Women lacking respect for men is run-of-the-mill. When men do it, it's just pitiful. — T Clark

What respect should we give misogynist and racist people? I have no problem understanding how things got where they are historically and seeing how people fall when society changes, but at the end of the day, the actions of these people are still their own and they have to face consequences for it. One such consequence is at least a lack of respect from me.

So, are you defending these incels with the idea that women have some built-in disrespect for them but men should absolutely show them respect... because of... some arbitrary reasons?

What exactly is it that you are defending here?

What respect should we give misogynist and racist people? — Christoffer

None. I look forward to the day that men are properly humbled by the clout of women - their intelligence, their strength and resolve - strong fierce mothers, exceptional wives, admirable daughters. Feminity has always moderated the testosterone fuelled recklessness of man. And it was always undervalued, considered weak for that fact.

How many wars have been started by women? I'm not saying they can't be. Of course they can. But I think the masculine and feminine are not at odds with one another, but an incredibly potent synergy. A symbiosis that ought to be fostered for everyone sake.

The most manly of men, in my opinion, are those that willingly submit to the power of the feminine. It's a demonstration of confidence and self esteem. Opposite to oppression and mysogyny which simply reflects the insecurity of man regarding their "manlihood".

And throughout generations of traditions that no longer function in relation to older power structures, people start to notice norms that seem to exist without any rational reason.

It's no coincidence that women in Western societies managed to reach equality in voting around the same time as religious states in the West became more and more secularized. — Christoffer

This is what triggered me, I don't think this is how it works. In fact I even think Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism following it, played an essential role in the formation of enlightenment ideals of equality, giving rise to individual rights and feminism. In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before).

Aside from that, the biggest contributing factor I think for emancipatory values accelerating in the west, was fossil fuels, the industrial revolution and the technology build on that, creating material conditions that made these new ideologies possible.

But this is, as I said a big topic, and doesn't exactly fit here in this thread.

The addictive, 'social contagion/social pressure' dynamics of social media also play a big role. I agree.

It probably doesn't help that social media software is almost exclusively designed by the nerdy types that are mainly interested in numbers and maximizing the effectiveness of algorithms, and seem to lack awareness that their products are affecting are actual people.

The fact is that people create culture and society, we form ideas based on either delusions or rationality and everything in between. And people can be downright stupid. — Christoffer

I agree. Reality is one thing. Delusion regarding it is another. It is part of reality for sure - delusion that is - but it isn't the truth of it, truth being how things actual are (reality itself).

We convince ourselves of all sorts of justifications for things, but if they aren't a). Coming from good intentions and b). Rational and logical in execution and expected outcome, then all we have is delusion - either conceptualised on poor intention, or with good intention but bad execution and thus bad outcome.

It probably doesn't help that social media software is almost exclusively designed by the nerdy types that are mainly interested in numbers and maximizing the effectiveness of algorithms, and seem to lack awareness that their products are affecting are actual people — Tzeentch

Absolutely, at the end of the day social media is a business. It's about maximising engagement with products through advertisement.

Algorithms are preoccupied with ascertaining who is "vulnerable or receptive" to any given product. Thus maximising profit. What they fail to consider is the human component - that it is or ought to be a human right not to be manipulated insidiously towards any one political view, service or product.

This is why law is playing catch up to exaggerate/ notify reveal or clarify the product placement in social media posts. To highlight that such a post is designed as advertising. Misinformation is another target of law to reduce the radicalisation of the public towards specific political agendas.

If both of those are kept in check, then social media becomes at least a little bit more benign.

People with guns have power. — RogueAI

Only the bad/criminal kind. Using the fear of death as an threat/influence may be effective temporarily, but long-term it is asking for intense revolt and ammendments to law concerning gun ownership.

In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before). — ChatteringMonkey

Love thy neighbour (gender/sex unspecified). Spirituality and religion does something that science cannot, appeal to intuitive sense of moral and greater good. No objective proof required.

"The proof is in the (quite sensible/obvious) pudding"

Yeah, big fat tongue in my cheek ... but I am intolerant of the intolerant (even antisocial with regard to the antisocial), what I call 'responsible freedom' (i.e. engagée). IMO, radicalized violent misogynists / racists / fascists ought not to be coddled or excused, medicalized or given any quarter whatsoever. — 180 Proof

I agree. You see a clearly harmful set of affairs that can come to no good. And have little tolerance for it. I would include myself in such urgent cause for reprimand of such groups.

However I'm a passivist. I believe the pen is mightier than the sword. That is to say, fierce, overt and public verbal humiliation and condemnation based on clear, well reasoned and articulate denouncement is often sufficient to placate such "nastiness" rather than getting physically involved.

If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better?

Restrain yes, harm no.

What respect should we give misogynist and racist people? — Christoffer

That's not the question at hand here. The correct question is "What respect should we give people whose behavior we don't approve of or understand?"

That's not the question at hand here. The correct question is "What respect should we give people whose behavior we don't approve of or understand?" — T Clark

Understand it, and act accordingly. I believe in hearing people out and applying reasoning to show them the result of their claims/beliefs.

Often when someone sees the rational result of an idea, they change tact, if that outcome makes sense but the result is undesirable.

Oh, that's interesting. I got the impression that kids avoided light and air before the lockdown as well, but maybe you are right. Hmm. I can't remember very well. — bert1

It does rather seem to drag on. But that guy drove the van onto the sidewalk in 2018, by when the incel movement was pretty deeply rooted, so it can't have been related to this form of isolation.

My son didn't have any friends before either, but he didn't really want any.

I hope that doesn't signal a problem. Some people need more privacy than others. Some, because their talent and interest inclines them to solitary pursuits: graphic arts, literature or academic study; some because they have matters to contemplate, ideas to work through; some due to particular fears or general lack of confidence; some because they're hypersensitive, so that their feelings and perceptions are overwhelmed by too much interaction, or more simply, they lack access to a compatible pool of potential friends - that's more likely if a child is exceptional in some way. It might be a good idea to investigate the reason - it's possible the boy could use some help. Or he may be quite content until he's ready to move on to the next phase.

My take on this is that parents are more overworked than ever, and lack their own support network to fall back on, which in previous generations was provided by for example grandparents and the extended family, perhaps even an entire neighbourhood. Again we see social atomization. — Tzeentch

The economic landscape is not helping.

Yes that would be a more positive reaction, some obviously don't have the mental strength to avoid the pitfalls... I guess what bothers me is that the total lack of attempt at understanding and empathy is deemed fine in this case, whereas generally it is literally the basis of our morality. — ChatteringMonkey

It never seemed to be an issue when spinsters were despised, even if they didn't whine about it, even when being a footloose bachelor was envied. It didn't seem to be an issue when homely women were caricatured and called names.

I don't think this is a special case of marginalizing (though it may well feel that way if you put yourself in the category. I don't mean you, personally; I mean anyone. Nobody has to assume the label; they can choose their own designation, develop their own perspective on their situation, and figure out what they can do to improve it. Punishing strangers won't accomplish that. )

It's hard to empathize with people who abuse entire classifications of other people on the basis of something like gender, race or religion; even harder when the abuse is threatening or physical. If you're unappealing, the women in your early life may be to blame, but the women you haven't met today are not. As a "culture", self-designated incels have done very little to engender understanding or sympathy and quite a lot to draw ire. Individually, men and women who lack social skills, physical and material assets or charm can be heard and perhaps helped by more adapted elders and peers. Everyone is capable of self improvement. But the problem of aspiring to an alpha mate when one is a gamma is insoluble: the number won't crunch.

The most manly of men, in my opinion, are those that willingly submit to the power of the feminine. It's a demonstration of confidence and self esteem. — Benj96

:100:

I hope that doesn't signal a problem. Some people need more privacy than others. Some, because their talent and interest inclines them to solitary pursuits: graphic arts, literature or academic study; some because they have matters to contemplate, ideas to work through; some due to particular fears or general lack of confidence; some because they're hypersensitive, so that their feelings and perceptions are overwhelmed by too much interaction, or more simply, they lack access to a compatible pool of potential friends - that's more likely if a child is exceptional in some way. It might be a good idea to investigate the reason - it's possible the boy could use some help. Or he may be quite content until he's ready to move on to the next phase. — Vera Mont

He's autistic like his mum and dad. He'll be OK, just needs to find his tribe, like I had to. It was just a lot easier for me because I could cope with school. We're trying to set up a DnD group at the moment, hopefully that will work out.

How does it feel to be objectified as a man, by women that earn more, have higher social status and influence. — Benj96

Pretty shitty. They're not interested in my personality.

EDIT: My most recent partner only liked me for my broad shoulders, rugged looks, ability to cook, trim shrubs and maintain bicycles. When I expressed my personality I told her I was submissive, that her right-wing views were disgusting, that she was ignorant and unwilling to learn, and that sometimes I hated her, she dumped me.

Luckily for us tho, I think women are more inclined to entertain our emotions and feelings on the subject and to support us in being equals rather then becoming as toxically matriarchal as patriarchy has been towards women in the past. We have shit to learn from women. We should listen up. — Benj96

I think this is a moral imperative, rather than an anthropological observation. It will tell us how we ought to behave, not why inceldom is becoming more popular (if indeed it's becoming popular). In the interest of systemic critique, there should be structural reasons for why inceldom is becoming more popular, rather than individual moral failings. Things that are true now of society that weren't true "then", whenever then is.

The underlying reasons I've speculated about are as follows. Can group them into two categories. The first is what I'd call "exposure" related, and tries to show the increase in inceldom is overstated. The second is what I'd call "generative conditions" - things that generate inceldom and make it possible.

Exposure related:
1) There aren't more incels now than there were, we're just more exposed to extreme ideologies more often.
1a) A bloke being frustrated at dating being a horrifying, alienating experience for them can sound a lot like being an incel.
1b) Talking about differences between men's and women's (het) experiences dating can also make you sound like an incel. EG the statement "women have all the power of selection" might make you sound like a misogynist to uncharitable ears. To charitable ears, as far as online dating goes, it's a question of realised match given desired match being more frequent for women.

Generative conditions:
2) Means of finding a romantic partner have now been disrupted by the current configuration of capitalism and patriarchy (or social gender norms, whatevs).
2a) Dating media's success piggybacks on the current configuration of capitalism and current gender norms.
2b) Current gender norms leave men, often, without any intimate friends or support networks. Especially networks that allow deep emotional disclosure. That role, traditionally, was held only by intimate partners. If you lose your partner and cannot find a new one long term, in those conditions you easily become isolated and alone; I call this the "old man pub principle". This style of relationship is now seen as "toxic", and regardless is antithetical to current dating culture.
2c) Current gender norms enable women to have more casual emotional disclosure, that creates deeper bonds in extant social networks and forms new ones.
2d) The latter two points create an asymmetry of emotional dependence. Prosaically, men have demand for women to gain greater emotional intimacy, women have supply but don't wish to "produce" the good of "toxic" asymmetric relationships.
2e) The degradation of traditional gender norms makes those "toxic" relationships undesirable - or alternatively, reveals them as having been undesirable/stifling all along.
2f) Dating media takes the demand for emotional intimacy, from men, and commodifies it. Their algorithms control exposure of men to (what is often seen as) their only means of intimate expression.
2g) Dating media have come to have a monopoly on obtaining intimate partnerships.
2h) Dating media's monopoly on obtaining intimate partnerships derives from a fragmentation of social life; the nuclear family is dying, birth rates are going down, the desire to "home make" and "settle down" is rarer and rarer. Simultaneously, people work longer hours, social activities are becoming more expensive in real terms (median real wages have been stagnant or declining since the 70s). That blocks access to social spaces and diminishes social time.
2i) People are more likely to find intimate and satisfying relationships when they have access to suitable social spaces and have time to do so.

tl;dr - capitalism, death of social norms regarding family and courtship, the norms dying "slower" for men, fragmentation of social life.

Your exposition of the incel's condition is very through; I'm wondering whether this is based on personal familiarity with incels, or whether it is derived from a general understanding of changing society.

I don't know anyone who is or claims to be an incel--meaning just that I can't identify anyone that way. How many men are thought to be incels? Why doesn't auto-correction recognize the word 'incel'? Is there a female equivalent? Are there any rational justifications for the incels's claims?

It's not just a matter of a bunch of guys holding onto an outdated ideologies, I think you underestimate 1) how biology played a role into forming these traditional ideologies in the first place, and 2) how their frustrated biological drives now plays into forming post-hoc misogynists rationalization. I bet a lot of incels coudn't care less about traditional norms and values... they're mostly frustrated, and invent stories to make it more bearable for themselves. — ChatteringMonkey

Contemporary society is a thoroughly alienating experience for many people -- not everyone, but a good share. Social media, dating apps, etc. bring the chilly competitiveness of business to the more intimate business of finding friends and sexual partners. It's great for the winners, not so hot for the losers.

The images of men and women (in many contexts) that the businesses of social media and advertising project are often very distorted, and the projections are pervasive. From media that is designed to promote consumption (of goods, services, and other people) it's no wonder that some people feel like they are the left-overs from a clearance sale.

They only see through the lens of expectation. — Benj96

Who doesn't?

If one reduces themselves to physical harm towards those that wish to do physical harm, then are we really any better? — Benj96

Maybe not, but we can refuse to be worse by doing nothing to stop those a*holes from harming anyone. Watch out for that pacifistic false equivalence, Benj – it has only ever encouraged bullies, segregationists & fascists.

None. I look forward to the day that men are properly humbled by the clout of women - their intelligence, their strength and resolve - strong fierce mothers, exceptional wives, admirable daughters. Feminity has always moderated the testosterone fuelled recklessness of man. And it was always undervalued, considered weak for that fact. — Benj96

This sensitive-new-age-guy thing you've got going on is creepy. The strong, stubborn, competent women I know think it's creepy too.

Understand it, and act accordingly. I believe in hearing people out and applying reasoning to show them the result of their claims/beliefs. — Benj96

Your clear ignorance about the people you're talking about puts the lie to this.

The most manly of men, in my opinion, are those that willingly submit to the power of the feminine. — Benj96

Strong women don't want to hang around with men who "willingly submit to the power of the feminine." They recognize how disrespectful the male feminist bullshit really is. Grownup women want to hang around with grownup men.

Then one must look to prehistory. — Vera Mont

Please site your "prehistorical sources.

The sex demographics are complicated by education demographics. According to Pew Research...

among those ages 25 to 64, men outnumber women by a large margin among never-married adults (125 men for every 100 women), but men are outnumbered by women among previously married adults (71 men for every 100 women).

Among never-married young adults with post-graduate degrees, women outnumber men by a large margin. There are 77 never-married men ages 25 to 34 with post-graduate degrees for every 100 women with similar educational credentials. Among never-married young adults with a bachelor’s degree, the male-to-female ratio is 102 men for every 100 women.

Rates of marriage are further complicated when race is figured in, not to mention gays and lesbians or cohabitants vs. formally hitched.

What "terrible deeds" are incels responsible for?

I think increasing social atomization is at the root of this, basically forcing young people into an artificial dating scene that for obvious reasons doesn't appeal to nor suit many of them. — Tzeentch

Atomization and anomie seems to be on target.

You shag a bunch of them and maybe one stays with you. — bert1

That was my strategy as a young gay guy. Lots of shagging (which was great on its own) to shake out a good prospect, who, as it happened, came along several times -- the last being good for 30 years.

Sounds great. I'm envious. I still haven't figured out a feasible method.

maybe create a healthier dating app that emphasises more the character of a person than their appearance. Many people would go for that. There's success and money to be made and a gap to be filled in the market — Benj96

Market values and money to be made is a big part of the problem.

There are market values and money to be made in bars, too. Why don't bars result in more happily married couples? Because the raison d'être of bars is to sell alcohol which fairly quickly impairs judgement and helps sell even more alcohol. That said, I've met some very decent guys in bars, and alcohol served as the necessary lubricant.

Women lacking respect for men is run-of-the-mill. When men do it, it's just pitiful. — T Clark

:100:

So those without them need to nurture charisma to overcome the initial barrier. — Benj96

Benj's guide to developing irresistible CHARISMA in 21 days!


Try these techniques to build DYNAMITE CHARISMA!

Manage your nerves.
Pace your speech.
Talk about what you're passionate about
Listen with intent.
Practice eye contact.
Ask clarifying questions.
Demonstrate a genuine interest.
Express deep caring about asylum seekers.
Remember little details.
Keep things positive.
Practice empathy.
Ooze sincerity.

Right. I looked her in the eye, kept things positive, spoke at a pleasant pace, and talked about Marxism passionately. She was asleep in 3 minutes.

Not a bad question. A friend and I discussed years ago that one thing the internet did was erase taboos. It used to be a taboo to be an incel. In public, you would never have confessed your feelings of hatred and loathing at your lack of obtaining women. And if you have, the rest of society would have ridiculed and shunned you.

The internet frees you from the physical proximity of being shamed. Words are not the same as the personal looks of disgust and rejection from people in your community. Further, you can find like individuals like yourself, so even if you later experience that shame in person, you have people you can go back to. The internet can make an extreme minority seem bigger and more impactful than it is as well.

Finally, if you appeal to a person's lower desires, you will always find takers. Tell someone they're a victim. Tell them they have a right to be angry, to feel hurt, and to take that out on others. Feels gooooood. We used to call that the devil's temptations. Again, people around you would ward you off of those bad things. Now you can privately be tempted in your own home and give in again and again until you start to believe in your own rightness of your cause.

This is what triggered me, I don't think this is how it works. In fact I even think Christianity, Catholicism and Protestantism following it, played an essential role in the formation of enlightenment ideals of equality, giving rise to individual rights and feminism. In other words, It's not the realization that those traditional norms existed without reason that gave rise those progressive ideas, they precisely followed from and are a logical conclusion of christian values (who were an inversion of Roman values, and pagan values, that came before). — ChatteringMonkey

No, it came out of a questioning of old norms. Even Stuart Mill questioned why women didn't have equal rights and I don't think the suffragette movement came out of Christianity, most at the time wouldn't consider them acting in a "Christian manner" and they wouldn't have had to if the church or other religious institutions had pushed for such ideals. And you didn't understand what I wrote about traditions, I said that the secularization of power made traditions no longer follow state praxis and instead became traditions in of themselves. Over the course of over a hundred years, since the suffragettes succeeded in getting women voting rights, these traditions have been slowly dismantled over generations since it is easier to question traditions when they only exist as cultural behaviors. I don't think you can give credit to Christian values for this since Christian values have been precisely what's been working against this progression since secularization first began.

Aside from that, the biggest contributing factor I think for emancipatory values accelerating in the west, was fossil fuels, the industrial revolution and the technology build on that, creating material conditions that made these new ideologies possible. — ChatteringMonkey

And in line with what I've written. The industrial revolution emerged out of secular ideas, since "industry" before that was deeply connected to the power structure of a nation. The modern type of capitalism that raised up from the ashes of monarchy and religious institutions exponentially sped up progression and was able to further finance intellectual institutions outside of elite corridors. What happened was that more people had the ability to question the status quo and it started to influence women to do so themselves which led to things like the suffragettes movement.

That's not the question at hand here. The correct question is "What respect should we give people whose behavior we don't approve of or understand?" — T Clark

I understand the behavior fully, hence why I emphasized the importance of psychology and an anthropological look at the recent history (hundred years). And with that understanding, I can conclude that while a tragedy that these men didn't get better guidance in life, they're not victims of war, nor victims of oppression, they are able to act by their own accord, and their acts are misogynistic, racist and sometimes even with violence.

Do you approve of that behavior? Do you respect them based on that behavior? Again, what is it that you are defending here?

Or should we maybe promote better ideals for men? Ideals that aren't stuck in bloated delusions of "manly powers" in the spirit of Andrew Tate?

I'm wondering whether this is based on personal familiarity with incels, or whether it is derived from a general understanding of changing society. — BC

Years of studying these different subjects and some hours digging into the dark corners of the web to get a grasp on why this culture has grown over the past few years... I don't recommend the latter.

I don't know anyone who is or claims to be an incel--meaning just that I can't identify anyone that way. How many men are thought to be incels? Why doesn't auto-correction recognize the word 'incel'? Is there a female equivalent? Are there any rational justifications for the incels's claims? — BC

It mostly depends on the social group you're around. Incels are generally loners, have low social skills, and seek their social connections online instead. It's there where they become radicalized. So most likely, if you know of anyone from your past who maybe went silent socially and people have little knowledge of where they went or what they do today, that man could have ended up in such a position. But it's not a given. However, incels are just the bottom of the barrel, it's the ones who're at risk of extremist radicalization. The rest is a gradient in which we find many nationalist movements like I mentioned, Proud Boys. But we also have fully functional men who might even be in relationships and have families who keep a dark corner of their mind online where they spew out hatred for women, especially those with power. It's the holistic view of all of this that shows where the ideology comes from and why it has risen up so notably these recent years. There's no number on how many there are, but it's not small, not if we include the gradient. There's a reason for the increase in nationalist parties that are almost entirely made up of men and whose voter demographics are almost entirely men. It's a global phenomenon.

Why you cannot see the word on auto-correct I don't know, maybe not all nations have officially approved it as a new term. Some nations have though. And no, there's no justification for their claims. It's misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic nonsense analyses and eugenics with some plain hardcore racism. It's the same level as flat-earthers trying to prove the Earth is flat by providing theories that any sane person would just laugh at. Don't fall into that rabbit hole, it's a singularity of stupidity.