Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Timsup2nothin]

I must be reading it differently than everyone else ...

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

Yes. Which is why I don't think he really tried that, which indicates that you are reading it differently.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's quite a bit of discrimination that gets swept under the rug in terms of media spotlight. Height and attractiveness, for example, are pretty significant. You do have sentencing/hiring/divorce court etc gaps but generally speaking when people advocate to make these go based on exclusively merit (hiring) or set rules (sentencing gaps) they are paradoxically called out as unfair/discriminatory. From what I've seen people will refute the same arguments they make in other contexts without applying coherent standards. Even people who actually make these decisions.

I can resolve that paradox for you. Let's go with support for "hiring based exclusively on merit," which intuitively seems to be entirely fair. But if we put that in a context of "the access to being meritorious shall be only distributed to people named Bob" we have in fact filled our workforce exclusively with people named Bob and our system as a whole is in fact totally discriminatory, even though the employment standard is so clearly fair.

 

[Ryika]

Somehow I completely missed your post. I'm about to go to bed, so I'll try to get to it after I wake up.

Alright. I'll remind you in a day or so, should you forget!

Which is silly, because they are supporting a system that was put in place by men.

When was the system put in place? And what significance does it have on today's society? Both, men and women, are merely perpetuating the system at this point, and both are doing a good job at it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can resolve that paradox for you. Let's go with support for "hiring based exclusively on merit," which intuitively seems to be entirely fair. But if we put that in a context of "the access to being meritorious shall be only distributed to people named Bob" we have in fact filled our workforce exclusively with people named Bob and our system as a whole is in fact totally discriminatory, even though the employment standard is so clearly fair.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, you will never fix this problem or even meaningfully move the needle on resentment without actually addressing the "access to being meritorious" bit.

I have seen no real effort by either major party or even most minor party platforms to make systemic changes that would plausibly move to such an outcome.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

So is the objection to what he said, or how he said it?

"Men cause a lot of problems for women, they also cause a lot of problems for themselves, because they are men and it's a problem that they are."​

This sounds like Alabama circa 1953.

In this analogy, "men" would be naturally substitute for "white people", and... yes? That's a pretty fair description of the Jim Crow South?

 

[Archon_Wing]

Someone does something bad and people have to attach something to it usually something socially deviant to it.

Violent video games, porn addiction, voting for Trump, being a Communist, wearing different colored socks, you name it.

If someone did something from here no doubt the media would cite civ as a fascist murder training simulation.

In any case incel seens to be where a lot of negative stereotypes meet.

 

[Traitorfish]

No.

I'm not going to do some inane semantics argument here.

Have an actual dialogue with me or don't. It's entirely up to you.

Well, I'm prepared to believe that you aren't making a semantic argument.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I've pointed out elsewhere, you will never fix this problem or even meaningfully move the needle on resentment without actually addressing the "access to being meritorious" bit.

I have seen no real effort by either major party or even most minor party platforms to make systemic changes that would plausibly move to such an outcome.

Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that when Bob says "I'm best man for the job so I just don't see any problem and wish you would shut the hell up about this discrimination stuff" I want to punch him in the face.

 

[Narz]

It really just takes a cursory glance at a history book to determine that it's been largely men who have determined the direction of society for thousands of years.

Men probably invented writing, that has no impact on the success of female writers nowadays.

A white guy invented basketball but generally cacausians dont dominate the sport.

We can't change the past so you're not empowering women by claiming they lack agency due to the architects of civilization millenia ago

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Men probably invented writing, that has no impact on the success of female writers nowadays.

A white guy invented basketball but generally cacausians dont dominate the sport.

We can't change the past so you're not empowering women by claiming they lack agency due to the architects of civilization millenia ago

Who invented writing did have a substantial impact on the potential success of female writers up until we got past the first thing men were taught to write being "never let a woman learn to write."

White guys did dominate professional basketball back when the source for professional basketball players was college basketball and black people weren't allowed to attend college.

We can't change the past is true, but structures that were built in the past that still exist can have tremendous impact on current people.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In any case incel seens to be where a lot of negative stereotypes meet.

Prior to the news story where someone went on a mass murdering spree with a vehicle I thought it meant people who sustained unfortunate physical trauma or had a bad medical condition forcing it. These would be legit 100% "involuntary" scenarios where I would feel bad for someone experiencing them.

What I learned is instead the case is similar to how people complain about being bad at video games and put the blame on better players, developers, anybody but themselves while doing nothing to improve their own ability. I guess being a "player" and "having game" holds a bit of extra relevance in this context, but it's a bit jarring to see this same behavior when it comes to something people care about so much.

There probably really are a small handful of people out there how have horrific metabolic conditions or similar that prevents them having a realistic chance too, but that's not the bulk of what I've seen since looking at the mindset.

 

[Archon_Wing]

What I learned is instead the case is similar to how people complain about being bad at video games and put the blame on better players, developers, anybody but themselves while doing nothing to improve their own ability.

So scrubs basically, as opposed to a noob. People who choose to stay of low skill because of lack of something.

. I guess being a "player" and "having game" holds a bit of extra relevance in this context, but it's a bit jarring to see this same behavior when it comes to something people care about so much.

Quick sumnary

A: I am ugly and nobody likes me. People are so shallow!
B: I like you!
A: Get away, you're ugly!

I dunno, it seems like roundabout, exotic explanations seem more appealing. Much better than just "maybe you are just a terrible person"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Quick sumnary

A: I am ugly and nobody likes me. People are so shallow!
B: I like you!
A: Get away, you're ugly!

I dunno, it seems like roundabout, exotic explanations seem more appealing. Much better than just "maybe you are just a terrible person"

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.

And yes refusing to lower own standards while lamenting how other people value the one complaining against standards is some heavy irony. It's fine if standards are so high that nobody who actually wants to date the person meets them, but only if that person is okay with the consequences (being alone). This mostly works as long as perception of value approximates reality.

 

[Farm Boy]

it pretty much never comes up in equality narratives though, which I always find fascinating.

Narratives in relatively popular channels of discussion are generally set by people who are found to be .... attractive. For one reason or another.

 

[Narz]

Who invented writing did have a substantial impact on the potential success of female writers up until we got past the first thing men were taught to write being "never let a woman learn to write."

White guys did dominate professional basketball back when the source for professional basketball players was college basketball and black people weren't allowed to attend college.

We can't change the past is true, but structures that were built in the past that still exist can have tremendous impact on current people.

When those issues existed they weren't past, they were present. As soon as the barriers are removed the excuse becomes invalid and disempowering.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When those issues existed they weren't past, they were present. As soon as the barriers are removed the excuse becomes invalid and disempowering.

*Refers to example of Bob in the workplace.

"The architects of civilization" may be long gone, but we still live in the civilization that they built. A lot of barriers we might be sensible enough to choose not to build today are still set like concrete.

My sister was a very early on feminist. One time I managed to get an argument through to her. It went like this.

She decided, very early on, that the 'get married and be a supported housewife' plan was not for her, and would never be for her, and was anathema to her. There are two important things that her decision did not change. It did not change that other girls her age might not have seen such a choice as anathema, of even 'not for them.' As a choice, it was available no matter how wrong it might be to force anyone to take that choice. (Keep in mind that I am old and my sister is older. Her choice was by far the more 'outlandish' in her peer group, and to parents of her peers, as well as our own, such thinking was borderline dangerous.) So the first important thing was to not write off everyone who made that choice as a poor benighted victim of oppression.

The second important thing was that no matter how supportive I, or some other guy, might be in regards to gender equity, I grew up without that choice. When I could no longer stand our parents, I would either get a job or I would starve, period. Not that I had any more desire to be a housewife than my sister did. But there is a difference between a choice deemed horrible so not taken, and having no choice to be made. That difference made growing up male much different than growing up female, in our era. The resolution of that difference, unfortunately, seems to be the creation of "two incomes necessary for survival," so now no one has that choice, rather than some sort of expanded freedom. Bummer.

Anyway, the relevance is that even in those days there was no lack of "woman's right to work." Heck, our own mother who was appalled at my sister pretty much always had a job. The barrier had theoretically been removed a couple of decades before. Society did not magically change overnight.

 

[Farm Boy]

The resolution of that difference, unfortunately, seems to be the creation of "two incomes necessary for survival," so now no one has that choice, rather than some sort of expanded freedom. Bummer.

That's what it was always going to be. Not "working for compensated activity" was integral to the privilege targeted. No surprise the first states to give women votes were states where no sane man could hold the opinion that his wife was any less integral to their success than he. Making the butter, the clothes, the children, the garden, shooting straight, etc. are all very bad for affectations of unequality.

 

[caketastydelish]

Who invented writing did have a substantial impact on the potential success of female writers up until we got past the first thing men were taught to write being "never let a woman learn to write."

White guys did dominate professional basketball back when the source for professional basketball players was college basketball and black people weren't allowed to attend college.

We can't change the past is true, but structures that were built in the past that still exist can have tremendous impact on current people.

How can you possibly say this? The average female in the united states will have completed a higher level of education than the average male including even a higher average GPA in high school. The average female in America reads words per minutes faster than the average male. The average female both reads and writes more on average than the average male. The average female in America has superior verbal fluency skills than the average male.

What "tremendous impact" is holding women back from being able to read or write?

 

[Angst]

She doesn't believe that women are paid significantly less "because they are women", but she very much acknowledges that there is an earnings gap between men and women, to which discrimination may very well contribute a small amount.

And with that, she's entirely correct.

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".

EDIT: Mind you, naturally this video runs down basically all kinds of pay gap, some of which can be considered unproblematic, which I can give into. But there is a significant unexplained pay gap based on discrimination. It gets worse when minorities enter the picture.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How can you possibly say this? The average female in the united states will have completed a higher level of education than the average male including even a higher average GPA in high school. The average female in America reads words per minutes faster than the average male. The average female both reads and writes more on average than the average male. The average female in America has superior verbal fluency skills than the average male.

What "tremendous impact" is holding women back from being able to read or write?

None. I'm guessing they would all have recognized the meaning of "up until." What's your excuse?