The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Men absolutely have it easier when it comes to accruing power, wealth and their personal safety from violent acts. They do not have it easier when it comes to trust, friendship, empathy, and mutual care.
And those aspects where things are lacking are important to mental and emotional health.
It's kind of frustrating that the main pushback against trying to treat toxic masculinity is the idea that, since men are in general more privileged than women, that must mean all mens' issues are either fake, laughable, or are some kind of karmic justice.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
The root cause of inceldom is a fundamental failure in our culture. You can perform the incel equivalent of lobbing cruise missiles at middle eastern terrorists, and that'll cut them off to an extent, but if you don't also work on the root causes, then our cultural failures are just going to keep driving men to embrace inceldom.
I don’t think that’s in evidence. It’s equally possible that incels is a result of the successes our culture has made in working against patriarchy. An inevitable backlash that cannot be avoided, only mitigated, when a privileged class loses its privilege.
I would like to point to the 1989 Ecole Polytechique massacre again.
EDIT: I should be more clear in my meaning. This 'backlash' has been ongoing for a long time. Perhaps we should be dealing with the root causes instead of just the surface level symptoms.
So your position is that feminists had not made progress in society by 1989?
Men absolutely have it easier when it comes to accruing power, wealth and their personal safety from violent acts. They do not have it easier when it comes to trust, friendship, empathy, and mutual care.
And those aspects where things are lacking are important to mental and emotional health.
It's kind of frustrating that the main pushback against trying to treat toxic masculinity is the idea that, since men are in general more privileged than women, that must mean all mens' issues are either fake, laughable, or are some kind of karmic justice.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
The root cause of inceldom is a fundamental failure in our culture. You can perform the incel equivalent of lobbing cruise missiles at middle eastern terrorists, and that'll cut them off to an extent, but if you don't also work on the root causes, then our cultural failures are just going to keep driving men to embrace inceldom.
I don’t think that’s in evidence. It’s equally possible that incels is a result of the successes our culture has made in working against patriarchy. An inevitable backlash that cannot be avoided, only mitigated, when a privileged class loses its privilege.
Well, how about this:
Is it not in evidence that men are expected to keep their emotions in check and not develop emotional intimacy with other men? Is it not in evidence that romantic relationships are often portrayed as the single most important thing you can have, above and beyond platonic relationships? Is it not in evidence that our media suggests that if you aren't getting laid, you're an ugly loser and if no value to anyone?
The nice thing here is that these are all shitty cultural messages that are harmful and should be discarded anyway, and that working to do this in no way precludes the direct attack approach you favor! We can do them all at once! And if we're wrong about it being a root cause, then we've still managed to make society a little better!
Also consider that every irredeemable incel asshole started their life as a baby with a blank slate. So unless your policy is "fuck you, baby, you're destined to be an asshole" then consider that there are many points along the spectrum of their life during which you might have turned them away from inceldom. And since it's easier reaching someone before they're in the tank for a destructive philosophy, maybe it's efficient to put at least some of your efforts into prevention.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
There's almost always a need to confront both the aftermath and root causes of problems.
I think many are trying to take the easy way out on identifying the root causes. Seizing on an explanation that both makes for a logical story and benefits them. Sort of how people latch onto the idea that bullying causes school shootings, which is almost certainly not true.
I don’t think the assumption that lack of access to caring relationships or discouragement from seeking them is a slam-dunk explanation for inceldom. Many of these men have perfectly adequate access to those things.
The privilege the incels are whining about losing never really existed in European/US culture. A hundred, two hundred years ago a man had to court a wife. He wasn’t assigned her. Only nobles had arranged marriages. A jobless shut-in would have even less luck with women than he would now, because he wouldn’t have been able to prove to a girl’s father that he could support her.
There's almost always a need to confront both the aftermath and root causes of problems.
I think many are trying to take the easy way out on identifying the root causes. Seizing on an explanation that both makes for a logical story and benefits them. Sort of how people latch onto the idea that bullying causes school shootings, which is almost certainly not true.
I don’t think the assumption that lack of access to caring relationships or discouragement from seeking them is a slam-dunk explanation for inceldom. Many of these men have perfectly adequate access to those things.
I'd prefer not to argue directly with you. I neither said those two things would 100% solve it nor after reading this topic have come to that conclusion. There's much more people have offered.
Men absolutely have it easier when it comes to accruing power, wealth and their personal safety from violent acts. They do not have it easier when it comes to trust, friendship, empathy, and mutual care.
And those aspects where things are lacking are important to mental and emotional health.
It's kind of frustrating that the main pushback against trying to treat toxic masculinity is the idea that, since men are in general more privileged than women, that must mean all mens' issues are either fake, laughable, or are some kind of karmic justice.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
The root cause of inceldom is a fundamental failure in our culture. You can perform the incel equivalent of lobbing cruise missiles at middle eastern terrorists, and that'll cut them off to an extent, but if you don't also work on the root causes, then our cultural failures are just going to keep driving men to embrace inceldom.
I don’t think that’s in evidence. It’s equally possible that incels is a result of the successes our culture has made in working against patriarchy. An inevitable backlash that cannot be avoided, only mitigated, when a privileged class loses its privilege.
Well, how about this:
Is it not in evidence that men are expected to keep their emotions in check and not develop emotional intimacy with other men? Is it not in evidence that romantic relationships are often portrayed as the single most important thing you can have, above and beyond platonic relationships? Is it not in evidence that our media suggests that if you aren't getting laid, you're an ugly loser and if no value to anyone?
The nice thing here is that these are all shitty cultural messages that are harmful and should be discarded anyway, and that working to do this in no way precludes the direct attack approach you favor! We can do them all at once! And if we're wrong about it being a root cause, then we've still managed to make society a little better!
Also consider that every irredeemable incel asshole started their life as a baby with a blank slate. So unless your policy is "fuck you, baby, you're destined to be an asshole" then consider that there are many points along the spectrum of their life during which you might have turned them away from inceldom. And since it's easier reaching someone before they're in the tank for a destructive philosophy, maybe it's efficient to put at least some of your efforts into prevention.
And again I reiterate that even if any single person is not responsible for the meta-message, the meta-message still matters. You cannot fix the culture’s problems with male entitlement by centering the message that society needs to commit even more time and energy to men.
We have no problem with this idea when it’s directed at complaining that media spends way too much time worrying about the economic anxiety of Trump voters. But when it’s the response to toxic masculinity spending too much time worrying about the social anxiety of awkward males, that hits a little too close to home.
This is not a moral judgment, this is simply about what’s effective for society as a whole. You do not fight extremist groups by centering understanding of their complaints. It doesn’t work and they use it as a wedge to legitimize themselves.
+3
NFytThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
How do you propose we fix the meta-message built up around males without committing time and energy towards males?
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Which probably explains why many people who believe in feminism are reluctant to talk about toxic masculinity and its effects on men, despite this being a feminist concept that incels and other anti-feminist groups deny as a lie by man-hating SJWs, allowing those male-led anti-feminist groups to exert their influence while men who know better are afraid to say anything for fear of condemnation from their peers for daring to bring up a relevant mens' issue.
In my own circle of acquaintances I've increasingly seen women who identify as feminist lament that mens' issues they believe are important are minimized, ignored, or mocked by fellow feminists. I already mentioned how one woman has started sharing ManKind Project posts, while another recently wrote, "Men have struggles too, men need help, and men know what it’s like to struggle with low self esteem."
Hexmage-PA on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Men absolutely have it easier when it comes to accruing power, wealth and their personal safety from violent acts. They do not have it easier when it comes to trust, friendship, empathy, and mutual care.
And those aspects where things are lacking are important to mental and emotional health.
It's kind of frustrating that the main pushback against trying to treat toxic masculinity is the idea that, since men are in general more privileged than women, that must mean all mens' issues are either fake, laughable, or are some kind of karmic justice.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
What alternative are you proposing instead?
Stigmatization, broad pressure on hosting sites and forums to deplatform them, direct confrontation of their ideas.
Do you think that they aren't already stigmatized? All of the sources I've seen describe them as congregating on anonymous online forums. Do they have public meetings, or are there "out and proud" incels? Has there been any actually positive press coverage of incels? I'd guess the answer is "no" on all fronts, but I'm open to correction. The Contrapoints video was about the nicest thing I've ever seen produced about incels, and she is very clear that the whole thing is fucked and calls them (accurately) a woman-hating death cult, so I'm not sure what the additional layer of stigmatization is going to look like, or what the value add over the status quo is supposed to be here. I think the two most mainstream pieces of exposure incels have gotten is 1) news articles attributing mass killings to them and 2) an episode of SVU where they were the bad guys.
Similarly with respect to direct confrontation of their ideas: incel ideas are straight up loony tunes. I don't think there are a lot of people out there, outside of the incel sphere, who actually take seriously the whole metaphysics of chad, becky, stacy, beta bux and etc., or who are willing to cheer along to legalizing rape as a general social policy. Who, in the general culture, do we need to convince that it's bullshit? Now, it's important to be clear that our society ~does~ indulge in plenty of less outlandish forms of generalized background misogyny, and there are lots of people who could use better attitudes about gender. Generic unwoke Americans may not take incels seriously, but they do think lots of other shitty stuff about gender anyway. But doing our best to fix that is a project that I imagine we were all on board with already, and one that doesn't really have much to do with incels per se. Or, in other words, I agree that fixing background social misogyny is important! Do you think there's anyone here who doesn't?
You have been suggesting that the thread has taken up discussion of positive outreach strategies because it, in line with our bad background culture, overvalues and emphasizes male perspectives and concerns. So it's all oh boo hoo, poor men. I think there's a much more charitable reading of what's going on, which is just that most of the stuff you're talking about--stigmatizing them, making sure their ideas aren't taken seriously--is already part of the status quo. Incels are already stigmatized and their ideas are already not taken seriously by people outside their community. Like, say, Heaven's Gate or pro-ana groups, they manage to recruit despite the fact that they believe things about the Hale-Bopp comet that almost no one else does, and, in fact, that most people would think are bizarre. Or, perhaps, like the Manson family, they believe things about "Helter Skelter" that most people would think are not very credible, and then also sometimes they kill people (though with much less frequency or organization in this case). In that kind of situation, the idea of fixing the culture in ways that prevent people from becoming radicalized in the first place, and of having de-brainwashing outreach efforts, is more clearly distinct from the already existing status quo. It thus makes sense to focus on it when you're trying to think about potential changes that might help.
Or, more tl;dr-y: no one spent that much effort convincing people that Manson was wrong about the coming race war. Everyone was already onboard. So instead, in the cult context, people tend to focus on what leads people to get converted and how to de-convert them, and the social conditions which are conducive to both. This is just part of a fairly practical attempt to deal with extremist groups as a social phenomena.
(Deplatforming, I think, is a more substantial suggestion. It has also already been happening to some degree already, what with incel reddits being shut down, but I suppose there's more of a case that it should be stepped up. Here I would subject it to the same sort of pragmatic considerations we might apply when considering whether to try to get a pro-anorexia or a white separatist militia site de-hosted. On the one hand, you might stymie recruitment, which is a goal; on the other, they might just find somewhere else you don't know about, and having them in one place where you can keep tabs on them and also do deconversion efforts is helpful. There's also going to be a classification problem, where you have to try to figure out exactly how incel-y something has to get before you pull the switch. I don't know how that would shake out but it's interesting.)
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
How do you propose we fix the meta-message built up around males without committing time and energy towards males?
Talk about domestic violence not being taken seriously enough. About the numerous chances that young men who display violent tendencies will be given, especially when that violence is directed toward women.
Talk about places like reddit and twitter not doing enough to remove toxic communities.
Talk about the damage that incel culture does to women even by the individual participants who are not directly violent.
Saying we agree those are problems but then recentering the conversation toward male emotional needs is simply reinforcing toxic male entitlement.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
I've found that expressions like this inspires Chidi-levels of indecision regarding where any kind of conversation goes other than just stopping.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
I've found that expressions like this inspires Chidi-levels of indecision regarding where any kind of conversation goes other than just stopping.
I’ve found that it causes me to focus on the problems of marginalized people. Ymmv.
+2
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Folding ideas has a video somewhere of him trying to go to a meeting of MRAs.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
You have a hammer made of "not liking male entitlement" and you are seeing the whole world as nails. It's rather limiting.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
I find the all in approach more compelling. I'm a realist, I fully get there are people that are a lost cause, but I also get there are people you can help and get on the right track. Each person that intervention successfully works on, is one less person that will being going around advocating for a toxic ideology at the very least. Hell, some might decide once they turn their lives around, to help with intervention. Not to mention, the less toxic fuckers you have, the easier they are to deal with and if something illegal happens that can be tied to their group, a shorter list of suspects is always better than one so massive that it might as well be useless.
I agree with Jeffe, that there isn't an interesting discussion to be had on shit canning this group. It's fair easy to agree their sites should be shutdown since they do seem to be advocating for harm, which isn't protected speech. It's also easy to tell them that their ideology is shit. I'd also add, that pure tough on X shitty thing has a really fucking terrible track record. Tough on crime has done fuck all to reduce and often makes it worse because spiteful individuals get their shitty hate on and opt to pretty much strangle every program aimed at intervention and rehabilitation. Probably because they are more interested in being shit to others with a veneer of legitimacy than actually fixing the problem. I mean, being shitty to the shit head tends to be an empty payoff IMO because your still dealing with new ones coming into being because of shit aspects of society, that you still have to deal with.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
You need to get some more tools out of your toolbox dude. You want to make everything about male entitlement. Not everything we teach men is about entitlement.
Like, really, you've spent this entire thread arguing that we should not focus on stopping people from being recruited into a women-hating death cult. You should really think about that for a second and maybe consider that you are limiting your own perspective and tactics because of this refusal to consider other factors.
Suppose a municipality decided to add a unit to high school sex and health classes targeted at helping boys acquire healthier attitudes toward sexual self-worth, or someone founded a non-profit that tried to do deconversion couseling and outreach on incel forums. Are these examples of “giving in to their emotional blackmail,” because really they should just not become/be shitty in the first place, and so no one should have to do any of that stuff?
Honestly, this sounds like a really futile approach with a native understanding of the incel mindset.
First, by the time you get to sex ed, it's already too late. The problem with incels isn't that they don't know how to have healthy romantic relationships. The problem is that they don't know how to have healthy relationships period. Not with their parents (who they likely resent for having enjoyed the one thing they desire most), and not with friends. They're incapable of having a platonic relationship with a woman that doesn't include an ulterior motive. Sure, they'll say that the problem is that they can't get laid. But the problem is much deeper than that.
Second, the incel community trains is members to actively reject outside advice, I. E., from anyone who's not an incel. Because they're convinced that their suffering is unique in a way that no one else can ever relate too. A sex ed teacher who has actually experienced sex will be seen as the enemy. A male teacher will be seen as a clueless Chad who can't relate because his gifts come easily. A female teacher will be seen as a dishonest liar who can't relate because all females have it easy.
Some people have compared the act of reaching out to an incel to the act of reaching out to a white nationalist. This is incorrect. White nationalism is a much more diverse group compared to the incels. You can find people who identify as white nationalist, but who still have black friends, because they don't actually grasp what they're getting into. You will not find an incel with female friends. Hell, you probably won't find an incel with male friends outside the internet. That's the critical difference.
Any advice you have to offer the incel is likely something they already heard dozens of time. But like with a drug addict, you can't expect them to change if they don't choose it for themselves, usually after hitting rock bottom and deciding they don't want to live this way anymore.
Most teenage boys have experienced the same frustrations of the typical incel. What sets the incel apart is their refusal to see women as real people, worthy of respect. A big part of that is due to media misogyny that treats women as objects, and that's certainly something we should be fixing for reasons that goes beyond preventing incel culture.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
What do sex, violence and brutality, the first things you listed, not have to do with male entitlement?
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Suppose a municipality decided to add a unit to high school sex and health classes targeted at helping boys acquire healthier attitudes toward sexual self-worth, or someone founded a non-profit that tried to do deconversion couseling and outreach on incel forums. Are these examples of “giving in to their emotional blackmail,” because really they should just not become/be shitty in the first place, and so no one should have to do any of that stuff?
Honestly, this sounds like a really futile approach with a native understanding of the incel mindset.
First, by the time you get to sex ed, it's already too late. The problem with incels isn't that they don't know how to have healthy romantic relationships. The problem is that they don't know how to have healthy relationships period. Not with their parents (who they likely resent for having enjoyed the one thing they desire most), and not with friends. They're incapable of having a platonic relationship with a woman that doesn't include an ulterior motive. Sure, they'll say that the problem is that they can't get laid. But the problem is much deeper than that.
Second, the incel community trains is members to actively reject outside advice, I. E., from anyone who's not an incel. Because they're convinced that their suffering is unique in a way that no one else can ever relate too. A sex ed teacher who has actually experienced sex will be seen as the enemy. A male teacher will be seen as a clueless Chad who can't relate because his gifts come easily. A female teacher will be seen as a dishonest liar who can't relate because all females have it easy.
Some people have compared the act of reaching out to an incel to the act of reaching out to a white nationalist. This is incorrect. White nationalism is a much more diverse group compared to the incels. You can find people who identify as white nationalist, but who still have black friends, because they don't actually grasp what they're getting into. You will not find an incel with female friends. Hell, you probably won't find an incel with male friends outside the internet. That's the critical difference.
Any advice you have to offer the incel is likely something they already heard dozens of time. But like with a drug addict, you can't expect them to change if they don't choose it for themselves, usually after hitting rock bottom and deciding they don't want to live this way anymore.
Most teenage boys have experienced the same frustrations of the typical incel. What sets the incel apart is their refusal to see women as real people, worthy of respect. A big part of that is due to media misogyny that treats women as objects, and that's certainly something we should be fixing for reasons that goes beyond preventing incel culture.
While I mostly agree with you, the incel stuff absolutely does sound like a cult to me
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
What do sex, violence and brutality, the first things you listed, not have to do with male entitlement?
You are dodging the question. Your asserted that "Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement". So in what way is emotions being weak and feminine a part of male entitlement in your mind?
Further of course, your entire original argument that you actually made at the start was that men had "a near-monopoly" on "emotional[..] capital being directed towards [them]". So I guess you could explain why the definition of toxic masculinity I used above is wrong instead and in fact men aren't taught that emotions are weakness.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
What do sex, violence and brutality, the first things you listed, not have to do with male entitlement?
You are dodging the question. Your asserted that "Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement". So in what way is emotions being weak and feminine a part of male entitlement in your mind?
Further of course, your entire original argument that you actually made at the start was that men had "a near-monopoly" on "emotional[..] capital being directed towards [them]". So I guess you could explain why the definition of toxic masculinity I used above is wrong instead and in fact men aren't taught that emotions are weakness.
The definition isn’t wrong. You just don’t understand the context in which it exists or the ramifications.
X is caused by Y does not mean that every subsequent facet of Y must be directly caused by X. X can have emergent properties of its own and still be caused by Y.
Your listed definition is perfectly congruent with the assertion that toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement.
It’s not so much that men are taught that all emotions are weakness. Men are taught that *some* emotions are male and fine, and other emotions are feminine and not fine. You can’t have a privileged class without ways to separate them from other classes.
Our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male and thus important.
Inkstain82 on
+1
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
What do sex, violence and brutality, the first things you listed, not have to do with male entitlement?
You are dodging the question. Your asserted that "Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement". So in what way is emotions being weak and feminine a part of male entitlement in your mind?
Further of course, your entire original argument that you actually made at the start was that men had "a near-monopoly" on "emotional[..] capital being directed towards [them]". So I guess you could explain why the definition of toxic masculinity I used above is wrong instead and in fact men aren't taught that emotions are weakness.
The definition isn’t wrong. You just don’t understand the context in which it exists or the ramifications.
X is caused by Y does not mean that every subsequent facet of Y must be directly caused by X. X can have emergent properties of its own and still be caused by Y.
Your listed definition is perfectly congruent with the assertion that toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement.
It’s not so much that men are taught that all emotions are weakness. Men are taught that *some* emotions are male and fine, and other emotions are feminine and not fine. You can’t have a privileged class without ways to separate them from other classes.
Our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male and thus important.
Are you suggesting that we should be fighting against the causes of toxic masculinity and it's negative effects on the male psyche?
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You are dodging the question. Your asserted that "Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement". So in what way is emotions being weak and feminine a part of male entitlement in your mind?
Toxic masculinity encompasses more than just male entitlement. However, incel culture is a subset of toxic masculinity. And the overlap between incel culture and male entitlement is pretty strong.
Incels don't value platonic relationships, but they also aren't interested in purely sexual ones (otherwise, they would ask just order a prostitute and be done with it.). What they really want is the feeling of being worshiped by someone else with something to offer, without having to offer up anything else in return. Which is entirely a sense of entitlement.
0
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
Maybe it seems like a lot of the conversation here has been more about treating the cultural root causes of inceldom than attacking the incel groups themselves, because that's where the interesting conversation lies. The latter is basically "shut down their forums, tell them their ideas are shit," boom, done. The former is about rebuilding two thousand years of western culture, which presents a bit more to talk about.
That’s one possible explanation.
Let me offer an alternative: the conversation focuses on catering to the perceived needs of the demographic that most of this forum shares with most of inceldom. We find that part more interesting because it centers us and our needs at the expense of the rest of society.
I think it's bullshit that the only reason many people in this thread care about dealing with the negative effects of our culture on men and men's mental health as it relates to the growth of harmful subcultures and negative outcomes in general is because many of us are men, but even if I were to grant that a big part of our focus on toxic masculinity and its harmful effects was due to use being men, how would that be at the expense of the rest of society? No one here is saying we should ignore other potential causes of or solutions to the problems related to incels, so how does wanting to deal with those problems detrimental to society?
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
Many incels came from perfectly loving, caring environments with plenty of opportunity to express themselves.
It’s every bit as much a reaction to loss of male sexual hegemony as it is a failure to give them access to care and friendship.
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
It’s equally frustrating that the only solution most people want to consider is even more emotional, physical and financial capital being directed towards the demographic that already has a near-monopoly on those things.
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
Toxic masculinity is a narrow and repressive description of manhood, designating manhood as defined by violence, sex, status and aggression. It’s the cultural ideal of manliness, where strength is everything while emotions are a weakness; where sex and brutality are yardsticks by which men are measured, while supposedly “feminine” traits—which can range from emotional vulnerability to simply not being hypersexual—are the means by which your status as “man” can be taken away.
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
What do sex, violence and brutality, the first things you listed, not have to do with male entitlement?
You are dodging the question. Your asserted that "Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement". So in what way is emotions being weak and feminine a part of male entitlement in your mind?
Further of course, your entire original argument that you actually made at the start was that men had "a near-monopoly" on "emotional[..] capital being directed towards [them]". So I guess you could explain why the definition of toxic masculinity I used above is wrong instead and in fact men aren't taught that emotions are weakness.
The definition isn’t wrong. You just don’t understand the context in which it exists or the ramifications.
X is caused by Y does not mean that every subsequent facet of Y must be directly caused by X. X can have emergent properties of its own and still be caused by Y.
Your listed definition is perfectly congruent with the assertion that toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement.
It’s not so much that men are taught that all emotions are weakness. Men are taught that *some* emotions are male and fine, and other emotions are feminine and not fine. You can’t have a privileged class without ways to separate them from other classes.
Our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male and thus important.
Are you suggesting that we should be fighting against the causes of toxic masculinity and it's negative effects on the male psyche?
I’m suggesting that you don’t pacify Robbers Cove by teaching the Eagles to be more refined and the Snakes to be less stuffy.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean, but I'm starting to wonder if that's the point.
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
I challenge you to make one quote from this thread that says anything like what you're claiming anyone is saying here. Because this is straight up liars town.
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
Nobody is doing this and I have so far been unwilling to post in this thread because your wild assumptions about other posters are so absurd there is a sub-zero chance of productive discussion.
The fact you think so lowly of other posters is gross as hell.
People with mental health issues are also a marginalized group, so yeah let's not take this to the suffering Olympics.
Part of modern feminism, in addition to the all-important intersectionality that we're still trying to do right, is that while women (especially further marginalized) are the primary group that need attention, at the end of the day we're looking for all the positive things from gender to be available to everyone and for all of the negative things to not be a requirement to get them. Available to Everyone. Rich white people are not expected to continue to suffer sexist nonsense just because they're privileged in every other way. Not even rich white men.
The resource argument is only even potentially valid if there's a significant exclusive competition between these resources. Are there a bunch of women in desperate need of a private lecture from a bunch of men who have good, healthy, sincere relationships with women, who would somehow not benefit if there were *more* men like that?
Since we're not going to throw all the incels into an oubliette or some other cartoonish notion, we have to deal with the fact that they will still exist no matter how much you break up their communities unless you do something to make them stop being unhealthy.
Even if we completely ignore their own human value, and focus strictly on the benefits to women, there's still a lot to gain from trying to resolve toxic masculinity:
* Women will encounter less resistance in gaining power, wealth, etc., because there will be fewer men who consider them antagonistic opposition
* Women who like men will have more and safer choices in partners (less violence, fewer STDs, etc)
* Women will encounter fewer hostile, antagonistic men, and so be more able to just focus on being people and enjoying their personal choices
* Women will encounter more friendly, sincere men, and so have a larger base of allies and friends they can rely on
* Women will be less likely to encounter some of the more extreme acts of toxic masculinity, such as shootings, vandalism, etc.
* Women won't have to pay as much for medical costs from the bad decisions toxic masculinity tends to encourage
* Women will benefit in a number of ways from men getting better and more types of education, instead of the slide we're seeing now
* Women will not have to deal with as much -war- from toxic masculine nuclear pissing contests
* Women will be more able to explore positive "masculine" gender traits without associating them with toxic masculinity
* Etc etc etc.
It turns out that helping nearly half the species to become healthier, happier, kinder, more thoughtful people is good for the other half.
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
I challenge you to make one quote from this thread that says anything like what you're claiming anyone is saying here. Because this is straight up liars town.
Robbers Cove was an experiment in which it was discovered that the only thing required to cause two groups of people to come into conflict was to split people into two groups.
The two groups of fairly similar young men came up with group identities to separate themselves rather arbitrarily and began acting them out. One group was rough, one group sophisticated.
This is analogous to how men have come up with ideas about what it means to be a man subsequent to placing men above women in the social hierarchy.
Our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male and thus important.
...that's the problem.
Men are taught certain emotions are inappropriate for men to have. In high school when I said something to my father about how some people were picking on me his response was that I needed to grow some balls. I cried at work one time several years ago and was asked by my supervisor to go outside for a while because he didn't want to see a man cry. I've been sharing some of the things said in here and found in other places about toxic masculinity on Facebook because I think it's important to challenge it, but every now and then I wonder if people are seeing those posts and thinking "well he's just talking about toxic masculinity because he's a pathetic failure of a man who is making excuses for himself; also, he's probably a virgin."
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
Nobody is doing this and I have so far been unwilling to post in this thread because your wild assumptions about other posters are so absurd there is a sub-zero chance of productive discussion.
The fact you think so lowly of other posters is gross as hell.
We are talking about societally ingrained prejudices. Nobody here is immune to them. I have been careful not to blame anyone individually.
I decline responsibility for your posting choices.
I disagree with Inkstain's position, but I believe their's is a popular one.
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
Nobody is doing this and I have so far been unwilling to post in this thread because your wild assumptions about other posters are so absurd there is a sub-zero chance of productive discussion.
The fact you think so lowly of other posters is gross as hell.
We are talking about societally ingrained prejudices. Nobody here is immune to them. I have been careful not to blame anyone individually.
I decline responsibility for your posting choices.
Yes, you've been wildly implying everybody in the thread is a self-interested shithead while leaving yourself a veneer of deniability. That's more disgusting than if you were actually honest about it.
Posts
I think Nova said the opposite
Well, how about this:
Is it not in evidence that men are expected to keep their emotions in check and not develop emotional intimacy with other men? Is it not in evidence that romantic relationships are often portrayed as the single most important thing you can have, above and beyond platonic relationships? Is it not in evidence that our media suggests that if you aren't getting laid, you're an ugly loser and if no value to anyone?
The nice thing here is that these are all shitty cultural messages that are harmful and should be discarded anyway, and that working to do this in no way precludes the direct attack approach you favor! We can do them all at once! And if we're wrong about it being a root cause, then we've still managed to make society a little better!
Also consider that every irredeemable incel asshole started their life as a baby with a blank slate. So unless your policy is "fuck you, baby, you're destined to be an asshole" then consider that there are many points along the spectrum of their life during which you might have turned them away from inceldom. And since it's easier reaching someone before they're in the tank for a destructive philosophy, maybe it's efficient to put at least some of your efforts into prevention.
I think many are trying to take the easy way out on identifying the root causes. Seizing on an explanation that both makes for a logical story and benefits them. Sort of how people latch onto the idea that bullying causes school shootings, which is almost certainly not true.
I don’t think the assumption that lack of access to caring relationships or discouragement from seeking them is a slam-dunk explanation for inceldom. Many of these men have perfectly adequate access to those things.
I'd prefer not to argue directly with you. I neither said those two things would 100% solve it nor after reading this topic have come to that conclusion. There's much more people have offered.
And again I reiterate that even if any single person is not responsible for the meta-message, the meta-message still matters. You cannot fix the culture’s problems with male entitlement by centering the message that society needs to commit even more time and energy to men.
We have no problem with this idea when it’s directed at complaining that media spends way too much time worrying about the economic anxiety of Trump voters. But when it’s the response to toxic masculinity spending too much time worrying about the social anxiety of awkward males, that hits a little too close to home.
This is not a moral judgment, this is simply about what’s effective for society as a whole. You do not fight extremist groups by centering understanding of their complaints. It doesn’t work and they use it as a wedge to legitimize themselves.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Which probably explains why many people who believe in feminism are reluctant to talk about toxic masculinity and its effects on men, despite this being a feminist concept that incels and other anti-feminist groups deny as a lie by man-hating SJWs, allowing those male-led anti-feminist groups to exert their influence while men who know better are afraid to say anything for fear of condemnation from their peers for daring to bring up a relevant mens' issue.
In my own circle of acquaintances I've increasingly seen women who identify as feminist lament that mens' issues they believe are important are minimized, ignored, or mocked by fellow feminists. I already mentioned how one woman has started sharing ManKind Project posts, while another recently wrote, "Men have struggles too, men need help, and men know what it’s like to struggle with low self esteem."
Do you think that they aren't already stigmatized? All of the sources I've seen describe them as congregating on anonymous online forums. Do they have public meetings, or are there "out and proud" incels? Has there been any actually positive press coverage of incels? I'd guess the answer is "no" on all fronts, but I'm open to correction. The Contrapoints video was about the nicest thing I've ever seen produced about incels, and she is very clear that the whole thing is fucked and calls them (accurately) a woman-hating death cult, so I'm not sure what the additional layer of stigmatization is going to look like, or what the value add over the status quo is supposed to be here. I think the two most mainstream pieces of exposure incels have gotten is 1) news articles attributing mass killings to them and 2) an episode of SVU where they were the bad guys.
Similarly with respect to direct confrontation of their ideas: incel ideas are straight up loony tunes. I don't think there are a lot of people out there, outside of the incel sphere, who actually take seriously the whole metaphysics of chad, becky, stacy, beta bux and etc., or who are willing to cheer along to legalizing rape as a general social policy. Who, in the general culture, do we need to convince that it's bullshit? Now, it's important to be clear that our society ~does~ indulge in plenty of less outlandish forms of generalized background misogyny, and there are lots of people who could use better attitudes about gender. Generic unwoke Americans may not take incels seriously, but they do think lots of other shitty stuff about gender anyway. But doing our best to fix that is a project that I imagine we were all on board with already, and one that doesn't really have much to do with incels per se. Or, in other words, I agree that fixing background social misogyny is important! Do you think there's anyone here who doesn't?
You have been suggesting that the thread has taken up discussion of positive outreach strategies because it, in line with our bad background culture, overvalues and emphasizes male perspectives and concerns. So it's all oh boo hoo, poor men. I think there's a much more charitable reading of what's going on, which is just that most of the stuff you're talking about--stigmatizing them, making sure their ideas aren't taken seriously--is already part of the status quo. Incels are already stigmatized and their ideas are already not taken seriously by people outside their community. Like, say, Heaven's Gate or pro-ana groups, they manage to recruit despite the fact that they believe things about the Hale-Bopp comet that almost no one else does, and, in fact, that most people would think are bizarre. Or, perhaps, like the Manson family, they believe things about "Helter Skelter" that most people would think are not very credible, and then also sometimes they kill people (though with much less frequency or organization in this case). In that kind of situation, the idea of fixing the culture in ways that prevent people from becoming radicalized in the first place, and of having de-brainwashing outreach efforts, is more clearly distinct from the already existing status quo. It thus makes sense to focus on it when you're trying to think about potential changes that might help.
Or, more tl;dr-y: no one spent that much effort convincing people that Manson was wrong about the coming race war. Everyone was already onboard. So instead, in the cult context, people tend to focus on what leads people to get converted and how to de-convert them, and the social conditions which are conducive to both. This is just part of a fairly practical attempt to deal with extremist groups as a social phenomena.
(Deplatforming, I think, is a more substantial suggestion. It has also already been happening to some degree already, what with incel reddits being shut down, but I suppose there's more of a case that it should be stepped up. Here I would subject it to the same sort of pragmatic considerations we might apply when considering whether to try to get a pro-anorexia or a white separatist militia site de-hosted. On the one hand, you might stymie recruitment, which is a goal; on the other, they might just find somewhere else you don't know about, and having them in one place where you can keep tabs on them and also do deconversion efforts is helpful. There's also going to be a classification problem, where you have to try to figure out exactly how incel-y something has to get before you pull the switch. I don't know how that would shake out but it's interesting.)
Do they? I'm not sure why they would be so different from the majority of men, who don't come from environments that teach them to express their emotions or connect with others well and don't provide them with the kind of emotional support people actually need.
Like, this here is the whole problem with your argument: you keep trying to frame male privilege and toxic masculinity as being somehow in opposition to one another. They are not.
Like, honest question here, do you even believe in toxic masculinity as a concept? Because most of the stuff you are posting on the subject of incels is basically an argument against the idea that men are lacking support mechanism in our society.
Like:
No. The entire point of toxic masculinity is that men lack emotional support. That we provide them with a privileged place within our society but teach them to denigrate and avoid emotional support from others. To "be a man".
Talk about domestic violence not being taken seriously enough. About the numerous chances that young men who display violent tendencies will be given, especially when that violence is directed toward women.
Talk about places like reddit and twitter not doing enough to remove toxic communities.
Talk about the damage that incel culture does to women even by the individual participants who are not directly violent.
Saying we agree those are problems but then recentering the conversation toward male emotional needs is simply reinforcing toxic male entitlement.
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement. It’s the downside men experience alongside the upsides of being so privileged.
They aren’t in opposition, but one supersedes the other in importance.
Believing toxic masculinity is at the heart of the problems with inceldom is in its own way an expression of male entitlement.
I've found that expressions like this inspires Chidi-levels of indecision regarding where any kind of conversation goes other than just stopping.
I’ve found that it causes me to focus on the problems of marginalized people. Ymmv.
Folding ideas has a video somewhere of him trying to go to a meeting of MRAs.
What? No it's not. Toxic masculinity includes idea about male entitlement but it is not wholly about that nor is it a symptom of it.
A good description for instance is here:
(All of which should, btw, be pretty familiar if you know anything about Incels.)
It is not about or a symptom of male entitlement, it is the way in which our cultural defines what being a man means.
The way our culture defines what being a man means is male entitlement. You can’t separate one from the other. Being defined as the privileged, entitled class is the definition. The toxicity comes from the negative side effects of that definition
No it isn't. I literally gave you a good description there that include a ton of things that are not required for or do not descend from male entitlement.
You have a hammer made of "not liking male entitlement" and you are seeing the whole world as nails. It's rather limiting.
That description of that definition misunderstands the pervasiveness of male entitlement in defining our culture.
Violence, sex and brutality aren’t randomly chosen yardsticks. They are how men maintain their place at the top of the hierarchy.
The definition you gave both descends from and feeds male entitlement.
I agree with Jeffe, that there isn't an interesting discussion to be had on shit canning this group. It's fair easy to agree their sites should be shutdown since they do seem to be advocating for harm, which isn't protected speech. It's also easy to tell them that their ideology is shit. I'd also add, that pure tough on X shitty thing has a really fucking terrible track record. Tough on crime has done fuck all to reduce and often makes it worse because spiteful individuals get their shitty hate on and opt to pretty much strangle every program aimed at intervention and rehabilitation. Probably because they are more interested in being shit to others with a veneer of legitimacy than actually fixing the problem. I mean, being shitty to the shit head tends to be an empty payoff IMO because your still dealing with new ones coming into being because of shit aspects of society, that you still have to deal with.
What does emotions being weak and feminine have to do with maintaining a place at the top of the hierarchy?
You need to get some more tools out of your toolbox dude. You want to make everything about male entitlement. Not everything we teach men is about entitlement.
Like, really, you've spent this entire thread arguing that we should not focus on stopping people from being recruited into a women-hating death cult. You should really think about that for a second and maybe consider that you are limiting your own perspective and tactics because of this refusal to consider other factors.
Honestly, this sounds like a really futile approach with a native understanding of the incel mindset.
First, by the time you get to sex ed, it's already too late. The problem with incels isn't that they don't know how to have healthy romantic relationships. The problem is that they don't know how to have healthy relationships period. Not with their parents (who they likely resent for having enjoyed the one thing they desire most), and not with friends. They're incapable of having a platonic relationship with a woman that doesn't include an ulterior motive. Sure, they'll say that the problem is that they can't get laid. But the problem is much deeper than that.
Second, the incel community trains is members to actively reject outside advice, I. E., from anyone who's not an incel. Because they're convinced that their suffering is unique in a way that no one else can ever relate too. A sex ed teacher who has actually experienced sex will be seen as the enemy. A male teacher will be seen as a clueless Chad who can't relate because his gifts come easily. A female teacher will be seen as a dishonest liar who can't relate because all females have it easy.
Some people have compared the act of reaching out to an incel to the act of reaching out to a white nationalist. This is incorrect. White nationalism is a much more diverse group compared to the incels. You can find people who identify as white nationalist, but who still have black friends, because they don't actually grasp what they're getting into. You will not find an incel with female friends. Hell, you probably won't find an incel with male friends outside the internet. That's the critical difference.
Any advice you have to offer the incel is likely something they already heard dozens of time. But like with a drug addict, you can't expect them to change if they don't choose it for themselves, usually after hitting rock bottom and deciding they don't want to live this way anymore.
Most teenage boys have experienced the same frustrations of the typical incel. What sets the incel apart is their refusal to see women as real people, worthy of respect. A big part of that is due to media misogyny that treats women as objects, and that's certainly something we should be fixing for reasons that goes beyond preventing incel culture.
What do sex, violence and brutality, the first things you listed, not have to do with male entitlement?
While I mostly agree with you, the incel stuff absolutely does sound like a cult to me
You are dodging the question. Your asserted that "Toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement". So in what way is emotions being weak and feminine a part of male entitlement in your mind?
Further of course, your entire original argument that you actually made at the start was that men had "a near-monopoly" on "emotional[..] capital being directed towards [them]". So I guess you could explain why the definition of toxic masculinity I used above is wrong instead and in fact men aren't taught that emotions are weakness.
The definition isn’t wrong. You just don’t understand the context in which it exists or the ramifications.
X is caused by Y does not mean that every subsequent facet of Y must be directly caused by X. X can have emergent properties of its own and still be caused by Y.
Your listed definition is perfectly congruent with the assertion that toxic masculinity is a symptom of male entitlement.
It’s not so much that men are taught that all emotions are weakness. Men are taught that *some* emotions are male and fine, and other emotions are feminine and not fine. You can’t have a privileged class without ways to separate them from other classes.
Our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male and thus important.
Are you suggesting that we should be fighting against the causes of toxic masculinity and it's negative effects on the male psyche?
Oh, it's absolutely popular. It's the same mindset that claims that if we devote any effort towards wondering why legions of middle easterners might want to launch terrorist attacks against western nations, then The Terrorists Have Already Won.
Empathy is hard. Spite is simple.
Toxic masculinity encompasses more than just male entitlement. However, incel culture is a subset of toxic masculinity. And the overlap between incel culture and male entitlement is pretty strong.
Incels don't value platonic relationships, but they also aren't interested in purely sexual ones (otherwise, they would ask just order a prostitute and be done with it.). What they really want is the feeling of being worshiped by someone else with something to offer, without having to offer up anything else in return. Which is entirely a sense of entitlement.
I think it's bullshit that the only reason many people in this thread care about dealing with the negative effects of our culture on men and men's mental health as it relates to the growth of harmful subcultures and negative outcomes in general is because many of us are men, but even if I were to grant that a big part of our focus on toxic masculinity and its harmful effects was due to use being men, how would that be at the expense of the rest of society? No one here is saying we should ignore other potential causes of or solutions to the problems related to incels, so how does wanting to deal with those problems detrimental to society?
One of defining traits of a cult is cutting you off from any outside social network to increase dependence on the group, so yeah.
Centering your own needs is easy. Calling it spite when called on it is easy. Decentering privileged classes is hard.
What’s being done isn’t examining why middle easterners hate the west. It’s spending all your time arguing whether women should be more chaste.
I’m suggesting that you don’t pacify Robbers Cove by teaching the Eagles to be more refined and the Snakes to be less stuffy.
I challenge you to make one quote from this thread that says anything like what you're claiming anyone is saying here. Because this is straight up liars town.
Nobody is doing this and I have so far been unwilling to post in this thread because your wild assumptions about other posters are so absurd there is a sub-zero chance of productive discussion.
The fact you think so lowly of other posters is gross as hell.
Part of modern feminism, in addition to the all-important intersectionality that we're still trying to do right, is that while women (especially further marginalized) are the primary group that need attention, at the end of the day we're looking for all the positive things from gender to be available to everyone and for all of the negative things to not be a requirement to get them. Available to Everyone. Rich white people are not expected to continue to suffer sexist nonsense just because they're privileged in every other way. Not even rich white men.
The resource argument is only even potentially valid if there's a significant exclusive competition between these resources. Are there a bunch of women in desperate need of a private lecture from a bunch of men who have good, healthy, sincere relationships with women, who would somehow not benefit if there were *more* men like that?
Since we're not going to throw all the incels into an oubliette or some other cartoonish notion, we have to deal with the fact that they will still exist no matter how much you break up their communities unless you do something to make them stop being unhealthy.
Even if we completely ignore their own human value, and focus strictly on the benefits to women, there's still a lot to gain from trying to resolve toxic masculinity:
* Women will encounter less resistance in gaining power, wealth, etc., because there will be fewer men who consider them antagonistic opposition
* Women who like men will have more and safer choices in partners (less violence, fewer STDs, etc)
* Women will encounter fewer hostile, antagonistic men, and so be more able to just focus on being people and enjoying their personal choices
* Women will encounter more friendly, sincere men, and so have a larger base of allies and friends they can rely on
* Women will be less likely to encounter some of the more extreme acts of toxic masculinity, such as shootings, vandalism, etc.
* Women won't have to pay as much for medical costs from the bad decisions toxic masculinity tends to encourage
* Women will benefit in a number of ways from men getting better and more types of education, instead of the slide we're seeing now
* Women will not have to deal with as much -war- from toxic masculine nuclear pissing contests
* Women will be more able to explore positive "masculine" gender traits without associating them with toxic masculinity
* Etc etc etc.
It turns out that helping nearly half the species to become healthier, happier, kinder, more thoughtful people is good for the other half.
Robbers Cove was an experiment in which it was discovered that the only thing required to cause two groups of people to come into conflict was to split people into two groups.
The two groups of fairly similar young men came up with group identities to separate themselves rather arbitrarily and began acting them out. One group was rough, one group sophisticated.
This is analogous to how men have come up with ideas about what it means to be a man subsequent to placing men above women in the social hierarchy.
...that's the problem.
Men are taught certain emotions are inappropriate for men to have. In high school when I said something to my father about how some people were picking on me his response was that I needed to grow some balls. I cried at work one time several years ago and was asked by my supervisor to go outside for a while because he didn't want to see a man cry. I've been sharing some of the things said in here and found in other places about toxic masculinity on Facebook because I think it's important to challenge it, but every now and then I wonder if people are seeing those posts and thinking "well he's just talking about toxic masculinity because he's a pathetic failure of a man who is making excuses for himself; also, he's probably a virgin."
We are talking about societally ingrained prejudices. Nobody here is immune to them. I have been careful not to blame anyone individually.
I decline responsibility for your posting choices.
Yes, you've been wildly implying everybody in the thread is a self-interested shithead while leaving yourself a veneer of deniability. That's more disgusting than if you were actually honest about it.