Incel group on TV (psychologist, anxiety, feelings, people)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How are "we" "not listening" to these guys? Because women won't have sex with them in order to prevent them from having to hurt us/start movements intended to hurt us/isolate others? Because again, it's not just us women who are targeted; it's "Chads and Brads", which could be anybody who's mildly successful at dating.
Incels' plight is the perceived fault of pretty much anyone the blame can be shifted to.
Yeah, *now* that they're giggling about enslaving, raping and killing women we're not sweetly sitting and listening to them. Because duh.
Middle ground where "we" can help? Not psychiatry? "We're" to blame? For getting mad AFTER these dudes have started saying hideous things and inciting others to join in?
You've heard these guys. It's women's fault for not putting out *even if we didn't want to*. From that premise it's our own fault? It's not OUR FAULT...so please.
And once again, calling someone out on spreading an outright very harmful lie is not "shaming." *It's a wakeup call to seek psychiatric help or it's ENABLING, folks. Accepting "blame" to play into the whole twisted storyline.
If the person is breaking the law, prosecute them. Until then, you fight the bad ideas, not the people. Ad hominem doesn't work to change anyone's views.
If the person is breaking the law, prosecute them. Until then, you fight the bad ideas, not the people. Ad hominem doesn't work to change anyone's views.
Baloney; the FBI investigates potential threats all the time.
And...we ARE fighting the bad ideas. I'm not knocking on anyone's door and it is always THE IDEA, or lie, that I see refuted.
In a live, interpersonal interaction (albeit a digital one) about the subject, yes, it is. In my experience the discussion is usually about blanket-shaming "pathetic men who aren't strong enough to get laid, so they hate women."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
How are people who eagerly discuss harming women and forcing them into sex, as well as other pretty detailed stuff, and/or demonizing entire groups, not imminently capable of inflicting harm on others? They're certainly capable of imagining methods, detailing them, starting and hosting chat rooms dedicated to the cause, organizing, digging up studies to cherry pick "supporting" data, encouraging others to join, etc. ...but it's silly to think they'd hurt anyone? Huh?
And as you said, what about all those suicides? To self, to others...yes, this "movement" does inflict harm.
If you want to argue that their mindset is what makes them dangerous that's fine, I'm not going to quibble at that. The things they say and thing are certainly disturbing, and I can see how people are threatened by them more than you might imagine. I'm more likely to categorize a group as dangerous based on its propensity to actually behave in violent ways, and other than a few sensationalized cases I don't see that sort of behavior from incels. I'm much more likely to be anxious of how a group behaves than how it thinks. You tried to use fear of violence as a rhetorical device. That's what I meant by overblown...a few extreme cases of violence don't make everyone violent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
Baloney; the FBI investigates potential threats all the time.
And...we ARE fighting the bad ideas. I'm not knocking on anyone's door and it is always THE IDEA, or lie, that I see refuted.
"Scumbag loser." "Angry, scary bunch." "They want to club women over the head." "Wouldn't know what to do with her even then." "Entitled." "Whiny and nuts." "Nutters."
That's just on these boards. No, it's not always the ideas that are refuted.
"Scumbag loser." "Angry, scary bunch." "They want to club women over the head." "Wouldn't know what to do with her even then." "Entitled." "Whiny and nuts." "Nutters."
That's just on these boards. No, it's not always the ideas that are refuted.
So where did all that "we should listen to people's pain and fears" stuff suddenly go? We should listen to it and be understanding and somehow helpful when it's talking about how women are hypergamous useless cancers on society who should be locked in cages and just brought out occasionally to be used, at least until they're too old to be useful receptacles anymore and then they should be thrown away, but we shouldn't listen to it when it's being the proposed abused party in question, reacting to such hideous, frightening manifestos?
Hmm.
You're going to have to draw me a flow chart for this one.
Is the bold your opinion or what you're claiming of incels? Because if it's your opinion then it contradicts your position on transactional sex.
I think it has less to do with money and more to do with them feeling like genetic losers. I think there's a grain of truth in that, along with the caveman clubbing that has already been mentioned in this thread.
The Sexual Revolution and second-wave feminism changed male-female dynamics forever. Prior to those movements the traditional role of men was as breadwinners and the traditional role of women was as mothers and wives. You can rail against the morality of this all you want, but they developed out of millennia of societal evolution because it was generally the best arrangement to accomplish one goal: the successful raising of the family's next generation.
Men were expected to provide for their families, and women were expected to bear and raise children. Without someone to provide for them women and children suffered great hardship: "Widows and orphans." This is why biblically a man was commanded by law to marry his dead brother's wife. It's also why sex outside of marriage was taboo...sex led to babies, sex outside of marriage led to babies without a provider, and without a provider children and women had a very hard time. So, in order for a relationship to include sex, marriage was expected for both men and women, and it typically happened very early.
The Pill and women's empowerment changed all of that. Now sex didn't have to lead to babies, and women's ability to provide for themselves and their families has increased over time. Marriage is no longer seen as ubiquitous and extramarital sex is no longer seen as taboo (neither are extramarital children, for that matter).
What does that have to do with incels? In general men are less choosy when it comes to sexual partners than women are. When combined with the freedom to choose and change sexual partners at will (i.e., not marry your first sexual partner) I believe that leads to an imbalance in the dynamics of sexual relationships.
Women can afford to be pickier than men about their sexual partners because 1-Men who want sex RightNow are very plentiful...lots of options for a woman, 2-She is able to enjoy sex without risk of disease or children, and 3-She doesn't "need" a marriage any longer to stake her economic well-being on. For evidence take a look at the personals section of Reddit...very generously, it's a 5:1 M:F ratio of people looking for someone.
Women are no longer forced by society to marry young and marry local. They have sexual options now that they've never had historically. That has created increased competition for men to be selected as a sexual partner. When you increase competition you will naturally increase the amount of people losing said competition. There are men who get chosen as sexual partners more frequently, and men who get selected as sexual partners less frequently. (Women too, but that's less common, I think.) I don't know about 80%/20%, but THAT is where I think the incel movement has a point.
So for incels it's not a matter of money (unless you mean being rich and getting women that way), it's a matter of feeling like they've lost the genetic lottery and they're being expected to play a game they don't feel they have the tools to win. Paying a prostitute doesn't alleviate that; they're still genetic losers.
Someone else brought up comparing incels to Nazis...know why Nazism took off in Germany? Hitler convinced the German people that the rest of the world had victimized Germany after World War 1 (with some truth to it) and promised to lead them back to glory to "get theirs." Along the way he demonized Jews as villains who took advantage of good German people to turn a profit. At first I took that comparison as a fulfillment of Godwin's law, but there's a little truth to it: when people feel like the system is stacked against them, they will reject the system in subversive and often violent ways.
I think you have intelligent thoughts about this, but I want to correct your impression that women have more sexual options than men do. There are many women who are not attractive to most men, and who are single. I've known many of them in all age groups. For a time I thought I was to be in that category as well. Even in the mid 20th Century there were many unmarried women. They were teachers, librarians, secretaries, caregivers, Bookkeepers, Office managers, etc. They did make livings for themselves (barely, sometimes) but they never found mates. Some of this sisterhood lost out because so many men were killed in wars. There weren't enough men to go around.
In the present, where you postulate that modern women do have many sexual opportunities, I tend to agree, with one caveat. She might not have quality sexual opportunities. And if she wants a stable relationship that can accommodate a family, she may out of luck if she is low income. This is a known problem in our society. Lower income, less educated men are not marrying as they used to, and if they do they are not providing a stable home. This is a generalization, but in many cases it is true. There are many unmarried women who have children. They've had sex, obviously, but now they have children and they aren't exactly freely available now. Their potential for a quality relationship is slim.
I do not think there is the imbalance of opportunity that you appear to believe is there. What I do believe happens is that men who have problems with social skills, aggression, and/or low opportunity have become convinced they are victims who cannot affect their own lives. You can't exactly meet women if you stay in your room, and spend your time in chat rooms. I suspect that incels who find others like themselves find it easier to hang out virtually and complain than to go out into the world.
I thought the video I saw with the guy on his computer was unspeakably sad. Seeing him giggling as he watched someone in distress was horrible. No empathy, no understanding, no idea about anyone else except himself. Sad beyond belief. And he is doing this to himself.
I refuse to accept any paradigm that does not include gender equality.
Actually in gender terms, "Team Lovehound" (my commercial arm) has about 80% women vs. 20% men.
I am not gender prejudiced. I hired my team based upon expertise and ability to play well with the rest of my commercial team. I have no gender preference, it's just that the women beat out the men on my team.
LH is of course a man. I am a man who respects people who has no gender prejudice. I'm sorry, but women just play together better than men IMO.
It is my opinion but I don't think it contradicts my position on transactional nature of sex or relationships. With a hooker you pay in cash. With a girlfriend or wife the sex is "free" but you pay with your money and with your commitment which might be working a job for security when you might want to travel the world, or being in debt for 30 years to raise a family, or putting up with relatives and friends you might not care for, and you may do this until the day you die. If you divorce you might be saddled with years of child support and the issues of being a part time parent. The woman may pay by having to work and do the housework and raise kids as well, putting up with a lot of their husband's idiosynchrasies or neurosis, etc. It can be a life of compromises and sacrifices for both to stay together as a family unit. If a woman is divorced and raising children she loses money and status, it's not easy. So that's what I mean by paying one way or the other.
As far as concepts of genetic losers, cultural changes, etc., putting men at a disadvantage, that makes no sense. Because then it wouldn't only be a small minority of incels who feel this way, all men would. Some people lack the social skills or opportunities to form relationships but that is how they are and not the basis of a movement, and not anyone's fault. (Some people find a girlfriend/boyfriend in group therapy or even in a mental hospital because in those situations they open up to each other.) How about people who genetically have terrible BO or halitosis? Should they start a movement and condemn all the people without body odor and/or bad breath? Should amputees hate people with all their limbs? In my opinion it's just some sort of twisted self pity/resentment/jealousy gone over the edge. It's just crazy thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by At Arms Length
Is the bold your opinion or what you're claiming of incels? Because if it's your opinion then it contradicts your position on transactional sex.
I think it has less to do with money and more to do with them feeling like genetic losers. I think there's a grain of truth in that, along with the caveman clubbing that has already been mentioned in this thread.
The Sexual Revolution and second-wave feminism changed male-female dynamics forever. Prior to those movements the traditional role of men was as breadwinners and the traditional role of women was as mothers and wives. You can rail against the morality of this all you want, but they developed out of millennia of societal evolution because it was generally the best arrangement to accomplish one goal: the successful raising of the family's next generation.
Men were expected to provide for their families, and women were expected to bear and raise children. Without someone to provide for them women and children suffered great hardship: "Widows and orphans." This is why biblically a man was commanded by law to marry his dead brother's wife. It's also why sex outside of marriage was taboo...sex led to babies, sex outside of marriage led to babies without a provider, and without a provider children and women had a very hard time. So, in order for a relationship to include sex, marriage was expected for both men and women, and it typically happened very early.
The Pill and women's empowerment changed all of that. Now sex didn't have to lead to babies, and women's ability to provide for themselves and their families has increased over time. Marriage is no longer seen as ubiquitous and extramarital sex is no longer seen as taboo (neither are extramarital children, for that matter).
What does that have to do with incels? In general men are less choosy when it comes to sexual partners than women are. When combined with the freedom to choose and change sexual partners at will (i.e., not marry your first sexual partner) I believe that leads to an imbalance in the dynamics of sexual relationships.
Women can afford to be pickier than men about their sexual partners because 1-Men who want sex RightNow are very plentiful...lots of options for a woman, 2-She is able to enjoy sex without risk of disease or children, and 3-She doesn't "need" a marriage any longer to stake her economic well-being on. For evidence take a look at the personals section of Reddit...very generously, it's a 5:1 M:F ratio of people looking for someone.
Women are no longer forced by society to marry young and marry local. They have sexual options now that they've never had historically. That has created increased competition for men to be selected as a sexual partner. When you increase competition you will naturally increase the amount of people losing said competition. There are men who get chosen as sexual partners more frequently, and men who get selected as sexual partners less frequently. (Women too, but that's less common, I think.) I don't know about 80%/20%, but THAT is where I think the incel movement has a point.
So for incels it's not a matter of money (unless you mean being rich and getting women that way), it's a matter of feeling like they've lost the genetic lottery and they're being expected to play a game they don't feel they have the tools to win. Paying a prostitute doesn't alleviate that; they're still genetic losers.
Someone else brought up comparing incels to Nazis...know why Nazism took off in Germany? Hitler convinced the German people that the rest of the world had victimized Germany after World War 1 (with some truth to it) and promised to lead them back to glory to "get theirs." Along the way he demonized Jews as villains who took advantage of good German people to turn a profit. At first I took that comparison as a fulfillment of Godwin's law, but there's a little truth to it: when people feel like the system is stacked against them, they will reject the system in subversive and often violent ways.
Last edited by bobspez; 10-13-2018 at 08:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because again, it's not just us women who are targeted; it's "Chads and Brads", which could be anybody who's mildly successful at dating. 
