Recent revolutions in population genetics suggest that a relative minority of men have had reproductive privilege historically, so i don't think looking to prehistory brings us closer to a solution, on the contrary i'd say.

God, you really have drunk that progressive kool-aid.

It's not just a matter of a bunch of guys holding onto an outdated ideologies, I think you underestimate 1) how biology played a role into forming these traditional ideologies in the first place, and 2) how their frustrated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

"Progressive kool-aid" just sounds like the normal reaction fallacy you get from these people and it's beneath me to dance by such low quality.

1) Why does that matter whatsoever? We have loads of biological things that we don't blindly follow just because it's biology because we have a society that requires us to function past our mere flesh. To say that biology played a role in forming these traditions (and religious institutional dogmas as well) is of course a correct historical observation, but they have no relevance to modern society and it's no defense of traditions of suppressed women's rights and kept people of color in slave chains. The closest you can get are some minor differences in physical strength in some fringe cases, but other than that it's quite clear that the diversity of all is much more effective when tackling the complexity of modern societies.

2) How come not all have frustrated biological drives? Why are just some men jumping on that bandwagon and not all men? How does that also explain the racist angle that is just as prevalent as the misogyny? You're describing a frustration that is just as easily and more coherently explained by the dissonance between their drive and how society moved away from a society in which their drives could be met. If you ignore the fact that society has indeed changed over the last hundred years and believe that such a change has no cultural impact on people, then I'd suggest looking into psychology.

You argue as if these incels know about these traditional perspectives as some outside observer. They're in it, they live within it, it is part of their reality, their perception. People who grow up in a closed society tend to be formed by that society. To break out of such traditionally formed ideas demands a lot of introspection and understanding of the conflicting perspectives outside of that place. And people generally follow the group, the group thinks. Going against the grain is something very few people do.

So, this is not some Kool-Aid, I think you're dismissing a lot of basic psychology and trying to boil it down to some simple answer that is just a shallow observation of this phenomenon.

they have no power at all — ChatteringMonkey

People with guns have power.

they have no power at all
— ChatteringMonkey

People with guns have power. — RogueAI

Not a whole lot because the military and the police have more and bigger guns. Social power is were it is at.

:up:

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

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

A man without a woman is like a bully without a victim. — unenlightened

Someone, maybe here on forum, pointed out that if you ask Chat GPT to make a joke about men, it has no problem but if you ask it to tell a joke about women, you get a lecture about not being disrespectful. Now, why do you think this came to mind now?

Christoffer, I disagree with the whole way you look at these things, because I'm a materialist/physicalist, and believe ideas usually follow the physical and biological reality more that the other way around. Obviously it isn't that simple or unidirectional, but I think ideology are more post-hoc rationalization than that they are causes. So I don't think we will get past that here.

Have we corrupted the beauty ideal as a society? How do we ensure every child grows up feeling attractive/ with good self esteem? — Benj96

It probably goes a bit beyond the beauty ideal, but it's certainly a part of it. Consider rates of plastic surgery for example, but also the photoshopping that happens on social media and the image of success that is forwarded in popular culture. It's depressing.

It's like we're teaching kids from a young age to be narcissists (ergo, lacking core self-esteem and instead deriving it from the perceptions of others), turning the successful ones into social vampires and turning the others into anemic dregs. With narcissism social interaction is a zero-sum game.

Social media plays a huge role in this.

Young people everywhere are struggling with developing intimate relationships (and relationships in general), and that is a serious problem. — Tzeentch

Maybe they should get off their cellphones and go out to the baseball park or volunteer to pick up roadside garbage or join go a voter recruitment drive. You won't develop intimate relationships without meeting actual people in the actual world.

No Tzeentch, society has decided that women are the victims, so it's okay to marginalize incel men. — ChatteringMonkey

It wasn't a tough decision.

Minassian rented the van some three weeks before he used it as a weapon on a major Toronto street. He told investigators he had set out to kill as many people as possible and that he drew inspiration from the misogynistic "incel" movement of mostly online groups of young men who blame their lack of sexual activity on women.
Asked by investigators how he felt about the harm he had caused, the attacker replied: "I feel like I accomplished my mission".

Nobody's marginalized for feeling unloved. They are rejected for acting like jerks - and much or worse. It's just that women who are 'marginalized" in the same way - i.e. have no sexual outlet - don't go around "punishing" - attacking - people.

But there are plenty of women online who share the same frustrated feelings of involuntary celibacy as men. These women want to have romantic and sexual relationships, but for whatever reason, are unable to do so. They call themselves “femcels,” an abbreviation of “female incel.”

Physical attractiveness is not of paramount consideration for women, nor is charisma, compared to dependability, kindness and patience with children. — Vera Mont

Isn't the truth of that dependent on context though? What if a woman has lots of support and an independent income? Bags of security, no need of that from a partner. Might they not prioritise the fun stuff more?

Because misogynists are becoming more odious and numerous and have no desire to modify their own behaviour. Under patriarchal law, they could - and in some cultures, still can - be as abusive as they want and still own a woman, or more than one. If women have a choice of mates and are free to leave bad ones, men have to make some accommodation. The ones who know how to do that make out like bunnies and the odious ones are jealous. — Vera Mont

We've recognized how most of these gender norms are, frankly, pure bullshit. Mostly formed by institutions to control society, mostly formed by the privileged to keep power. — Christoffer

In 180 Proof's utopia, we'd castrate and/or lobotomize incels. Or maybe, less invasively, heavily medicate the shits with opiods & sedatives. — 180 Proof

I'm feeling a bit queasy. That happens when I read knee-jerk, pseudo-historical, pseudo-psychological, pseudo-political claptrap hatred for men. I'll cut Vera Mont some slack - Women lacking respect for men is run-of-the-mill. When men do it, it's just pitiful.

tricky thing then is what the hell do they do about it? — bert1

Maximise the skills talents and positive traits you do have. No one, I think, is without any. They're just either not identified or cultivated.

The moral kernel here I think is that looks really are not everything. But they are the most initially apparent. So those without them need to nurture charisma to overcome the initial barrier.

I do believe women in general are the more empathetic gender. They are open to being shown kindness, humour and deeper levels of beauty than what's face value (excuse the pun). Thank yourself you're not trying to attract meaningful relationships from other men. I bet they're more superficial and objectifying toward eachothers than women are to men. And I hear lesbian relationships have the highest rate of fidelity/faithfulness. So there ya go.

Maybe they should get off their cellphones and go out to the baseball park — Vera Mont

There's nobody at the baseball park. They're all on their goddamn phones. My son is having this trouble. He can't attend school, but there are no children messing about outside like kids used to do, throwing stones and showing their bums to the peado in the bushes and fun stuff like that. So he can't even meet people that way.

Interesting you mention volunteering, he was actually so lonely he went and walked around the streets picking up litter hoping that someone would talk to him. Guess what happened. Nothing! Not even a good stoning from the local disaffected youth.

Heck, I'd consider glue sniffing under a bridge to be an acceptable social outcome for him at this stage.

And he's too old even for a paedo now. That ship has sailed. Fucking sad.

Maybe they should get off their cellphones and go out to the baseball park or volunteer to pick up roadside garbage or join go a voter recruitment drive. You won't develop intimate relationships without meeting actual people in the actual world. — Vera Mont

Certainly, but it's not that simple.

Social media, cellphones, the internet - all of these things have hijacked young people's minds, and their capacity for social interaction has diminished correspondingly, leading to a surge of mental issues like social awkwardness, anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, etc. Many of these also lead to self-isolating tendencies, further compounding the problem.

The solution 'just go out and meet people' is a major barrier for the young who were caught up in this mess. It's their entire mental wiring that's messed up.

Nobody's marginalized for feeling unloved. They are rejected for acting like jerks - and much or worse. It's just that women who are 'marginalized" in the same way - i.e. have no sexual outlet - don't go around "punishing" - attacking - people.
But there are plenty of women online who share the same frustrated feelings of involuntary celibacy as men. These women want to have romantic and sexual relationships, but for whatever reason, are unable to do so. They call themselves “femcels,” an abbreviation of “female incel.” — Vera Mont

It's not only because they are jerks that they are marginalized, they are generally considered low status because they are single, and perhaps don't have a lot of charisma, attractiveness and/or social skills to begin with. It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem... they don't become jerks in a vacuum, it's a bit of that good old resentment playing a role here.

EDIT: And the difference with femcel women is predominately testosterone I'd say.

God, you really have drunk that progressive kool-aid. — ChatteringMonkey

Why don't we just put them down, like the males of breeding animals we have no use for? Wouldn't that be a major step towards progressive utopia! — ChatteringMonkey

But ultimately the problem is not totally solvable by acceptable means I think, there will always be those who will miss out because they are less attractive/charismatic/rich than others. A healthy society doesn't solve the frustrated desires of those. Historically this has always been a problem. — ChatteringMonkey

society has decided that women are the victims, so it's okay to marginalize incel men... they are evil because they are man, and so technically part of the patriarchy (eventhough they have no power at all and are considered the lowest of the low). — ChatteringMonkey

Political and historical insight leavened with a little compassion. Thank you.

Thank you for the compliment!

Thank you for the compliment! — ChatteringMonkey

It's like we're teaching kids from a young age to be narcissists (ergo, lacking core self-esteem and instead deriving it from the perceptions of others), turning the successful ones into social vampires and turning the others into anemic dregs. With narcissism social interaction is a zero-sum game.

Social media plays a huge role in this. — Tzeentch

I think it's not even so much actively teaching children to be narcissists. I think it is the fundamentals of social media that alters our behaviour.

In essence what it does is widen the community to which one must conform to be seen or heard. Thus expectations are much higher across such a broad sphere than they ever would have been in a small close knit circle of friends.

Being aware of global society from our phones, we are aware of greater heights of beauty, greater depths of skill - from extreme sports to cooking to all sorts. We see the best of the best in every discipline going viral.

When faced with myriad masteries of skills and beauty, it is hard not to compare it to oneself. The way we interact socially has fundamentally changed in a drastic way as of the last 40 years.

What used to be genuine popularity for your authentic self has become being a brand, self promoting, being all things to all people, and if you can't, fake it till you make it/edit the shit out of yourself, and this just isn't a true social relationship like the ones that evolved for millenia.

Isn't the truth of that dependent on context though? What if a woman has lots of support and an independent income? Bags of security, no need of that from a partner. Might they not prioritise the fun stuff more? — bert1

That would be the minority, just as well-off, attractive men are a minority.

I'm feeling a bit queasy. That happens when I read knee-jerk, claptrap hatred for men. I'll cut Vera Mont some slack - Women lacking respect for men is run-of-the-mill. — T Clark

I have plenty of respect for the men who deserve it, just as I have none for women who don't.

here's nobody at the baseball park. They're all on their goddamn phones. My son is having this trouble. He can't attend school, but there are no children messing about outside like kids used to do, throwing stones and showing their bums to the peado in the bushes and fun stuff like that. — bert1

I don't think the incel movement started with Covid lockdowns, nor will it end with the pandemic.

The solution 'just go out and meet people' is a major barrier for the young who were caught up in this mess. — Tzeentch

They shouldn't be expected to do it all on their own. What happened to their support network? The adult mentors and community organizers, coaches, teachers, scout-masters, den-mothers, big sisters and brothers, and church-ladies?

It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem... they don't become jerks in a vacuum, it's a bit that good old resentment playing a role here. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, egging one another on; reinforcing resentment and blaming others for one's own shortcomings, instead of encouraging positive change. Charisma is rare and accidental and unreliable; courtesy, interest, versatility, tolerance and humour are far better assets. And of course, acceptance of the fact that everybody isn't ever going to get first pick.

I don't respect misogynists or those who defend them.

I don't respect misogynists or those who defend them. — 180 Proof

Oh...wait... Oh!! I get it.

In essence what it does is widen the community to which one must conform to he seen or heard. Thus expectations are much higher across such a broad sphere than they ever would have been in a small close knit circle of friends.

Being aware of global society from our phones, we are aware of greater heights of beauty, greater depths of skill - from extreme sports to cooking to all sorts. We see the best of the best in every discipline going viral. — Benj96

It's an interesting dynamic, but I'm not convinced of its importance. For example, weren't high standards of beauty already available to everyone before the era of social media, through things like magazines and TV?

I think the more important dimension is the one you address here:

What used to be genuine popularity for your authentic self has become being a brand, self promoting, being all things to all people, and if you can't, fake it till you make it/edit the shit out of yourself, and this just isn't a true social relationship like the ones that evolved for millenia. — Benj96

And on social media platforms, what one shows to the outside world is malleable.

It encourages young people to adopt fake personas - something that almost always goes hand in hand with the rejection of the authentic self and leads to a myriad of mental issues.

I don't think the incel movement started with Covid lockdowns, nor will it end with the pandemic. — Vera Mont

Oh, that's interesting. I got the impression that kids avoided light and air before the lockdown as well, but maybe you are right. Hmm. I can't remember very well. My son didn't have any friends before either, but he didn't really want any.

They shouldn't be expected to do it all on their own. What happened to their support network? The adult mentors and community organizers, coaches, teachers, scout-masters, den-mothers, big sisters and brothers, and church-ladies? — Vera Mont

A good question.

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

The more people who are genuinely involved, the more balanced the child's upbringing will be. For today's young it's more likely to be the opposite; that only their parents are involved.

If they even have both parents. The number of single parent households have been steadily increasing over the last decades, and I'd be interested to see if there's any link between that and the many problems plaguing today's young. I'd wager a bet that there is.

[

For example, weren't high standards of beauty already available to everyone before the era of social media, through things like magazines and TV? — Tzeentch

Yes but here's the crux of the situation. Never before have these things been as impossibly un-ignorable.
There has never been such integration of socialising with force-feeding of content.

Where once we had clear separation between beauty magazine, TV and social platform to contact friends. Now the social interaction is the magazine, it is the TV, the theater.

And when all your friends are on social media and demand that you are too, even to the point of finding you strange and socially outcast if you don't, it's either play game or be isolated, so logging on, you are sucked into the algorithm that learns you, your interests and hobbies, desire and dreams and starts you walking on the treadmill of personally curated content for your individual dopamine hits.

And thus depletes all your cognitive reserve, much like a drug does. Leaving you in your room, mentally exhausted by entertainment, and having done nothing else with your day. Withdrawal symptoms, that are avoided by going online again to get your next fix of wonder and awe.

And all your friends too are exhausted from intense scrolling. When all the dopamine and serotonin is used up, you're left in a spiral where comparisons have been made, self esteem dips and loneliness kicks in. That drives you back to the apps.

Yes, egging one another on; reinforcing resentment and blaming others for one's own shortcomings, instead of encouraging positive change. Charisma is rare and accidental and unreliable; courtesy, interest, versatility, tolerance and humour are far better assets. And of course, acceptance of the fact that everybody isn't ever going to get first pick. — Vera Mont

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

Christoffer, I disagree with the whole way you look at these things, because I'm a materialist/physicalist, and believe ideas usually follow the physical and biological reality more that the other way around. Obviously it isn't that simple or unidirectional, but I think ideology are more post-hoc rationalization than that they are causes. So I don't think we will get past that here. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm also going by reality as a source for how things are, but the reality is also that humanity has formed culture and society on top of delusions and fantasies as well as power structures created by the ones privileged enough to set the rules. To ignore that is to ignore much of what caused conflicts in history and we live in history. Reality is as much of a cause for things as the delusions that our biology invents. You can't ignore human psychology and how it functions since it's just as much part of reality as anything else and requires analysis in the same manner and on equal terms.

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

Isn't the truth of that dependent on context though? What if a woman has lots of support and an independent income? Bags of security, no need of that from a partner. Might they not prioritise the fun stuff more? — bert1

This is an interesting topic. I agree, that when the roles and responsibilities that used to be typically met by men are now met by women (more independence/ autonomy) the considerations they are likely to make become more about appearance, height, skills in the bedroom, personality, as you put it "the fun stuff".

The irony here is those were the expectations of men towards women when they had less independence and equality.

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

Now we might finally empathise with what they had to put up with for centuries. It's not nice to be underestimated, undervalued or for all the value to be placed on superficial qualities like looks - as an arm piece.

We used to only care about whether they had child bearing hips, whether they had elegance, a pleasant and quiet demeanor while the men talked business.
Now they might expect us to have a whole set of head hair, some good brawn/muscle, to be tall.
It's tit for tat. Karmic really..

I have zero issues with that. It's merely the system swinging from one state of affairs to it's opposite. About god damn time too.

Patriarchies taste of its own medicine.

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