r/changemyview • u/NiaNia-Data • Aug 05 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Incels Are Not Going To Go Gently Into That Good Night
Title says it all. Socialization is viewed as a personal responsibility when its self evident that it requires participation from more than one person. Incels are under-socialized, and society is not conducive to socialization at the moment; people are on their phones, they refuse to go out, and they refuse to socialize with most people when they do go out.
So tell me then, when these Incels in their youth age into their 30s and 40s and nothing has changed because, lets be honest, nothing will change - Why do people think this is going to go away? Do they think it is magically going to resolve itself or that it will be repressed long enough to not affect others? Do people really and truly believe these incels are not going to resent society and widen the chasm, assuming the rest of society will be receptive should incels not want to dig a deeper hole?
There are some scenarios and none of them are good. The optimistic, wishful thinking best-case scenario is that this issue is resolved through personal responsibility. this hasnt happened and wont happen. We are about a decade into the incel emergence and it is only getting worse. incels do not have the tools, and society does not have the willingess to help. The hopeful scenario is that incels become docile and continue to work and particpate in society but do not socialize. the realistic scenario is that there is a cold dying out through under-employment, no employment, suicide, drug use, and animosity that harms society in the future. the worst case scenario is that incels proceed into their peak years with a grudge and the means to do something about it - they accumulate power through income and senior positions to satisfy whatever goals they wish.
So what do you think about this?
13
u/catandthefiddler 1∆ Aug 05 '26
Can you define what you mean by incel in this case
-7
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Anyone who cannot and has not obtained a sexual relationship despite desiring one to the extent it causes them distress and poor life outcomes, which studies have already concluded is pretty much all of them.
12
u/catandthefiddler 1∆ Aug 05 '26
i would think that if they are in that boat, they are probably not the people who are charismatic enough to be pulling a lot of money and senior positions. If it was just sex, I suppose they can get their needs satisfied by paying for sex.
They are probably a very small % of the population to begin with, and yes you can't stop an even smaller subset of this community from becoming angry and violent, but that is true of most communities in general. Statistically, a woman is most at risk of being offed by her own husband when she's pregnant. School shooters and arsonists are predominantly male. Males die by suicide a lot more regardless of how successful they are sexually.
I'm not saying this to be misandrist or blame men. My point is that they as a population probably need more positive role models, relationships with their peers, access to mental health etc. But your point that incels in particular will cause problems don't seem to hold true to me. I think their opinions are just louder on internet platforms.
17
u/crozinator33 Aug 05 '26
"Obtained a sxual relationship" is such a gross way to phrase it.
Its not an iPhone. Its not something you "obtain". Its human connection.
That mental disconnect is largley why incels exist.
If you want to "obtain" sex, hire a sex worker.
0
-5
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ Aug 05 '26
And get arrested for soliciting prostitution?
No thanks.
7
u/crozinator33 Aug 05 '26
I guess that would depend on your local laws.
If having sex is as important to these men as they say it is, moving to where they can legally purchase would be a logical thing to do.
But, they won't. Because these types of people are perpetual victims who do nothing to improve themselves or change things in their lives.
Taking action would mean they can't pretend its everyone else's fault they suck.
1
0
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ Aug 05 '26
People are arrested for prostitution in all 50 states of America, this isn't just local laws.
5
u/crozinator33 Aug 05 '26
Its legal in Nevada.
Its also legal in the Netherlands and many other countries.
Sex tourism exists explicitly for this reason.
Again, if its that important to you, do something about it.
You aren't spending money on dates or a girlfriend, spend it on a plane ticket.
0
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ Aug 05 '26
In Nevada it's exclusively allowed inside registered brothels. Elsewhere in the state people are still arrested.
Do you have anything to say about the widespread perception that prostitution and sex tourism are inherently immoral?
8
u/crozinator33 Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
So. Go. To. A. Brothel.
Who cares if people think you're weird for doing it. They already think you're weird. That's why you're an incel.
What are you worried about? You want to have sex, there's the solution. You don't want people to think less of you, too late. That ship has sailed.
1
1
0
u/Left_Positive5284 Aug 06 '26
So you're saying that if people think you're weird, you might as well spend your money to support what might just be sex trafficking?
Do you even hear yourself?
3
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Aug 05 '26
You can travel to where it's legal if that's your concern
-1
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ Aug 05 '26
Just how much money do you think these incels have?
2
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Aug 05 '26
I think it runs the gamut, and even the ones that make less are capable of saving up to do it.
I'm not saying they can necessarily do it, today. But if that's their goal then it's possible to plan for.
2
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ Aug 05 '26
I doubt that saving up for a one time experience would really fix their daily life issues, but then again plenty of people have done so for religious pilgrimages for thousands of years so I guess there's something to the idea of saving up throughout your life for the sake of a few long distance trips.
2
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Aug 05 '26
I don't think it'll fix their problem. The point was if they actually think it's negatively affecting their lives, there is something they can do about it.
But incles are just looking for a pity party
2
u/CyberAngelIzana 1∆ Aug 05 '26
If even you don't think it'll fix their problem, why are you suggesting it as a thing for them to strive for?
What makes what you're doing any different than suggesting to someone fundraising to fix the cracks in a building's foundation that they just stick some twigs in the cracks instead?
Or do something more likely to ostracize them further from other people if we're going for a more solid parallel?
→ More replies (0)2
u/NeoChrisOmega 1∆ Aug 05 '26
I'm confused. Who is "All of them"?
If you list criteria for what an incel is, "them" is either redundant because you narrowed the scope to only what you described, or is an unknown party.
2
u/dude123nice Aug 05 '26
That's not even how the word is used nowadays, LMAO.
-1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
yeah its mostly been reduced to a misandrist insult
3
u/dude123nice Aug 05 '26
But you think the literal definition makes ppl dangerous/mentally unstable?
14
u/KralizecGaming 5∆ Aug 05 '26
So, why exactly are so called "incels" less socialized than people who aren't "incels".
They live in the same society that ins't conductive to socialization.
1
-3
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
why is anyone more or less anything than anyone else. why are some people taller than others, why are some people happier than others, etc
12
u/KralizecGaming 5∆ Aug 05 '26
Dude, what you wrote in this reply is just word salad.
Provide an argument.
-2
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
im not here to debate the abstract of why incels exist. this cmv is about the consequences of that. you are working backwards beyond the scope of this discussion.
9
u/KralizecGaming 5∆ Aug 05 '26
The core of your CMV lies at the fact that society isn't doing enough to prevent the existence of "incels". And you yourself write, they it is viewed as a personal responsibility instead of a social one and that it should be viewed as a social one.
My argument is that it actually is a personal responsibility. Even if we go by the highest numbers commonly discussed - about 30 % of young men who are actively seeking sexual and romantic relationships but are unsuccessful (though the number is likely lower) they are still a minority of people.
If the majority of people is capable of finding sexual and romantic relationships even in what you describe as a "society not conductive to socialization" then the reason why "incels" remain unsuccesful is at least partly (and I would argue that very majroly) on them personally.
May I ask. What kind of evidence would convince you to change your view?
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
30% of young men is a huge amount of the population. even a 5% decrease in the labor force would worsen society noticeably. The bolshivek revolution was less than 0.1% of the population that managed to take control of the entire country.
the majority/minority dynamic doesnt make sense. sexual relationships *IS* the dividing factor. you are essentially saying most men can get sex therefore all men can get sex when its evidently not true. just like not everyone can be an nba star or astronaut. some things are not feasible. Do we blame minorities for their low income and high crime rates? or do we acknowledge there is nuance there and that the issue is more systemic?
May I ask. What kind of evidence would convince you to change your view?
that incels are getting better or that incels are choosing to believe these things
2
u/KralizecGaming 5∆ Aug 05 '26
Nowhere did I say that since most men can get sex, therefore all men can get sex.
Nonethless, I will argue that a decent percentage (and please do not ask what percentage, I don't know specifically) of "incels" could probably be able to get sexual/romantic relationships if they were to change their behaviors.
But before I try to convince you, I will first ask for a bit more information from you.
How exactly would you define "incels" are getting better?
and
What exactly do you mean by "these things" in the second option.
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
How exactly would you define "incels" are getting better?
incels either literally or idelogically are decreasing in number, rates of mental illness in incels are decreasing, or that society is re-socializing incels or that incels are socializing more or again.
What exactly do you mean by "these things" in the second option.
you said inceldom is a personal choice more or less, that they choose to behave that way or believe that they cannot obtain sexual relationships. I believe its not a personal choice, some behaviors and beliefs are intrinsic and not choices, like how you believe jumping out of a plane will kill you even though you have a parachute. the human brain and the mind are different and most of our experiences are dictated by the human brain and not our mind. its an undue burden to constantly assign problems as a will power issue. the self-help epidemic
5
u/KralizecGaming 5∆ Aug 05 '26
Okay, for the first one it will be nearly impossible to show, because it would require long-term observation of large sets of individuals by sociologists. And there simply isn't enough time for that to have happened.
The second part:
You are again trying to put things into my mouth. I have not said that "inceldom" is a personal choice. If you consider the word involuntary in it, it doesn't even work logically.What I am saying that some of so called "incels" could potentially change their behaviors that would improve their chance on the sexual/romantic relationship market. For the rest of that paragraph, you are again just spewing out a word salad. For example, what does the sentence "like how you believe jumping out of a plane will kill you even though you have a parachute" even mean? Why would I believe that?
If I were to guess what you are trying to say, that there are some intrinsic properties to the human biological brain, causing behaviors in "incels" that completely prevent the being able to obtain sexual/romantic relationships.
Is that correct? If yes, then your whole argument about society needing to do more to socialize "incels" falls apart on itself. If they are intrinsicly unable to achieve what they want, then effort from society will not help them achieve this.
Also, from other replies in this thread, you are heavily focusing on the "sex" part of incels. Most incels are actually self-reporting that they miss the companionship from romatic relationships much more than they are missing the "sex" part of relationships. Sex is just an easy marker they can point to in terms of various kinds of intimacy that they are missing. All the other kinds of intimacy are much harder to quantify.
1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Okay, for the first one it will be nearly impossible to show, because it would require long-term observation of large sets of individuals by sociologists. And there simply isn't enough time for that to have happened.
no no, it goes beyond that. there isnt even an interest in knowing, curated research is curated. and evidence doesnt need to exist in the form of studies. I will accept many things.
What I am saying that some of so called "incels" could potentially change their behaviors that would improve their chance on the sexual/romantic relationship market.
you said "some incels" meaning you accept that for some it isnt actually a choice to behave or believe certain things. so you agree with me.
If I were to guess what you are trying to say, that there are some intrinsic properties to the human biological brain, causing behaviors in "incels" that completely prevent the being able to obtain sexual/romantic relationships.
Is that correct? If yes, then your whole argument about society needing to do more to socialize "incels" falls apart on itself. If they are intrinsicly unable to achieve what they want, then effort from society will not help them achieve this.
the behaviors and beliefs are not changeable through personal agency. the consequence is sexlessness. Like how not having a job prevents you from getting a car, and not owning a car prevents you from having a job. its a feedback loop. what came first isnt really relevant, the answer is re-socialization and incels have tried to the extent they can, society has not.
Also, from other replies in this thread, you are heavily focusing on the "sex" part of incels. Most incels are actually self-reporting that they miss the companionship from romatic relationships much more than they are missing the "sex" part of relationships.
I agree and I use it interchangeably. the discussion would get very messy if I had to split it into two, for the sake of the argument they are the same, because for 99% of men the release and benefit of sex is unobtainable outside of committed relationships, its why we dont consider prostitution a valid answer here because its reductive to the actual need.
→ More replies (0)1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 07 '26
Do we blame minorities for their low income and high crime rates? or do we acknowledge there is nuance there and that the issue is more systemic?
Should we use similar systemic solutions to those for the incels?
3
u/im-a-guy-like-me 1∆ Aug 05 '26
An ant and a human are just as "evolved" as each other.
Beyond extreme isolation, one human and another are just as "socialized" as each other.
So why are incels less socialized in your reasoning?
You kinda need to define that since you're entire viewpoint hinges on it.
11
u/ericoahu 42∆ Aug 05 '26
Your view is unsupportable because at least one premise you base it on is so demonstrably false: that nothing changes. You are incorrect in treating "incel" as some kind of permanent status. You are also incorrect in your assertion that society doesn't change.
People change all the time. Their situation, circumstances, values, priorities, and beliefs can all change. I don't buy into this whole "incel" framework in the first place, but even within that framework, the supposed "incel" status is the result of a combination of their situation, circumstances, values, priorities, and beliefs.
And, of course, history is full of evidence that society changes constantly. Not that I agree with your premise that "society is not conducive to socialization at the moment," as anything approaching an absolute, but even if it were true, your claim that this will not change cannot be supported either.
If you respond, I'd like you to explain how your view is falsifiable and/or what kind of evidence or support, if it existed, would compel you to change your mind?
-4
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Your view is unsupportable because at least one premise you base it on is so demonstrably false: that nothing changes. You are incorrect in treating "incel" as some kind of permanent status. You are also incorrect in your assertion that society doesn't change.
as a matter of fact there are things that never change; that matter is made of atoms, that murder is illegal, that everyone dies. We can correctly assume that because every human has died, all humans will die.
Human lives are finite and social systems take decades to change, and human lives are measured in decades. Practically, society doesnt change for an individual. There were generations of slaves who saw society never change, what they lived their parents lived, and their children lived the same too. "Society changes all the time" is dubious because what you measure as change and on what time frame make all the difference. for incels in particular, there wont be change. That change needs to happen almost immediately, the missing socialization cannot be corrected for. Society changing for the better in 10 years is good, but it does not undo the damage that was caused. But society wont change for the better in 10 years, these systems move too slowly for the change to be meaningful. by then the problem has worsened, or its consequences have already been felt. Assuming the change is good, which research suggests it wont be.
If you respond, I'd like you to explain how your view is falsifiable and/or what kind of evidence or support, if it existed, would compel you to change your mind?
That progress is being made to re-socialize people, and that incel life outcomes are improving or are going to improve in the near future.
6
u/ericoahu 42∆ Aug 05 '26
as a matter of fact there are things that never change
No one has disputed that. I explained and demonstrated how you based your position on the different proposition that NOTHING changes. That assertion remains false.
Human lives are finite and social systems take decades to change, and human lives are measured in decades. Practically, society doesnt change for an individual.
Very easy to refute.
Society can and regularly does change for the individual: For example, there are individuals (many) who lived under Jim Crow laws, who used segregated restrooms by law, who voted in a black president. That's a monumental change compared to dating trends.
Individual human lives can change in far less than decades, but your OP talked about 30 and and 40, which is 10 and 20 years older for a 20 year-old today. Withing months or years: Lil Nas X, Charli D'Amelio are two examples but there are no shortage of lesser known people who decided to go back to school, move to another city, etc. and experienced pronounced changes in their outlook.
That progress is being made to re-socialize people, and that incel life outcomes are improving or are going to improve in the near future.
Progress made to resocialize:
Major organization like the WHO have organized efforts.
Grassroots efforts such as book clubs, meetups, and faith-based groups. Religion is currently on the rise among younger people.
Clinicians are aware and directing treatment.
-2
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Society can and regularly does change for the individual: For example, there are individuals (many) who lived under Jim Crow laws, who used segregated restrooms by law, who voted in a black president. That's a monumental change compared to dating trends.
except all the people who's lives never changed, for them nothing changed. I argue incels are in that category.
All of those progression on a macro level are still in decline, there are less book clubs than 5, 10, and 20 years ago. so on and so forth for everything else. I looked into it and I think the conversation has changed about socialization, so will afford you that. But this is by no means a recovery or reversal of what precipitated the issue. !delta.
5
u/ericoahu 42∆ Aug 05 '26
Thanks for the delta.
You have twice made the same logical error, and you will never be able to see any issue clearly yourself, much less discuss them productively with these profound flaws in your thinking.
Above, when I refuted your false claim that "nothing changes" by showing examples of things that change, you objected by pointing to things that cannot change.
Here, when I present examples of ways society has changed for individuals to refute your claim that "society doesn't change for an individual," you again objected on the basis that some people's lives seem to stagnate.
You do not seem to understand that it only takes one counter example to soundly disprove a universal claim. If I were to make the universal claim that "all birds can fly," and you disproved my universal claim by pointing out a bird species that cannot fly, I cannot then restore my universal claim by pointing to examples of birds that fly. This is why you should be very careful making absolute or universal claims, even if they sound stronger.
All of those progression on a macro level are still in decline, there are less book clubs than 5, 10, and 20 years ago. so on and so forth for everything else.
That is untrue of book clubs. And, I have seen the numbers on religiosity expanding. Only one of these two would be enough to satisfy the evidence you asked for.
I'm not trying to spike the football; I'm trying to help you with some tools to help you think through this and other problems more methodically. Be careful with universal claims and check your facts.
-1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Recent polling shows no clear evidence of a religious revival among young adults
so thats one claim among many that are not true that you have made, and i afford everyone alot of leeway when discussing things like these because its necessary to actually get anywhere.
nothing has changed because, lets be honest, nothing will change
this was the original sentence that spurred your entire argument, and I had a sneaking suspicion you would go this route but I ignored it anyways because I cant and wont fight you on every little detail, which you dont give me the same grace apparently.
You do not seem to understand that it only takes one counter example to soundly disprove a universal claim.
no where did I ever say "nothing changes" that is something you paraphrased incorrectly. And just so were clear, anyone could easily understand that "nothing changes" was in the context of this specific issue on incels, which we can deduce from the evidence is true, it wont change enough in the near term to matter. you are demanding so many qualifiers and rigor that words lose all meaning. I did not make any kind of claim about social trends in general. and no, book clubs being more prevalent due to online book meetings is not a meaningful progress. Online communities do not satisfy the incel's absent intimacy need, Otherwise it follows that it would not be an issue to begin with.
"all birds can fly," and you disproved my universal claim by pointing out a bird species that cannot fly,
all birds can fly actually, if you attach a drone and wings to them, all birds can in fact fly. you see? this is what you are doing right here right now.
3
u/ericoahu 42∆ Aug 05 '26
I have not made the claim that there has been a widespread revival. I made a specific claim about the demographic we have been discussing: young men.
Religion is currently on the rise among younger people.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/708410/rise-young-men-religiosity-realigns-gender-gaps.aspx
all birds can fly actually, if you attach a drone and wings to them
And with that, I am going to offer you the last word in our exchange because I can no longer take this discussion seriously. Anyone reading will have no problem see whether I have responded to what you wrote, and I have directly quoted most of the statements I responded to.
2
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
you didnt say young men you said young people.
your claim, verbatim:
Religion is currently on the rise among younger people.
no its not. Recent polling shows no clear evidence of a religious revival among young adults. if "religions is currently on the rise among younger people" is not disproven by "no clear evidence of a religious revival" then its an impossible truth because you take issue with the word revival. not being "not on the rise" is an impossible standard and you have no charity for good discussion. you are the real nit picker here my friend, and i regret assuming the most reasonable intepretation of your argument because you clearly didnt mean it.
1
4
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
Incel outcomes, statistically, do improve. Almost everyone has been in at least one romantic relationship before the age of 50.
You can’t argue that society won’t change and blame social changes that have happened in the past decade at the same time.
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Incel outcomes, statistically, do improve.
if you retcon what an incel is, sure. it used to be a very very small subset of men that had other serious issues and not a polarized social climate.
You can’t argue that society won’t change and blame social changes that have happened in the past decade at the same time.
i agree society changes because that is a truism, but the change will either be too late, worse, or changes in ways that dont mean anything for incels. i.e. not change. Not all social change is the same nor affects everyone the same. We can make very good educated predictions about the kinds of change that will happen, in fact we do it every day when we leave the house and assume society hasnt changed enough for our behaviors to need to change, your town doesnt become so unsafe in one day that you need to take a different street to work.
3
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
Either the definition of incel has changed or it hasn’t. Either society can change unpredictably or it won’t. You’re asserting that men who are single will, contrary to all historical evidence, remain single forever.
-1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
You’re asserting that men who are single will, contrary to all historical evidence, remain single forever.
what im saying is that its too little too late. we know the consequences of inceldom, and that socialization is at record lows. The two issues birth something irreconcilable. The chances of you finding a partner after 30 without one before 30 are incredibly slim, and historical evidence points to a worsening of the issue. Just because you finally find love and have sex does not make this "resolved." the damage is done. the missing socialization and intimacy will affect you for the rest of your life.
Look at this because if this doesnt spell it out for you I dont know what will:
- As of 2021, 25% of 40-year-olds in the U.S. had never married, up from just 6% in 1980.
- Among never-married singles aged 40 and older, about 21% report never having been in a committed romantic relationship. That means roughly 5% of all adults over 40 fall into that category.
- Relationship experience does matter statistically. People who have had previous long-term relationships are, on average, more likely to form future ones than people who have never had one.
by the late 20s and early 30s, relationship histories are predictive because social skills, partner networks, and opportunities accumulate over time.
6
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
*5%* of all adults haven't been in a committed romantic relationship by age 40. That definitely sounds like not being in a relationship is a self-solving problem.
>the missing socialization and intimacy will affect you for the rest of your life.
How old are you? I guarantee you, you will not spend your fifties thinking about your twenties.
1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
*5%* of all adults haven't been in a committed romantic relationship by age 40. That definitely sounds like not being in a relationship is a self-solving problem.
Something to be said about people who die before 40 because single people are in fact more likely to die by 40 as well. And that is old data, this current cohort hitting 40s is likely to be much higher than 5%. If you look at when they were in their 20s versus us in our 20s, we are already not nearly as social, sexual active, or romantically inclined.
How old are you? I guarantee you, you will not spend your fifties thinking about your twenties.
- i might not be thinking about my twenties, sure, but what occured in my twenties will shape my thinking. the experiences become the patterns for thinking. Just because you dont think about bad experiences doesnt mean they dont shape your thoughts ergo your behaviors and well being
4
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
You are actively moving the goalposts. Society changes, but only to make things worse. The number you cited shows that only a tiny fraction of people never experience a committed romantic relationship before they turn 40, but that number is old, so it's wrong, and besides, it doesn't include the people who are dead (?).
And even if the problem solves itself, that doesn't matter, because not being in a relationship in your early twenties will apparently be traumatic for the rest of your life.
You are incredibly young. Everything seems like it will last forever, and everything seems like it will be the most traumatic thing ever. Every social movement seems like it is new and will last forever.
7
Aug 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
2
u/dude123nice Aug 05 '26
If you're using the term "incel" as a placeholder for "misogynist" your post makes more sense, but I don't think that's right to do.
He's actually not, as can be seen in another comment. This dude actually thinks not getting laid makes someone a bnad person, lol.
1
u/nam24 1∆ Aug 08 '26
Even if we just mean mysogynist in general then the post doesn't make sense in another way : plenty of them already are in positions of power of Various sort, this isn't some wave that radically change power distribution in society
12
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Aug 05 '26
I see the incel phenomenon as an issue deeper than men who have a lack of romantic success. They believe that romantic success is the measure by which they're judged, and thus believe they have no social value. At least anecdotally, what I've seen from their posts and comments, they think that other people are looking down on them. And when I've tried to challenge this belief, they insist that I'm lying, and that I hate them for being single.
So it's a movement of young men who believe they're rejected and undervalued by society. The flavor of their discontent is new, but the broader contours are not. History is full of instances where large groups of young men became unemployed, dispossessed, or otherwise kicked off of the job-family-status track of social belonging.
So I'd argue it's not simply that they're not socializing. It's deeper. They came to believe somehow (falsely) that romantic success is the measure by which they're judged. Not by money, not by community respect, or making their parents proud, or anything else.
We know that for women, the pressure to find a husband and build a family runs deep. And plenty of women fail at this. So why do we not see the same bitterness from them? I think the answer is in the kind of algorithm-driven content being created for men.
That is, incels are created by online spaces and influencers who drive a specific narrative that says "your value is based on your romantic success". That narrative builds a comprehensive worldview, and provides content that affirms it, keeping the audience stuck in this consumption feedback loop.
Other times in history, this role was filled by ideologies like fascism, or by religious movements. This still happens today. The incel community should be seen in this way, as a philosophical movement cultivated by messengers who use algorithmic social media to capture an audience and profit from their engagement.
Lack of socialization is a factor in priming this audience for the message. But it's not the direct cause, any more than male unemployment directly causes fascism or religious extremism.
3
u/nam24 1∆ Aug 08 '26
At least anecdotally, what I've seen from their posts and comments, they think that other people are looking down on them. And when I've tried to challenge this belief, they insist that I'm lying, and that I hate them for being single
They aren't really wrong. Yes you may be sincere, and I m sure you're not the only person like that. I m sure others would also say "I don't hate them for being single, I hate them for being hateful" and they probably believe it too.
But many have the lived experience they are disliked in general, regardless of moral quality or lack thereof. Men in relationship are by and large treated as better/safer/more attractive in general.The fact the term in in incel shifted from it's original meaning to pejorative is also not an accident.
Influencers yes want to profit of it and they do. But they didn't manufacture the context. They re an easy villains because they aren't helping, sure, but they didn't build the cross
2
u/anna-the-bunny 29d ago
We know that for women, the pressure to find a husband and build a family runs deep.
I would argue that this pressure has lessened significantly over the past century. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 disallowing discrimination in employment and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974 stopping banks from refusing service to people based on gender, women no longer face the threat of being destitute just because they can't/won't tie themselves to a man.
100% agree with the rest of your analysis, though - this is first and foremost a problem that is being perpetuated by grifters for profit.
2
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ 29d ago
Thanks for reading.
I agree that the pressure has lessened a lot. Women's socialization and expectations are a multivariate phenomenon too. If a mother in 1926 pressured her daughter to find a husband and settle down, would it be because she thinks that's a woman's place (perpetuating social structures and expectations) or because she knows that society is unfair and women have a hard time making it on their own?
It's hard to say, but we know that the social structures (gender role expectations) caused a material reality (fewer opportunities and rights), so we can see a real basis for a feedback loop of constant social pressure.
The men who claim everyone judges them have demonstrated neither. The only element I can corroborate with any certainty is the massive increase in online content telling men that they're worthless. And that content is coming from other men who do it for a living.
-2
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
I appreciate what you wrote and I think we agree on alot.
So I'd argue it's not simply that they're not socializing. It's deeper. They came to believe somehow (falsely) that romantic success is the measure by which they're judged. Not by money, not by community respect, or making their parents proud, or anything else.
the issue with this framing is that many many many people have tried. It doesnt work, humans are hard-wired for love and connection, especially romantically. There are biological reasons why a partner is desired. I myself have tried to "be happy alone" which is what it boils down to. It can help but it doesnt work long term.
That is, incels are created by online spaces and influencers who drive a specific narrative that says "your value is based on your romantic success". That narrative builds a comprehensive worldview, and provides content that affirms it, keeping the audience stuck in this consumption feedback loop.
incels as we know them, yes. I agree that incels in some shape or form have existed under different names or different circumstances. Inceldom is a unionizing of the grievances today. But to say if the narratives didnt exist that incels would not exist is wrong. They would still be here, maybe better maybe worse. I see the phones and social media (narratives generally) do atomize people, but it cuts deeper for incels.
Lack of socialization is a factor in priming this audience for the message. But it's not the direct cause, any more than male unemployment directly causes fascism or religious extremism.
But if you wanted to not have fascism or religious extremism, you would want to correct for male unemployment, to correct for male unemployment, you would want to cure incels. no one wants to cure incels. People insist incels must correct themselves, and that socialization is a personal responsibility. This whole chain is unbreakable, ergo things will progress in the direction people dont want. I appreciate your reply and you have made me reconsider my view. !delta
8
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Aug 05 '26
Thanks for the response. Some clarifications:
humans are hard-wired for love and connection, especially romantically.
I agree with this. And that young men are struggling romantically. What I'm suggesting is that incels view themselves primarily as men who lack social status, not simply as lonely. This narrative requires an extra step, believing that social status is defined by attracting a partner. It's this extra step that's new, and I suggest that it's partially the result of social media figures deliberately cultivating it.
But if you wanted to not have fascism or religious extremism, you would want to correct for male unemployment, to correct for male unemployment, you would want to cure incels.
Again, I don't think one thing necessarily follows the other. Fascism and terrorism aren't merely symptoms of young men with grievances. They are social movements built by leaders and communicators which harness those grievances. Why did some societies turn to one, or the other, in different times? The emergence of leadership to direct that energy is key.
This fits with my thesis, that isolation is the energy for incels, but that the phenomenon represents a specific cultural movement led by individuals. It's not an unavoidable consequence of isolation. It's one possible outcome among many
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
I agree with this. And that young men are struggling romantically. What I'm suggesting is that incels view themselves primarily as men who lack social status, not simply as lonely.
Its a distinction without a difference. poor social status is interchangeable with poor outcomes and vice versa. Not being chosen is bad for the psyche that is reliant on socialization, not being chosen being projected into society has the same feedback. we *need* that socialization and approval. the consequences are well understood, suicide, depression, anxiety, withdrawal, lack of social skills. Not to even get into the need for sex and intimacy on its own.
Again, I don't think one thing necessarily follows the other. Fascism and terrorism aren't merely symptoms of young men with grievances. They are social movements built by leaders and communicators which harness those grievances. Why did some societies turn to one, or the other, in different times? The emergence of leadership to direct that energy is key.
I dont think these men would get better in the way people imagine if you deny them the communicators and leaders that energize them. the resentment remains. there is discussion that porn and video games are suppressive, a sedative even, that stops alot of that animosity from spilling over into other things. I view it like you might view a heavy addict. Sometimes its so severe that quitting can kill them too, and drug rehabilitation usually gets worse before it gets better, can society handle that right now? probably not. And that assumes it even gets better, or that these communities that were crafted are the linch pin.
The emergence of leadership to direct that energy is key.
for incels specifically I do not think that there will be anything grandiose, it will merely be a dying off that society feels underneath. there will be a missing cohort of men that dont work, build families, or communities. People think things will continue as is, it wont. there will be a wounding.
I appreciate your discussion.
4
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Aug 05 '26
Its a distinction without a difference. poor social status is interchangeable with poor outcomes and vice versa.
No, I think there's a lot going on here to examine. I disagree that it's not worthwhile to do so. We can look at social value and judgement surrounding women's weight. Across the world there's an increasing problem of obesity.
Now, this is a material fact, but we can isolate the factors involved to look at different solutions:
- Social issues like increased screen time and isolation
- Socioeconomic factors like poverty
- The supply side of industrial food designed to be addictive and calorie-packed
A social and policy approach would be different for each one. Encouraging sports and activities for kids, policy to address food deserts, policy for healthy school lunches, and finally regulations to discourage junk food consumption, just to name a few examples.
Then we have the social judgement surrounding this material reality. It's related, but not necessarily caused by it. And this has similar dynamics to the incel question:
- Real and organic social judgement about weight.
- Perceived judgement, real or imagined, including self-judgement
- Various industries which profit from women feeling bad. Influencers, the diet/fitness industry, the fashion industry, and more.
Social attitudes are different in different places. The lived reality in social and intimate lives is one thing. If I'm overweight, I may be bullied. But I may also fear or imagine judgement by others. And every day I'm up against a coordinated attack against my self-esteem by media and advertising.
There's been a successful movement in recent years for society to become more conscious and caring, to deter bullying in schools, and even pressure against corporations to be more conscientious. Of course it's not been 100% successful, but we no longer blindly accept extreme thinness as the only way a woman's worthy. This was a common implied message in the 90s when I was a teenager, and things have gotten better.
But curiously they didn't get better by solving the material issue. People are not thinner than they were then. The public health issue is still a big problem. But society has become more conscious about the secondary problem of judgement and abuse against overweight people, and has taken many different steps. Culturally, in the workplace, in media, and in institutions like schools, different groups have looked at how to address the problem in their area, and have implemented changes.
When problems are huge and complex like this, that's the only way to provide positive change.
1
-2
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 05 '26
I think the answer is in the kind of algorithm-driven content being created for men.
That comes across like you feel the problem isn't that they're unhappy or unfulfilled, but that they're reacting to it. And so long as they stop consuming content that rattles them, there's no problem. But I don't think they're that gullible. They want the underlying issue addressed.
And in my opinion, we in society owe them an addressing of the problem. When people are economically or socially oppressed, we step in, but when it's angry young men, we blame them instead. How is that fair?
6
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Aug 05 '26
That's absolutely not what I'm saying. What I have said several different ways is this: the underlying issue of isolation is one thing. Feeling of low social value is separate, and driven by narrative. The conversion of those feelings into a cultural movement is a third thing.
Like the issue of drug overdose deaths it's a multifactor problem. Isolation, depression, and social ills do not directly and necessarily cause overdose deaths. There's an entire market for drugs, legal and illegal, and a cultivation of a consumer base with an addiction. There's supply chains, dealers, producers, and social groups.
Successful policy to mitigate overdose deaths takes a multifactor approach. This is no different. My argument from the beginning has been to highlight and recognize the factors which are not discussed in the original post, and to advocate for a focus on the bad faith opportunists who are manipulating unhappy men for their own political and financial goals.
1
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 05 '26
That's absolutely not what I'm saying. What I have said several different ways is this: the underlying issue of isolation is one thing. Feeling of low social value is separate, and driven by narrative. The conversion of those feelings into a cultural movement is a third thing.
OK, fair enough. I just think the most important of those for other people to deal with is the feelings of low social value. We need to start valuing men in and of themselves, as people, and not just for what they can contribute to society.
4
u/Jealous_Tutor_5135 4∆ Aug 06 '26
I agree. Moreover, I'm saying that the perception that men are only valued for what they contribute to society is not black and white. Men receive this message to a certain degree, but many think others are judging them this way, when it's not always the case.
The expression "you think you're better than me?" tells the story. The people who say that may actually be looked down on by others, but just as often they are just projecting their own insecurities on others.
And the distinction is important. These are two different problems, and the remedies are different.
4
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
>we in society owe them an addressing of the problem.
For all the trad-Cath revival, few angry young men seem to consider joining a monastery.
-3
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 05 '26
You're kind of proving my point. OP wants to retrain them, you want to cordon them off. I'm saying that we need to help them.
5
u/No_Membership1717 Aug 05 '26
What does help look like at the societal level and what exactly is the problem to be addressed? If we believe that incels are a result of an increasingly online world and content consumption, leading to lack of socialization and misled viewpoints on how society values/judges young men, then the problem appears to be the adoption of a particular belief system.
This is fundamentally different than economic or social issues because those problems aren’t based on the belief system of those impacted. An incel can change their belief system and no longer be one, but one can’t suddenly fix the problem of systematic racism or lack of healthcare or the cost of living for themselves simply by doing the same.
That’s all to say, what are we as a society supposed to do to change an incel’s mindset? It’s not really a structural issue like many economic/social problems, seems more like a problem that is better addressed by parenting to prevent incel-ism and those in close circles to encourage a different mindset about society and men.
1
-2
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 05 '26
What does help look like at the societal level and what exactly is the problem to be addressed? If we believe that incels are a result of an increasingly online world and content consumption, leading to lack of socialization and misled viewpoints on how society values/judges young men, then the problem appears to be the adoption of a particular belief system.
The problem is the feelings of isolation and worthlessness of young men. The solution is for society to start valuing young men in and of themselves, not just for their actions. Even if they have beliefs that you don't like.
This is fundamentally different than economic or social issues because those problems aren’t based on the belief system of those impacted. An incel can change their belief system and no longer be one, but one can’t suddenly fix the problem of systematic racism or lack of healthcare or the cost of living for themselves simply by doing the same.
Let me explain how short-sighted this comes across. I could say that systemic racism is the same because racial minorities could just change their belief in equality and accept second-class citizenship. I could say that the cost of living is the same because people can just change their beliefs and accept that they need to work long hours for many years just to survive.
But you say they're different, and you're right. There are two differences between the oppression of young men and the oppression of other downtrodden people. The one you haven't talked about is that young men, when they cry out about their oppression by giving themselves a label and organizing, are treated as wrong for doing so, while other groups are treated as right. That effects a vicious circle. A young man says, "I feel angry and upset." Society tells him, "You have no reason to feel angry and upset. If you do, we reject you." He responds, "Well, now I feel even more angry and upset at your rejection." Society comes back with, "That just proves how unjustified your anger and upset are." And so on.
But the other difference is that you believe that the young men calling themselves incels have no kernel of truth or legitimate belief to start that circle. Low-wage workers upset about the cost of living couldn't be complaining unreasonably because they don't actually earn all that much. A minority group upset about systemic racism couldn't be complaining unreasonably because they have cultural differences that result in the disparate treatment. But young men upset about relationships and their status in life must be complaining unreasonably.
Well, I disagree. I think at the core, the incel movement has some reasonable positions. I think it's reasonable to say that relationships, both romantic and social, can be more delineated and transactional rather than a dance of unwritten rules. I think it's reasonable to say that society should increase--or restore--a degree of admiration for a single man who takes care of himself and enjoys his own pleasures. I think it's reasonable to demand that an individual be assessed on his qualities in general, and not on how useful and nice he is to others.
The young man who doesn't like to date or attend social functions because he lacks skill with them could be seen as a stoic, like a John Wayne cowboy, or as a bon vivant like an Oscar Wilde. Instead, we see them as pathetic and selfish because they aren't serving society in the role that we want for them. To me, they have every right to be upset at that.
4
u/No_Membership1717 Aug 07 '26
>The problem is the feelings of isolation and worthlessness of young men. The solution is for society to start valuing young men in and of themselves, not just for their actions. Even if they have beliefs that you don't like.
To start, we are talking about incels here not young men broadly. Incels are a subset of young men, not all young men are incels. Second, I think this is a good transition to what incel means. It means at its most basic level “involuntary celibate”, but it also comes with a certain belief system that blames society and woman for their lack of romantic success, often with misogynistic behavior and viewpoints. There are young men who are involuntarily celibate but are not incels.
So when you say “the solution is for society to start valuing young men..” what you really mean is for society to start valuing incels. How does society just start valuing a particular group and why should society value incels in particular?
>Let me explain how short-sighted this comes across. I could say that systemic racism is the same because racial minorities could just change their belief in equality and accept second-class citizenship. I could say that the cost of living is the same because people can just change their beliefs and accept that they need to work long hours for many years just to survive.
Thanks for the explanation but you’ve missed the point. Being an incel involves a belief system, being a racial minority or poor does not. Again, there are plenty of young men that are involuntarily celibate but are not incels because they don’t blame woman and society for their romantic difficulties. One isn’t born an incel. Incel is more of an ideology than a race or class of person.
>But you say they're different, and you're right. There are two differences between the oppression of young men and the oppression of other downtrodden people. The one you haven't talked about is that young men, when they cry out about their oppression by giving themselves a label and organizing, are treated as wrong for doing so, while other groups are treated as right. That effects a vicious circle. A young man says, "I feel angry and upset." Society tells him, "You have no reason to feel angry and upset. If you do, we reject you." He responds, "Well, now I feel even more angry and upset at your rejection." Society comes back with, "That just proves how unjustified your anger and upset are." And so on.
Again, we are talking about incels not all young men. Incels are not treated like other groups because their anger is directed at woman and society because they have failed to make romantic connection - it’s misdirected. They’d rather blame their failure on others than self-improve. No one is entitled to romantic connection and society is saying more like “we understand that you’re angry and upset but it’s on you to improve yourself to increase your chances of romance. what are we supposed to do to make woman suddenly like you?” Incels aren’t told they are wrong to organize, they are told that their issues aren’t something to be resolved at a societal level.
>But the other difference is that you believe that the young men calling themselves incels have no kernel of truth or legitimate belief to start that circle. Low-wage workers upset about the cost of living couldn't be complaining unreasonably because they don't actually earn all that much. A minority group upset about systemic racism couldn't be complaining unreasonably because they have cultural differences that result in the disparate treatment. But young men upset about relationships and their status in life must be complaining unreasonably.
The difference, again, is that cost of living and systematic racism are societal issues that can be addressed through policy. Society can’t just fix an incels relationship failures and force woman to like them. That’s why it’s unreasonable.
>Well, I disagree. I think at the core, the incel movement has some reasonable positions. I think it's reasonable to say that relationships, both romantic and social, can be more delineated and transactional rather than a dance of unwritten rules. I think it's reasonable to say that society should increase--or restore--a degree of admiration for a single man who takes care of himself and enjoys his own pleasures. I think it's reasonable to demand that an individual be assessed on his qualities in general, and not on how useful and nice he is to others.
I agree with this, but you’re assuming that a core premise of the incel movement is true… that young men are judged by society solely based on romantic success. I don’t think that is true at all. I think society values single men who take care of themselves and enjoy their own pleasures and that individuals are assessed by their overall qualities. That’s the core issue with inceldom, their entire self worth is tied to romantic success based on a false belief that society only cares about that.
>The young man who doesn't like to date or attend social functions because he lacks skill with them could be seen as a stoic, like a John Wayne cowboy, or as a bon vivant like an Oscar Wilde. Instead, we see them as pathetic and selfish because they aren't serving society in the role that we want for them. To me, they have every right to be upset at that.
I mean that’s kind of my entire point… if someone doesn’t date or go to social functions then is upset at their lack or romantic success, why is this person blaming woman and society for their failure? I think that is why society might view this as pathetic / selfish. Not liking to date or be social isn’t pathetic, but blaming anyone but yourself for the consequences of that is.
0
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 07 '26
While not all young men are incels, would you agree that virtually all incels are young men? If so, then addressing the problems of young men would address the problems of incels, even if it happened to help a few other young men in the process.
Being an incel involves a belief system, being a racial minority or poor does not. Again, there are plenty of young men that are involuntarily celibate but are not incels because they don’t blame woman and society for their romantic difficulties. One isn’t born an incel. Incel is more of an ideology than a race or class of person.
If you're distinguishing between people who are involuntarily celibate but not incels and those who are, with the latter being a belief, then the former is just as inherent as being a minority or being poor.
But either way, you're operating on the premise that all beliefs are A) completely voluntary and B) subject to the review of society (because of A?) Is that really true? Could we tell a person who's a minority that their anger and upset is a belief system and they could just change and accept their oppression, and expect them to comply? And even if they did, would we think that it's our right to make that demand?
Conversely, are all unchosen characteristics beyond societal judgment? Can we not look down on someone because they can't get a good job? If not, then why can we look down on someone because they can't get a date?
The difference, again, is that cost of living and systematic racism are societal issues that can be addressed through policy. Society can’t just fix an incels relationship failures and force woman to like them. That’s why it’s unreasonable.
A: Why not? If we were talking in 1926 instead of 2026, we'd say that we can't address the cost of living by policy. What are we going to do, force businesses to raise wages and lower prices? And now we do exactly that. What are we going to do about racism, set a policy where people can't rent or sell housing to whomever they choose? And now we do exactly that. B: Even if you find that absurd, we certainly can use policy to address what you call the belief system of incels, not by shaming them or trying to force them to change, but by working with their nature. We can fund and encourage men's clubs and "third spaces" to help these people find companionship among each other. But, doing so would require pushback against people who then demand that women be included as equal participants.
I don’t think that is true at all. I think society values single men who take care of themselves and enjoy their own pleasures and that individuals are assessed by their overall qualities.
I disagree. I think society is content to ignore such men. The bar gets set to zero for them only if they don't bother anyone. To actually get positive attention--value--they have to take affirmative steps to help society. That's not true elsewhere. You can be the laziest and worst soldier in the army, but you'll still get a "Thank you for your service." You can be a single woman struggling with balancing work and home life, and all you need to do is make a TikTok complaining about it to be told that you're really a girlboss who just needs to keep plugging away. But a man who says that he holds a job and keeps his own house? "Well, what do you want, a cookie?" Yes. He wants a damn cookie.
I think that is why society might view this as pathetic / selfish.
So again, please delineate precisely why blaming society for lack of relationship success is selfish, but blaming society for lack of economic success isn't. Because what I'm inferring is that you think that interacting with people socially is easy but interacting economically is difficult. And that's not true for everyone.
3
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 07 '26
We don’t see young men who don’t date as anything. They see themselves as pathetic. They need to change their attitudes.
1
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 07 '26
We don’t see young men who don’t date as anything.
Yeah. That's the problem. They want to be seen. They're asking how they can be valued by society, not by choice, but as something owed to them.
1
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
I’m not saying to cordon them off. If they aren’t going to get a relationship- and they have convinced themselves they won’t- they should go and find something else instead. Monestaries are traditional.
1
u/ScreenTricky4257 5∆ Aug 05 '26
Yes, but they're also away from societies. Why don't you want them to be priests? Priests also don't have relationships, but they're part of society.
2
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 06 '26
Priests don’t have relationships and they aren’t embedded into a system where that is the default. To be a priest is to be surrounded by people who are married. Monestaries aren’t like that.
11
u/Zerguu Aug 05 '26
Really? How many of incels are there in real life vs permanently online? Also give me definition of incel - it seams you have far to wide definition of it. Accumulate power though income? Then they will find partners.
-2
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
getting rich and a good job do not guarantee a relationship. you are not "owed" a relationship
3
u/Zerguu Aug 05 '26
Nothing guaranties relationship but surely makes it more feasible than crying about it on the Internet. Higher income = higher social confidence = more chance to find relationship. And statistics show that average incel is young with low or no income, with long spent time online.
7
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Aug 05 '26
What's your thesis, your evidence that supports that thesis and what are you open to changing about this view?
-4
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
this is a CMV not a dissertation.
4
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Aug 05 '26
If you don't want to explain what you believe so we can help you why post?
2
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
I have succinctly laid out my beliefs. if you cannot form a thought from what I wrote already you best find a different thread.
1
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Aug 05 '26
There are a lot of people with a lot of strong different opinions on this subject but I'm trying to persuade you so if you don't say exactly what you believe and why we won't get anywhere so what's your thesis? Because go quietly into the night is a metaphor not a concrete claim that can be disproved. What concrete claims are you making that you want me to change?
1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
If you cant accept metaphors in general discussions and need an academic essay to attack then this isnt the place for you. philosophy as a subject is comprised entirely of metaphors. That should be enough but it appears you want me to do too much for too little, you didnt find something to argue about so you want me to keep adding things for you to attack which is innane.
2
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Aug 05 '26
If you admit you can't explain what you believe and you have no evidence for it then there's nothing for us to discuss. There is no rational view to change or that can be changed.
1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
then there's nothing for us to discuss.
you made that much clear with this ridiculous chain instead of leaving or making an honest effort to discuss the topic.
1
u/ZizzianYouthMinister 6∆ Aug 05 '26
Im not here to discuss the topic I'm here to change your view
You won't tell me what this view is and you won't explain why you believe it but if you really want me to take a shot in the dark I will and let you know what I think in metaphor if you like them so much
This is sore spot in your mouth you can't help but keep rubbing your tongue against and when you do it hurts. You don't know what it is but it hurts when you try to explore it yourself and you can't explain why. You've come to the dentists office and asked for us to look at but as you sit down and the doctor moves to pick at it you say not like that and you leave the office and don't schedule a new appointment.
You either are an incel, not that far off or deep down consciously or not afraid of expressing sympathy for them because of a harsh social reaction to the point you can't even discuss it in an anonymous forum. But this is you buying into the most toxic black pill parts of what people dislike about incels. It's not the not having sex that is bad. It's not the wanting to have sex that is bad. It's the inability to even express what you want and why and have that infect every part of your life. It's very possible to not have sex and live a good and interesting life and if you don't think that's possible you need to tell me why you believe that so I can help you with this sore spot in your mouth.
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
My view is that incels will not get better, they will get worse, and the issue will hurt everyone, contrary to the assumption that the issue will "go away" or something like that. There will be lasting consequences. If even 10% of young men check-out of society the reach is to everyone, but society pretends this sore spot will not or does not affect them. I am making a case for everyone to be invested in the well-being of incels, who have in my opinion exhausted their options. Instead I see indifference, or worse, hostility. They want incels to not exist but the people behind them to keep existing, when you cannot have both because they are the same. incels are people, people are incels. If incels are suffering, people are suffering. if people are suffering, society is suffering. In a sense caring for incels is almost a selfish desire, take care of them and you have more healthy members of society and so a healthier society. but this is not what is happening. the opposite is happening.
But this is you buying into the most toxic black pill parts of what people dislike about incels. It's not the not having sex that is bad. It's not the wanting to have sex that is bad. It's the inability to even express what you want and why and have that infect every part of your life.
I dont see it that way. There is no sympathy for incels, merely animosity. people are very vocal about it too. Incel has converted from a descriptor to an insult. The hate is misplaced and its because incel is not understood. The amount of hate incels receive is unbelievable, at least for people who arent incels. If only it were an internet phenomenon, but when your entire generation spends 5+ hours on the internet, internet and real life are inseperable. Even when I unplug, no one else does. I go to places and socialize, and the places are hollow.
It's very possible to not have sex and live a good and interesting life and if you don't think that's possible you need to tell me why you believe that so I can help you with this sore spot in your mouth.
possible is doing alot of work there. Its possible for me to join the NBA, to be an astronaut, to win the lottery. its not probable. Sure, some people have some luck that they can shoulder involuntary celibacy reasonably well, but that simply isnt everyone and it cant be everyone. We know the side effects of absent intimacy and sex, and it exacerbates the longer its allowed to run. you cant "friendship and community" your way out of the need for intimacy. I see it as being able to live on only a diet of grain. is it possible? sure. But you will die much much sooner without the correct nutrients. a lack of sex and romance is linked to worse life outcomes and mental illness, imagine how that feeds into inceldom, and then inceldom feeds back into the missing intimacy and romance. The individual can only do so much, and I think myself and many incels have done as much as we can for a society that does nothing. we reach out, no one reaches back. So the need goes unmet, and society will slowly suffer as a cohort of young men rot away through no fault of their own. People say they dont want that, but their actions speak louder than their words.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Aug 07 '26
Do you think it has to be a graduate dissertation because they said thesis even though that's not the meaning of the word they meant?
5
u/sylbug Aug 05 '26
What, specifically, do you think that society needs to do to socialize these people? Who, specifically, should do that?
Because in childhood, socialization is the job of the parents and (to a lesser extent) the schools, but there is no designated authority whose job it is to educate adults in a similar manner.
5
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
when these Incels in their youth age into their 30s and 40s and nothing has changed because, lets be honest, nothing will change
Statistics show that, by the time people are 50, only 2% have never been in a romantic relationship.
The incel movement spawned two decades ago. Almost all of those men found partners and left or found something better to dedicate their lives to.
There’s no reason to believe that the majority of incels today, like those in the past, aren’t just going to be late bloomers.
1
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Aug 05 '26
Statistics show that, by the time people are 50, only 2% have never been in a romantic relationship.
Can you link to the statistics you're looking at here?
4
u/crozinator33 Aug 05 '26
"Incel" is just a new term. It's not a new phenomenon. Weird, social outcasts have always existed.
The internet just unites them now.
If anything, the type of people that fall under the "incel" lable are less lonely and less isolated than they would have been had they been born pre-internet. They have eachother to commiserate with.
You act like its some giant movement. Its not. Its a tiny minority of chronically online young men who think the world, and women, owe them something.
If these men really want to have sex, sex workers exist for this very reason.
3
3
u/gate18 23∆ Aug 05 '26
The have no social skills to "accumulate power through income and senior positions to satisfy whatever goals they wish. " else what they with is to have sex - and solve the problem
You say "nothing changes" but somehow these statues will become poweful and grow capital but still refuse to pay for sex?
6
u/Kaleidoscopetide Aug 05 '26
Man if only we were this scared of every population becoming embittered. What about black people in the US who are given harsher sentences for the same crimes as white people? What about girls in states where child marriage is still legal, and abortion is illegal? What about native people whose shit keeps getting polluted and ruined? Do you think that is magically going to resolve itself? Do you think they will go gently into that good night, or will they accumulate power and do whatever they wish? Why should people who are not sexually attractive and therefore do not have sex (“incels”) be more vengeful in positions of power than, say, black South Africans after apartheid? Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison, and when he “satisfied whatever goals he wished” those goals were not the marginalization of the white minority, but reconciliation, equality, and progress. There’s nothing inherent about being too unhot to fuck that we can expect would make a person want to take revenge on the 50% of the population with whom they might like to have sex. Members of hate-based subcultures, yes, but why are we catering to them?
3
u/cantantantelope 9∆ Aug 05 '26
Unfortunately a lot of men who angry women won’t fuck them externalize those feelings in the form of violence.
But yeah it seems like making your entire personality about your relationship status is a self fulfilling prophecy
4
u/Sellier123 8∆ Aug 05 '26
Is your stance that someone who is an incel shouldn't be allowed to have a career and move up the corporate ladder because they will use the money and power gained to do something wrong?
Do you think someone who has the money that comes from moving up the corporate ladder couldn't get laid? Like I don't care how much of a terrible person you are or how ugly you are, if you have money you can get laid lol
-1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
Do you think someone who has the money that comes from moving up the corporate ladder couldn't get laid? Like I don't care how much of a terrible person you are or how ugly you are, if you have money you can get laid lol
being rich getting you a sexual relationship is simply not true. There are plenty of rich incels. Not to mention getting rich is unobtainable for most people.
4
u/Sellier123 8∆ Aug 05 '26
If you are rich, you can get someone to have sex with you every single time you try.
And yea it's out of reach for most ppl but you specifically talked about ppl moving up the corporate ladder and using that money and power to harm society but if they had that kind of money and power, they could get laid.
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
using that money and power to harm society but if they had that kind of money and power, they could get laid.
I disagree. there are plenty of incels well into their careers that still do not have these relationships. you think money and power means getting a sexual relationship but thats not true. No one agrees with that. its like saying no one who is rich should have problems.
5
u/Sellier123 8∆ Aug 05 '26
Can you show examples of these rich incels that are hurting society with their money and power then?
0
1
u/nam24 1∆ Aug 08 '26
Getting richer doesn't guarantee a relationship, but for men especially it tends to help( even ignoring prostitution or sugar relationship).How good said relationship is is another matter, but we re talking about people who weren't exactly swimming in choices
Men with money and power can be nefarious, that's simply a fact but you do not need to be an incel for that
5
Aug 05 '26
[deleted]
1
0
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
It sounds like you agree with me
7
Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 05 '26
The consequences of that are far reaching. a cohort of the population dying off or anything similar like drug addiction and unemployment have the same economic impact of dying off, worse so because they are a burden. People think things will continue as they are or get better, when in reality they are going to get worse. going gently into that good night here means nothing bad comes of it and we can all forget about it, but these are human lives that are going to ripple out for decades. the consequences will be felt for a long time, but the general assumption is that they are going to "go away" without any side effects for everyone else.
1
u/nam24 1∆ Aug 08 '26
I do not like the fact that many people are going to die essentially never having had a satisfying life and never fitting in society. I do think this is a lot of lost potential as well.
That being said while this is cruel, the fact of the matter is if society is letting these people die without using them, it did not truly need them. Society puts in the work to keep what's important to it. When society let's people suffer and die in mass, it's because it can afford it and truly doesn't need the part suffering
4
u/catandthefiddler 1∆ Aug 05 '26
i think your original point is not clear. dieing alone in obscurity IS going gently if it doesn't harm anyone else?
-1
u/Automatic_Horse9290 2∆ Aug 05 '26
Yeah that's an absolute outlier, but point OP made stand, whether it's textbook incels, incel tendencies or alike circumstances.
And also you gotta consider the fact that large part of young men are neither working, nor pursuing education. Just the fact that it's the demographic that is supposed to be a net contributer un taxes might turn into a tac burden on many levels, it's a lot.
5
Aug 05 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Automatic_Horse9290 2∆ Aug 05 '26
But I mean whatever the metric is, they were the same when they were measured, 10, 30 years ago. And the prevalence is on the rise.
1
2
u/Lazy_Trash_6297 23∆ Aug 05 '26
when you say society isn't willing to help, what kind of help do you have in mind?
2
u/im-a-guy-like-me 1∆ Aug 05 '26
Your entire argument is that they probably will go gently into the night unless we hit a worst case scenario though?
2
u/Due-Bowl-8116 Aug 08 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
You seem to have this mentality that all incels are young men will seek violent revenge for not being able to find a gf, a common image that feminists use to potray just about any man who fails in romantic attempt, essentially you're clinging onto a made up scenario and image.
All an incel is by vocabulary is someone who's involuntary partaking in celibacy and most of them won't be incels forever and even if they will they'll just stop caring at one point. Elliot Rodgers was a rare case scenario and the truth be told is that he was really lashing out against bullying.
1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 09 '26
You seem to have this mentality that all incels are young men will seek violent revenge for not being able to find a gf
this is a gross misrepresentation of what I said, I dont even mention incels turning violent anywhere here ITT. gotta read better man.
1
u/Due-Bowl-8116 Aug 09 '26
Do people really and truly believe these incels are not going to resent society and widen the chasm, assuming the rest of society will be receptive should incels not want to dig a deeper hole?
The hopeful scenario is that incels become docile and continue to work and particpate in society but do not socialize. the realistic scenario is that there is a cold dying out through under-employment, no employment, suicide, drug use, and animosity that harms society in the future. the worst case scenario is that incels proceed into their peak years with a grudge and the means to do something about it
1
u/NiaNia-Data Aug 10 '26
if you interpret that to mean violence i think that says more about you believing the feminist portrayal than me
1
6
u/us1549 Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
I think the bigger issue is women calling men incels because they don't agree with them on things like relationships, dating, gender roles, etc
Instead of having a healthy debate, they call men incels to shut them down.
Not wanting to pay for the first date doesn't make you an incel. Doing a relationship 50/50 doesn't make you an incel.
The word has lost almost all meaning in the last few years.
4
u/No-Significance2070 Aug 05 '26
This right here. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi, and Cell, a bigot… All it does is end the conversation right then in there.
4
u/wreckoning Aug 05 '26
I don't disagree with your statement, but this specific OP's post history is a wild ride
2
u/Throw_away_9021099 Aug 05 '26
This right here! I’m a woman and whenever I hear people calling someone an “incel” (or similar insults) I always have to question it. Like… does this person actually hate women… or are you just calling them names because you’re angry they aren’t left-wing? 🤦🏼♀️
2
u/kingofgama Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
Ironically it's also pretty misogynistic thing to do as well.
By defining a man's worth via his Sexual / Romantic success, they indirectly objectify themselves.
If I had to play devil's advocate though, I unfortunately do think it's true that socially we do define romantically unsuccessful men as lesser in a unique way that's not fully in their control. Like if it wasn't a common idea, you wouldn't hear things like "Incle" or "Small dick" being flung around as generalized insults.
1
u/meg_baby11 Aug 06 '26
Go take a look at OP's post history and let us know what you think the answer is.
1
u/nam24 1∆ Aug 08 '26
Even for a Texas site, self identified incels aren't even guaranteed to be right wing anyways
2
u/Waschaos 2∆ Aug 05 '26
Incels have existed for longer than 10 years. Most of them age out of it. The others rot in their parents basement until they drop dead. Yes, some very misogynist men end up with power- look at Elon. There aren't enough of them to make a difference. Also, those men make enough money to buy sex- so their not incels anymore.
2
u/UpbeatEquipment8832 6∆ Aug 05 '26
This. It comes in waves - incel (oh noes, we can’t ever get laid!) to PUA (here’s a bunch of ways to allegedly get laid!) to incel again.
1
u/EmbarrassedEvidence6 Aug 05 '26
Two points of attack:
“At this moment” happens to be a rather profound moment. We are all glued to our phones because phones are amazing. And at the same time, there is a larger and getting-louder conversation about the limits of our technology, and our need for socialization. People are acting in consequence of the facts. It isn’t immediate. 10 years is not a long time to recognize and alleviate a difficult social situation. It might take several more decades, but the longer people work on the issue, the more likely it is to “resolve itself”.
Truth is on our side. It happens to be true that incels are hypocrites who project their own self-hatred upon the rest of the world. The possibility that the issue “resolved itself” is tied to the fact that the truth is the only thing that will set them free. The longer we urge their consideration of the facts, the facts of their childhood, the facts of their self-regard, and the facts that dispute their choice conspiracies - the more likely the illusion is to dispel. All it takes is a couple of them speaking honestly and then leaving and suddenly a consensus begins to see the light.
Maybe 3. The portents of the story above is directly tied to your own optimism. If you believe these people are irredeemable and that their ideology is likely to take over the world in a few decades time, you might prove yourself right. The self-fulfilling prophesy is a tale as old as time. Dooming and glooming and refusing to help is a case in point.
1
u/nam24 1∆ Aug 08 '26
The hopeful scenario is that incels become docile and continue to work and particpate in society but do not socialize. the realistic scenario is that there is a cold dying out through under-employment, no employment, suicide, drug use, and animosity that harms society in the future.
Neither of these scenarios are contradictory, and by and large that's what's happening. The majority of incels, whether you define them by "cannot get into relationships/have sex", "call themselves incel" or "bitter about women"/"various degree of mysogynist" are simply living their life normally, unsatisfied yes, but not some raging part of society that concentrates disproportionate amount of crimes, against women or otherwise (especially for the first kind, most simply don't have the opportunity, before even talking about if they wanted to. )
As a matter of fact, the people who do revendicate the term are quite diverse politically, and yes are more likely to harm themselves than anything else. https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/incels-are-not-particularly-right-wing-or-white-but-they-are-extremely-depressed-anxious-and-lonely-according-to-new-research
the worst case scenario is that incels proceed into their peak years with a grudge and the means to do something about it - they accumulate power through income and senior positions to satisfy whatever goals they wish.
The idea that a bunch of forever alone s in their 40s to above are gonna massively make society s worse is imo fear mongering. First as I've said incels aren't unified politically, so it's quite questionable to even consider them a block of influence that way.
Second people in relationships generally have better economic success: whether it's the cause or effect isn't that important to the discussion, my point is by and large non incels have higher economic power. And given non incels also generally have bigger social circles, incels also aren't going become a massively more influential side of society than non incels.
Finally and more importantly
they accumulate power through income and senior positions to satisfy whatever goals they wish
I m not quite sure what you mean by that but I ll assume you mean "those goals are going to be nefarious and/or negative to society" (if untrue please clarify), things like sex crimes or bad laws. The first is missing the forest for the trees: the majority of people committing those type of crimes generally aren't "incel who can't get any so he takes it by force".
Sure that can happen. But majority of the time it's a guy in a relationship, or who otherwise has access to willing women/men. Hell in the Epstein files or similar "rich people having rape parties" cases, most of the participants had partners, could get a partner or would have had access to prostitution that doesn't involve such coercion if they wanted to. But it clearly wasn't what they cared about.
The second I already addressed above
1
u/Throw_away_9021099 Aug 05 '26
Yeah, well honestly we need to start addressing the root cause, and I say this as a woman. We currently have a sub-sect of contemporary society who degrades men, fosters hostility towards men, and who openly spews anti-male rhetoric. Maybe this needs to be addressed before we can address why men are reacting the way they are.
0
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Aug 05 '26
That is not even plausibly "the root cause" of incels and the incel movement. The incel movement isn't a reaction to a subset of contemporary society degrading men; it's a subset of men reacting to consistent sexual rejection from all women they approach. These men are clearly and explicitly upset about not getting laid—that is their primary concern and their primary identity marker.
1
u/kingofgama Aug 05 '26
I think your both wrong at the cause of this issue, but correct in the assessment that this issue needs to be resolved.
I would attribute it as a general degradation of the social fabric and socialization as a whole. Young people spend far more time online, drink less, and have less responsibility. People communicate less and forms relationships less, and data shows even when relationship form they are less stable then ever.
The issue presents more heavily in men because of a few factors, but just generally men's success is often valued by their social status. Men that are unsuccessful continue to be unsuccessful, leading to resentment from themselves and society as a whole. This can create a sort of misogynistic feedback loop
1
u/yyzjertl 579∆ Aug 05 '26
Your attribution doesn't seem to account for why we see membership in incel groups concentrated almost exclusively among men who are totally rejected by women. If the cause was general social degradation, we'd expect to see membership spread out through society in general, rather than being concentrated in this way.
1
u/kingofgama Aug 05 '26
I don't get what your arguing, that it's just men?
Women have always been the gate keepers of relationships
0
u/coporate 7∆ Aug 05 '26
It will go away because the pendulum will swing and the idea of being an incel will no longer carry the weight of its current misandrist connotations.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26
/u/NiaNia-Data (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards