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.
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
Kinda sounds like you're just hell bent on finding a solution that doesn't benefit men at all, because fuck those guys.
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.
As a person who did not have their internet use monitored by their parents as a kid, I can't believe any parent thinks not keeping up with what internet media they consume in general is a good idea.
Some good people practically grew up on 4Chan, and I think pretty much every one of them knows how much it was sheer luck they didn't turn out like some of the others.
But keeping up with what they are consuming doesn't mean you understand it or what it means.
"It's ok Mom, we're just talking about ethics in game's journalism."
So how much of the modern alt-right is being promoted by incels, or incels in training? Because a lot incels have these nuclear family fantasies were women were expected to be subservient, and they resonant with Trump for promising to bring back nolstalgia.
Also, right now, we're only talking about incels in America. We haven't even covered incels in other nations which are far more patriarchal, and which have access to the same internet.
China will be particularly frightening, because that's a nation where there simply not enough single women to keep up with the number of single men.
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
Kinda sounds like you're just hell bent on finding a solution that doesn't benefit men at all, because fuck those guys.
You should examine your biases to see what made you interpret it that way.
Media literacy is incredibly important in a species where an individual's culture is often defined by the media they consume. But that is a very large topic on itself.
--
Ideally, the goal should be to reduce unnecessary suffering for all persons, especially those who have not themselves made a harmful decision, until suffering is reduced to 0.
You do what you can to mitigate the damage.
You do what you can to prevent the damage.
You do what you can to reverse the damage.
You focus your resources carefully between the greatest needs and the greatest effects.
Identifying and eliminating the toxic elements that would drive a young man to incel isn’t capitulating to incel
Just as trying to reduce or avoid the elements that would drive young Muslim men to become radicalized isn’t giving into terrorism
It’s the smart move. It’s the only way to actually progress in these issues. Also, they are likely similar issues. Basically fixing the problems with culture that drive men to violence is a great idea
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
Misogyny is the result of toxic masculinity, not the other way around.
You teach men you're strong and smart and superior and THEN the attitude towards women fosters, then the culture shifts, and then the laws are made. You can see this in cultures around the world, and you can also see the result of women being held in higher esteem from the get-go and how it is not the same. Misogyny is a result of shit culture, it doesn't make it.
You're putting the cart before the horse.
Other way around. You seize power because you want it, then come up with group identities that justify it.
Racism for white Europeans was invented as a justification for imperialism, not the cause of imperialism
Identifying and eliminating the toxic elements that would drive a young man to incel isn’t copitulating to incel
Just as trying to reduce or avoid the elements that would drive young Muslim men to become radicalized isn’t giving into terrorism
It’s the smart move. It’s the only way to actually progress in these issues. Also, they are likely similar issues. Basically fixing the problems with culture that drive men to violence is a great idea
Capitulating to incels would be giving what they want, which is women-as-property for them to own. Subservient pretty fuck-dolls for all men, distributed at need. All women needing to line up for the communist sexual revolution. :P
I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks that's a bad idea.
Identifying and eliminating the toxic elements that would drive a young man to incel isn’t copitulating to incel
Just as trying to reduce or avoid the elements that would drive young Muslim men to become radicalized isn’t giving into terrorism
It’s the smart move. It’s the only way to actually progress in these issues. Also, they are likely similar issues. Basically fixing the problems with culture that drive men to violence is a great idea
Agreed.
But it’s important to understand how our own cultural biases can distort our attempts to identify those toxic elements.
+1
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered 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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Misogyny and toxic masculinity are fuel for each other, and the fire they create burns indiscriminately.
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
+1
NFytThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered 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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
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
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
This is increasingly sounding like the same logic that incels use to keep themselves from growing out of their toxic environment.
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
This is increasingly sounding like the same logic that incels use to keep themselves from growing out of their toxic environment.
Meaningless non sequitor
Inkstain82 on
0
NFytThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered 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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
As far as I am seeing as someone with only surface-level knowledge of the issues at hand, your position is
1) Incels are a problem, which yes we can all agree on
2) Working to fix this problem in ways that focus on males is bad because males already have too much focus, which yeah society's male focus is a thing but it seems counterproductive to try fixing a male-centered problem without focusing on 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
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
This is increasingly sounding like the same logic that incels use to keep themselves from growing out of their toxic environment.
Meaningless non sequitor
"I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help"
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
As far as I am seeing as someone with only surface-level knowledge of the issues at hand, your position is
1) Incels are a problem, which yes we can all agree on
2) Working to fix this problem in ways that focus on males is bad because males already have too much focus, which yeah society's male focus is a thing but it seems counterproductive to try fixing a male-centered problem without focusing on males.
Pretty close.
The violence and cultural denigration that incels cause is a problem.
The solutions being proposed are inadequate to the problem. The reason they are being proposed despite being inadequate is the male-centric lens through which we see society makes them seem adequate.
They’re not bad *because* they’re male centric. They’re bad because this miss the vast majority of the contributing causes.
So how much of the modern alt-right is being promoted by incels, or incels in training? Because a lot incels have these nuclear family fantasies were women were expected to be subservient, and they resonant with Trump for promising to bring back nolstalgia.
Also, right now, we're only talking about incels in America. We haven't even covered incels in other nations which are far more patriarchal, and which have access to the same internet.
China will be particularly frightening, because that's a nation where there simply not enough single women to keep up with the number of single men.
Is complicated. They share a lot of the same demographics, so a common way that incels break from their cult (because even they recognize that is a dead end) is going full in on "not tired of winning", which is why most of the alt-right forums have a "no blackpilling" rule, even if it is only incels getting mocked until they change or go elsewhere. Going from incel to shitlord is very common, not to mention that is a strong market:
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
Kinda sounds like you're just hell bent on finding a solution that doesn't benefit men at all, because fuck those guys.
You should examine your biases to see what made you interpret it that way.
You should examine your argument to see what makes multiple people, who are ostensibly trying to solve the same problem, interpret it that way.
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.
+23
NFytThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
Guh, trying to type out a well-thought-through response and it's just a lot of hemming and hawing over phrasing, so lets try with brevity (and also trimming the quote chain because that is a lot of chain at this point).
While proposed solutions along the lines of unfucking our views on 'proper' masculinity aren't likely to solve the problem of EXISTING incels, especially the ones that have dug deep into the rabbithole of loathing, would it not serve well on cutting off the recruitment stream? If society isn't telling males they are worthless for not being sexually active Adonises, you ought to have less disaffected males browsing the internet in search of meaning.
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
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
Kinda sounds like you're just hell bent on finding a solution that doesn't benefit men at all, because fuck those guys.
You should examine your biases to see what made you interpret it that way.
You should examine your argument to see what makes multiple people, who are ostensibly trying to solve the same problem, interpret it that way.
Self-selected sampling
+2
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered 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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
I mean, if I'm reading it on the surface, it's because we're too blinded by our own dicks to be able to properly understand anything and Men are inherently incapable of restraint or reasoned behavior and are at best dull-headed lunks that must be kept from knocking over every dish in Ye Olde China Shoppe.
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
I mean, if I'm reading it on the surface, it's because we're too blinded by our own dicks to be able to properly understand anything and Men are inherently incapable of restraint or reasoned behavior and are at best dull-headed lunks that must be kept from knocking over every dish in Ye Olde China Shoppe.
“Even allies are affected by bias” is not “they’re stupid and can’t understand anything.”
+4
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered 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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
I mean, if I'm reading it on the surface, it's because we're too blinded by our own dicks to be able to properly understand anything and Men are inherently incapable of restraint or reasoned behavior and are at best dull-headed lunks that must be kept from knocking over every dish in Ye Olde China Shoppe.
“Even allies are affected by bias” is not “they’re stupid and can’t understand anything.”
You say that
But then you say all of your other stuff and it pretty much feels like the latter.
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.
"our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to those emotions that are identitied as male" and "our society spends a *ton* of time and energy devoted to catering to the emotions of men" are not the same thing. And that you don't get this is the whole problem with your position.
Men are taught that some emotions are not appropriate for them to feel. This has nothing to do with male entitlement. You still haven't been able to give a reason why it is.
You keep trying to pretend like because society privileges men that it can't also be neglecting their emotional needs. This is wrong. These two things together are in fact at the heart of what causes things like the incel movement.
Of course that neglect is real.
It being real does not mean it is the primary or even a major cause of the incel movement.
I'm absolutely curious to know what is the primary cause now.
If I’m listing them out in order of importance, before I get to lack of access to caring friendships or healthy outlets for emotions, I go through:
Male entitlement through societal misogyny
Overrepresentation of male points of view in public discourse and positions of influence
A lax attitude toward violence against women in both the legal system and popular culture
A reluctance to deplatform violent extremist groups
I am further confused by your position.
People are quite literally saying we need to cut off traditional American masculinity at the head by focusing our attention on those most susceptible towards its message and you're arguing that it's bad because, by your own admission, the fourth most important thing on your list takes precedence?
I’m saying what you’re aiming for isn’t the head. It’s somewhere between a forearm and a pinkie.
I’m saying that the appeal of that particular target is in part driven by the same overarching cultural misogyny and male entitlement that you are trying to decapitate.
So, trying to get rid of toxic masculinity by teaching people how to treat others with respect from a young age is, in fact, toxic masculinity?
What?
Toxic masculinity is not the core problem here. Misogyny is.
Toxic masculinity is, however, the subsection of misogyny that hurts men the most relatively speaking.
A male-dominated conversation in a male-dominated forum is zeroing in on the *part* of the problem that most hurts men.
It’s a textbook example of well-meaning allyship centering itself.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
You're going to have to explain how working to stop toxic masculinity doesn't make anything better, since we're apparently all too blinded by our biases to see it.
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
I mean, if I'm reading it on the surface, it's because we're too blinded by our own dicks to be able to properly understand anything and Men are inherently incapable of restraint or reasoned behavior and are at best dull-headed lunks that must be kept from knocking over every dish in Ye Olde China Shoppe.
“Even allies are affected by bias” is not “they’re stupid and can’t understand anything.”
You say that
But then you say all of your other stuff and it pretty much feels like the latter.
Yeah. Turns out you can’t point out people’s biases without them feeling attacked and overreacting defensively. There is literally no way around it. *especially* ally bias.
+4
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I know I said this three pages ago, but for real this has gone in this particular circle long enough. People besides me have things to say on the subject.
Yeah, I know I said this three pages ago, but for real this has gone in this particular circle long enough. People besides me have things to say on the subject.
In the interest of furthering conversation, let's just throw some mod weight behind this and say that furthering this tangent is now off topic.
(Not trying to be a dick here, just hoping this discourages the conversational merry go round.)
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.
So how much of the modern alt-right is being promoted by incels, or incels in training? Because a lot incels have these nuclear family fantasies were women were expected to be subservient, and they resonant with Trump for promising to bring back nolstalgia.
Also, right now, we're only talking about incels in America. We haven't even covered incels in other nations which are far more patriarchal, and which have access to the same internet.
China will be particularly frightening, because that's a nation where there simply not enough single women to keep up with the number of single men.
Is complicated. They share a lot of the same demographics, so a common way that incels break from their cult (because even they recognize that is a dead end) is going full in on "not tired of winning", which is why most of the alt-right forums have a "no blackpilling" rule, even if it is only incels getting mocked until they change or go elsewhere. Going from incel to shitlord is very common, not to mention that is a strong market:
Reading a glossary of incel related terms is pretty much an alt right glossary with less antisemitism and a really weird brand of racism in which black men are both immensely more and hopelessly less successful with women because of their skin color.
Also: I love that that book cover seems to unintentionally depict the less metaphorically rich middle part of the phoenix life cycle in which they burn everything around them to ashes.
It's hard to help horrible people for lots of reasons. Don't do it if you don't know how to do it
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You know, I notice that nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room; Porn. I mean if there is one thing that the internet age has provided humanity, its the ease of access to porn in all its forms.
Its not the end all, be all, but its probably a huge driver of Incel issues and not just in how it depicts sex. I think most people "know" that the sex that goes on in porn is unrealistic, I mean some of the positions used are straight up painful to do for any length of time. BUT, I think a lot of men, compare themselves to the male performers, not just in dick size, but in general looks. AND nothing gives you the impression that women can be bought and sold than porn, where beautiful women quite literally have sex for money.
(Somebody is going to say that they don't find porn actresses beautiful. I say lets not go there. I will say that there is more variety in Porn actresses then fashion models and they reflect the general male taste better. Fashion models are picked by Gay designers to model their clothes. Porn Actresses are picked by average straight men to well... I think it speaks for itself.)
Edit: Which bring me to one actual area to focus on: Sex Education and not just in the birds and the bees, but actually talking to teenagers about what a relationship is. Including spending time explaining how Porn does not reflect the real world(and rom coms cause fuck rom coms for relationship advice).
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I think that pornography, and how it presents... well everything, can be, generally speaking, considered one manifestation of toxic masculinity/unhealthy gender norms. It falls under the larger umbrella of how the media we consume reinforces unhealthy and unrealistic ideas of how men and women are supposed to behave.
I think that pornography, and how it presents... well everything, can be, generally speaking, considered one manifestation of toxic masculinity/unhealthy gender norms. It falls under the larger umbrella of how the media we consume reinforces unhealthy and unrealistic ideas of how men and women are supposed to behave.
But I think its far more influential and far more driving then we tend to give it credit for. Its the one part of media that deals explicitly with gender roles and sex. Its also a bigger part of people lives then most people would care to admit. To simply put it in the media pile, does a disservice to its importance.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
To say that pornography is "the one part of media that deals explicitly with gender roles and sex" does a disservice to all other media and the importance/prevalence of gender roles and sex present within them.
You're confusing "sexually explicit" with "explicit," and even then, pornography isn't the only sexually explicit form of media out there, it's just matter of degrees.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
As a woman, it's pretty important to me that society start allowing men to have a full range of emotions and to have tender male friendships. I'm married to a man and I work with a lot of men: if they aren't given good societal tools for managing thier emotions, I tend to end up suffering for it one way or another. Besides, some of the people who are raised as men and ingrained with these feelings of how worthless everything feminine is have actually been women the whole time (ie, trans women), so yes, not destroying the emotional lives of men is a woman's issue too.
If I were in this to placate incels, then I'd say something dumb like teen girls should be forced to befriend them, which I would never say. Wanting thier to be better emotional structures for men is the actual opposite of what incels want - they insist on propping up the toxic masculinity that grinds them down, and think that dismantling it is the reason they are unhappy.
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
You know, I notice that nobody has pointed out the elephant in the room; Porn. I mean if there is one thing that the internet age has provided humanity, its the ease of access to porn in all its forms.
Its not the end all, be all, but its probably a huge driver of Incel issues and not just in how it depicts sex. I think most people "know" that the sex that goes on in porn is unrealistic, I mean some of the positions used are straight up painful to do for any length of time. BUT, I think a lot of men, compare themselves to the male performers, not just in dick size, but in general looks. AND nothing gives you the impression that women can be bought and sold than porn, where beautiful women quite literally have sex for money.
(Somebody is going to say that they don't find porn actresses beautiful. I say lets not go there. I will say that there is more variety in Porn actresses then fashion models and they reflect the general male taste better. Fashion models are picked by Gay designers to model their clothes. Porn Actresses are picked by average straight men to well... I think it speaks for itself.)
Edit: Which bring me to one actual area to focus on: Sex Education and not just in the birds and the bees, but actually talking to teenagers about what a relationship is. Including spending time explaining how Porn does not reflect the real world(and rom coms cause fuck rom coms for relationship advice).
These days, sexual education focuses on how to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases/infections (I believe STD was changed to STI for reasons I do not remember). They do not however, focus on subjects such as porn. They may feel it is an unnecessary topic to bring up but I do agree with you that people should realize porn can and does emphasize the "perfect" male look. Society is slowly accepting that media can affect people's perceptions of themselves by promoting unnatural body standards, but they exclude porn from that media category and instead focus on magazines, social media, etc.
Posts
Kinda sounds like you're just hell bent on finding a solution that doesn't benefit men at all, because fuck those guys.
But keeping up with what they are consuming doesn't mean you understand it or what it means.
"It's ok Mom, we're just talking about ethics in game's journalism."
Also, right now, we're only talking about incels in America. We haven't even covered incels in other nations which are far more patriarchal, and which have access to the same internet.
China will be particularly frightening, because that's a nation where there simply not enough single women to keep up with the number of single men.
You should examine your biases to see what made you interpret it that way.
--
Ideally, the goal should be to reduce unnecessary suffering for all persons, especially those who have not themselves made a harmful decision, until suffering is reduced to 0.
You do what you can to mitigate the damage.
You do what you can to prevent the damage.
You do what you can to reverse the damage.
You focus your resources carefully between the greatest needs and the greatest effects.
Just as trying to reduce or avoid the elements that would drive young Muslim men to become radicalized isn’t giving into terrorism
It’s the smart move. It’s the only way to actually progress in these issues. Also, they are likely similar issues. Basically fixing the problems with culture that drive men to violence is a great idea
Other way around. You seize power because you want it, then come up with group identities that justify it.
Racism for white Europeans was invented as a justification for imperialism, not the cause of imperialism
Capitulating to incels would be giving what they want, which is women-as-property for them to own. Subservient pretty fuck-dolls for all men, distributed at need. All women needing to line up for the communist sexual revolution. :P
I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks that's a bad idea.
Agreed.
But it’s important to understand how our own cultural biases can distort our attempts to identify those toxic elements.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of the 'vicious cycle'. And it sounds like you're okay with the cycle continuing on forever, so long as you at least hear someone is being punished for it somewhere. You'd rather feel better than do better.
Misogyny and toxic masculinity are fuel for each other, and the fire they create burns indiscriminately.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Interesting phrasing on that last sentence, given that what I am arguing against is the people proposing the solution are subconsciously gravitating toward it because it would make *them* feel better, rather than it being what will actually do better.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help
This is increasingly sounding like the same logic that incels use to keep themselves from growing out of their toxic environment.
Meaningless non sequitor
1) Incels are a problem, which yes we can all agree on
2) Working to fix this problem in ways that focus on males is bad because males already have too much focus, which yeah society's male focus is a thing but it seems counterproductive to try fixing a male-centered problem without focusing on males.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
"I think if anyone genuinely doesn’t understand my position by now, even if they disagree with it in the most uncharitable ways that forum rules will allow, further restatements are not going to help"
Pretty close.
The violence and cultural denigration that incels cause is a problem.
The solutions being proposed are inadequate to the problem. The reason they are being proposed despite being inadequate is the male-centric lens through which we see society makes them seem adequate.
They’re not bad *because* they’re male centric. They’re bad because this miss the vast majority of the contributing causes.
Is complicated. They share a lot of the same demographics, so a common way that incels break from their cult (because even they recognize that is a dead end) is going full in on "not tired of winning", which is why most of the alt-right forums have a "no blackpilling" rule, even if it is only incels getting mocked until they change or go elsewhere. Going from incel to shitlord is very common, not to mention that is a strong market:
You should examine your argument to see what makes multiple people, who are ostensibly trying to solve the same problem, interpret it that way.
While proposed solutions along the lines of unfucking our views on 'proper' masculinity aren't likely to solve the problem of EXISTING incels, especially the ones that have dug deep into the rabbithole of loathing, would it not serve well on cutting off the recruitment stream? If society isn't telling males they are worthless for not being sexually active Adonises, you ought to have less disaffected males browsing the internet in search of meaning.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Self-selected sampling
I mean, if I'm reading it on the surface, it's because we're too blinded by our own dicks to be able to properly understand anything and Men are inherently incapable of restraint or reasoned behavior and are at best dull-headed lunks that must be kept from knocking over every dish in Ye Olde China Shoppe.
“Even allies are affected by bias” is not “they’re stupid and can’t understand anything.”
You say that
But then you say all of your other stuff and it pretty much feels like the latter.
Yeah. Turns out you can’t point out people’s biases without them feeling attacked and overreacting defensively. There is literally no way around it. *especially* ally bias.
Yeah, I know I said this three pages ago, but for real this has gone in this particular circle long enough. People besides me have things to say on the subject.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
In the interest of furthering conversation, let's just throw some mod weight behind this and say that furthering this tangent is now off topic.
(Not trying to be a dick here, just hoping this discourages the conversational merry go round.)
Reading a glossary of incel related terms is pretty much an alt right glossary with less antisemitism and a really weird brand of racism in which black men are both immensely more and hopelessly less successful with women because of their skin color.
Also: I love that that book cover seems to unintentionally depict the less metaphorically rich middle part of the phoenix life cycle in which they burn everything around them to ashes.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Its not the end all, be all, but its probably a huge driver of Incel issues and not just in how it depicts sex. I think most people "know" that the sex that goes on in porn is unrealistic, I mean some of the positions used are straight up painful to do for any length of time. BUT, I think a lot of men, compare themselves to the male performers, not just in dick size, but in general looks. AND nothing gives you the impression that women can be bought and sold than porn, where beautiful women quite literally have sex for money.
Edit: Which bring me to one actual area to focus on: Sex Education and not just in the birds and the bees, but actually talking to teenagers about what a relationship is. Including spending time explaining how Porn does not reflect the real world(and rom coms cause fuck rom coms for relationship advice).
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But I think its far more influential and far more driving then we tend to give it credit for. Its the one part of media that deals explicitly with gender roles and sex. Its also a bigger part of people lives then most people would care to admit. To simply put it in the media pile, does a disservice to its importance.
You're confusing "sexually explicit" with "explicit," and even then, pornography isn't the only sexually explicit form of media out there, it's just matter of degrees.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
If I were in this to placate incels, then I'd say something dumb like teen girls should be forced to befriend them, which I would never say. Wanting thier to be better emotional structures for men is the actual opposite of what incels want - they insist on propping up the toxic masculinity that grinds them down, and think that dismantling it is the reason they are unhappy.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
These days, sexual education focuses on how to prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases/infections (I believe STD was changed to STI for reasons I do not remember). They do not however, focus on subjects such as porn. They may feel it is an unnecessary topic to bring up but I do agree with you that people should realize porn can and does emphasize the "perfect" male look. Society is slowly accepting that media can affect people's perceptions of themselves by promoting unnatural body standards, but they exclude porn from that media category and instead focus on magazines, social media, etc.