Something I’ve always wondered is what kind of women were in the lives of incel men when they were young. Did they have a bad relationship with their mother? Did they lack sisters or other female family members? Or is their family situation irrelevant? Maybe some particular situation in their early years caused them to develop a complex around women?
It’s deeply patriarchal in the sense that incels are a group of people that think women are obliged to give sex to men. This simply doesn’t work for gays, even though there are deeply misogynist gays who embraced patriarchal norms, and are maybe even sympathetic to incels.
So yes you are completely correct about the entitlement part. The entitlement is that men are entitled to sex from women. The something-something is the patriarchy and the bemoaning of a culture that is taking it away. Or giving women the freedom to pick and choose, because they will then only pick 'chads". Etc.
This is only half the explanation. This patriarcal culture is the old model, but also the only one. The old model has been broken, but no new model exists. There are only two solutions out of this: a new male model, but you can hardly do that alone and no one cares about it currently ; or the feminists are wrong and the old model is actually good.
It’s easy to fall in the trap of the second solution, and fascists are now making hard propaganda for it because they feast over hatred and a glorified past. Here they get to glorify an outdated culture, and to hate on a political opponent. This outdated culture is also about hating on a supposedly weak group, women. Win win for them. Hard loss for society.
I think that all patriarchal models, not just male models, are disappearing and that we’re witnessing the loss of privilege. It’s not as if feminism is creating a model to be a woman, it’s the opposite it’s the destruction of the gender model.
So, I really do not believe in the idea that men need a new model. We can just tap into our humanity and be who we are, authentically. In essence abolishing gender all together. It shouldn’t be a social factor expecting/demanding you to behave a certain way.
It’s difficult to figure out the difference between being authentic and being ideologically programmed, especially when they overlap. It’s far easier to claim that true authenticity is inherent in patriarchal ideology. And that’s why incels claim the ‘old’ model is actually good.
It’s also why it’s mostly a problem for impressionable young men who lack introspection, or at least the life experience needed for it to be useful. While the removal of patriarchal ideology they are subject to haven’t really changed, male culture and tradition stand in the way of that. So on the one hand they are fully aware of what is expected for them in the male role but on the other hand society and especially women are moving away from this expectation. Depending on social factors you deal with this discrepancy differently.
If there is something lacking it is that there are very few men who stand there with open arms to catch these young men on the feminist side. We need more men that embrace feminism and guide young men with acceptance and love. And I have a theory for why but this is getting long. (feminism lifted on the back of individualism)
We can be a person without the baggage of a gender role.
The privileges are irrelevant to the problem. The problem is about how to date and seduce.
These interactions are extremely codified. The interesting part is that they are completely tied to culture, but almost all cultures show heavy patriarchal bias.
Depending in the culture it’s tought in different ways. In our western culture, we have the example of our peers, movies and magazines.
It’s not a matter of role but a matter of how to behave. And it’s not about being nice and respectful. These are obvious to anyone who’s not an asshole. But you are not attractive by being nice and respectful, and you’re delusional if you think it’s the case.
Incels topically missed the classes about how to do the dating and seducing. They weren’t necessarily assholes before the trauma and conditioning. But when you are bad this game and you look for advices, the only answers you will find are conservative and machist. And that’s the positive answers you will find.
Because too many reactions will be disdainful or shaming. This thread is an example of it. And from the people who pretend they are trying to fix the problems between men and women, it’s a shame IMO.
Privilege is the key stone foundational to understanding what incels are trying to get. If you’re brushing it aside nothing but a superficial understanding about dating remains and becomes useless in formulating any sort of solution to the problem.
Yeah superficially incels are about dating and seducing. But this doesn’t explain anything. In fact it is what incels themselves claim the solution is, in getting better at seduction and dating. So basically your solution would be exactly the same as the incel solution. Should make you think.
This is not a matter of privileges. The machist stance is a fall back. The privileges are a cherry on the cake.
Is it too hard to understand that many people only someone to live with? And that the frustration of not getting it can completely destroy a personality? Then they’re suggested a easy solution.
It is a radicalisation process. Arabs are given terrorism. Single young white boys are given machism.
Idiots solutions to these is to fight them. Progressive and smart solutions are to understand why they are destroyed in the first place and prevent it. Abandoned middle classes are given fascism.
Living happy in solitude is not a solution.
On a side note I’m pretty sure you can link a part of the suicides to this problem. Obviously dead young boys don’t become incels though.
This is what I mean. You’re just saying that what incels experience is a lack of love/companionship. Exactly the same thing that incels demand from women. You’re both just looking at the same solution, of how to give these boys company. That they are caught between a rock and a hard place.
But that’s exactly what the man-o-sphere is telling these people. Your analysis is no different than what Andrew tate, Jordan peterson, etc. would say. That feminism has caused a shift in society that leads to a lack of family values, commitment, common sense, etc. That the freedom women have are detrimental, because they now have the freedom to deny you that love and companionship.
What are you going to say now? Because not a word is an explicit lie here. Feminism has caused more divorce, more freedom for women, greater self worth for women, sexual freedom, higher demands on men. It’s just true. So the type of superficially gesturing at boys lacking companionship is only just helping incels into the pipeline. It means nothing, it’s not an analysis. You’re completely missing the point.
No. I am absolutely not saying that.
I am saying that the usual way men and women get together is an old patriarcal way. And thus, when a man look into how to get into a relationship, he is dragged into this shit hole.
Hence, society needs to change the way men and women date and seduce eachother so that this way is healthier, more feminist.
Somehow the only answer people have is “get used to being alone” or “stop being a shitty person”. That’s a short sighted and stupid answer to the problem.
Can you understand that? Or do you must always fall back on the irrelevant privileges stuff?
It is not a superficial problem. It is the root of how men and women interact together. Turning a blind eye on it only serves the fascists you named.
Sorry but you’re just rewriting the same problem of these boys lacking companionship and femism is to blame for it. Sorry but it’s just a lack of understanding on your part.
The loss of privilege is exactly what is causing the perceived problem of a lack of companionship/love. It’s again, the main foundation of any critique. I’m totally not aware of anybody except people in the manosphere itself who critique the problem like you do.
You’re absolutely incorrect.