Vox article on incels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What's the distinction between strangers vs. known murders? Are men afraid walking home at night? Are men afraid to go for a hike by themselves? Or a run on a trail? Or to sit alone on the bus or in a metro train with one other man, and no one else? Or wait on the platform alone? Or to dress a certain way? Or travel alone? Men may murder more men than women, but I don't think you understand how pervasive it is for women to always... ALWAYS have this lingering code yellow. It's the fear that lingers, always--randomly when we're out and about just trying to live our lives and do things we enjoy. How many men are always walking around on at least a semi alert, yellow level internally?

I think the argument is that women's fear is, to some extent anyway, misplaced. Men are at greater actual risk but seem to be less fearful despite that risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: "refusing to date women who don't meet their own standards of attractiveness."

My son is 15 and I was just thinking about whether/how to talk to him about "leagues." I know I should tell him generally that he should be looking for someone who enjoys his attention. But, should I suggest to him that physical attractiveness generally sets the boundaries of who is going to be interested and who is not?

Ideally, looks are just one factor among many. In practice (and with some exceptions), I think physical appearance is the primary filter with other qualities nudging that up or down a few notches.

I don’t think you talk to him about “leagues”. Because a woman in his league can still reject him. I think you talk about taking risks knowing that he could be rejected. But it’s better to try and fail than never trying. Teach him how to deal with rejection. The sting, the emotions, the hit to self-esteem but that he will survive. And that sometimes you get rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with you. The other person has their own preferences and baggage too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: To the stove; give me the heat and then I’ll add the wood.

Most of these InCel type guys seem to have the world backwards; people like to hang out with who they feel good around and people feel good around people they don’t want anything from them and people who truly enjoy them for who they are.

It would be highly unlikely that one of these InCel dudes has a lot of friends because guys like that aren't capable of being real friends with someone; everything to them is about who is a loser and who isn’t, who is richer etc.

So if you’re reading this Incel guys you don’t need to work on your game, you don’t need anything except a giving spirit, a genuine interest in others and pure intentions- once you’ve mastered these skills you will be having all of the sex you could ever want. Of course when you do wind up with someone who truly cares about you and you will look at her with disdain and think that she must be a loser for liking you because you have a core built around self-hatred.

45 M

Whoa, PP! Great response!

On one hand, I feel sorry for the incel dudes because they have such low self-esteem and think that women are just out to "get them" for their money or what have you.

When in reality I do not think that anyone who qualifies as incel would be terribly successful or attractive in personality or humor due to self esteem issues (note I did not add looks). So that point would be moot. Furthermore, most women really are not looking for a man to be their savior these days. Women are successful in their own regard and are able to support themselves. So no knight in shining armor is necessary but an equal partner is. I agree that the core of the incel is built around self-loathing and not by how actual women have treated them - aside from their mother's of course. That's a whole different thread, I think and I think where most of this stems from.

I feel sorry for these guys.

40 something F

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone's rejection or awkwardness. What an utterly benign problem these incels have.

In the US, men are killed by men at rate about four times higher than the rate of women killed by men. In fact, only one woman per 100,000 can expect to be murdered in the US. For white women, the homicide rate is much lower, as low as 1 homicide per 600,000 women.

But how many men are killed by women?

Men are clearly a greater risk to both men and women. I don't think it matters that men don't generally suffer violence at the hands of women. The point is that men are *more* at risk from other men than women are from men AND men are afraid women will laugh at them. And even though men are a lot more likely than women to suffer violence at the hands of other men, men aren't generally fearful of those other men. So, it feels like: a) men are in more danger than women; and/or b) women exaggerate their actual risk.

Women tend to be targeted because they are women. Men are seldom attacked because of their gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone's rejection or awkwardness. What an utterly benign problem these incels have.

In the US, men are killed by men at rate about four times higher than the rate of women killed by men. In fact, only one woman per 100,000 can expect to be murdered in the US. For white women, the homicide rate is much lower, as low as 1 homicide per 600,000 women.

that’s not exactly an encomium to men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone's rejection or awkwardness. What an utterly benign problem these incels have.

In the US, men are killed by men at rate about four times higher than the rate of women killed by men. In fact, only one woman per 100,000 can expect to be murdered in the US. For white women, the homicide rate is much lower, as low as 1 homicide per 600,000 women.

But how many men are killed by women?

Men are clearly a greater risk to both men and women. I don't think it matters that men don't generally suffer violence at the hands of women. The point is that men are *more* at risk from other men than women are from men AND men are afraid women will laugh at them. And even though men are a lot more likely than women to suffer violence at the hands of other men, men aren't generally fearful of those other men. So, it feels like: a) men are in more danger than women; and/or b) women exaggerate their actual risk.

Women tend to be targeted because they are women. Men are seldom attacked because of their gender.

That isn't true. Most murder victims know their killer. Few murders are random.

[Anonymous]

I found this article on incels to be interesting and insightful - https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-you-can-get-sucked-into-incel-trap/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

[Anonymous]

one wonders about the staggering amount of sexism and date raping that no doubt occurred prior to, say, 2000. It continues today, of course, but has society effectively accounted for males’ past behavior?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone's rejection or awkwardness. What an utterly benign problem these incels have.

In the US, men are killed by men at rate about four times higher than the rate of women killed by men. In fact, only one woman per 100,000 can expect to be murdered in the US. For white women, the homicide rate is much lower, as low as 1 homicide per 600,000 women.

But how many men are killed by women?

Men are clearly a greater risk to both men and women. I don't think it matters that men don't generally suffer violence at the hands of women. The point is that men are *more* at risk from other men than women are from men AND men are afraid women will laugh at them. And even though men are a lot more likely than women to suffer violence at the hands of other men, men aren't generally fearful of those other men. So, it feels like: a) men are in more danger than women; and/or b) women exaggerate their actual risk.

Women tend to be targeted because they are women. Men are seldom attacked because of their gender.

This.

I went into a running store not long ago, to talk about running watches and belts and things. The (male) employee was showing me all the great things I could wear that allowed me to run without my cellphone, because it was so "freeing."

The fact that this is something that he can entertain as a man while running alone, is fascinating. I wonder what that's like to run alone and completely let down your guard, carry no phone, and just enjoy your natural endorphins - it must be nice.

I have been followed while running. I also had to call police for a woman who was randomly sexually assaulted. Simply for being a woman out and about.

Are men attacked sometimes? Sure - but it's likely a mugging - your wallet, your phone, maybe your shoes. They're very very rarely, randomly attacked just for being a man who's outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zack Beauchamp, writing for Vox, has a longish, interesting read on the "incel" community and how it has evolved over the years. It was actually started by a gay Canadian woman as a sort of support group and has morphed into an incredibly toxic, woman-hating presence on the Internet and, too often, in the real world.
<https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit>

Most of the incels now are male and between the ages of 16-30. I'm well beyond the target range but back when I was in the target range (80s/early 90s) identified with a lot of the commonalities they mention. I'm almost certainly better off that the Internet wasn't a huge presence back then. I was awkward and shy, too skinny but not ugly. Girls weren't approaching me, and I mostly wasn't approaching them. My first couple of tentative efforts to ask a girl out didn't go very well so I stopped trying. In retrospect, I know the problem was mostly on my end. And, I was fairly well aware of my shortcomings, but I frequently vented about what I regarded as the hypocrisy or disingenuous statements by "women" about what they wanted (this mostly came from unreliable sources like magazine articles, etc.) where money, aggression, and muscled-good looks weren't cited so much as "wanting a guy with a sense of humor." I'm funny! I make girls and guys laugh. Girls aren't beating down my door, so they must be lying! Some truth, but mostly bullshit that was really me expressing that I was unhappy. I don't think my experience was terribly unusual -- regardless of gender. A ton of us have a difficult time with the opposite sex and feel awkward as we make our way through adolescence. From my perspective at the time, it looked like girls had it way easier. But, part of the maturing process is recognizing other peoples' challenges, and girls obviously had plenty.

Anyway, for a lot of guys who feel similar these days, the Internet -- and especially these incel and Men's Rights type sites -- can add kerosene to the fire.

"The degeneration of LoveShy reflects the rage that many men express offline. Angry, entitled misogyny is a fact of the world, and it was inevitable that this reality would shape virtual spaces as much as real ones. A forum for young, dateless men was always a prime candidate for where misogynist ideas would come to dominate. All it took was the opening of a venue uninterested in heavily policing its users for this real-world anger to become a defining feature of the virtual incel world — and that’s what LoveShy provided.
. . .
The “manosphere,” a loose group of websites united by their belief in various male-dominant ideologies, was even more important in reshaping inceldom. It includes “men’s rights” activists and pickup artists, or PUAs, men who teach other men that they can sleep with women by insulting them and manipulating their psychology.

These overlaps produced a fairly large and networked group of sexually frustrated men, united in blaming their situation on women. These men appropriated the term “incel” for themselves and their idea, outcompeting the IncelSupport community for ownership of the term.

Then in 2014, a self-identified incel went on a killing spree in Isla Vista, California."

Now these sites are full of guys celebrating Elliot Rodger in various ways. It's tough to distinguish the guys who are just trying to be transgressive and shocking - just doing it for the lulz - from the guys who actually mean it.

I guess I'll have to have a talk with my son and my daughter about this sort of thing. Hopefully "don't be an asshole and don't put up with assholes" will cover most of it.

Agree with all of this. Boys that age are ripe for exploitation. It’s a toxic brew of hormones and immaturity. Some never grow out of it. But most do.


The REALLY scary part about all this is that right wingers and their donors are actively targeting this group of young men for political purposes.
Steve Bannon pitched the Mercers on using Breitbart as a way to radicalize boys like this. And the Mercers gave him that money.
Prager “U” targets that crowd and tells them men are discriminated against and women are ascendent.
So does the Daily Wire (Montreal shooter loved Ben Shapiro). Both of those sites were funded by the Wilkses.
Daily Caller: same audience. Koch-funded.
Jordan Peterson is pretend-intellectual pablum for the same crowd.

The real problem in our society is that billionaires have figured out how to use mass media and social issues to appeal to people like incels to use them to achieve the billionaires’ political ends. (Now grifters like Peterson and Shapiro ride that wave.) That’s very very bad for the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Hey, PP, rather than reverting to name calling, why don’t you ask him/her for a source for evidence of their statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: "refusing to date women who don't meet their own standards of attractiveness."

My son is 15 and I was just thinking about whether/how to talk to him about "leagues." I know I should tell him generally that he should be looking for someone who enjoys his attention. But, should I suggest to him that physical attractiveness generally sets the boundaries of who is going to be interested and who is not?

Ideally, looks are just one factor among many. In practice (and with some exceptions), I think physical appearance is the primary filter with other qualities nudging that up or down a few notches.

I don’t think you talk to him about “leagues”. Because a woman in his league can still reject him. I think you talk about taking risks knowing that he could be rejected. But it’s better to try and fail than never trying. Teach him how to deal with rejection. The sting, the emotions, the hit to self-esteem but that he will survive. And that sometimes you get rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with you. The other person has their own preferences and baggage too.

I think it's wrong to teach a kid about "leagues" because that isn't the issue. People don't reject each other because a person is not in "their league" but rather because there is not attraction -- which happens for a whole host of reasons that are uncontrollable on both the "asker" and the "askee"s side. I tried to explain to my kids that we each have certain type or types that we find sexually attractive -- sporty or not, blue v. brown eyes, blond v. brunette or redhead, quiet v. talkative, introvert/extrovert. Your computer/brain is analyzing a whole package of traits on a subconscious level that you don't even realize is going on. And, then pile on timing -- whether the person even wants to date or explore sexually, etc. Kids need to reconceptualize "rejection" as "we are not a good fit," and look for a better fit. It's not about the other person rejecting you; it's about not being a match and moving on to find someone who is a match. Grown ups need to learn this too, but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zack Beauchamp, writing for Vox, has a longish, interesting read on the "incel" community and how it has evolved over the years. It was actually started by a gay Canadian woman as a sort of support group and has morphed into an incredibly toxic, woman-hating presence on the Internet and, too often, in the real world.
<https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit>

Most of the incels now are male and between the ages of 16-30. I'm well beyond the target range but back when I was in the target range (80s/early 90s) identified with a lot of the commonalities they mention. I'm almost certainly better off that the Internet wasn't a huge presence back then. I was awkward and shy, too skinny but not ugly. Girls weren't approaching me, and I mostly wasn't approaching them. My first couple of tentative efforts to ask a girl out didn't go very well so I stopped trying. In retrospect, I know the problem was mostly on my end. And, I was fairly well aware of my shortcomings, but I frequently vented about what I regarded as the hypocrisy or disingenuous statements by "women" about what they wanted (this mostly came from unreliable sources like magazine articles, etc.) where money, aggression, and muscled-good looks weren't cited so much as "wanting a guy with a sense of humor." I'm funny! I make girls and guys laugh. Girls aren't beating down my door, so they must be lying! Some truth, but mostly bullshit that was really me expressing that I was unhappy. I don't think my experience was terribly unusual -- regardless of gender. A ton of us have a difficult time with the opposite sex and feel awkward as we make our way through adolescence. From my perspective at the time, it looked like girls had it way easier. But, part of the maturing process is recognizing other peoples' challenges, and girls obviously had plenty.

Anyway, for a lot of guys who feel similar these days, the Internet -- and especially these incel and Men's Rights type sites -- can add kerosene to the fire.

"The degeneration of LoveShy reflects the rage that many men express offline. Angry, entitled misogyny is a fact of the world, and it was inevitable that this reality would shape virtual spaces as much as real ones. A forum for young, dateless men was always a prime candidate for where misogynist ideas would come to dominate. All it took was the opening of a venue uninterested in heavily policing its users for this real-world anger to become a defining feature of the virtual incel world — and that’s what LoveShy provided.
. . .
The “manosphere,” a loose group of websites united by their belief in various male-dominant ideologies, was even more important in reshaping inceldom. It includes “men’s rights” activists and pickup artists, or PUAs, men who teach other men that they can sleep with women by insulting them and manipulating their psychology.

These overlaps produced a fairly large and networked group of sexually frustrated men, united in blaming their situation on women. These men appropriated the term “incel” for themselves and their idea, outcompeting the IncelSupport community for ownership of the term.

Then in 2014, a self-identified incel went on a killing spree in Isla Vista, California."

Now these sites are full of guys celebrating Elliot Rodger in various ways. It's tough to distinguish the guys who are just trying to be transgressive and shocking - just doing it for the lulz - from the guys who actually mean it.

I guess I'll have to have a talk with my son and my daughter about this sort of thing. Hopefully "don't be an asshole and don't put up with assholes" will cover most of it.

Agree with all of this. Boys that age are ripe for exploitation. It’s a toxic brew of hormones and immaturity. Some never grow out of it. But most do.


The REALLY scary part about all this is that right wingers and their donors are actively targeting this group of young men for political purposes.
Steve Bannon pitched the Mercers on using Breitbart as a way to radicalize boys like this. And the Mercers gave him that money.
Prager “U” targets that crowd and tells them men are discriminated against and women are ascendent.
So does the Daily Wire (Montreal shooter loved Ben Shapiro). Both of those sites were funded by the Wilkses.
Daily Caller: same audience. Koch-funded.
Jordan Peterson is pretend-intellectual pablum for the same crowd.

The real problem in our society is that billionaires have figured out how to use mass media and social issues to appeal to people like incels to use them to achieve the billionaires’ political ends. (Now grifters like Peterson and Shapiro ride that wave.) That’s very very bad for the rest of us.

+1. This is a larger part of the dynamic of profiting off of telling people their aggrievement is righteous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone's rejection or awkwardness. What an utterly benign problem these incels have.

In the US, men are killed by men at rate about four times higher than the rate of women killed by men. In fact, only one woman per 100,000 can expect to be murdered in the US. For white women, the homicide rate is much lower, as low as 1 homicide per 600,000 women.

But how many men are killed by women?

Men are clearly a greater risk to both men and women. I don't think it matters that men don't generally suffer violence at the hands of women. The point is that men are *more* at risk from other men than women are from men AND men are afraid women will laugh at them. And even though men are a lot more likely than women to suffer violence at the hands of other men, men aren't generally fearful of those other men. So, it feels like: a) men are in more danger than women; and/or b) women exaggerate their actual risk.

Women tend to be targeted because they are women. Men are seldom attacked because of their gender.

Men aren’t targeted for their gender in ways that women are, but being a man does carry risks that women don’t appreciate, and even men don’t until it happens to them. If some guy picks a bar fight he will do it with a man, not a woman. Police escalate to violence much more quickly with men, etc. men are much more likely to be in jail and there is a lot of violence and rape in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Pardon my lack of sympathy for someone's rejection or awkwardness. What an utterly benign problem these incels have.

In the US, men are killed by men at rate about four times higher than the rate of women killed by men. In fact, only one woman per 100,000 can expect to be murdered in the US. For white women, the homicide rate is much lower, as low as 1 homicide per 600,000 women.

But how many men are killed by women?

Men are clearly a greater risk to both men and women. I don't think it matters that men don't generally suffer violence at the hands of women. The point is that men are *more* at risk from other men than women are from men AND men are afraid women will laugh at them. And even though men are a lot more likely than women to suffer violence at the hands of other men, men aren't generally fearful of those other men. So, it feels like: a) men are in more danger than women; and/or b) women exaggerate their actual risk.

Women tend to be targeted because they are women. Men are seldom attacked because of their gender.

Men aren’t targeted for their gender in ways that women are, but being a man does carry risks that women don’t appreciate, and even men don’t until it happens to them. If some guy picks a bar fight he will do it with a man, not a woman. Police escalate to violence much more quickly with men, etc. men are much more likely to be in jail and there is a lot of violence and rape in jail.

NONE OF THIS obviates the fact that women are attacked by men at far higher rates than they're attacked by other women. So: men and their violence are the problem in either scenario.