Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[caketastydelish]

In that case, I misinterpreted you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In that case, I misinterpreted you.

S'okay. Sorry I was so snippy instead of just pointing out the part you missed.

 

[caketastydelish]

A female would have been statistically more likely to have interpreted your words correctly.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The incel thingy looks like something coming from Japan. Most men are like that there, until they get married and become total henpecked husbands.

no offense but this is so far from the truth. sadly, still today it is very common for husbands to neglect their wives and get cheap prostitutes. the one thing changing is not a stigmatization of that behaviour, but rather the love industry catering towards older women, too. neither japanese men nor japanese women are "totally henpecked", sexual dynamics are just widely different compared to here.

isolationism in young men is indeed a thing in japan, but there is a pretty big difference between "hikkikomori" (incredible social anxiety, agoraphobia, low self worth, self-loathing) and "incel" (blaming, mysogynist, vengeful). their modus operandi is different, if you will

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A female would have been statistically more likely to have interpreted your words correctly.

And also statistically more likely to have been less snotty in her response to someone innocently misinterpreting.

So, we arrive at men being poorly educated louts, statistically speaking. I imagine this shocks no one.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Attractiveness *does* give some pretty huge advantages/disadvantages, and that stretches into career outcomes also. It's one of those awkward "partially controllable" things too, just enough that if someone isn't attractive they can lie to themselves and make it completely not their fault in their mind while not altering diet/exercise/clothing/hygiene.

But even if everyone 100% optimized for attractiveness the differences would be substantial enough to be unfair. Similar to height (which is much less feasible to control), it pretty much never comes up in equality narratives though, which I always find fascinating.

Indeed it is unfair and I won't pretend otherwise. It is just some have it better than others but choose to constantly fixate on things out of their control.

Now that nobody will find attractive. I do think that snowball effect does suck though since it basically causes a feedback loop.

I am sure if it was just about people trying to help each other it would be good but instead it seems like a circlejerk seeking to feed each other's misery. It might even cause them to NOT help each other since then the misery won't be shared.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Maybe because incels harass and threaten other people? I mean, here is an example of online harassment incels engage in:

U mad bro?

I hope this administration makes you suffer so much you find it unbearable. Take that, *****!

Go cry some more as this administration and new supreme court justice will rip your mind in two and tear your heart to shreds.

Moderator Action: I hope that you don't offer such miserable sentiments again. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: Do not quote mod text - ever. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bernie14]

Maybe because incels harass and threaten other people? I mean, here is an example of online harassment incels engage in:

Hahah....nah, just pity you...

 

[metalhead]

I must be reading it differently than everyone else because he singled out a comment from a much larger post to essentially say that it is true that women are the creators of the hostile environment they exist in because they perpetuate it or are otherwise mean to other women from other demographics.

Which is silly, because they are supporting a system that was put in place by men. They perpetuate it... but they did not make it. That some women try to rise to the top in the system doesn't make them the cause of that system, it just means they're playing the game that was set out for them.

It just seems relatively stupid to really try arguing that women only have it so bad because of other women.

Not "only," certainly. Just because they are a proximate cause doesn't mean they are the only, or even main, cause.

There is a reason that solidarity among women was such a huge part of early feminism, because feminists realized that the quickest path to destroying the inequitable social structures was to get women on the side of women collectively. That a very sizable number of women choose their own status in the existing structure to the detriment of all doesn't become any better for the fact that patriarchy was created by men. At this point, who created the system doesn't really matter. It could be destroyed, but for the 52% of white women who decided Donald Trump was better for them than Hillary Clinton.

 

[caketastydelish]

Maybe because incels harass and threaten other people? I mean, here is an example of online harassment incels engage in:

I’m not an incel. Although your reading comprehension is really similar to one.

To help you out.

1) in the op to this very thread I was specific that the incels are wrong.

2) the definition of “incel” is not just anyone who pwns you and makes you go cry to your momma.

 

[Commodore]

So I'm trying to understand why they've been under the spotlight so much considering they're just a fringe minority group of idiots.

Because if left unchecked, they actually can be a legitimate threat to society. I actually saw a nice video on this last week that showed when you have a population of young males that can't find a mate, they tend to pursue violent careers such as joining the military or even getting involved with violent political or religious extremist organizations.

One thing this video pointed out is that while the incel population may be small now, it is growing as globally the birth ratio between males and females is widening with more males being born than females. The video goes on to note that studies have shown that once a society reaches a ratio of around 120 males for every 100 females, that society tends to become increasingly politically unstable and the threat of civil war or other widespread violence as young males that can't find a mate try to find an outlet for the frustration they feel over their sexual failure. The video uses the polygamous societies of the Middle East as a modern example of this concept in action. It states that because the wealthy elite can take multiple wives, it denies "low-status" males the chance to mate, which then pushes them towards political and religiously-motivated violence, which is why the Middle East seems to be in a constant state of civil unrest and war.

 

[caketastydelish]

Why would the ratio reach that? That's not how it is scientifically or how it has ever been.\

In America, there are more females than males.

 

[Ryika]

Research currently take into factors earnings gap that can be explained by availability (ie one sex stays home longer when pregnant) & skill. And, well, everything else. There's a real unexplained pay gap buried in the "facts" you've probably read. 4-8% is not "a small amount".

4-8% are a small amount compared to the numbers that the people she responds to usually claim it's 67c per dollar or something along those lines, which is a difference of 33%. Don't have time to watch this video, so I will just have to assume that given he arrives at those 4-8% he probably also explains that "unexplained" does not mean "discrimination", but rather a number of near-impossible to test for factors, so the actual amount of discrimination of people doing the same job with the same qualification, the actual "pay gap", is likely lower than even these percentages.

 

[Commodore]

Why would the ratio reach that? That's not how it is scientifically or how it has ever been.\

In America, there are more females than males.

The video I watched explains it a lot better than I can. When I find it again I'll post it.

EDIT: Found it. Try to ignore the political message in it because even though he tries to spin it into an anti-immigration thing, the facts that he cites are correct and do highlight why incels could become a serious problem in the future.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I've met and befriended a few "incel" types over the years, being an awkward introvert myself I think we naturally had some stuff in common, so they'd often talk to me about their relationship problems.

I never understood the "sexual frustration" caused by lack of sex partners. They seemed to have issues with masturbation for one reason or another.

And I never could understand why they were so focused on the sexual aspect of romantic relationships. The joys of falling in love and having close personal connections with intimate partners seemed completely alien/inconsequential to them.

But why they had trouble dating and making relationships was never a mystery. Aside from a shallow fixation on sex, they invariably had a warped outlook on the world and/or had variety of mental and personality disorders which manifested once you got to know them. Oddly enough they themselves were all really picky about the women they considered acceptable: young, fit, sexy, gorgeous, blonde, long hair, fair skin, traditional, small feet, (all kind of weird ridiculous crap). So even when they actually did attract some female interest they'd usually reject her.

Their bromance skills were also lacking: Most of them were clingy and always wanted to hangout, most couldn't handle jokes or dude banter and would get angry with me over the weirdest things.

Apparently the internet has not helped much.

 

[Angst]

4-8% are a small amount compared to the numbers that the people she responds to usually claim it's 67c per dollar or something along those lines, which is a difference of 33%. Don't have time to watch this video, so I will just have to assume that given he arrives at those 4-8% he probably also explains that "unexplained" does not mean "discrimination", but rather a number of near-impossible to test for factors, so the actual amount of discrimination of people doing the same job with the same qualification, the actual "pay gap", is likely lower than even these percentages.

Except this gap is thoroughly studied and repeatedly proven. What you do here is just weird speculative non-logic, maybe the researchers are wrong, so you'll just assume that and dismiss the argument as relevant. You literally just denied research as a premise for your own bias, calling it "likely". How that works in your mind is a mystery to me.

EDIT: Also I did note that the video Shoe0nHead responded to was trash. This doesn't mean she has any idea what she's talking about herself.

 

[Ryika]

Except this gap is thoroughly studied and repeatedly proven. What you do here is just weird speculative non-logic, maybe the researchers are wrong, so you'll just assume that and dismiss the argument as relevant. You literally just denied research as a premise for your own bias, calling it "likely". How that works in your mind is a mystery to me.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The 4-8% that remain when you factor out all the stuff that can be tested for, contain multiple potential factors that cannot directly be tested for. Discrimination is one of them, and I very much agree that discrimination is pretty much guaranteed to not only be a potential factor, but an actual factor, as we don't live in a world "without discrimination based on sex", which we would need to live in for this factor to not play a role at all.

Anyway. I now watched the video, and it's pretty dumb. Not only is the video literally done by a guy who just started looking into the pay gap because he was called out for using the uncorrected 77c per dollar wage gap as a completely unfitting analogy in the previous video, he also blatantly claims that experts generally agree that these 8% are entirely because of discrimination. That's a claim that is made in none of his sources (one source shows access denied when I try to follow his link, so maybe hat claim is made there!), it's also inconsistent with the studies that I have read about the topic in the past, studies that came from feminist academics. Those studies concluded that the remaining gap does likely contain differences in behavior not only of the guy who you ask to get a pay rise (actual discrimination), but also differences in behavior of the person who asks, like asking less firmly, or being less confident that they deserve the pay raise and thus not making a compelling case, etc.

That whole part of unpaid work to the end just shows that the author of the video is not only an idiot, but also a guy who wanted to find confirmation for his beliefs, and not the other way around. He phrases it as if women are "forced to do extra housework", when in reality, couples just decide more often that the man should be the primary breadwinner who goes after a career, while the woman has a secondary career, than they decide that it should happen the other way around. He literally calls that "personal bias" and phrases it as if that's discrimination, when in reality it's called "couples making choices". And well, gender differences, as single men also do less housework than single women.

Anyway, I got off track there. No idea what you're on about. Are you hyperforcused on her claiming that there is no wage gap that's based on discrimination when in reality, there is a wage gap that's based on discrimination, and it's just MUCH smaller than the one she's debunking? In that case... well, I agree with you that she doesn't phrase that very well, but that's about the only thing you can really criticize her for. In terms of data, to my knowledge she's pretty much on point.

 

[Angst]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The 4-8% that remain when you factor out all the stuff that can be tested for, contain multiple potential factors that cannot directly be tested for. Discrimination is one of them, and I very much agree that discrimination is pretty much guaranteed to not only be a potential factor, but an actual factor, as we don't live in a world "without discrimination based on sex", which we would need to live in for this factor to not play a role at all.

Anyway. I now watched the video, and it's pretty dumb. Not only is the video literally done by a guy who just started looking into the pay gap because he was called out for using the uncorrected 77c per dollar wage gap as a completely unfitting analogy in the previous video, he also blatantly claims that experts generally agree that these 8% are entirely because of discrimination. That's a claim that is made in none of his sources (one source shows access denied when I try to follow his link, so maybe hat claim is made there!), it's also inconsistent with the studies that I have read about the topic in the past, studies that came from feminist academics. Those studies concluded that the remaining gap does likely contain differences in behavior not only of the guy who you ask to get a pay rise (actual discrimination), but also differences in behavior of the person who asks, like asking less firmly, or being less confident that they deserve the pay raise and thus not making a compelling case, etc.

That whole part of unpaid work to the end just shows that the author of the video is not only an idiot, but also a guy who wanted to find confirmation for his beliefs, and not the other way around. He phrases it as if women are "forced to do extra housework", when in reality, couples just decide more often that the man should be the primary breadwinner who goes after a career, while the woman has a secondary career, than they decide that it should happen the other way around. He literally calls that "personal bias" and phrases it as if that's discrimination, when in reality it's called "couples making choices". And well, gender differences, as single men also do less housework than single women.

Anyway, I got off track there. No idea what you're on about. Are you hyperforcused on her claiming that there is no wage gap that's based on discrimination when in reality, there is a wage gap that's based on discrimination, and it's just MUCH smaller than the one she's debunking? In that case... well, I agree with you that she doesn't phrase that very well, but that's about the only thing you can really criticize her for. In terms of data, to my knowledge she's pretty much on point.

Yea you got off track. Most of the points you've outlined is him showing the nuance of the ordeal.

I'm going to mention one thing. Your suggestion about behavior is countered by this of the sources as it's noted that bargaining power (ie salary) is near equal at the onset of their carreer; still the small wage gap I mentioned exists at this onset, as is also noted in that source. It took me 1½ minutes to look up. Have you actually checked the sources?

What you're suggesting about behavior doesn't hold true in regards to the 4-8% wage gap. Bargaining power - what you suggest could be the missing link - as well as other things you might imagine, as choice of temporal over economic flexibility, maternity, ALL of these facets of maybes you might think up, they've already been taken into consideration by people much smarter than you. And me, naturally. But that's why I'm listening to them. The reason people often call it discrimination is that they can't explain it any other way.

Shoe0nHead isn't on point with an absolute statement. It's not how it works, and I know that you're smarter than that. She said the wage gap doesn't exist. It does. She's claimed it elsewhere, just as absolutely, in areas unrelated to the video in question. And I'd like to note that John Green uses actual data. She constantly exclaims "I'm not like that!" and/or "My friends are not like that!" which is fine enough if you want to stay friends with her, but not fine enough if you want to know how the world works. Like, even if we assume his interpretation of the data is wrong, comparing the two is like comparing a drunk hobo to Zizek. Like Zizek is a trash philosopher, but you shouldn't listen to the drunk hobo for that reason. I didn't post the video to glorify John Green, and you digging into whatever problems the rest of his points might have. I did it because it was one of the more approachable demonstrations of the actual, real 4-8% wage gap, the point I highlighted and stand behind, which can only be explained by discrimination.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I am sure if it was just about people trying to help each other it would be good but instead it seems like a circlejerk seeking to feed each other's misery. It might even cause them to NOT help each other since then the misery won't be shared.

Agreed, if self-described "incels" were some kind of self-improvement community where people gave advice/tips to improve we wouldn't have a thread like this, but then it's unlikely such a community would be realistically using that particular label.

In America, there are more females than males.

Both men and women price themselves out of the market with their standards/expectations. Individual reasons for this vary drastically, but I was under the impression that taken globally it's noticeable. Isn't the marriage rate and how long they lost down significantly from decades ago? Though part of that is that the legal institution of it is something where MRA have some legit complaints.

I never understood the "sexual frustration" caused by lack of sex partners. They seemed to have issues with masturbation for one reason or another.

And I never could understand why they were so focused on the sexual aspect of romantic relationships. The joys of falling in love and having close personal connections with intimate partners seemed completely alien/inconsequential to them.

These two paragraphs, taken together to describe one person, suggest incoherence already. You'd need a warped outlook on the world to mix them.

Oddly enough they themselves were all really picky about the women they considered acceptable: young, fit, sexy, gorgeous, blonde, long hair, fair skin, traditional, small feet, (all kind of weird ridiculous crap). So even when they actually did attract some female interest they'd usually reject her.

Did you get the impression these standards were intentional and/or a useful psychological block to continue how they're living? Setting standards way above value in a market would functionally guarantee that they'd not get what they say they want. If this is the case though I'm not sure this should be legitimately considered "involuntary". If I set a standard like "I will never have a relationship with anybody but X celebrity", I can be reasonably certain I'd never see a relationship...but it would be silly to describe this as "involuntary". Were the people you know disconnected from that reality? In practice they're doing a less extreme but equally effective version of that based on what you're saying.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Agreed, if self-described "incels" were some kind of self-improvement community where people gave advice/tips to improve we wouldn't have a thread like this, but then it's unlikely such a community would be realistically using that particular label.

Or even just coping/expressing anger/awareness. I admit, the world is simply not fair; can't pretend it is, just because it worked for one person doesn't mean those crappy self-help books will help. But certainly it's toxic as all hell and self-destructive, though I do not believe incels or loners or whatnot are going to commit more crimes-- just because a few of them do, well, a few of most subsets turn out to be bad people. So more media hype I guess.

Of course, much like the question posed to the fictional evil overlords, "If you succeeded, then what?". Are they going to be like some fish and die after they mate?