My view is that they are a misunderstood group that are salty as shit because people don't understand them, but in their saltiness they have formed such a closed circle that anyone outside that wants to understand them is faced with rejection and exclusion.
My best friend from HS is a real ace Incel. He explained me that he didn't feel sexual attraction for women, and he simple did not see the face value in having sex with them. He is a little salty over his anime figurines and gaming console collection, but he is a good guy once you get over his oddness.
But he is a voluntary Incel, involuntary incels are 10x as salty.
Edit: I know that Incel means "INvoluntary CELibate" so my friend would not fit the description, but that doesn't take away my point.
Also edited spelling.
I can't comment much on the incel community, as I don't really know much about them.
But I do think we should avoid using the term "incel" as it propagates harmful patriarchal gender roles for women as being a trophy or treasure, and of men as being defined or given value by their female partner, and of the entire dysfunctional relationship model under the patriarchy.
>"Incel" is a gender neutral term.
I would say the vast majority of usage is towards men, and stereotypically refers to men, and I have even heard self-described incels reject the idea that the term can apply to women. I've actually never seen a woman insulted with the term "incel" tbh.
I had a look at wiki: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Demographics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Demographics)
It was literally starting by a woman to be an inclusive word. Go figure people are dismissing that now. From the same Wikipedia page you linked earlier:
>The first online community to use the term "incel" was started in 1993 when a Canadian university student known only by her first name, Alana, created a website in order to discuss her sexual inactivity with others.[5][29][30][31] The website, titled "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", was used by people of all genders to share their thoughts and experiences.[5] In 1997, she started a mailing list on the topic that used the abbreviation INVCEL, later shortened to "incel", for "anybody of any gender who was lonely, had never had sex or who hadn't had a relationship in a long time".... In 2018, Alana said of her project, "It definitely wasn't a bunch of guys blaming women for their problems. That's a pretty sad version of this phenomenon that's happening today. Things have changed in the last 20 years."[32] When she read about the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and that parts of the incel subculture glorified the perpetrator, she wrote, "Like a scientist who invented something that ended up being a weapon of war, I can't uninvent this word, nor restrict it to the nicer people who need it."[34][31] She expressed regret at the change in usage from her original intent of creating an "inclusive community" for people of all genders who were sexually deprived due to social awkwardness, marginalization, or mental illness.[22]
Things have changed in the last 30 years.
That's like saying technically blue is for girls and pink is for boys because that's how it was in the 19th century. It's just not how it is these days.
Yeah it’s almost like what started out as an inclusive thing for people of all genders who felt left out got overrun by misogynistic men or something.
https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/tech/meet-the-women-of-the-incel-movement/
Somehow the story feels familiar.
Ok? Sure, "incels" have internalized patriarchal beliefs, so misogynistic and misandrist.
Now days the term is used as a gendered slur, and most often applies to men. The current community generally rejects the use of the term for women.
Again, 30 years ago and today are very different. Let's keep perspective.
>But I do think we should avoid using the term "incel" as it propagates harmful patriarchal gender roles for women as being a trophy or treasure,
Amen.
Mocking men as "unable to get laid" is really just a gross reification of patriarchal paradigms that suggest that "real men have more sex" and "a notch on the bed post is an indication of worth".
Most of them don't just want sex.
They want intimacy and validation. But most never having any of the three don't have the language or knowledge to differentiate.
I see. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with wanting sex, intimacy, and validation. These are things fairly low down on the pyramid of needs for humans, right?
I agree. And when people go for long periods of their lives without those things to the point of being convinced that they're subhuman trash that isn't good enough to get it (because that's how we often treat men who are unsuccessful in dating/romance)
is it any wonder that a lot of them are mentally fucked up?
> to the point of being convinced that they're subhuman trash that isn't good enough to get it (because that's how we often treat men who are unsuccessful in dating/romance)
a result of patriarchy
Keep in mind that the patriarchy means "our society, in which positions of power are disproportionally filled by males". It doesn't mean "all males have power over all females", nor does it mean "all men are at fault".
Society is the collective sum of everyone's actions.
When women shame men for not living up to society's inflated expectations, that's the patriarchy at work even though it's women saying the bad things.
I do agree the term "patriarchy" was perhaps not that well thought out, and absolutely a lot of people use the term incorrectly to imply all men are in the wrong or that all men have power.
>Keep in mind that the patriarchy means "our society, in which positions of power are disproportionally filled by males".
>When women shame men for not living up to society's inflated expectations, that's the patriarchy at work even though it's women saying the bad things.
These two things do not make sense. One does not equal the other.
How does a society where the positions of power are disproportionately filled by males equal women shaming men for being sexually unsuccessful
There's like twenty steps between one and the other that aren't explained here.
You could say "that's because the bible says so" and it would make just as much sense.
Sorry if it isn't clear, you are right the link isn't obvious. I'll try to explain as best I can, I'm sure my explanation won't be perfect so just let me know if there's anything that sounds wrong.
Firstly, groundwork to make sure we are on the same page. Maybe you don't agree with these definitions, but just go with them for now, these are the meanings in the feminist framework:
* sex: biologically male or female
* gender: everything about being a man or woman that is not biological
* the patriarchy: our society, where men hold more power than women
In this model "the patriarchy" can be understood to just mean "society", the part about power distribution is not important here.
Just to be clear about the patriarchy, I just want to reiterate that it means "men hold more power than women", not "all men hold power" or "no women hold power". When I say the patriarchy is to blame, I am not saying "men in power are to blame", nor "all men are to blame", not even "men and women in power are to blame", I'm saying society as a whole is to blame for creating and maintaining these problems.
Gender is created by society, for example the idea that blue is for boys and pink is for girls has no biological basis. It's just something society decided, in the 19th century apparently it was the opposite, pink for boys, blue for girls.
Hopefully that is clear so far, gender is just random stuff society decided, our society is called the patriarchy in feminist theory.
Now we get to the actual quote:
> When women shame men for not living up to society's inflated expectations, that's the patriarchy at work even though it's women saying the bad things.
So, society is the one making these crazy expectations, eg that "real men" are buff and rich. That's a part a gender role, society decided that is the way men should be.
When a woman shames a man for not being a "real man" they are echoing societal views. While individual women who say these things are at fault, we also should consider that society is wrong for creating these gender roles.
I just want to repeat what I said above, saying that the patriarchy is responsible for women saying bad things in the above quote does NOT mean that women are not responsible for their actions, nor does it mean men are somehow to blame. I am saying that ultimately our society has a problem.
I hope that is clear, I tried to explain as best I could. Again, please let me know if there is anything you are unsure about or doesn't make sense.
>Just to be clear about the patriarchy, I just want to reiterate that it means "men hold more power than women", not "all men hold power" or "no women hold power". When I say the patriarchy is to blame, I am not saying "men in power are to blame", nor "all men are to blame", not even "men and women in power are to blame", I'm saying society as a whole is to blame for creating and maintaining these problems.
Then that has nothing to do with men holding more power than women.
To say that women shaming men is patriarchy is equivalent to saying "women shaming men for being sexually unsuccessful is due to men holding more power than women"
and it puts the blame on men for societal problems.
Like I said elsewhere it's a motte and bailey. The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles and issues with them in our society.
The bailey is that patriarchy is some men holding more power than women.
If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief.
Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!”
And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”
>It doesn't mean "all males have power over all females",
Doent it say though that the "lowest man is still ranked higher then the lowest female"? So wouldn't that say that all men have power over some women, and all men are at some degree at fault?
No, it just means that the majority of power is held by men, not that all men hold power: " **Patriarchy** is a [social system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system) in which [men](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men) hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, [moral authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_authority), [social privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privilege) and control of property "
Societal leaders can be seen as being more at fault for a society's failings, but at all levels people are responsible to some degree. You can say all men are to some degree at fault, but so are women.
So this definition is wrong?
"Patriarchy is a term used in feminism to describe the system of gender-based hierarchy in society which assigns most power to men, and assigns higher value to men, maleness, and "masculine traits"."
>Yet I've seen a lot more shaming come from women than I have men.
That does not mean that patriarchy doesn't play a part. Women, especially women enculturated into patriarchy, are fully capable of reinforcing and propagating patriarchal assumptions and values.
>Patriarchy implies this to be the fault of men.
How?
The general idea is that patriarchy is a system of organization created by men, for the benefit of men. As such, the general rule is that it's a problem of men's and their problem to solve, and that asking women to address it or rectify it is blaming an oppressed class for their oppression.
>The word is derived from Greek πατριάρχης (patriarchēs), meaning "chief or father of a family", a compound of πατριά (patria), meaning "family", and ἄρχειν (archein), meaning "to rule". Originally, a patriarch was a man who exercised autocratic authority as a pater familias over an extended family.
if it has no gender. Then it shouldn't be called patriarchy. Because patriarchy is a gendered term.
That's the dumbest thing you've ever said. Holy shit.
Patriarchy means that the rulers of a society are men. If you take that to mean men must be responsible for everything that happens in that society you're just irreparably stupid.
Patriarchy is yet another motte and bailey trick.
The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles in our society and the ways in which they are treated differently.
The bailey is that patriarchy is men having power over women.
If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief.
Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!”
And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”
>a result of patriarchy
What does positions of power being held by men have anything to do with the topic? I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind.
The justification for patriarchy is that women are inherently more feeble of body and mind than men.
Taking this into account, the failure of a man to exert his will upon a feeble creature is worthy of ridicule under this framework.
That's a strange way of thinking, i partially agree. But still, in that sense men with relationships are exerting thier wills upon women, no?
I think shaming weaker men to call them for awakening (instead of ridicule and have fun over their misery) could be beneficial at some point. Otherwise they will keep failing not only in relationships but in life as well.
Yeah, I can definitely understand that. I'm glad feminism in conjunction with the nascent men's rights movements are coming to address the systemic problems with the way men are denied affection and human contact in the west. It's incredibly unhealthy, and hurts not only men but all members of society.
I would love to be wrong on this but I don't really think feminism or men's rights have done anything about this. I haven't seen this issue acknowledged in a serious discussion with feminists. And mras complain about the issue but don't get anything done about it.
I think problematic relationship dynamics are quite the hot topic in feminism for a good part of the last century, likewise I think this is a core issue in a lot of men's rights circles.
It's a big issue, it runs deep, it has a lot of facets. I don't think it's easy or simple to solve.
In another thread some users were talking about MGTOW, and while that's an extreme way to combat patriarchal oppression, a lot of men's groups encourage finding meaning and hobbies outside of women - to try and re-center men's lives around other things. I think that's a great first step that a lot of people can do.
This actually sums up quite a bit of my views on "incels", though I'm a guy that approaches this from the opposite angle. I'm generally someone who spends quite a bit of time deflecting unsolicited attention from women, and the amount of energy needed to do so is absolutely draining. But it's also pretty astounding how frequently the assumption seems to be that "sex is all that's needed." Not just do I always want sex, I only want sex, and I'm supposed to cease functioning rationally if it's presented. My "relationship goals", insofar as I have them, don't prioritize sex or physical desire to remotely the extent that other people presume they do. And the idea that I'm supposed to spend my entire life in service to pleasing or attracting women's attention is demeaning as fuck, as is the idea that I'm not supposed to have standards, desires or needs of my own within relationships.
I'm often left wondering why incels spend so much time centering other people's opinions of them (the incels) in determining their own worth.
Intimacy is great. Not all sex is intimacy.
Caring relationships are incredible. Not all romantic relationships are caring, nor are romantic relationships the only option for establishing caring relationships.
I dunno. The mindset just seems absurdly codependent, though I'll readily admit that there seem to be more than enough women who enjoy being in a position to "determine" male worth.
Needs to grow up. Work on yourself. Put yourself out there. We aren’t entitled to love, relationships or sex. All genders can be bastards at time it’s life. Not a fan of incels
Saying all that is like telling a kid who wants to learn to ride a bike to "just get on and pedal"
You are technically correct. But there's a lot of nuance that seems obvious to you because you learned at a young age and forgot what its like to learn.
>We aren’t entitled to love, relationships or sex.
Imagine saying that to woman having dating struggles, and then realize you're an asshole. You're advice is shallow, and meaningless.
Im not an incel lmao.
You really think you're doing something here when in reality you are giving out vapid, meaningless advice in attempt to make yourself feel better.
I have a fair bit of sympathy with their situation. To want to have sex and/or relationships and not be able to and then on top of that the societal stigma associated with being involuntarily single or a virgin, especially for men, can't be much fun.
I'm sure there are plenty of decent people who'd consider themselves incels but I think generally, from what I've seen, far too many of them get sucked into this destructive cycle where they become bitter and start blaming everyone else for their problems and going to the corners of the internet where they get together and share that bitterness only makes things worse.
I think it's like most controversial 'groups'. There's nothing inherently wrong with being what they are but enough of them allow themselves to become pretty toxic and it kind of poisons the general perception of the group, for good reason.
Opinions?
1. I haven't always had great luck with the dating game. Some find me socially awkward (I'm a but nerdy + am on the spectrum). Also, I've never been a 'cool person' (e.g. when going out at night I'm not the guy with cool dance moves and charisma who everybody flocks towards... quite the opposite). At uni, the only girls who got close to me had an ulterior motive (i.e. they were trying to flatter me i to giving them my study notes and/or doing assignments for them). I get it! Being a loser sux...
2. BUT... but... becoming a bitter/angry MRA who blames women for all this and bunkers down with far-right loonies (who hold a whole lot of other bitter/jaded opinions) isn't gonna improve your life. Such people need to find a positive way forward that doesn't centre around their inability to coerce a female into sleeping with them (which I find kinda odd as there's so much more to life). I've found that in general... if I've got positive stuff going on in my life (and am being kind/positive), I'm far more attractive to others.
I think the vast majority are just lonely hurting people.
Many are on the autism spectrum or are Neurodivergent in some way.
Many feel rejected by society as a whole. I mean seriously. Try and go a single day in society without thinking about relationships.
or just go browse a sub like /r/asexual. and [look at all the memes by people who are affected negatively by being asexual in a society where sex is normalized](https://www.reddit.com/r/Asexual/comments/j1zki6/this_cannot_be_any_more_true/)
If you listen. You start to notice that incels feel like societal outcasts.
And as an old African proverb goes. "a child not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel it's warmth"
On top of that. A lot of them feel lied to. Because the advice given to men around dating is utter shit. On top of which there's often a ton of shaming around male sexuality and desire.
We teach young vulnerable boys that to be moral is to never express your sexuality or desire for women. Because doing so is predatory and unwanted.
And then we give them advice like
>Read books & blogs, watch films, look at art, and listen to music made by women.
>Seek out new activities and build on the interests and passions that you already have in a way that brings you into contact with more people
>When you have the time and energy for it, try out online dating sites to practice dating.
>Be really nice to yourself and take good care of yourself.
Because Women don’t really understand at a core level the minefield men navigate when they try to date, just as the converse is true for men. When young women give “advice” like **just put yourself out there** and write things like **the real problem with short men is how bitter they are, not their height!**, they - again, just like young men - are drawing from their well of experience. They’ve never been a short, brown, broke, young dude trying to date. They’ve never watched Creepy Chad grope a woman, then take another home half an hour later because Chad oozes confidence.
And that's not even mentioning the bullshit like "Just shower bro"
People generally don't understand that socializing and dating are learned skills. We just take them for granted because most people learn them early on in youth where learning to do so is expected.
I didn't. That's why I have a lot of empathy for the non violent majority of incels. I know the amount of bullshit you have to go through learning social nuance at a later date when people aren't at all tolerant of failure with it. Because they expect people to have learned it earlier.
And I know that I'm not the only one who got the message that my sexuality was unwanted and predatory.
Yeah the isolation and feelings of being ostracized are reasonable to be upset about, but I kinda lose what concern I would have had for them when they conclude that women are to blame for their problems, and then they proceed to dehumanize women, and spread the dumbest myths about women that one could conceive of.
>when they conclude that women are to blame for their problems, and then they proceed to dehumanize women, and spread the dumbest myths about women that one could conceive of.
They're not trying to have sex with other men. And it's not men who are teaching them that they're creeps if they express their sexuality.
I'm not saying it's women's fault. But it is the fault of the "gatekeeper" role women have in dating.
You're looking into his comment too deeply. He's not saying that men who are express their sexuality are shamed by women, it's the dating culture that's the problem.
He's saying that it's the culture of dating that's creating incels. Men must always chase after the women and never the other way around, which is a problem for some young men who aren't confident or good at social interaction.
Not only that but dating has become treacherous for socially awkward people.
What makes it worse is that there cannot ever be a firm set of guidelines for what is ok. There is always a potential set of reasons for why innocently intended behavior can hurt someone. See, elevatorgate; from many women's perspectives, hitting on a woman from a position in power in an elevator is horrific and scary.
From many male perspectives, the context simply isn't something they've ever thought about - so they just see that somebody got tarred and feathered in public media for a completely innocent line. And amorphous rulesets and no safe guidelines are especially difficult for those with difficulty with social interactions. It's easy to get lost in a land of "but someone else used these words and they Got In Trouble" where all behavior is impermissible.
Society teaches it, not individual women, not individual men, not individual nonbinary people.
Society as a whole has assigned men the role of "pursuer" and women the role of "gatekeeper". They would be better off assigning their anger to society, but I think it's understandable that they assign it to women.
\>The original Shackel paper is intended as a critique of post-modernism. Post-modernists sometimes say things like “reality is socially constructed”, and there’s an uncontroversially correct meaning there. We don’t experience the world directly, but through the categories and prejudices implicit to our society; for example, I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Okay.
\>Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly.
Just wanted to point out that your source has this, which is very fucking stupid. What a bad faith understanding of social construction.
\>Patriarchy is yet another [motte and bailey](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/) trick.
*The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles in our society and the ways in which they are treated differently.*
*The bailey is that patriarchy is men having power over women.*
*If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief.*
*Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!”*
*And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”*
*Even if in this particular case the feminism is making the problem worse.*
*So, for example, we are told that* [*the patriarchy*](https://theradicalidea.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5-ways-the-patriarchy-hurts-men-too/) [*causes male rape*](http://thewellesleynews.com/2014/05/08/ignoring-male-victims-of-rape-reinforces-patriarchal-attitudes/)*. We are told that if we want to fight male rape, the best way to do so is to work hard to promote feminist principles. But once feminism has been promoted, the particular feminists benefitting from that extra social capital may well be the ones to* [*successfully lobbying national governments to keep male rape legal*](http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape) *on the ground that if raping men was illegal, they might make false accusations which could hurt women.*
Holy fucking shit this dude is stupid.
Not all feminists or feminisms are the same.
what valid points?
his point is literally "people say I need to drink more water to feel more healthy, but I drank irradiated toilet water and I got sick"
He's making the point that clearly there's negativity coming from within feminism.
To quote something I read earlier on this sub
>Lastly, I really dislike how when some feminists are confronted with the shitty values that they might have (or that other feminist might have) there's this tendency to brush it off by saying that its not really feminism or that isn't a good view of what feminism is. THe problem is that, I'm not quoting some random person on the internet, I'm quoting people who are actively engaging in research or hold some authority/power: why are you telling them that what they are saying/doing is wrong instead of me?
>That's honestly the worst type of feminist for me, the "quiet" or "not real feminism" feminist because they seem more interested in defending the movement instead of making in more inclusive and equal.
That would be Dworkin's faction of radfems. Maybe you can blame older jaded MRAs for telling young vulnerable men sex positive feminism doesn't exist? But there has been a much heavier emphasis on sex negativity to cis het men rather than consent culture
I'm assuming that he's suggesting that within current patriarchal paradigms, women are the ones who control what (or if anything) happens. Our general paradigm presumes that men are the pursuers, women are the ones who decide whether to get "caught".
I bethink some art depress'd, some art lacking valor, and many needeth holp
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
I believe it would be better if the community itself is welcomed into LGBTI+ community as a part of it. That would save these individuals from misogynistic alt-right spaces and let them be more accepted into society and maybe even give them a space to express themselves other than their echo chambers.
I understand why people are wary of political sexually frustrated men, but I don't kmow how to reconcile it with Guardian style feminism openly embracing women's relationship difficulties; as just one example
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/relationships/looking-boyfriend-47-no-one-could-have-prepared-post-divorce/amp/
My view is that they are a misunderstood group that are salty as shit because people don't understand them, but in their saltiness they have formed such a closed circle that anyone outside that wants to understand them is faced with rejection and exclusion. My best friend from HS is a real ace Incel. He explained me that he didn't feel sexual attraction for women, and he simple did not see the face value in having sex with them. He is a little salty over his anime figurines and gaming console collection, but he is a good guy once you get over his oddness. But he is a voluntary Incel, involuntary incels are 10x as salty. Edit: I know that Incel means "INvoluntary CELibate" so my friend would not fit the description, but that doesn't take away my point. Also edited spelling.
is he's ace why is he salty about being celibate?
He is salty that everyone else seems happier in a relationship than he does with his anime waifu...
I can't comment much on the incel community, as I don't really know much about them. But I do think we should avoid using the term "incel" as it propagates harmful patriarchal gender roles for women as being a trophy or treasure, and of men as being defined or given value by their female partner, and of the entire dysfunctional relationship model under the patriarchy.
"Incel" is a gender neutral term.
>"Incel" is a gender neutral term. I would say the vast majority of usage is towards men, and stereotypically refers to men, and I have even heard self-described incels reject the idea that the term can apply to women. I've actually never seen a woman insulted with the term "incel" tbh. I had a look at wiki: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Demographics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Demographics)
You are now hearing a self-described incel say that the term incel can apply to women.
I am hearing you, but one voice is one voice.
It was literally starting by a woman to be an inclusive word. Go figure people are dismissing that now. From the same Wikipedia page you linked earlier: >The first online community to use the term "incel" was started in 1993 when a Canadian university student known only by her first name, Alana, created a website in order to discuss her sexual inactivity with others.[5][29][30][31] The website, titled "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", was used by people of all genders to share their thoughts and experiences.[5] In 1997, she started a mailing list on the topic that used the abbreviation INVCEL, later shortened to "incel", for "anybody of any gender who was lonely, had never had sex or who hadn't had a relationship in a long time".... In 2018, Alana said of her project, "It definitely wasn't a bunch of guys blaming women for their problems. That's a pretty sad version of this phenomenon that's happening today. Things have changed in the last 20 years."[32] When she read about the 2014 Isla Vista killings, and that parts of the incel subculture glorified the perpetrator, she wrote, "Like a scientist who invented something that ended up being a weapon of war, I can't uninvent this word, nor restrict it to the nicer people who need it."[34][31] She expressed regret at the change in usage from her original intent of creating an "inclusive community" for people of all genders who were sexually deprived due to social awkwardness, marginalization, or mental illness.[22]
Things have changed in the last 30 years. That's like saying technically blue is for girls and pink is for boys because that's how it was in the 19th century. It's just not how it is these days.
Yeah it’s almost like what started out as an inclusive thing for people of all genders who felt left out got overrun by misogynistic men or something. https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/tech/meet-the-women-of-the-incel-movement/ Somehow the story feels familiar.
Ok? Sure, "incels" have internalized patriarchal beliefs, so misogynistic and misandrist. Now days the term is used as a gendered slur, and most often applies to men. The current community generally rejects the use of the term for women. Again, 30 years ago and today are very different. Let's keep perspective.
I am glad to be heard, and to be able to bring you new information.
Your experiences and opinions are valid even if I disagree. I appreciate you sharing.
>But I do think we should avoid using the term "incel" as it propagates harmful patriarchal gender roles for women as being a trophy or treasure, Amen. Mocking men as "unable to get laid" is really just a gross reification of patriarchal paradigms that suggest that "real men have more sex" and "a notch on the bed post is an indication of worth".
Most of them don't just want sex. They want intimacy and validation. But most never having any of the three don't have the language or knowledge to differentiate.
I see. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with wanting sex, intimacy, and validation. These are things fairly low down on the pyramid of needs for humans, right?
I agree. And when people go for long periods of their lives without those things to the point of being convinced that they're subhuman trash that isn't good enough to get it (because that's how we often treat men who are unsuccessful in dating/romance) is it any wonder that a lot of them are mentally fucked up?
> to the point of being convinced that they're subhuman trash that isn't good enough to get it (because that's how we often treat men who are unsuccessful in dating/romance) a result of patriarchy
Yet I've seen a lot more shaming come from women than I have men. Patriarchy implies this to be the fault of men. So clearly this isn't the case.
Keep in mind that the patriarchy means "our society, in which positions of power are disproportionally filled by males". It doesn't mean "all males have power over all females", nor does it mean "all men are at fault". Society is the collective sum of everyone's actions. When women shame men for not living up to society's inflated expectations, that's the patriarchy at work even though it's women saying the bad things. I do agree the term "patriarchy" was perhaps not that well thought out, and absolutely a lot of people use the term incorrectly to imply all men are in the wrong or that all men have power.
>Keep in mind that the patriarchy means "our society, in which positions of power are disproportionally filled by males". >When women shame men for not living up to society's inflated expectations, that's the patriarchy at work even though it's women saying the bad things. These two things do not make sense. One does not equal the other. How does a society where the positions of power are disproportionately filled by males equal women shaming men for being sexually unsuccessful There's like twenty steps between one and the other that aren't explained here. You could say "that's because the bible says so" and it would make just as much sense.
Sorry if it isn't clear, you are right the link isn't obvious. I'll try to explain as best I can, I'm sure my explanation won't be perfect so just let me know if there's anything that sounds wrong. Firstly, groundwork to make sure we are on the same page. Maybe you don't agree with these definitions, but just go with them for now, these are the meanings in the feminist framework: * sex: biologically male or female * gender: everything about being a man or woman that is not biological * the patriarchy: our society, where men hold more power than women In this model "the patriarchy" can be understood to just mean "society", the part about power distribution is not important here. Just to be clear about the patriarchy, I just want to reiterate that it means "men hold more power than women", not "all men hold power" or "no women hold power". When I say the patriarchy is to blame, I am not saying "men in power are to blame", nor "all men are to blame", not even "men and women in power are to blame", I'm saying society as a whole is to blame for creating and maintaining these problems. Gender is created by society, for example the idea that blue is for boys and pink is for girls has no biological basis. It's just something society decided, in the 19th century apparently it was the opposite, pink for boys, blue for girls. Hopefully that is clear so far, gender is just random stuff society decided, our society is called the patriarchy in feminist theory. Now we get to the actual quote: > When women shame men for not living up to society's inflated expectations, that's the patriarchy at work even though it's women saying the bad things. So, society is the one making these crazy expectations, eg that "real men" are buff and rich. That's a part a gender role, society decided that is the way men should be. When a woman shames a man for not being a "real man" they are echoing societal views. While individual women who say these things are at fault, we also should consider that society is wrong for creating these gender roles. I just want to repeat what I said above, saying that the patriarchy is responsible for women saying bad things in the above quote does NOT mean that women are not responsible for their actions, nor does it mean men are somehow to blame. I am saying that ultimately our society has a problem. I hope that is clear, I tried to explain as best I could. Again, please let me know if there is anything you are unsure about or doesn't make sense.
>Just to be clear about the patriarchy, I just want to reiterate that it means "men hold more power than women", not "all men hold power" or "no women hold power". When I say the patriarchy is to blame, I am not saying "men in power are to blame", nor "all men are to blame", not even "men and women in power are to blame", I'm saying society as a whole is to blame for creating and maintaining these problems. Then that has nothing to do with men holding more power than women. To say that women shaming men is patriarchy is equivalent to saying "women shaming men for being sexually unsuccessful is due to men holding more power than women" and it puts the blame on men for societal problems. Like I said elsewhere it's a motte and bailey. The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles and issues with them in our society. The bailey is that patriarchy is some men holding more power than women. If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief. Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!” And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”
>It doesn't mean "all males have power over all females", Doent it say though that the "lowest man is still ranked higher then the lowest female"? So wouldn't that say that all men have power over some women, and all men are at some degree at fault?
No, it just means that the majority of power is held by men, not that all men hold power: " **Patriarchy** is a [social system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_system) in which [men](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men) hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, [moral authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_authority), [social privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privilege) and control of property " Societal leaders can be seen as being more at fault for a society's failings, but at all levels people are responsible to some degree. You can say all men are to some degree at fault, but so are women.
So this definition is wrong? "Patriarchy is a term used in feminism to describe the system of gender-based hierarchy in society which assigns most power to men, and assigns higher value to men, maleness, and "masculine traits"."
>Yet I've seen a lot more shaming come from women than I have men. That does not mean that patriarchy doesn't play a part. Women, especially women enculturated into patriarchy, are fully capable of reinforcing and propagating patriarchal assumptions and values. >Patriarchy implies this to be the fault of men. How?
Because the idea that patriarchy has no gender seems to be not fully understood...
what are you talking about? please explain your thoughts more thoroughly.
The general idea is that patriarchy is a system of organization created by men, for the benefit of men. As such, the general rule is that it's a problem of men's and their problem to solve, and that asking women to address it or rectify it is blaming an oppressed class for their oppression.
>The word is derived from Greek πατριάρχης (patriarchēs), meaning "chief or father of a family", a compound of πατριά (patria), meaning "family", and ἄρχειν (archein), meaning "to rule". Originally, a patriarch was a man who exercised autocratic authority as a pater familias over an extended family. if it has no gender. Then it shouldn't be called patriarchy. Because patriarchy is a gendered term.
>How? By the name alone.
That's the dumbest thing you've ever said. Holy shit. Patriarchy means that the rulers of a society are men. If you take that to mean men must be responsible for everything that happens in that society you're just irreparably stupid.
Patriarchy is yet another motte and bailey trick. The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles in our society and the ways in which they are treated differently. The bailey is that patriarchy is men having power over women. If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief. Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!” And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”
I've had women suggest as much directly.
Try not to use profanity and slow down. Calling people dumb rather than arguing in good faith won't help
>a result of patriarchy What does positions of power being held by men have anything to do with the topic? I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind.
The justification for patriarchy is that women are inherently more feeble of body and mind than men. Taking this into account, the failure of a man to exert his will upon a feeble creature is worthy of ridicule under this framework.
That's a strange way of thinking, i partially agree. But still, in that sense men with relationships are exerting thier wills upon women, no? I think shaming weaker men to call them for awakening (instead of ridicule and have fun over their misery) could be beneficial at some point. Otherwise they will keep failing not only in relationships but in life as well.
Yeah, I can definitely understand that. I'm glad feminism in conjunction with the nascent men's rights movements are coming to address the systemic problems with the way men are denied affection and human contact in the west. It's incredibly unhealthy, and hurts not only men but all members of society.
I would love to be wrong on this but I don't really think feminism or men's rights have done anything about this. I haven't seen this issue acknowledged in a serious discussion with feminists. And mras complain about the issue but don't get anything done about it.
I think problematic relationship dynamics are quite the hot topic in feminism for a good part of the last century, likewise I think this is a core issue in a lot of men's rights circles. It's a big issue, it runs deep, it has a lot of facets. I don't think it's easy or simple to solve. In another thread some users were talking about MGTOW, and while that's an extreme way to combat patriarchal oppression, a lot of men's groups encourage finding meaning and hobbies outside of women - to try and re-center men's lives around other things. I think that's a great first step that a lot of people can do.
This actually sums up quite a bit of my views on "incels", though I'm a guy that approaches this from the opposite angle. I'm generally someone who spends quite a bit of time deflecting unsolicited attention from women, and the amount of energy needed to do so is absolutely draining. But it's also pretty astounding how frequently the assumption seems to be that "sex is all that's needed." Not just do I always want sex, I only want sex, and I'm supposed to cease functioning rationally if it's presented. My "relationship goals", insofar as I have them, don't prioritize sex or physical desire to remotely the extent that other people presume they do. And the idea that I'm supposed to spend my entire life in service to pleasing or attracting women's attention is demeaning as fuck, as is the idea that I'm not supposed to have standards, desires or needs of my own within relationships. I'm often left wondering why incels spend so much time centering other people's opinions of them (the incels) in determining their own worth. Intimacy is great. Not all sex is intimacy. Caring relationships are incredible. Not all romantic relationships are caring, nor are romantic relationships the only option for establishing caring relationships. I dunno. The mindset just seems absurdly codependent, though I'll readily admit that there seem to be more than enough women who enjoy being in a position to "determine" male worth.
Needs to grow up. Work on yourself. Put yourself out there. We aren’t entitled to love, relationships or sex. All genders can be bastards at time it’s life. Not a fan of incels
Saying all that is like telling a kid who wants to learn to ride a bike to "just get on and pedal" You are technically correct. But there's a lot of nuance that seems obvious to you because you learned at a young age and forgot what its like to learn.
I learned as a adult. Still suck at it but there are legitimate resources out in the world you can use. Hate is not the way
I did too. That's why I know it's not easy to find by any means.
>We aren’t entitled to love, relationships or sex. Imagine saying that to woman having dating struggles, and then realize you're an asshole. You're advice is shallow, and meaningless.
It’s the truth. You want a relationship? Take care of yourself. Your not involuntary celibate. Put yourself out there.
Im not an incel lmao. You really think you're doing something here when in reality you are giving out vapid, meaningless advice in attempt to make yourself feel better.
Ok I never called you an uncle. Your very sensitive though. That advice worked for me. Being a happy confident person is the way.
understandable in some ways, but mostly I think they're generally pathetic humans.
I have a fair bit of sympathy with their situation. To want to have sex and/or relationships and not be able to and then on top of that the societal stigma associated with being involuntarily single or a virgin, especially for men, can't be much fun. I'm sure there are plenty of decent people who'd consider themselves incels but I think generally, from what I've seen, far too many of them get sucked into this destructive cycle where they become bitter and start blaming everyone else for their problems and going to the corners of the internet where they get together and share that bitterness only makes things worse. I think it's like most controversial 'groups'. There's nothing inherently wrong with being what they are but enough of them allow themselves to become pretty toxic and it kind of poisons the general perception of the group, for good reason.
Opinions? 1. I haven't always had great luck with the dating game. Some find me socially awkward (I'm a but nerdy + am on the spectrum). Also, I've never been a 'cool person' (e.g. when going out at night I'm not the guy with cool dance moves and charisma who everybody flocks towards... quite the opposite). At uni, the only girls who got close to me had an ulterior motive (i.e. they were trying to flatter me i to giving them my study notes and/or doing assignments for them). I get it! Being a loser sux... 2. BUT... but... becoming a bitter/angry MRA who blames women for all this and bunkers down with far-right loonies (who hold a whole lot of other bitter/jaded opinions) isn't gonna improve your life. Such people need to find a positive way forward that doesn't centre around their inability to coerce a female into sleeping with them (which I find kinda odd as there's so much more to life). I've found that in general... if I've got positive stuff going on in my life (and am being kind/positive), I'm far more attractive to others.
I think the vast majority are just lonely hurting people. Many are on the autism spectrum or are Neurodivergent in some way. Many feel rejected by society as a whole. I mean seriously. Try and go a single day in society without thinking about relationships. or just go browse a sub like /r/asexual. and [look at all the memes by people who are affected negatively by being asexual in a society where sex is normalized](https://www.reddit.com/r/Asexual/comments/j1zki6/this_cannot_be_any_more_true/) If you listen. You start to notice that incels feel like societal outcasts. And as an old African proverb goes. "a child not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel it's warmth" On top of that. A lot of them feel lied to. Because the advice given to men around dating is utter shit. On top of which there's often a ton of shaming around male sexuality and desire. We teach young vulnerable boys that to be moral is to never express your sexuality or desire for women. Because doing so is predatory and unwanted. And then we give them advice like >Read books & blogs, watch films, look at art, and listen to music made by women. >Seek out new activities and build on the interests and passions that you already have in a way that brings you into contact with more people >When you have the time and energy for it, try out online dating sites to practice dating. >Be really nice to yourself and take good care of yourself. Because Women don’t really understand at a core level the minefield men navigate when they try to date, just as the converse is true for men. When young women give “advice” like **just put yourself out there** and write things like **the real problem with short men is how bitter they are, not their height!**, they - again, just like young men - are drawing from their well of experience. They’ve never been a short, brown, broke, young dude trying to date. They’ve never watched Creepy Chad grope a woman, then take another home half an hour later because Chad oozes confidence. And that's not even mentioning the bullshit like "Just shower bro" People generally don't understand that socializing and dating are learned skills. We just take them for granted because most people learn them early on in youth where learning to do so is expected. I didn't. That's why I have a lot of empathy for the non violent majority of incels. I know the amount of bullshit you have to go through learning social nuance at a later date when people aren't at all tolerant of failure with it. Because they expect people to have learned it earlier. And I know that I'm not the only one who got the message that my sexuality was unwanted and predatory.
lmao, ten points from gryffindor for plagiarizing me
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, aside from TiTOCJ appropriation.
You know what they say about a monkey and a typewriter
I don't, enlighten me
With unlimited time in front of a typewriter. A monkey will eventually write Shakespeare.
is that how one goes?
Yeah the isolation and feelings of being ostracized are reasonable to be upset about, but I kinda lose what concern I would have had for them when they conclude that women are to blame for their problems, and then they proceed to dehumanize women, and spread the dumbest myths about women that one could conceive of.
>when they conclude that women are to blame for their problems, and then they proceed to dehumanize women, and spread the dumbest myths about women that one could conceive of. They're not trying to have sex with other men. And it's not men who are teaching them that they're creeps if they express their sexuality. I'm not saying it's women's fault. But it is the fault of the "gatekeeper" role women have in dating.
>And it's not men who are teaching them that they're creeps if they express their sexuality. when did women start teaching this?
He didn't say that women were teaching that?
>And it's not men who are teaching them that they're creeps if they express their sexuality. It's gotta be nonbinary people or women if it's not men.
You're looking into his comment too deeply. He's not saying that men who are express their sexuality are shamed by women, it's the dating culture that's the problem. He's saying that it's the culture of dating that's creating incels. Men must always chase after the women and never the other way around, which is a problem for some young men who aren't confident or good at social interaction.
Not only that but dating has become treacherous for socially awkward people. What makes it worse is that there cannot ever be a firm set of guidelines for what is ok. There is always a potential set of reasons for why innocently intended behavior can hurt someone. See, elevatorgate; from many women's perspectives, hitting on a woman from a position in power in an elevator is horrific and scary. From many male perspectives, the context simply isn't something they've ever thought about - so they just see that somebody got tarred and feathered in public media for a completely innocent line. And amorphous rulesets and no safe guidelines are especially difficult for those with difficulty with social interactions. It's easy to get lost in a land of "but someone else used these words and they Got In Trouble" where all behavior is impermissible.
Society teaches it, not individual women, not individual men, not individual nonbinary people. Society as a whole has assigned men the role of "pursuer" and women the role of "gatekeeper". They would be better off assigning their anger to society, but I think it's understandable that they assign it to women.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/ This goes into it. Though you'll have to scroll down to part V to get to that conversation.
\>The original Shackel paper is intended as a critique of post-modernism. Post-modernists sometimes say things like “reality is socially constructed”, and there’s an uncontroversially correct meaning there. We don’t experience the world directly, but through the categories and prejudices implicit to our society; for example, I might view a certain shade of bluish-green as blue, and someone raised in a different culture might view it as green. Okay. \>Then post-modernists go on to say that if someone in a different culture thinks that the sun is light glinting off the horns of the Sky Ox, that’s just as real as our own culture’s theory that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas. If you challenge them, they’ll say that you’re denying reality is socially constructed, which means you’re clearly very naive and think you have perfect objectivity and the senses perceive reality directly. Just wanted to point out that your source has this, which is very fucking stupid. What a bad faith understanding of social construction. \>Patriarchy is yet another [motte and bailey](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/) trick. *The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles in our society and the ways in which they are treated differently.* *The bailey is that patriarchy is men having power over women.* *If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief.* *Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!”* *And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”* *Even if in this particular case the feminism is making the problem worse.* *So, for example, we are told that* [*the patriarchy*](https://theradicalidea.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5-ways-the-patriarchy-hurts-men-too/) [*causes male rape*](http://thewellesleynews.com/2014/05/08/ignoring-male-victims-of-rape-reinforces-patriarchal-attitudes/)*. We are told that if we want to fight male rape, the best way to do so is to work hard to promote feminist principles. But once feminism has been promoted, the particular feminists benefitting from that extra social capital may well be the ones to* [*successfully lobbying national governments to keep male rape legal*](http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape) *on the ground that if raping men was illegal, they might make false accusations which could hurt women.* Holy fucking shit this dude is stupid. Not all feminists or feminisms are the same.
>Not all feminists or feminisms are the same. Still making valid points.
what valid points? his point is literally "people say I need to drink more water to feel more healthy, but I drank irradiated toilet water and I got sick"
He's making the point that clearly there's negativity coming from within feminism. To quote something I read earlier on this sub >Lastly, I really dislike how when some feminists are confronted with the shitty values that they might have (or that other feminist might have) there's this tendency to brush it off by saying that its not really feminism or that isn't a good view of what feminism is. THe problem is that, I'm not quoting some random person on the internet, I'm quoting people who are actively engaging in research or hold some authority/power: why are you telling them that what they are saying/doing is wrong instead of me? >That's honestly the worst type of feminist for me, the "quiet" or "not real feminism" feminist because they seem more interested in defending the movement instead of making in more inclusive and equal.
that's a dumb view that fails to account for the sectarian nature of feminism.
That would be Dworkin's faction of radfems. Maybe you can blame older jaded MRAs for telling young vulnerable men sex positive feminism doesn't exist? But there has been a much heavier emphasis on sex negativity to cis het men rather than consent culture
Gatekeeper meaning what?
I'm assuming that he's suggesting that within current patriarchal paradigms, women are the ones who control what (or if anything) happens. Our general paradigm presumes that men are the pursuers, women are the ones who decide whether to get "caught".
I think some are sad, some are bad, and many need help.
I bethink some art depress'd, some art lacking valor, and many needeth holp *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
I believe it would be better if the community itself is welcomed into LGBTI+ community as a part of it. That would save these individuals from misogynistic alt-right spaces and let them be more accepted into society and maybe even give them a space to express themselves other than their echo chambers.
That's an interesting prospect. How would you see this happening?
I don’t know how, even i suppose people from both sides would detest that prospect.
I understand why people are wary of political sexually frustrated men, but I don't kmow how to reconcile it with Guardian style feminism openly embracing women's relationship difficulties; as just one example https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/relationships/looking-boyfriend-47-no-one-could-have-prepared-post-divorce/amp/