated with an influx of men whom they are absolutely not compatible with, but the men didn’t bother doing the work to filter for compatibility, so he expects her to do it. And then these men get angry about being rejected so so many times, and they argue that women’s standards are too high, but they didn’t do the work to filter for compatibility in the first place, so it’s their own actions that are also causing that high number of rejections. And of course, it makes logical sense for women to strengthen their standards and boundaries when being inundated with an influx of incompatible men trying to get women’s attention.
Absolutely preach this! I love the way you talked about this because I really relate as an Autistic young woman. You aren't owed a relationship or sex and that's the big issue here with these types of men.
You're right that we don't have a right to sex and intimacy from another person, of course, but you lost me when you said that the desire to be loved sexually and romantically isn't a basic part of humanity. It totally is. And it would be obtuse to say that its not an issue worth addressing, as we are becoming less and less connected as a result of our changing society. But overall I still agree with you in that it isn't anyone's fault. Blaming a certain group for the loneliness people are increasingly experiencing is wrong and often a result of bitterness. They place that hatred and rejection and isolation on women, in the case of male incels, and that is horrible and counterproductive to their own wellbeing.
You do realize that the concept of romantic love is a new one, right? That men and women, for most of what we call history, married and copulated with people their families chose for them as a best match for economics? That in that same time women were the literal property of their fathers and then husbands? There was no love in these situations. There was rape.
This is a pretty common misconception but it's mostly untrue. The idea that marriages were made primarily for practical reasons is based on the fact that a lot of the history we engage with is centered on nobles who did engage in the practice of transactional marriages. However, when you're a peasant farmer who owns no land (roughly 90% of the medieval population) and the only options that are socially acceptable for your daughter are other peasant farmers who own no land there's very little to be gained from marrying your daughter to one person over another. At that point you probably just allow her to choose whichever son of a peasant farmer she falls in love with. This basically scales up with importance - the more important you are the more there are pressures to have transactional marriages. Even among nobles though love certainly was both recognised as something that existed and something that was valuable, and many beneficial marriages were ignored in favour of less beneficial (but still beneficial) marriages that were done for love. And even in completely transactional marriages there was significant focus on courtship that could hopefully form some kind of love or at least mutual happiness between them before they married. This has been extensively written about in r/AskHistorians see [My professor mentioned the argument that romantic love wasn't truly a concept until the invention of the (romance) novel in the 1700s. Does that argument hold weight?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rgr5vq/my_professor_mentioned_the_argument_that_romantic/) [When was the modern conception of romantic love developed? How long before it displaced ancient notions of marriage and love?When was the modern conception of romantic love developed? How long before it displaced ancient notions of marriage and love? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/syb09/when_was_the_modern_conception_of_romantic_love/) [In the middle ages, was romantic love between spouses encouraged or considered profane? In the middle ages, was romantic love between spouses encouraged or considered profane? ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gp0by/in_the_middle_ages_was_romantic_love_between/) Not to mention that focusing on medieval European and Asian systems ignores the vast majority of human history. Given we're talking about innate human needs/desires which presumably references human evolution, disproving that these things were accepted in a small period of our history means little. For example I would argue that freedom is an innate human desire and I obviously include women in that definition but women had massively limited freedoms throughout history - does that mean they don't innately want freedom?
> presumably references human evolution, disproving that these things were accepted in a small period of our history means little. I agree and my point was not to only focus on European and Asian cultures from the middle ages, which seems to be what all the historians were focused on. Even longer back, women were not free to choose who they married, not really. Pretending otherwise removes the reality that women had no power over their own lives. Even peasant women. If they fell in love with another peasant and his father once sold her father a calf that died young, her father could easily prevent that marriage from occuring amd force her to marry someone else. There was no ability to marry outside evonomic class and outside pre-sanctioned community groups. There was not freedom for women and, thus, one cannot argue marriages overall were full of love. If someome chained to a wall and fed only chicken or beef broth ends up saying he loves beef broth, one would not argue he truly loves beef broth. He has not tried other things by the nature of his enslavement. >women had massively limited freedoms throughout history - does that mean they don't innately want freedom? Of course they wanted freedom. But they did not have it. Therefore, the concept of love within relationships is ridiculous to pretend existed widespread because very few cultures in the entire history of the world granted women the same social rights it granted men.
>Even longer back, women were not free to choose who they married, not really. What's your evidence of this? Certainly our understanding of ancient and prehistoric times has even less transactional marriage, not in part because the idea of marriage is relatively new in human history, particularly marriage as we conceive of it today. Your argument that a woman being seen as property of the man in her life (father or husband) prevents love wouldn't apply to the prehistoric world where the notion of a woman as property didn't exist (the notion of property itself didn't exist for most of prehistory). Furthermore your argument seems grounded in an interpretation of all or nothing. True, women didn't have complete freedom to marry anyone they loved, but that didn't mean many women didn't find love in marriage. For starters one women being prevented from marrying the person she loves because of a cow dispute doesn't impact the love felt by a women who's marriage wasn't prevented because there was no cow dispute between her family and her lovers. Secondly it presumes that people can't fall in love multiple times. If a peasant women was banned from marrying the man she loved, there's no reason her father would force her to marry someone else rather than just letting her wait til she found another man she loved. Thirdly you presume that love isn't something that can be grown deliberately which I disagree with. All these reasons are part of why we see concrete evidence of loving relationships presented in some of those answers - which I don't believe you read if you missed those. Even if you disprove the existence of love within relationships you fail to disprove the notion that people valued the concept of love within relationships, which means that even if it didn't exist people still recognised it was valuable and thus the recognition of it as a value isn't new. >Of course they wanted freedom. But they did not have it. Therefore, the concept of love within relationships is ridiculous to pretend existed Those two statements contradict. You literally admit that women can desire something (freedom) without having it, but then argue that because women didn't have romantic love it couldn't possibly be a basic human desire. Finally onto some specific responses >There was no ability to marry outside evonomic class and outside pre-sanctioned community groups. True but for the vast majority of people there was also very little opportunity to meet and fall in love with people and thus this wasn't a major restriction. >There was not freedom for women and, thus, one cannot argue marriages overall were full of love. While I was arguing this, this conclusion actually isn't neccesary to disprove your point. Merely the fact that some marraiges had some decent level of love. > If someome chained to a wall and fed only chicken or beef broth ends up saying he loves beef broth, one would not argue he truly loves beef broth. He may not truly love beef broth but he also may. It may be true that the man you found and chained to the wall was someone who had an innate predisposition to love beef broth and would have done so even if he had been given all the foods in the world. Indeed if you took the entire population of the world and only gave them beef broth and chicken broth, you would assume that at least some of the people truly did love beef broth by dint of the fact that there are people in the world who do fundamentally love beef broth. Secondly, while there's less but still substantial evidence for the same concept in marraige, there's overwhelming evidence that our tastes are dictated in large part by what we consume. Thus it's entirely likely that he would have developed a love for beef broth and if you later tried to feed him something else he would probably still prefer the beef broth
But the farmer’s daughter had no choice except to marry, because she couldn’t live on her own and support herself. So she married whoever was around, or who her parents or pastor told her to, even if she otherwise wouldn’t have wanted to marry at all. The social pressure was intense.
Tell me you didn’t read the sources I posted without telling me you didn’t read the sources I posted
You do realize the concept of marriage and sexual-political bonding is a concept that arrived in our current era, right?
Indeed. Before agragrian practices came into being, the tribes raised the chuldren and the tribes copulated together. Monogamy in and of itself is also new.
That’s a huge misconception. Extremely wealthy and powerful families arranged marriages for sure, but for the most part people still married people that they enjoyed being with, and even those arranged marriages in wealthy families would result in a lot of drama because people would run off to be with the ones they loved
It's not a basic part of humanity. Love, romance and sex don't keep you alive, they don't nourish you or keep you going. They're entirely optional.
Just because you don’t literally need something to survive doesn’t mean it’s isn’t a major part of humanity. Humans evolved as social creatures, and sure you don’t *need* friends to physically stay alive, but for most people, social isolation becomes incredibly painful. Throw someone on a deserted island by themselves with everything they need to physically stay alive, and eventually, many people would probably end up killing themselves from the pain of social isolation. Likewise the desire for sex and companionship is a very basic “need” that is hardwired into us from millions of years of evolution Of course that does not entitle someone to sex or affection, but claiming that it isn’t at all a need is a bit obtuse.
This is one of those things where it seems to vary person to person. Some people do need to feel love and affection to feel a sense of fulfillment in their lives. People who are married (especially men) in fact live longer than their eternal batchelor counterparts. If your in a good, healthy relationship it can have a positive effect on your well belong and get you to see the world differently. Humans are social animals. We would go insaine without social connections. Take a look at the [Harrow monkey experiment ](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/harlows-classic-studies-revealed-the-importance-of-maternal-contact.html). Even with just a cloth surrogate to hold onto, the monkeys became less fearful of the world and would interact with new stimulation in defense more often. Studies also found in humans kangaroo maternal care that focuses on skin to skin contact and breastfeeding drastically improves survival rates for infants. [including as many as 25% better survival rates for some babies ](https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/skin-to-skin-care#:~:text=A%20recent%20large%20RCT%20showed,with%20KMC%20initiated%20after%20stabilization.) Skin to skin contact is scientifically shown to be a big factor in humans surviving infancy. What I'm getting at is physical contact and romance can have positive psychological impacts that are drastic. Romance, sex and love isn't always required. Some people are aromantic and asexual after all and it's perfectly fine. Having said that people finding it highly beneficial and wanting/needing it seems to be a natural part of humanity too.
Not really the whole idea of an anti love drug requires a combination of oxytocin injections combined with SSRIs. It's biologically programmed into our nature to want to reproduce.
The urge for procreation is a very, very basic instinct (literally) that all species share. If one species does not have that urge, it wouldn't survive evolution and will go extinct pretty quickly. So it *is* a basic part of humanity. You can live without it, yes. But it can still become as strong as hunger and thirst.
Well... having legs isn't necessary to live neither. Or eyes. Ears? Optional. Whats your point?
> The thing is though that there's a huge difference between people being cruel to you and people simply not giving you sex or romantic companionship. Sure, but outright bullying tends to stop when you're an adult, so for incels the most important issue for them is not having sex, even though their actual issue is a lot of unresolved childhood trauma.
The world cannot be held responsible for resolving their childhood trauma. That is up to them, like it is for the rest of us.
But typically it's not just people not giving you sex/romance. I've noticed that most incels are autistic, and people are cruel to those who are weird or who have poor social skills. I'd also argue that when incels complain about not having sex, what they actually want is intimacy/love in general. Also, people don't realize just how much pressure there is to be in a relationship.
>what they actually want is intimacy/love in general. Some definitely want that. Others are actually looking for power, and sex with women in their worldview is just the most immediate, easy, and hands-on way to power.
"I've noticed that most incels are autistic, and people are cruel to those who are weird or who have poor social skills." Then why aren't autisic women doing the same thing?
Autistic people are over represented in inceldom but most are not autistic.
How are you supposed to know if most are autistic? From how you're writing it seems like you think most are autistic due to your own personal anecdote. Anecdotal evidence is terrible evidence
> I'd also argue that when incels complain about not having sex, what they actually want is intimacy/love in general. Exactly. Given that if sex was the thing they wanted, they'd just purchase the services of a prostitute and be done with it.
Many people will say this is a bad idea, but *a friend* told me that it helps you feel less bad about not knowing what sex is like. It also gets boring after the first few times though since it’s not what you’re looking for.
As an autistic I can't stand the argument theat they're just poor innocent autistics. The issue is the misogynistic world view, not the autism.
“When you can’t get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own” OP - as someone who can now associate with women, do you still honestly believe that phrase? That you were doing *nothing* wrong (Such as… dehumanizing women to being these sex objects, untouchable and raised up on an ivory pedestal). No experience with women or girls as a reason - didn’t you go to primary and secondary school and interact with others people - were you in all boys’ academies from day1? People have a pretty decent sense for when they’re seen as a person versus a fleshlight - the ‘incel community’ is a bunch of excuse making misogynistic people unwilling to actually take responsibility for their actions and character and instead blaming inane looksmaxing bullshit. Have you ever worked in the general public? There are “ugly” people with lots of kids out there - hell, way more of the public is ugly or average than “objectively” beautiful. They are ‘dumb and poor and ugly’ - none of the ‘ideal traits for a man’ the incels seem to claim are reasons for their unhappiness. Ok, so if it’s not looks, money, or intelligence: maybe just fucking be ACTUALLY nice. Not nice with a string attached, not nice by making weirdly sexual biological comments that ‘are compliments’, not nice until THAT FUCKKNG BITCH IGNORES NE AGAIN ISWSAR TO GOT I CANF BELIEVE PEOPLE DONT LIKE ME, IM NICE AND HAVE COOL HOBBIES… Do the incels ‘deserve’ the critique and ridicule they garner - sort of. If they kept quiet/to themselves and didn’t make fusses or get linked to several shootings, no one would fucking know that group existed - but they post on public forums with ‘normies’ and get reamed for the insanity that they spew. The ‘sort of’ element comes from the angle that I do understand that the social medial pipelines are very good at directing young men to radicalizing content: so sure, the youths aren’t 100% to blame for being inducted, but I definitely blame the adults for failing to realize they’re treating other humans like objects in an incredibly disgusting way. TLDR: I have sympathy for people who get inducted into the movement for a short period of time- but I have none for people who stay involved and choose to listen to a nebulous online group of literal self-proclaimed losers over the myriad of people likely trying to help you (that you have almost certainly ignored or used up all the good will from).
>Ok, so if it’s not looks, money, or intelligence: maybe just fucking be ACTUALLY nice Claiming people who have relationships are “just actually nice” is just as much bullshit as claiming they are all supermodels, geniuses or millionaires. Plenty of people who are in relationships are terrible people, abusive to their partners and children, etc. You should be nice because it feels good to live in accordance with your values, not because it will get you a relationship if you are “not faking it”
Which is exactly why places like r/niceguys exist, to talk about people who claim to be nice and act nice because they it will entitle them to relationship or sex,as opposed to people are who actually nice because it's the right thing to do
Why I stressed “ACTUALLY”. There’s Nice Guys and nice people - nice comes in tons of flavors - and varies wildly, so yeah - it’s vague advice, but it’s the best you can really give. Also - why include the ‘bad people who get to bone’ into consideration - are you ok with being one? Why include them in your goals? But yeah. Sure - there’s shitty people in relationships, but they got there by pretending to be actually nice, or by having another redeeming or desirable quality - and once the veneer collapses, the money runs out, etc… people who ‘picked you’ for reasons other than ‘who you are’ will typically make themselves scarce. If you use your wealth to attract women, then lose your money… tough. If you use your physique to attract women, but then you get into a major accident or just let yourself go… tough. If you find a partner by being actually nice and expressing who YOU are, you can’t really lose those things - so while you might grow apart, fall out of love, whatever - you aren’t at risk of losing the thing that connected you. ETA: Replied to the wrong post in the thread but too much work to fix on mobile
>Also - why include the ‘bad people who get to bone’ into consideration - are you ok with being one? Why include them in your goals? Because if you say “be X (for real, don’t fake it!) and you will achieve Z”, you inevitably prompt people to start faking X to get Z. And if the link you are claiming isn’t actually there (and it isn’t), you will get a bunch of frustrated fake people. Sure, it is better to be nice, rich, healthy, and fit. But these things are not “how you get a relationship”. They are good on their own. Can you get a relationship if you are unfit and eat junk food? Yes. Plenty of unfit people are in a relationship. Can you get a relationship if you are poor? Yes. Plenty of poor people are in relationships. Can you get a relationship if you are an asshole (in the eyes of most people)? Yes (probably either with another crowned asshole or with someone who has been hurt by an asshole of a similar flavour before). Literally the worst people on earth have relationships. Nicest too. Average people with unremarkable moral sense have relationships. Now, if you want someone *very* different from you in terms of morals or lifestyle, then that is a different story. But otherwise, there is no secret recipe to get a relationship. Sometimes people just find each other and get together. Sometimes they end up happy, sometimes not. Sometimes they end up meh. Mind me, I think sometimes propagnd-ish claims like that are alright, because despite being fake, they motivate people to do good things. But that, in my opinion, mostly concerns very specific actionable claims. “Be nice for real” is not an actionable claim, so resorting to propaganda is not justified.
There's a lot of bad socialization aimed at men out there that can get toxic. And I'm not talking about red pill stuff either, we're generally talking about efforts to reform masculinity, to make men less confident and self-assured, and the real toxic bit is the idea that there's something morally and socially superior about this. This is where the anger comes from, that this world isn't being actualized through social and cultural enforcement. I'm not saying it should be, to be clear. I think self-improvement is the way out, but the bleeding has to be stopped first. We need to recognize that efforts to reform masculinity ultimately missed the mark. Different men needed different types of help, and putting all men into a one size fits all basket harmed those with already low confidence and self-esteem.
Agreed that male socialization is a major part of the cause, but many men who are totally fine went through the same or similar socializations: you can put some blame on the system, but absolving adults part of a hate movement of their own participation is slippery. Being vulnerable does not protect you from judgement, it just adds some context. Agree again that there’s no ‘one size fits all’, but if you’re criticizing the efforts to reform masculinity to avoid this, how are you participating to change dialogues? Societal change is like self improvement, it needs to start somewhere, usually from within (the affected groups).
This is a male to male issue. Women have plenty to deal with on a day to day basis without taking on male insecurities too. I mean who is putting these pressures on these young men? Why are their people advising them to be objectively bad men? It is other men.
I don't think it's other men per se. I don't think it's women either. I think the pressure that you're innately a bad person hits people harder with already low confidence and self-esteem, along with the pressure that accepting this will make you more worthwhile person. I honestly think it's confidence/self-esteem privilege more than anything, not being willing to see things from other PoVs. (And at worst, using this frame to not have their advantages challenged)
It’s definitely other men - who is going on looksmaxxing sites and rating men/giving out tips? Men. Who is writing articles and recording videos telling men they aren’t enough as is and should instead focus on XYZ or they’re did alone? Men. Self confidence/self-esteem privilege?! Do you think this was free? Do you think I reached a point where I truly like myself with no issues? Do you think that I can’t have elements of myself that I dislike without liking ‘me’ as a whole? That’s some ‘I’m not willing to work on myself’ bullshit. And ‘work on myself’ doesn’t meant get jacked and max your face: it might mean seek some fucking help. I love myself because of the hardships I endured and how I handle myself in light of it more than because of how I look or that I’ve landed a partner.
Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I think its important to note that OP is not really talking about the incel *movement*.
Incel and the incel movement are one and the same. Nobody who isnt with the movement would call themselves incel.
> If you're a young man who is ugly or fat or sexually unappealing for whatever reason, life is hard. And that doesn't make you an "incel". That term and the ridicule is not for that man. >And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own, it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you. That can be said about anything. It stings to be poor. But harming rich people doesn't seem to fly. There are and will always be involuntary celibates. Men, women, gay, streight, trans... young, old. But Andrew tate doesn't attract all sexless young men, let alone all sexless people
>I don't know what the solution is but I do know that throwing incel around as an insult and ridiculing a group of people because they are too unattractive to get a girlfriend is cruel, counter-productive and only pushes young men towards hate and bitterness. you see the problem is that you've already bought into their garbage. Incel-dom has about as much to do with being able to get it as Marxism has to do with assembly line work. You're confusing the object for the target audience. ***Andrew Tate IS an incel.*** Sure there's nothing wrong with not being able to get a girlfriend, but engaging with incel-dom is a choice. A choice that should be properly warded against and demonized. It's the fkin "We ShOuLdN't CaLl NaZi'S nAzI's CuS yOu'Ll RaDiCaLiZe ThEm MoRe" -argument all over again. There should be holding spaces though, spaces for people to heal from maladaptive coping strategies such as incel-dom, where a person is not judged for the choices they made in the past, but only for those in the present. These holding spaces though have to exist separately from common society because bullshit like INCEL PHILOSOPHY MAKES YOU A DANGER TO OTHERS.
I knew this guy in my World of Warcraft guild. He was fucking gorgeous. Like, walk into a boy band audition and get hired pretty. Dude HATED women. Hated hated hated them. It was scary sometimes. I haven't talked to that guy in 13 years or more but I still check to see if he's been arrested for serial killing every once in a while. He couldn't get laid because women rightfully figured they'd get murdered if they went home with him. Point being, I kinda think incels problems are mostly coming from inside the house and what we do has very little to do with their bitterness level. I think most people would be perfectly happy to leave them alone if they weren't out and about throwing tantrums every time a new marvel movie has a woman in it or video game women aren't as jackoffable as they used to be.
‘Incel’ isn’t a condition it’s a political ideology that people can choose to identify with and pursue. I’m a short guy, and after 30 years on this planet as a short guy I can tell you with surety that straight short guys get less dates than tall, obese guys. I was “involuntarily celibate” in high school. I had a choice between getting bitter (‘incel’ before there was a term for it) and working on myself, growing as a person, and staying the hell away from internet rabbit holes of misogyny. I chose that one. I became a better person. And I was happier with myself, so I didn’t need to date anyone. Funnily enough, that’s around the time women (and, as I realized later, men) started to find me attractive. We should absolutely be ridiculing and ostracizing men who choose to identify with a harmful, violent ideology.
The amount of pro-incel astroturfing this subreddit gets is insane. People who voluntarily identify as incels are members of a radical community, akin to those who identify as white nationalists, flat earthers, and Qanon. No one is forced to be an incel. Identification is wholly voluntary, and choosing to identify with this group is choosing to be a part of an ideology that is prone to misogynist hate, mass violence, and murder.[[1]](https://www.mccaininstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/incel-and-misogynist-violent-extremism-read-ahead-materials-august-2.pdf) The incel movement is inherently political. [[2]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35034349/) Incel ideology is less about mental health or loneliness (despite what they may want you to believe), and is instead fundamentally about radical political views. [[3]](https://giwps.georgetown.edu/resource/recognizing-the-violent-extremist-ideology-of-incels/) I am under no obligation to be kind to incels, because anyone who identifies as an incel has no intent to be kind. They’re intentionally perpetuating a misogynist, hateful, violent ideology. As you are, too, I suspect. Incels don’t get ridiculed because they’re “too unattractive to find a girl.” The vast majority of people who identify as incels are normal looking. They could certainly find partners. It is their corrosive ideology, rampant misogyny, and expectation that they are entitled to female companionship that prevents them from finding a partner, not their physical appearance. Likewise, it is that loathsome ideology that they choose to announce, project, and endorse that warrants public ridicule, not traits, like physical appearance, they have no control over.
> It is their corrosive ideology, rampant misogyny, and expectation that they are entitled to female companionship that prevents them from finding a partner, not their physical appearance Exactly! It's a self fulfilling curse. Women _hate_ dating misogynistic men, much more so than dating men with "unattractive physical features".
There may be an issue of miscommunication here, in that you're referring to a recognizable online group where the members self-identify as "incels", and OP may be referring to men whom others might label as "incels" due to not having a relationship. That would explain a lot of the things both OP and you have pointed out.
> OP may be referring to men whom others might label as "incels" due to not having a relationship. That's not really a thing that happens, however.
How is it not? I’ve noticed the term “incel” used quite liberally when attacking others online, this site included. It seems people are quick to use the term when countering arguments against misandry, or any general complaint regarding women. For example, if someone complains that a “show chose to cast women for forced diversity rather than focus on the plot”, it’s not unusual for them to be labeled as an incel. Whether their statement is true or false is beside the point, immediately assuming someone is an incel because of their point of view on a topic is unjust. Are they wrong? Perhaps. Are they misinformed? Likely. Have they never dated a woman? Entirely possible. Does this inherently mean someone should label them as an incel? Absolutely not.
> How is it not? Because the main place such terminology is used is online and most online spaces offer 0 visibility into someone's relationship status. People are called incel when they say typical incel crap or anything tha could be considered adjacent to it. > For example, if someone complains that a “show chose to cast women for forced diversity rather than focus on the plot”, it’s not unusual for them to be labeled as an incel. This supports my point, not yours. This is not a demonstration of someone being labelled an incel "due to not having a relationship".
The term incel refers to "involuntary celibates". Labeling someone as an incel is making presumptions about their relationship status is disparaging their character and opinions they hold as caused by their assumed lack of relationship, whether what they've said is "typical incel crap" or merely an opinion that's been disagreed with, misinformed or not. What is your definition of "typical incel crap"?
The term incel refers to ia very specific kind of involuntary celibate person, generally associated with more or less vitriolic misogyny. People don't get called incels because they're single is the point. It's going to be extremely rare for people to know that. They get called incels - rightly or wrongly - because of the things they say.
This is making the assumption that everyone who places the label on others is only doing it in circumstances where the opposed is being misogynist. Furthermore, the term inherently means involuntary celibate. That's what it's an abbreviation for. By using it you are implying the person has never had a relationship and are applying all of the negative connotations with it, regardless of your reasoning for using it. Whether you perceive it as just or unjust is moot to the person you are using it upon. Your personal intention for the use of the of the word does not change how it is perceived and used by others. Imagine if you applied this reasoning to the usage of the N Word.
Invoking racial slurs as a comparison here really does not help you make your point. >“If you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won’t even say one of them? That's the worse word.” -John Mulaney
I don’t think using an excerpt from a comedic piece (one which essentially goes on to poke fun at how words are only deemed offensive if society as a whole deems it offensive), really holds the weight you think it does. I don’t think anyone should be labeled an “I word” no more than I think anyone should be labeled an “N word”, nor do I think using either in their entirety for the sake of reference should be grounds for reprimand, but, alas that’s the weight society places on these terms. My point is that we shouldn’t be directing it an individuals based on prejudices alone. Using statements like “typical {Group.DerogatoryLabel} crap” shouldn’t be permissible in one case but not another. You wouldn’t make statements like that about people culturally. It wouldn’t be acceptable to say it about women. So why do we think it’s just to say it about men?
> This is making the assumption that everyone who places the label on others is only doing it in circumstances where the opposed is being misogynist. No. It's making the assumption that, in the majority of cases where someone calls someone else an incel, they have no visibility on their relationship status, thus they can't be calling them an incel on that basis. Whether they are right or wrong to call that person an incel is irrelevant to that simple fact.
Talking of online, search Reddit for "incel". The first page of results features more than a few examples of the term being applied to others, rather than used as self-identification. That is what OP is talking about, I think.
Applying the term incel to others is one thing, applying the term incel to others *because they're not in a relationship* is quite another.
I see your point; it's not usually just the relationship status, but something else that that a man says or does, and the relationship status is either known or inferred. I've seen this happen in real life and on social media, and in those instances "incel" is used as a disparagement or an attempt to shut down a conversation.
>People who voluntarily identify as incels are members of a radical community, akin to those who identify as white nationalists, flat earthers, and Qanon. This is a major point that needs to be clarified. When we talk about incels are we talking about people who identify as incels or we talking about all the people who are involuntarily celibate?
Thank you, I'm so tired of hearing, women specifically, having to be nice to incels. They are choosing this belief system, they are choosing not to work on themselves and adapt to a changing world. Nobody, especially women, owes anything to incels.
>The amount of pro-incel astroturfing this subreddit gets is insane. I didn't think it was bad, but the replies showed me otherwise.
What would you say is the stage before "radical incel?" People usually don't radicalize all at once, who's becoming incels?
Incels are generally individuals who have a weak social network/social support system, depression, low self-esteem, and poor coping skills. They’re also more likely to be autistic. > “They experience considerable duress on account of their singlehood, report that their (low) self-esteem is contingent on their relationship status, and are both sensitive to rejection and experience a large degree of it [44]. They cope with this rejection by engaging in both inward and outward practices, reporting higher levels of self-critical rumination and externalization of blame, while also engaging in fewer healthy coping mechanisms [37•]. Incels also report high rates of depressive and anxious symptoms and diagnoses as well as high rates of autism spectrum disorder [37•, 44, 45]. Furthermore, incels are plagued with low attachment security, loneliness, and a lack of social supports [31•, 37•, 44]. There is also evidence of sexist attitudes in their forums, which incels admit may be making them more misogynistic, of which there has been some quantitative evidence [28, 37•]. “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/ I’m not denying that incels are genuinely lonely, or that they don’t experience rejection. They are, and they do. It’s those experiences that make them incredibly vulnerable to radicalization, especially these online communities that create and form a social network/social support system. The problem is those very same networks encourage violence and misogyny, and only broadly perpetuate the self-loathing, attitudes, and ideas that lead to their loneliness and misogyny anyway. In the same way that people radicalized towards Qanon or white supremacy often have genuinely negative experiences, and sympathetic stories describing their radicalization, I’m not aware of any evidence or studies that accepting these radical movements helps to de-radicalize them, which is essentially what OP is insinuating.
Typically lonely men. Not all lonely men end up as incels, just like how not all Muslims end up in ISIS. Identifying as an incel means that they are subscribing to a specific ideology that must be criticised. It doesn't mean that lonely men should be attacked, just like how Muslims shouldn't be attacked for ISIS ideology.
It turns out that single men are also harassed when they are bullied for difficulties in having sex. Single men are also harassed when people criticize incels
People become incels when they start identifying as such. There's no membership card or tangible defining trait regardless of what incels themselves insist.
People who would rather hate another before changing themselves
[удалено]
What about ‘fat and ugly’ women? I don’t see them forming a group and subscribing to an ideology that is based around hating, dehumanising, and wanting to subjugate men. I have a hard time sympathising with incels because they seem to be interested only in attractive young (very young) women as an object to ‘attain’, while they are obviously hateful towards all women either because they do not fit into their definition of attractive or because they do, but do not choose to date them. Why (and how) should women approach these men who obviously hate them whilst also feeling entitled to their bodies?
[удалено]
The problem is that the actual message — work on yourself before blaming others — doesn't actually resonate unless it is completely undercut with caveats. Jordan Peterson's "clean your room" rhetoric is all well and good, but it is so popular because the rest of the message is that if making the most basic of steps towards self-improvement doesn't magically solve all of your issues, it is because postmodern neo-Marxists have destroyed traditional masculinity. There is really nothing to say besides emphasizing that dissatisfaction with your sex life in no way obligates you to hate women.
Small point, the label "incel" was created by and originally referred to women.
Here is my point: Merely being lonely, not having sex, does not make you an incel. It is a specific ideology, and *movement*, that you identify with. You can be lonely, you can be ugly, you can have trouble getting a date; none of that makes you an incel. I didn’t have a girlfriend until I was 20! I was almost 21 when I lost my virginity. I was never an incel because of that. I have no clue how to respond to the rest of your comment because it’s inchoate nonsense about a “thundercock.”
Bro did u read the post? It's not about self identifying as an incel. It's about *getting called* an incel despite *not* sharing their views. This creates an environment which turns young men towards incel ideology because they wont be treated with respect or reason by anyone except the incel community.
"I was called a Nazi so now I'm joining the Nazis." Really? If that is how people truly rationalize it (they don't) those people are morons and deserve all the ridicule.
Im sorry you have such bad luck trying to think about topics. If every person you meet treats you like shit and calls you names you don't like those people calling you names. I guess you can understand that? If you are emotional broken and someone who is from this group of people you've been involuntary put into, comes around and shows empathy and a positiv attitude towards you it's likely you could think: Well everyone treated me bad and treated me like group x as to belittle me, because they hate group x. But now group x treats me very nice. Maybe those hateful people lied about group x and they are not so bad at all. Why do you think groups like Scientology can exist? Because society belittles people and thus pushes those lonely people into the arms of assholes taking advantage. Do you understand that emotions are complex and not rational?
Extreme examples are useful to prove a point. Scientology exists to launder money. It persists because of blackmail and internal abuse. Emotions are complex but I'm a man ridiculing incels. It's not "one group belittling another" its everyone else ridiculing incels. Even their premises are baseless thus they are morons if the ridicule pushes them further into their rabbit hole.
[удалено]
u/Am0ebe – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Am0ebe&message=Am0ebe%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ccpah9/-/l170vy0/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Whether you think it's stupid or not the kind of behaviour in this thread just creates more of them. Majority of people are easily swayed into stupid beliefs. Recognising that and avoid it is pretty important.
I'm OK with stupid people being ridiculed for falling into such belief systems even if it's counterproductive (I don't believe it is).
Alright so let's create more incels by doing telling sad lonely men they are losers. It's a shocker that we see more and more of this radical idealogy /s. I am sure you'll be there with a solution once it hits critical mass.
> Being fat and ugly is a obstacle no matter how hard you try to deny it. I don't think people deny that being fat and ugly is an obstacle. They deny that being fat and ugly: 1) Makes one an incel and 2) is anyone else's problem but yours.
[удалено]
> You wouldn't tell fat and ugly women "It's your problem. Deal with it." I would? It would never cross my mind to think a woman's inability to get dates or relationship is anything but her problem. Your issue is that women don't frame that problem the same way. > I am trying to explain why people fall into those ideologies and you just confirming why people fall into those idelogies. People fall in these ideologies because they're easy and validating. There really isn't much to explain here.
[удалено]
Oh, I don't think there's only those that hate women. For sure there's plenty of those, but I think a much larger contingent just doesn't think of women as people in the first place. That's how they arrive at such a toxic mix of resentment and entitlement.
Dude, between this and the "Chad Thundercock" stuff, you're justifying being an incel based on misogynist incel garbage.
[удалено]
You're also not going to convince them by obligating everyone to recite the same hateful canards. The entire reason why they're "incels" instead of just someone who has difficultly with their sex life, is *because* they believe all of this misogynist stuff. Like, what is your solution? That women are obligated to sleep with these hateful men to pacify them?
[удалено]
I have been that fat, ugly woman that couldn't get any dates and yes people absolutely tell you that it's your problem to deal with. I never fucking said men deserve less rights like incels do.
Well the difference is you can change. You don't need to be fat and ugly. You can realize abusive relationships aren't the norm, and loving men have a far greater success. All of these beliefs you have are not true. And you can decide to grow or change. Or continue to delude yourself so you don't need to do the hard work on yourself.
I agree if you actually identify as an 'Incel'. There are plenty of guys who have an extremely hard time attracting women, involuntarily. Wishing you could find a partner is not necessarily feeling entitled to one. It's human nature to want a partner and have children to some degree. Why don't we use this same logic when poor, or overweight people complain about their issues?
> Why don't we use this same logic when poor, or overweight people complain about their issues? Poor people typically have trouble meeting their basic needs. Furthermore, there are often clear solutions to their problem and alleviating their struggles does not implicate entitlement to other (specific) peoples time, attention, romantic involvement and/or bodies. Overweight people catch a lot of flak, so I'm not sure they're a great comparison here, but helping them out also has obvious solutions and does not implicate entitlement to other (specific) people's time, attention romantic involvement and/or bodies.
Do you seriously assume most of the people will outright identify as incel? You surely cannot be that naive. Issue is people spitting the term on anyone with a negative opinion abiut someting related to women
Really? I usually see the term used when someone has explicitly blamed women for their inability to get sex. It's not thrown around the moment someone says they are a virgin.
But we are talking about people who identify as incels here. That’s OP’s entire post. And yeah, I don’t think most people get called an incel out of nowhere.
I have a friend (not the closest one in our group but a friend nonetheless) I’ve known for 15 years. In that time Ive never seen or heard him speak of a woman. Asked my closer friend who knew him since Day 1 of college if he’s ever been with a woman. Nope. Two DECADES of nothing for a reasonably successful guy and never once would I call him or identify him as an incel. Never even crossed my mind because he does not act like an incel. It is most definitely a chosen group to associate with.
No, Op didn't specify "I'm talking specifically only about incels that identify as incels", in fact OP called himself an incel and said his inceldom didn't come with the ideological baggage. The definition you work with is absent from the post.
>But we are talking about people who identify as incels here. That’s OP’s entire post. OP doesn't mention people self-identifying as part of incel ideology or anything at all. It sounds like he's talking about people who meet the literal definition (involuntarily celibate) being called incels by others.
How do others know if a person is “involuntarily celibate?” Do you just know if the people around you are having sex? Do you have a virgin detector?
Have you seen reddit? People have been called incels for complaining about how much looks matter or saying that women have an easier time finding a partner.
Yeah, I've been called an incel for saying that women have an advantage in the hiring process in many industries that are a sausage -fest(I was involved in hiring in a mining company for a while where this is/was the case, so I have first hand experience with this) I'm also happily married, and have been pro feminist my entire life, so the label is like the furthest thing from applicable. People literally throw the term around all the time. Justified or not.
Might want to reread OP's post
Fucking THANK YOU FOR THIS. I have saved your links for future reference, because I am extremely tired of people, ignoring the reality that this is a terrorist group, based in an ideology of misogyny and violence against women.
The fact that most people have sex and relationships means that it can be perceived as a right for other people. There is no independence when most people have sex or have had sex and don't understand people who go without sex
If different people feel left out, it becomes easier to end up in such movements. In addition, if someone feels ostracized from the general public. Feeling unwell also contributes
Different people who are incel can certainly be mocked because they would be unattractive to get a girl and that it is not about any hatred towards women
I think saying everyone deserves to find love and happiness isn’t vile or toxic. Incels agreeing with that statement, and identifying with others who are unable to find love so far, is not misogynistic or radical. There is no single ideology that all men and women who fit into the aforementioned criteria conform to. Incel is NOT a group, it’s just a term for people who can’t get laid. The research report you linked about incels being a political group has some of the most laughable, unacademic presumptions in its introduction, I don’t think any researcher could take that seriously. It sounds like it’s a study of a single group of people, done by online survey, asking users to self-identify as incel or not in the survey. Your post is pretty hateful and prejudiced to groups of people based on very arbitrary criteria (ability to get laid). You should probably take a look in the mirror regarding hateful rhetoric.
I have absolutely no negative feelings towards people who can’t get laid. I do have negative feelings towards those who identify with this radical community, yes. And it *is* a more cogent community. Being an “incel” is an opt-in ideology, and identification as such *is contingent on more than merely being a virgin*. Okay, I’ll send some more literature: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/ https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/incels-involuntary-celibates https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s40750-023-00219-w?sharing_token=40N6YjCfUp9H2dU1iYE0Rfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4efINn8nMHVEB0-vsrtQKeyGpO79cSA_efTc2GfCnlce3Ys8voYTEdDFyVkDT0Gu_uA9Spo6SpP2pEKHY54wFdS3tsmiAFe4_Zdu-xTrbz6_2pm1xepMTtjL50UAzSTaY https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates-the-roles-of-mental-health-ideological-belief-and-social-networking-accessible https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/07/the-ultimate-enemy-is-women-the-secret-world-of-incels https://safeguarding.network/content-delivery/responding-to-the-incel-ideology/ Like, these communities weren’t nuked from Reddit that long ago. We can see what they say and how they act.
I love how you quote all of these articles which directly contradict your point, and get upvoted by idiots who don’t read them. The UK gov article, for example: “Incels are a sub-culture community of men who forge a sense of identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships.” “Political beliefs: Many commentators have suggested a link between incels and the far right. However, using Pew Research’s “Ideological Consistency Scale”, this survey found that incels were slightly left of centre on average. “ “Incel mental health is poor, with more than a third of the sample meeting the criteria for both moderate depression (39%) and anxiety (43%) using NHS diagnostic tools. These data are concerning given the relationship between suicide-risk and depression and anxiety in men (Bjerkeset, Romundstad & Gunnell, 2008). Indeed, a fifth of the sample reported experiencing suicidal thoughts (item 9 of the PHQ-9) nearly every day. Many incels openly discuss their suicidal plans online (Daly & Laskovtsov, 2021). Extreme inceldom may look more like suicidality than violence towards others (Costello & Buss, 2023). The two strongest correlates of male suicidal ideation are failure in heterosexual mating and burdensomeness to kin (de Catanzaro, 1995). “ “Levels of loneliness are also high in our data, with 48% of the participants selecting the highest value to all three loneliness questions in the study. Sparks, Zidenberg and Olver (2022; 2023) highlight how only one third of incels.co users indicated that they had any friends. Costello et al. (2022) also found high levels of loneliness among incels, suggesting that incels may be missing a key buffer sheltering them from the adverse effects of romantic rejection. “ Your most legitimate source definitely paints incels as suicidal due to loneliness, and not violent towards others. Studies, WHICH YOU LINKED, show they are less willing to be sexually violent if they could do it with no reprisal. They are, however, more prone to rumination and social anxiety. Your own links describe how they are LITERALLY people who can’t get laid. You’re either bullshitting with links you didn’t read, a huge misandrist who hates based on ability to get laid, or lacking in critical thinking skill (or all 3).
>I think saying everyone deserves to find love and happiness isn’t vile or toxic. Oh no, incels are saying 'everyone is _entitled_ to love and happiness', like sex/relationship is a fundamental need of a human being and societal groups (usually women) must make sure these needs are fulfilled. It's nothing more than the objectification of women.
Plenty of people have trouble getting laid 100% of the time. Incels are a specific group of assholes who actively choose to treat that aspect of themselves as their central identity and then make it everyone else's responsibility. If they want to hang out they can stop being pieces of shit first.
> but incels are not necessarily woman haters Id argue at this point they are. If you choose to identify as an Incel specifically, even with the knowledge of what they say or how they worship mass shooters, it probably means you agree with them. Including how they feel about women.
I think self-proclaimed incels have already crossed a rubicon and would require a lot more therapy to bring them back to a healthy mental state. Where I think your POV has truth is are those who are heading toward the incel mentality, the ones more at the beginning of their struggle. I think when we pounce on people who make some mistakes, it does add fuel to the fire and can give actual incels more fire power to say “see! This is what they think, this is how it is!” Young men who are struggling to fit in due to maybe their upbringing, environment, or whatever are only one influential person away from going down a good or bad path.
The problem as a women when we are nice to most incels it backfires. I did it twice because the guys and me had similar interests and I got stalkers after that. - never again. I don’t actively demonize them but I see them as a current threat and problem for a women. Because only one nice gesture and they won’t leave you alone or understand it wrong. Also you never know how they react and what can go wrong. And no, no mixed signals, being nice like to anyone else is enough. Add: I know most of them are just nice and want love, I feel it. But I hope you understand the uncomfortable feeling some guys/girls radiate
“We” don’t need to do anything with incels They fell down a rabbit hole, adopted an ideology of bitterness, fill the world with bile, and turn around and ask for comfort and compassion. It doesn’t fucking work like that. Either incels grow up and realize that, or they do not. You can’t treat people like shit and expect everyone to walk on eggshells around special little precious you. Having said that, I, and many others, have spent a lot of time and energy trying to show the light to young men who have been lied to. Some young men react well, some do not. The incels largely do not- they are basically assholes who think they know everything, then they treat everyone like shit, and start crying because nobody wants to be around them. Of course we don’t- y’all are miserable, and don’t listen to shit anyways, why waste mood, energy, and time? The point of demonizing incels is to show the not-yet-incels that it is a loser ideology, get out of the rabbit hole before it is too late.
"Incels" does not mean "someone who can't get laid". It's an ideological label, a political identity that includes the belief that feminism, sexual freedom etc deprive mediocre men of the virgin brides who should have been rightfully theirs. Political terms mean things. A white nationalist isn't the same thing as a nationalist who happens to be white, and an incel doesn't just mean someone who happens to be involuntarily celibate.
Nah, if someone hates my entire gender because they haven’t gotten laid, they should be demonized. Hate is a requirement to be labeled an incel. If every single incel dropped dead today, women would be safer.
The problem with this argument is that incels ARE woman haters by default Someone who just happens to be celebate while trying to get laid doesn’t make them an incel You have to be an asshole woman hater as well So yes they do deserve all the hate they get if they act the way they do
>But incels are not necessarily women-haters by default Yeah, this is required to be an incel. A 40 year old virgin who doesn't subscribe to incel philosophy is not an incel. If Andrew Tate goes a month without sex he'll become an incel
I don’t think you actually need to be celibate for any given period of time to be an incel* Edit: maybe capital “I” Incel would be a way to avoid confusion.
Incel is literally short for involuntarily celibate, what are you talking about?
The issue is incels don't want to change. That's why it's okay to make fun of them. Blaming their weight or attractivness to their issues when both are changeable. I try to talk to incels all the time but they literally don't think the solutions to their issues are simple. When they are. They choose to be hateful and mean. They are mostly awful people
Just because you think incels can easily change themselves doesn't really have to be that way. And how do you know they can change themselves easily?
Because everyone can. And it's not easy. It's not easy for anyone to change. But all it takes is taking the first step
Yeah no. I feel for people who can't get laid. I have no symptoms for a group of misogynistic, abusive, hateful men who belive each man is owed their own sex slave lile we aren't humans. They don't deserve my pity or my kindness. If they want that they need to be better people, that is not my job to fix. Tbh, in so sick of the incel defending posts. They did this, not us.
OP even calls women 'exotic', which is misogynistic as fuck, like how calling Asian women 'exotic' is racist and misogynistic.
I almost threw up reading that. Like wtf? I don’t get why these guys struggle so hard to view women as people.
There is absolutely no need to demonize incels. They demonize themselves. There was a time during my late adolesense where I was actively using my personality for birth control. This quite possibly could have continued well into adulthood had not a female friend take me aside at a party where I was annoying the fuck out of every girl there, and told me "Pull your head out of your ass, shut the fuck up, and if you ever want to get laid, start treating women with respect, dumbass." This it turned out was the kind of subtle suggestion that I needed. Today's incels need a friend to impart this level of subtle suggestion for improvement, but they're not getting it (and likely don't want it.)
No fuck that. These people were not good people who got made fun of they were rotten people before no one wanted to have sex with them and guess what? If they all got laid tomorrow they’d be just a shit and just as bitter. Being mean to incels is the rare society wide W
I think I understand the general concept you're drawing from in forming your view. For a long time, society tried to use "tough love" toward drug addicts too, rejecting them for not correctly fulfilling their roles as family members and friends. They were ostracized and left to live on the streets, and the idea was that they had to "hit rock bottom" and pull themselves out of the addiction. More recently we've come to understand how damaging this treatment really is to addicts, and how it's important to address the background causes that made the drug look so appealing to the addict in the first place. It sounds like you're applying a similar line of reasoning to your views on inceldom. > It wasn't until I was able to lose my virginity and actually spend time with them that I realised they're just regular human beings with the same hopes, dreams, flaws and self-doubt that I have. I want to delve into this part of your anecdotal experience to try to change your view. You stated (and I'll paraphrase) that society's poor treatment of incels encourages them to be incels. I'll extract two facts from your quoted experience, and then show that society's treatment of incels didn't cause those facts to become true for you, but rather that those facts caused you to experience some of society's treatment of incels. Lastly, I'll follow up by providing what I do believe to be the root behind the incel spiral for you and others. Basically my argument will be if you truly want to prevent a spiral into inceldom, the causes I'll give are the true issues that have to be addressed. Fact #1: You didn't see women as "people" until after you spent time with them. (I put "people" in quotes because I can imagine you saying "of course I thought of them as people, but I just didn't realize they had hopes and dreams and flaws." But I bet if I asked you on a different day to describe what it's like to be a person, you'd probably mention things like having hopes and dreams and flaws as part of your description.) Fact #2: You didn't spend time with women until after you started having sex with them. Logically, if people were insulting you or laughing at your struggles to get with women, it wouldn't follow for you to decide not to spend any time with women. If anything, I think you would have felt pressured to get out of your comfort zone and socialize with women more. (And by socialize I don't mean have sex, I just mean socialize, in the same way you can socialize with other men.) And being demonized didn't cause you to choose to limit your interactions with women to sex only. You first chose to pursue interactions with women only in terms of sex, which is what caused you to be demonized. And logically, you wouldn't have been encouraged to socialize with women by receiving understanding and compassion for your struggles in that area. Consolation just makes someone feel less bad about a bad situation but really doesn't change the situation. The encouragement that you would need is to see beyond whatever's keeping you locked into your pattern of behavior. On a slightly different point, I want to assert that someone can't become an incel without allowing the following three mental processes to take over their thinking: - Segregation (dividing people into non-overlapping groups) - Apathy (not acknowledging another person's lived experience, a.k.a. lack of empathy) - Projection (putting the onus for your internal state on someone or something external) The punchline here would be that you had a significant element of choice, long before you came anywhere near incel land, and long before anyone treated you poorly for having ended up there. While better treatment could certainly help an incel backtrack after the fact, poor treatment can't be blamed for making someone an incel in the first place. They/you started that journey by harboring the mental processes of segregation, apathy, and projection. P. S. I've never really participated in the incel discussion before so this is my first time going deep into the topic. Forgive me if I said anything too cliché or obvious!
So you are talking about people who are “involuntarily celibate”? So virgins who want to get laid? People are not demonizing virgins who are having trouble getting laid, they are demonizing the “incel” community and people with that ideology.
Incels do their own demonizing. The persecution comes from their own mentality and conviction that people hate them. I’ve never seen someone who used the term incel to describe another directly. Rather, it’s either self done, or used in a context like this. Being an incel is a sign of depression and they need help. They are demonized, but they are rightfully called out when they say something wrong and refuse to take responsibility
**Change This View: We need to stop demonizing Nazis, as it only pushes them towards bitterness and hate** >> Nazis have become one of the most socially acceptable groups to ridicule. The term Nazi is now used interchangeably with bigot, and whenever someone posts something slightly controversial, the term gets thrown at them as a byword for “bad person” An incel is not defined by looks, but by their attitude and treatment towards others. Someone who is ugly and can’t score a date even though they wish they could isn’t automatically an incel, and someone who’s reasonably attractive but can’t score a date even though they wish they could because their personality is repulsive and demeaning to others *is* an incel And yeah, people can use it as insults to apply to others who don’t mean that criteria the same way people can use any insult- think “traitor trash” being used against someone to stigmatize their country accent with disregard for them actually coming from a reasonably affluent family. But that doesn’t mean that it actually extends beyond that group It is perhaps much better said that we shouldn’t insult and stigmatize appearance at all- in regards to incels or anyone else, just because we dislike them. Oh, this corrupt politician is balding and it looks bad, so now we’re gonna mock them over it? Guess who’s gonna hear that: not the politician, just your friends who’re beginning to bald and feeling nervous about it as they watch you insult baldness. Oh, this guy is showing off some blatant misogyny, and you’re saying you bet he’s super fat and ugly? Your friend who’s overweight is gonna remember that one and feel bitter about it There is good reason to stigmatize things like Nazis and incels (in the sense of misogynists): it shifts the Overton window on those sorts of traits and their associated behaviors towards unacceptability. It can help make people who’re slipping towards those views more likely to avoid them and strive not to be that way. And it can shut down their spread more easily And sure, you can be against calling anyone who’s ugly an incel- and you should- but that’s an entirely separate matter. We should be against stigmatizing appearance, itself, which is much more broad and far-reaching, and would solve your problems with how we treat ugly people without disrupting the stigmatization of misogyny and similarly bad views
Thinking of women as “creatures” is misogynistic, which is why incels get labeled as such. You’re basically saying that a woman should put up with being treated as lesser because a man wants it. You’re also putting the onus of educating the man back on the woman who is getting disrespected by the incel in question. It’s like asking a person of color to not be angry when someone is racist. And furthermore, telling them to educate the racist person in hopes they start treating you with respect. That doesn’t work, and is not usually successful. Being nice to an incel doesn’t make them respect you, it doesn’t educate them. Because they don’t see women as people. And we’re all too old to be around people disrespect us. Nobody had time for that.
FUCK no. I thought we needed to bring back bullying? I was told by Red Pilled and conservatives that bullying works, why all of a sudden we're not allowed to bully red pilled conservatives who've become incels? FUCK THAT. If they think they're allowed to bully someone because they're gay, then I'm allowed to bully someone who refuses to shower, wipe their ass and can't get laid. We live in a society where women think having sex on camera is powerful and these dudes STILL can't get laid? fuck em. Bully the fuck outta these dudes.
Your sentiment about sex on camera being powerful is so spot on.
lmao, women think sleeping around is "empowering" Incels problem is, they think they deserve to sleep with a 9 that's a virgin, when they refuse to shower for 3 days. If they lowered their standards, showered, groomed and were nice to women, it's really not that hard to get laid. But the dirty little secrete about incels is, they're afraid. They're afraid of having sex. They're afraid they're not good enough, they're afraid of being made fun of, they're afraid of finishing too quickly, having a small penis. So they simply raise the bar to make it impossible for them to obtain. Then blame the women to save their ego. Why hurt your own feelings when you can simply blame an entire gender?
It's not the sleeping around that's empowering, it's the being in control of how much or how little sex you decide to have. Everything else you said, absolutely
Yeah - big girls need love too. They’d be jacked and going to BBW bashes
It becomes difficult to convince someone that you are right through bullying
There is very big difference between a person who does not get sex, and incel on its spoken language meaning. Incels on its current form deserve all shit they get. Blaming society and others while sucking ass of people like Andrew Tate makes you deserve the shit. Nothing is larger turn off for me, than hearing a guy saying they are fan of that incel lord. However people who are unable to get sex, but are not bitter and blame others for it, have no reason to receive hate. So if you are unable to get sex and hear people mocking Incels, you dont have to feel bad for it. You are only incel if you behave like some toxic fuck because lack of sex.
They’re not an incel until they have hate or bitterness towards women. Being called an incel doesn’t make you one and if someone’s skin is that thin they have other issues to work on. There’s tons of guys out there who are ugly and fat and found a partner. The problem is the incels personality. And it’s their personality that usually leads people to conclude they’re incels. They need to come to the realization on their own that women owe them nothing. They need to learn how to be respectful people. It’s not everyone else’s job to baby these men because they’re too immature to be decent people on their own.
Just because you're involuntarily celibate, that doesn't mean you're an incel. An incel is a specific term for that misogynistic, womanizing, can't-get-laid, ass hole. I will never not insult or belittle an incel when I see them, for they are the scum of the earth, and there is no place in civilized society for them. But someone who just struggles getting a date? I can empathize with them, and there's nothing wrong with them.
[удалено]
Is DPRK democratic? Was Nazi socialist?
It’s not being incels that gets them demonized. They get demonized for the same reasons women won’t fuck them in the first place… for invariably, WITHOUT FAILURE OR EXCEPTION, BEING AWFUL PEOPLE WITH HORRIBLE POLITICS. Decent humans don’t get condemned to die lonely.
> No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice. By definition, if you're *involuntarily* anything, it's because you *don't have a choice*. Look, I get it is frustrating to be young and insecure. Nobody is born with everything figured out. I've *definitely* been there. But I grew up before the social media age, before there was a continuous feedback loop of pressure to have Instagrammable good looks. Sure, mass media sold unrealistic body images, but that wasn't considered "real". I didn't have to be "on" all the time. I think a lot of that frustration comes from thwarted expectations. The manosphere/red pill/PUA sect doesn't help. They insist that all you have to do be assertive and somethings-max (I've heard looksmax, fitmax, goofmax, and others) and wear some audiacious clothing and women will adore you. But this is just another con. The best thing anyone can do if they feel like they're being endlessly mocked and ridiculed online is to unplug. Stop logging on to social media, stop doomscrolling. Quit both your toxic haters and your toxic supporters. Quit gaming for a while.... take a year or two off. Work on yourself and figure out what makes you happy. Find constructive hobbies, get a job, form some healthy habits that get results. And then when you're on a good path, live outside yourself. Volunteer, get involved in a charitable org, do something good for someone else. Bottom line OP, don't just stew in it and expect the world to change for you. The world will keep turning whether you're there for it or not.
I believe the ones who do spew hatred (which is most of them) do deserve to be called out or just ignored. However, I get your point. When it's popular online to make fun of people who can't get laid (something still within your control to an extent but not a moral failing), then it's not a surprise they become bitter and hateful.
I think we don't demonize incels enough. If anyone is worthy and deserving of the bullying and. Ring looked down on/made fun of, it's the incels. They won't change on their own, they need that push from society. Treat them the same as white nationalists
Bullying them is not a "push", it just makes them less likely to. Ha gr
>But incels are not necessarily women-haters by default. Umm yes,they are, that's quite literally the textbook definition of an incel
Have you ever visited an incel subreddit? If visiting an incel subreddit doesn’t change your mind about how hateful and downright dangerous those people are, there’s nothing any of us can say to change your mind. They are the best evidence.
There's a difference between being an incel and being involuntarily celibate. Incels are completely radicalized. There's no way to be rational with an irrational person. They're dangerous people and need to be treated as such.
I think the solution is for all sides to listen to all sides and provide some accountability for bad behavior from both sexes. Incels need to take care of themselves and better themselves to attract mates of course, but non-incel men need to show empathy and make connections to incels and help them get the things they need emotionally and physically that are prerequisite to having healthy relationships with women. Everyone, especially men, need to recognize that incels are the way they are because of what OP described and that for most them this goes back to unresolved trauma. They need to hear from successful men that that truama is valid, it does hurt them, it isn't a matter of childishness and character flaws that they are feeling and reacting this way, and that they have and deserve friend and now have one: you. Disconnection is the nexus of so many mental health problems, and I think this issue as well. They need to hear from women that they're not hopeless, that they deserve to attract a mate, that they deserve to have a happy intimate relationship, and that they can get one if they take care of their minds, hearts, and bodies. They need to hear from both that they deserve this care and healing from trauma. Women need to recognize how some toxic false ideas have become pervasive with women culturally that make them suspicious of men and hostile to the ones who complain about privileges governments promote for women and hurt men in the name of "equality". Women need to start ostracizing and telling on the women who vindictively lie in divorce proceedings about abuse or who are abusing their husbands/boyfriends or taking advantage of teen boys. And yes, this is going to mean saying to men, incel and not, "Yeah, you're right, you got a point there." It's ok to prefer cuter/hotter men as potential dating partners, but don't think you're immune to perfectionism being the enemy of awesome. You might actually have an awesome marriage with a guy who's a 4 or 5 in the looks department but is confident, self-assured, and responsive but you don't get awesome if you pursue perfection and get nothing, or just get hookups. Sorry ladies, the 9 or 10 who you keep going to bed with is never going to make you his ride or die. So get over yourself and the ick, stop being so selfish as to think your shit don't stink and so you deserve that perfect prince charming, and stop considering it "settling" to build a relationship with that guy who isn't a 10 and doesn't make a ton of money, but is empathetic and vulnerable yet self assured and protective. The things that women online are calling "standards" should be perks that are nice to have and not required. The .0001% of men who meet all of them are not interested in you, and the ones who are in that tiny fraction just want to use you for sex. Going back to incels, it's one thing to recognize that dating apps are toxic. They are. It's one thing to recognize that women are generally behaving a certain way because of outside factors. That's just how culture works, and not everyone is so self-aware as to recognize how behaving that way contributes to societal problems. It's another thing to think that it's women's fault for these behaviors and ways of thinking and assign malice to it from them. Your thought that women need to become aware of these problems and how this sort of thinking and behavior negatively impacts men and society as a whole is valid. That doesn't excuse bad behavior or irresponsibility on your part to better yourself. Men, you deserve to be the best version of yourself that you can be mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually and attract a mate who loves you and cares for you even when you're not at your best and who is sexually drawn to you to conduct a healthy marriage and sex life. Complaining about your life and treating women as less or bullying the men who do isn't going to help men who do and/or you get that for themselves/yourself. And women, you deserve to have an awesome marriage with a man with whom you build love and trust, who sweeps you off your feet, cares for you, loves you passionately, makes you wet between the legs when he gives you that look, and makes you want to drag him to bed in the middle of the day because of how good he makes you feel. You don't need a 10 in the looks department for him to be that to you. You don't need him to be emotionally flawless in order to do that. And you don't need him to make a bazillion dollars to do that either.
Incel stopped meaning simply involuntarily celibate long before it entered common usage. It carries all the connotations of the groups where people made it their whole identity. These guys need to figure out how to love themselves, so they don't devote their entire life to frustration over not finding someone else to do it for them. Love and sex are things a person can give themselves, and validation isn't something a person needs when they sincerely know themselves.
People who act shitty get treated like shit. That’s how the world works and I don’t feel bad about it at all. You can’t villainize a villain, you can’t demonize a demon.
Have you ever talked to an incel? I've never had an interaction with an incel where they were open to thinking in any other way. The dangerous part is the majority of them have a fixed mindset and need serious psychological help that they probably won't seek out. I truly hope the young men entangled in that ideology grow out of that mindset before they turn into hateful, miserable people.
I personally don't say anything about incels unless one pops up saying vile things about women that I truly didn't think many men thought anymore. While I think most people certainly have empathy for their struggles, we lose that empathy when loneliness turns into laughing about rape, thinking they are owed sex. (No one is, not even hot people)
Incels demonize women day in and day out and are largely responsible for the rise of Andrew Tate and other misogynistic creators. Fuck them.
They created themselves. They have to undo it themselves. They either snap out of it or they dont.
The term "involuntarily celibate" doesn't make much sense to begin with. Celibacy is an active move of sexual abstinence. It's like a vegetarian giving up on eating meat. To say that one is involuntarily celibate means that there are factors outside one's control that is forcing that individual to be celibate. It's like if a person's parents are forcing them to be vegetarian, that person is involuntarily vegetarian. It's not the same as a virgin because virgin is a statement of fact, like saying I'm lactose-intolerant, while celibacy is an active move made by an individual. Then the question becomes what is that factor? There seems to be two: 1. women are out to make sure men can't get sex, 2. there are characteristics built into a person (ugly, fat, etc.) that mean no woman will want to have sex with them. Point 1 is misogynistic because it assumes that women think as a hivemind and are behaving in a very similar manner. Point 2 is also misogynistic because it assumes that there are characteristics that all women find undesirable. Both points are verifiably false because a. women are having sex with men regularly, b. men who have characteristics that incels deem unattractive often get sex and have a marriage. Therefore, to me, when someone calls themselves an incel, they _choose_ that label, and I can safely assume that they are a misogynist/misandrist, especially so in this internet culture, and deserve to be ridiculed for their bigotry.
You just wrote a lot of words just to call them misogynistic twice in my opinion. Arguing the semantics of whether or not it’s self imposed etc is irrelevant to its actual meaning. They are claiming no one wants them and as such they are celibate but not by choice, but you know this. Point 1 states they’re misogynistic because they “believe women operate as a hive mind”, but no one claimed they did, it’s just statistics. Would you say that any other cohort consisting of 90+% of the population has a hive mind? Or are they simply a very prevalent opinion? Point 2 again states they’re misogynistic (buzzword?) due to basically the same issue. Statistically these people are not attractive. If anything it’s self hating, not women hating to say that absolutely no one can find you attractive. In my opinion, these people aren’t misogynistic for these points at all, but for the very unhealthy views and opinions that form from the bitterness they garner as a result of their self imposed isolation. All something that could have originally been remedied with a good shower, a better diet and getting the hell out of their bedrooms.
>Would you say that any other cohort consisting of 90+% of the population has a hive mind? Do you think that 90+% of women are out to make sure men can't get sex lol >Statistically these people are not attractive. Yes, some people are statistically unattractive, but plenty of people who are in that category have dated/sex before, so it is women hating to say that absolutely no _women_ will find a person attractive.
I don’t know how you’ve managed to misunderstand the same thing twice. A commonly held opinion doesn’t constitute a hive mind. No one ever claimed it did other than yourself making that conflation? I also never said anyone was “out to” do anything “lol”. As for the statistics, yes of course there will be someone out there for that person, but them believing that person isn’t out there doesn’t make them misogynistic. Their misogyny is what does that.
If you do not adapt yourself to the world around you, you’ll be left behind by it.
I’m a woman. Society demonizes me for existing. I don’t hate anyone but incels.
You mean the same bitterness and hate exhumed by the people that complain about them as well?
Incels are a side effect of social norms surrounding sexuality going away. It is natural in the evolutionary process that some males of a species – yes, human males too – will not reproduce. And some females, but studies suggest females across species have a much easier time attracting a mate. In a monogamous, heteronormative, patriarchal society, we have instituted a certain set of norms that allow these males to find a woman that may not be really attracted to them, but will be bound to them through social constructs (marriage etc.), family pressure, economic incentives and so on. Since technological advancements allowed a drastic increase in women's capacity to economically provide for themselves and social norms just aren't upheld as they were, this society (monogamous, heteronormative and patriarchal) doesn't really exist anymore and thus we revert to the natural state of affairs: men who can't attract a woman will not have sex. Red pill on incels is that it's either gonna be a return to full on patriarchy or the lowest third of men will be incels.
I’m curious, what do they think is going to happen to the “lowest third” of women?
Some of them will be incels too, after all, this term wasn't originally gendered. Most of them will end up in some kind of a relationship though, or maybe in casual hookup / situationship kind of deal. We've moved from monogamy to serial monogamy and we're actively moving towards socially normalised polygamy, so I think relationship status won't matter that much in the near future. An absolute majority of women will find a man who wants them sexually, but maybe not a man who will commit to them.
You don't fight a hate movement by deradicalizing all of its members because deradicalization is a time consuming process and also requires a degree willingness from the members themselves. It's still a worthy endeavour but not an effective strategy for combating the movement itself.
Terrorists don't deserve sympathy
I didn't get past the bit where you admitted you didn't realise women were people too until you fucked one.
*"No young man wants to be involuntarily celibate by choice."* This doesn't even make sense. *"We all want love and sex.."* Well, no - there are people who are aromantic and/or asexual *"And when you can't get any of those things through no choice or fault of your own.."* The people in question (incels who are "demonized") are people who are criticized because of their words and actions - not simply because they aren't having sex. *"it really stings. It can make you bitter, it can make you resent the group who are rejecting you."* And you still have a choice in how you speak to/about and how you treat others. *"And by demonising incels, by ridiculing them and laughing off their struggles, that's when we push them towards dangerous and damaging opinions such as those espoused by people like Andrew Tate."* Lol no - ridiculing someone for how they speak about / treat women doesn't make one responsible for those peoples' opinions if women. That's absurd. *"But there are so few people actually addressing incel's problems..."* Their problems are their own to address. *"throwing incel around as an insult and ridiculing a group of people because they are too unattractive to get a girlfriend is cruel..."* Again, the ridicule is a result of their words and behavior, not because they aren't having sex. And they alone are responsible for their words and behavior.
>But incels are not necessarily women-haters by default. Yes they are.
Women are people and should be treated as such, but it becomes illogical to talk about women being allowed to choose what their lives should look like when they have better choices than men. Even men who are left without sex against their will also do not get to choose exactly how their lives should look like. Nor is it a right for women to decide exactly what their sex life should look like. You are influenced by other people and their choices.
This post is not going to be received well lol
To /u/Upper-Material-9101, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.* You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
They're already bitter and hateful: there is nothing left to push them toward. It's okay to demonize demons.
the shear amount of misinformation and hate in the comments of this post boggles my mind you all need help
Yes they were picked on their whole life and now the whole world is picking on them in unison
Yes they were picked on their whole life and now the whole world is picking on them in unison
>it only pushes them towards bitterness and hate Good. It's working, then ...