why are incels frowned/hated upon?
why are incels frowned/hated upon?
Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn't necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?
What am I missing here? I haven't ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don't hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?
You're viewing a single thread.
My perception is that sex-starved males are seen as dangerous, and the fear of that easily translates into a stigma.
I recall my recently-divorced friend (with a young daughter) trying to describe this to me: how almost overnight the girly sleepovers and socials went from common & spread across the homes to "silently forbidden" and unspokenly "anywhere but his house". But he was the same guy as just days before, but (so the theory goes) the only change was that now people "knew" he was not being... pacified?
One thing about being a woman (which I am not for the record, I have a lovely wife who explains things) is that you can't just trust men. They can overpower you, and even though most won't, some will and there's no way to tell who it's going to be. That necessarily means women have to not trust men that they don't know intimately for their own safety.
That concept certainly extends to parents of girls. If there is not a female authority in the house, a sleepover with a man and bunch of girls is questionable at best and tragedy waiting to happen at worst, even if that man is one of their fathers.
It doesn't mean that they have to think that man is "unpacified" to call out that specific situation as inappropriate. It's just a boundary your friend now has to be aware of, and agree to let his daughter go to sleepovers in other girls' homes.
That being said, I wouldn't call this specific situation stigma from being a perceived incel, but more like parents being wary of a single man they might not know that well hosting a sleepover with a bunch of girls.
...
Edit: There have already been a couple of real salty men who take issue with the fact that women are wary of men just because they're men. I get it. I've been there.
But I'm not going to rehash the whole argument I just went through because you might think the line of reasoning that you aren't a rapist means it's wrong for women to take precautions.
It's not personal. It's not a reflection of you as a person. It's just something women have to be aware of.
I'm not going to engage this point with anyone else. I posted some resources. I'd urge anyone who comes away from this comment thread with anger or confusion to just get a woman's perspective first and try to be open minded.
An interesting thread. As a father of a young daughter I do share the same concerns and would be cautious with sending my kid to a sleepover like that. That is, if i don't know the guy well enough. And i do not care if anyone calls me a bigot for me being protective for the person I am legally required to protect.
That is, of course this would be not the only possible red flag for me, and until my girl is capable of looking after herself (that may happen earlier than legal age, judging by her strong spirit and success in various sports), I'll continue to be cautious. On the other hand, I'd do my best to not share this line of reasoning with the girl herself. This particular case does not seem like a good learning opportunity for a "stranger danger" lesson.That is, if i don't know the guy well enough
Thank you. This is the crux of it. I've rehashed this argument countless times with countless men over the years who take personal offense that men on the whole are not super trustworthy. If you aren't a rapist, we aren't talking about you. But, unless we know each other well, there's no way we can be sure. It's as simple as that.
Cudos on being unrelentingly protective of your daughter, while respecting that she may also be able to make those calls herself one day. You sound like a great dad.
I have seen too many absolutists with claims that sound really nice, until they meet the reality. Like the ones who were trying to cancel Rowling, for example. All of that does not mean, of course, that we all should wear bulletproof vests all the time because someone may start shooting any moment (and not only in the U of S, we here across the pond also see someone with crazy eyes stabbing random people from time to time. US is on another level though). Just need to use the brain and take potential risks into account.
Women tend to experience violence from men at a much higher rate than from guns not held by men.
Not sure what your point is, but i believe you are correct in saying that men do not need a gun for that (and likely women rarely do gum robbery or whatever).
What the hell?
That’s an awful take on life. Replace “men” who can overpower women with a race of people who have larger physiques than the average people or perhaps with those who hail from culture who has had a more violent past. We’re obviously just assuming things, so why not? A generic man can overpower a generic woman just as much as a generic Norwegian person can overpower a generic Korean person.
That’s saying that you can’t trust your kids to sleep over at the house of anybody who isn’t like you. I really hope that you guys aren’t pushing this world view on children.
Is it an awful way to go through life? Yes. Does it lower your risk to go through life this way? Also yes. Sorry, but I'm not risking my kid's innocence to be politically correct.
Not all men, but enough men to be wary of all men.
Concise and to the point. Thank you for understanding this. Unfortunately, the other guy is dead set on not understanding it.
I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.
You are judging half of the population on their physical makeup.
This makes me sick.
Fuck trying to be better than those who have come before us. Fuck trying to build a better future.
I hope our paths never cross.
Hey buddy, I know you're done arguing with me because I'm on a higher horse than you or something, but I just thought you should know that 99% of all sexual assault cases in the US are perpetrated by men, and 91% of all of the victims are women.
Being offended by women's caution because you perceive it as a great social injustice about labeling all men bad based on their sex (which is not what it is), doesn't change the reality that men are nearly 100x more likely to be the ones committing those crimes.
No, half the population is being judged on their statistical likelihood to commit violence. Their physical makeup is only part of that. Most of it is a cultural entitlement, as evidenced by so many on here getting butthurt that people might be afraid of them because of their life experiences.
I agree with you. This sort of blatant bigotry has to be a right wing psyop to split the left or something. No way that "liberal" minded people could think it's rational to discriminate against half the population
Lmao
You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.
Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.
If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?
That’s the reality women face with men every day.
I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can't trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you're making are called sexists.
No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.
Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.
there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are more less trustworthy than non-POC.
That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.
People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.
^false equivalency. Sexists hate men (or women) on principle. That's not what this concept is. You'd know that if you paid attention just a little bit
And what of abusive women? Women are suddenly more trustworthy in this situation?
Why?
You got evidence it's not just a social stigma that's giving men a bad reputation and ignoring all the instances where women have done the same?.
You're not being cautious. You're being paranoid and propagating a serious social problem that has been around for literally centuries.
99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women
You're not being diligent or "fair" to men to avoid spreading a social stigma, you are blind to the fact that it's nearly 100x more likely to be a man committing sexual assault than a woman.
Accusing this person of being paranoid of a very real problem is ironically pretty ignorant and paranoid on your own part as a man (I assume).
And so you keep propagating garbage. Slow clap.
Anyway:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02717-0
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X08322632
I doubt you'll actually read any of this. But if you are interested in educating yourself you may need a paywall unlocking extension for some of these.
Perhaps you'll even notice how the subject of men getting raped by women, or children getting abused by women, goes unreported, is understudied, almost never gets funding for study, is never taken seriously, and has more than a little bit of social pressure going against it.
But hey, I guess I'm just blind, huh?
Ok, let's take your garbage source by source, since you obviously think that overwhelming me with data is a viable strategy:
- None of what I said supports the notion that sexual assault against men doesn't exist
"Violence against women survey shows that 3% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization"
So.. Consistent with my source that estimates about 9% of victims are men (or specifically not explicitly women)?
- Setting aside that this is a study on British men,
"The incidence rates of male sexual victimization range widely, from less than one percent to 73%" the reason given in the source is that many incidences are believed to be under reported.
That still doesn't really change the fact that reported sexual assault in the US is overwhelmingly done by men, as outlined by your next source:
- This one is actually my favorite of your sources because of all the raw data:
Starting at Page 18
"More than a quarter of US women experienced unwanted sexual contact at some point in their lives"
"Across all states, between 23.4% and 42.0% of women experienced non-contact unwanted sexual experiences at some point in the lives"
Perpetrators of female sexual contact are 97.1% Male with nearly 70% of unwanted sexual contact done by an acquaintence or stranger. You know that point I've been making up and down this thread about women needing to be wary of men they don't know? Here it is. In your source.
Page 32 lines out that 86.5% of unwanted sexual contact to men were also perpetrated by exclusively men, with less than 10% of those cases being female only perpetrators.
So.. Also supporting my source that the vast majority of sexual assault is done by men? Even the vast majority of unwanted sexual contact done against men is perpetrated by other men?
-
(The onus is on you to provide a source not locked behind a pay wall if you want me to read it, not me to crack it. However, I will again point out that the claim I made does not preclude male victims of sexual assault from existing at all)
-
This one is a little different because it's exclusively about sexual violence toward children, and neither here nor there on my original claim, but:
"Although these convictions are far less than those of male offenders...
While figures in the United States suggest that women account for 12 to 17 percent of the sex offender population"
Yeah, again, consistent with the core assertion that men are far more likely to commit sexual assault.
So in conclusion, maybe you didn't actually read most of these? Because they all (obviously excluding the one I didn't see behind the pay wall) outright state exactly what I said, which is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by men.
Who's pedaling garbage? These are your sources...
Now where's the part where you acknowledge the fact that the source I linked is thoroughly notated and referenced? And that I didn't in fact just make those numbers up?
Or am I the only one required to do any reading?
It's not unreasonable for a parent to not trust a single man with a girl's sleepover because they don't know them.
The fact is, you shouldn't trust anybody who might take advantage of you if you are vulnerable, particularly if they are in a position of authority, especially if they are the lone figure of authority in a dynamic where abuse is known to happen.
You wouldn't go to a sleepover with your boss if you thought he wanted to get in your pants, would you?
I'm not going to dignify the rest of that with a response. You can bark about racial equivalency all you want but you have obviously never been a woman cornered by a man who wanted something from you. The fact that women have to be wary of men isn't an opinion. It's life. Go ask a woman you know.
You didn’t originally state not trusting a single man with hosting a sleepover because you didn’t know them. You said intimately know.
This paranoia about being taken advantage of is insane. How do you function around strangers?
You’re moving the scenario to a sleepover with a boss who wants to sleep with you. Where did that come from? How are you getting to that from a divorced acquaintance who is the parent of one of your kids? That’s a completely different scenario. I thought you didn’t know this single dad?
You didn’t originally state
You’re moving the scenario
So.. I guess comparing this situation to something wildly unrelated to illustrate your point is only something you're allowed to do?
The concept is simple, and widely permeates media. I did your work for you and typed in the phrase "why do women fear men" into a basic Google search. Here's some sources for you:
https://www.tekedia.com/are-women-truly-afraid-of-men/
It's not my job to field your hypotheticals while you berate an idea that isn't even mine. I'm a man. I don't know this issue first hand, so maybe you could do like I did and seek to learn it.
In the mean time, I don't particularly care about how you choose to frame it or how ridiculous you think it is. It's not a concept you can just dispel by beating me in an argument. So either try to understand it or don't. But I'm not going to argue with you about it.
I replied to your original comment with why I feel this viewpoint is flawed. Dangerous even.
I used an example as a counterpoint.
Your reply used a different example to argue against mine without actually addressing what I’m trying to say by countering your initial comment.
It’s just as shitty to type “why do whites fear blacks” in google.
If you want to give up on this issue that’s on you, but get off your high horse.
Go actually learn about the viewpoint then. The only one on a high horse is the person making egregious false equivalencies to dilute a very real fear that women have to live with.
And besides that, I'd like to see you argue your "that viewpoint is dangerous" stance to a couple of parents who are nervous about sending their daughter to a sleepover where the only authority figure is a grown man.
If you really don't get why there's a problem with that, maybe ask a woman in your life.
In the mean time, take your misplaced anger somewhere else. I won't be responding to it anymore.
Fear based on immutable traits is always wrong. Not a difficult concept. Kind of the basis of the equal protection clause and liberalism in general
It may be conceptually wrong, but so is rape. So is assault. Those things being wrong don't make them impossible.
Therefore, it isn't wrong to be afraid of those things. In a perfect world, no one would have to be afraid of anyone. But also bad things wouldn't happen.
You can't argue this point away just because you're adhering to a specific political ideology about how the world should be. Reality is what it is. 1 in 3 women experience sexual assault of some kind in their life time. People who rape or assault will almost always pick a target they can overpower.
It might be wrong to be wary of men because they're men, but it's also reality that women have to do that.
I've said it a few times already: Don't take my word for it. Look into womens' perspectives online or ask one you know if they've ever avoided a man that sketched them out.
If you don't seek their opinions, what right do you have deciding what's right or wrong for someone else?
Additionally, I really don't feel like rehashing every single point I just made with the other guy because you also think it's a matter of whether you agree or not. I linked resources. I spelled it out several times, honestly more thoroughly than I should have.
I urge you to look into it yourself. Seek what women actually say and feel and fight the urge to just tell them they are wrong, because you don't get to dictate how other people feel.
I'm out.
Additionally, I really don't feel like rehashing every single point I just made with the other guy because you also think it's a matter of whether you agree or not. I linked resources. I spelled it out several times, honestly more thoroughly than I should have.
I urge you to look into it yourself. Seek what women actually say and feel and fight the urge to just tell them they are wrong because you feel personally attacked. It's not personal.
I'm out.
Anyone who stereotypes anyone based on immutable traits is wrong. If there are individual women who do this to men then they are wrong. Same as any white person who would do this to an Asian person.
All humans are individuals and should be treated as such. Being prejudiced against an entire race/sex/sexual orientation is wrong under all circumstances
The difference is that men do.
I think it's not that sex starved men are dangerous as much as it's men are dangerous. It's not the presence of your buddy, it's the absence of his wife that has changed the other parents' safety rating of the house.
That really sucks to hear. Without any context, it just sounds like the kid has to suffer the consequences of her parents split.
Yea the girls sleepovers stopped because there isn’t a woman present. This isn’t an incel thing, this is an even more prolific lack of trust in men to care for young girls (often times just children in general). And it has nothing to do with him not getting laid by a wife at all. That’s a weird correlation to make.