-13

The role of feminism in the creation of "Incels"

Submitted by Greyscalestarfield in Feminism

So I have been doing a fair amount of research into the dark and dingy realm of the Incels.

Incels or as I like to call them, dickless wonders, have always existed. But until recently they were somewhat rare.

The rise of incel N count seems to have gone hand in hand with the changing attitudes towards sex and relationships amongst women, led by feminism.

Actions that would have been frowned upon in the past, or created social stigma, are now considered mainstream and acceptable.

I'd quite like to gain a variety of perspectives on this. I'd quite like this to be a fairly open and free-form debate so am not going to begin with a leading question.

Instead, what role do you think feminism has had in the rising number of Incels?

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

trollyproblem wrote

The problem isn't "feminism" itself. As feminism sexually liberated women, patriarchy framed this as women being freely available to fulfill the sexual desires of men. Women wearing less clothes, being hypersexualized, having more sex outside of marriage/commitments, etc was used to create this sense of sexual entitlement among men that women are on display for their consumption.

The only role of feminism is that reactionary men and male domination try to hijack feminist movements for their own purposes.

1

Greyscalestarfield wrote

That's an interesting point.

I can see where you are coming from in terms of incel feelings of entitlement.

I would consider it natural as one grows up to have an expectation that one is going to have sex, and it certainly is deeply unhealthy to think of this is an entitlement.

What do you think is taking these people from having a reasonable expectation that they will have sex, to a point that they feel they are entitled to it?

3

trollyproblem wrote

What do you think is taking these people from having a reasonable expectation that they will have sex, to a point that they feel they are entitled to it?

It's perfectly fine for men to hope that one day they will have sex (if this is what they want, that is). But the difference between hoping for and entitlement, is the difference between seeing women as objects of their desire vs equal beings with their own autonomy.

Women aren't slaves to serve men's needs and desires. This is what entitled incels need to get through their heads and stop obsessing over. Instead of focusing on why women won't get with them, they should focus on developing and improving themselves.

5

LostYonder wrote

The only one responsible for the increasing number of incels, or at least their increasing visibility, are incels themselves! It is called a REACTIONary movement for a reason - they are reacting to their perceived loss of power/status/domination in society because they have warped mentalities that believe they actually are entitled to power/status/domination over women for no reason other than their gender.

Incels are morons and it is best they remain as incels rather than continue to inbreed...

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

?? I don't think feminism has anything to do with Incels. I think it's all the internet. Before if someone had ridiculous ideas about how the universe owes them sex with attractive women, they couldn't find an echo chamber of like-minded people to reinforce their delusion.

-10

Greyscalestarfield wrote

Studies have shown that while number of young women having sex has marginally increased, the number of men not having any sex has gone through the roof.

It appears that amongst the young, a few men are having all the sex. And while before, numbers of your men who were having zero sex was a thing, numbers have gone way up.

It seems that the changes that have taken place are that.

  1. 'Top tier men' are no longer being taken off the market at the same rate

  2. Partner sharing, that is sleeping with the same person as many of your friends no longer carries any stigma.

I'm certainly not trying to blame feminism or say it's all the fault of the wemen, but it comes across as a little ignorant and knee jerk to say that feminism has nothing to do with it, as feminism has had a large role to play in the changing attitudes and behaviours of both genders in relation to sex and relationships

7

mftrhu wrote

Studies have shown that while number of young women having sex has marginally increased, the number of men not having any sex has gone through the roof.

What studies?

'Top tier men' are no longer being taken off the market at the same rate

What does that even mean?

I'm certainly not trying to blame feminism or say it's all the fault of the wemen

I hope so, as it wouldn't make sense.

as feminism has had a large role to play in the changing attitudes and behaviours of both genders in relation to sex and relationships

Before, people who felt entitled to sex and women's bodies were living in a world that catered to their whims.

Now they do not.

but it comes across as a little ignorant and knee jerk to say that feminism has nothing to do with it

It has nothing to do with the underlying phenomenon of entitlement, just with this entitlement not being fulfilled.

-1

Greyscalestarfield wrote

You can find the studies and articles about them with a quick Google.

By 'top tier men' I am referring to those considered the most desirable.

In the past, a higher percentage of handsome Dave's would be in relationships. Thus off the market. This is because social stigmas such as 'slut shaming' we're still in effect.

The prettiest girls would pair off with the prettiest boys. The medium boys with the medium girls etc.

That dynamic has changed. The medium girls now have access to the prettier boys, so aren't as interested inbred medium boys, leaving the low tier losers without a look in.

I feel that boys and girls both want sex as much as each other. So something must be at play

5

ergdj5 wrote

You can find the studies and articles about them with a quick Google.

The burden of evidence goes on those making the claim.

1

mofongo wrote

That dynamic has changed. The medium girls now have access to the prettier boys, so aren't as interested inbred medium boys, leaving the low tier losers without a look in.

a) That has always been the case.

b) Pretty women are willing to look at less attractive men as long as they're not total creeps. I've met many short (5"5' and lower), not attractive men that are great and funny persons and women just fall for them without them even trying.

c) If you're so desperate for sex, accept what you can get.

1

mofongo wrote

In the past, a higher percentage of handsome Dave's would be in relationships. Thus off the market. This is because social stigmas such as 'slut shaming' we're [sic] still in effect.

>implying cheating never existed.

>implying men get slut-shamed at the same rate or as hard as women.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

So we have to separate two things. First is whether the dynamic changed, and second whether people that lose out have a right to feel mistreated or unfairly discriminated against because of the situation. The answer to the second part is no - I could have the body of a god in a room full of gorgeous women that are all interested in banging only Jabba the Hutt, or maybe each other, and I am not being mistreated or discriminated against. Sex is never owed.

On your first point, I can't imagine there is real research on this. Check Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, your grocery store, Walmart, beaches, anywhere, and you will find a huge mix of couples of all ages. That includes tons of cases when a woman considered gorgeous by Hollywood is with a fat, unattractive, poorly muscular man or a man considered gorgeous by Hollywood is with a fat, unattractive woman. Don't get me wrong, you will often see two ugly (by conventional standards) people together or two gorgeous (again, by conventional standards) people together, but it's fantasy to break all relationships into those categories.

0

Greyscalestarfield wrote

Yes the dynamic has changed.

On your second point, I don't think it matters whether people have 'the right' to feel a certain way.

For many, the idea of having sex has become unattainable and what begins as feelings of hopelessness start to fester.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

"Yes the dynamic has changed" is not evidence, just a statement. And as a counter point things like personal ads, Tinder, dating sites, social networks of all kinds, sex discussion boards, and so forth came into existence in the same era as the sexual revolution and feminism started gaining power.

So when you think of the guy three generations back with medium looks having, supposedly, an easier time finding a woman than today remember that he didn't have nearly the same opportunities to meet women as men today do. He couldn't post a personal ad, he couldn't send private messages on Twitter.

But what he didn't have is message boards and other forums to discuss his frustration with other like-minded men.

Sometimes I think Dating 101 should be a mandatory part of education in the US. I'm an average looking guy. Finding a partner isn't that hard. Now, nothing is foolproof. But a lot of the incel statements come across like the writer is desperately hoping that if they walk up to the right supermodel and say "Hi" she'll immediately offer to bang him into oblivion. Attracting a sexual partner is a skill, no different than fixing a transmission, drywalling a room, reinstalling an operating system, or shooting a rifle accurately. The only difference is that the learning curve for sex and relationships is more painful because rejection hurts and you will get rejected many times. But working past the discomfort is worthwhile, just like enduring all the boredom and pain of a workout routine is worthwhile, because the end results are worth the effort.

2

raindropq wrote (edited )

this is work-normalization /economist apologetics . and appears to be validating to the (In-Cel's?) resentment .

edit: added parentheses and question mark

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying I'm inadvertently supporting incel arguments with that post?

That wasn't my intent. First and foremost, the idea that anyone is owed some kind of sex or consideration with regards to sex is flat out false. The argument over incel 'rights' ends there, period.

Second and less importantly, the argument that less than flawlessly beautiful men in previous generations had easier access to sexual partners is at best unprovable but most likely false. So even the incel's belief they have a special right to whine if not act still doesn't hold up.

5

DaisyDisaster wrote

Feminisms role in changing attitudes towards sex doesn't mean that it had a role in creating incels beyond that incels resent liberated women. The incel problem is a problem of patriarchy, not feminism.

4

edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Guys who aren't getting any sex aren't owed any sex. Whether the cute girls that live down the street are all voluntarily celibate or each fucking nine completely different guys each day is irrelevant.

Edit: sex isn't money, it's not food, it's not water, it's not shelter. It's not owed by anyone to anyone. My wife has been too sick to have sex with me a few months. I can complain all I want, but a woman doesn't even owe her own husband sex - she doesn't want it or doesn't feel well enough then it doesn't happen, end of story. It could be grounds for a divorce if I wanted, but I have no right to force her or criticize her or similar.

2

GaldraChevaliere wrote

It's got nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with seeing women and femmes as something to be owned. If anything it's a last gasp, not a new development. There's been entitled nerds who think women owe them shit for as long as there's been dudes without self-awareness. Trying to link the increasing acceptance of (for the most part a very liberal and conciliatory branch) feminism to it is completely ignoring the problem. It's not that women are more free to choose 'high-value' (again from a completely patriarchal and toxic perspective) men, it's that young men are encouraged to see sex as an aspirational object, something to be taken instead of gifted.