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 part of a thread.
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
👍
(Sticking to your guns instead of seeking perspective does not merit a response)
You're literally defending bigotry. And you seem to be doing so because you think women are infallible.
Which is sexist. Women aren't any more or less moral than men. They're all just people. Immutable traits do not bestow moral clarity or hidden knowledge. To think otherwise is extremely bigoted
👍
(Framing what I said as defending bigotry does not change reality. It's preposterous to assert that women should not take precautions against the worst case scenario because someone's feelings might get hurt)
(I'm out for real this time. Seriously consider taking on a woman's perspective)
You're making the same fallacious argument that racists make about why whites need to avoid blacks. Or why Christians need to avoid dealings with Jews. You're a bigot whether you realize it or not.
Actually, no. I'm going to take 5 minutes and address this one through example.
Women aren't afraid of men because they have a penis, which is the thing that makes them a man. They are afraid of men because men are biologically armed.
Let me spell it out for you, although I'm certain this endeavor ultimately isn't going to get any response from you except the quintessential "nuh uh":
- You are being approached by a nondescript person with a rifle pointed at you. That doesn't concern you at all? You don't know he's going to pull the trigger, and he probably won't anyway because that would land him in prison.
But by your logic if you take any measure to avoid him you are a bigot against people with guns
- Now you're looking to cross the street. You look both ways and notice cars are coming. You deduce that they would most likely see and avoid you if you just walk out in the middle of the road, but there's still the chance you might get hit.
But by your logic you are being a bigot against people who drive if you decide not to cross the road
- Now you are a woman walking to your car from the gym. There is a man parked next to you waiting by his car for seemingly no reason. You noticed him staring at you when you were on the treadmill. You tell yourself he probably won't do anything because there's cameras, but trying to get to your car door makes you nervous.
By your logic you would be a bigot if you decided not to go back to your car
This situation actually happened to my mother-in-law. That man tried to grab her and came on to her.
If you say "Well Seasoned_Greetings, it's OBVIOUSLY not the same situation in the first two examples because those situations are ACTUALLY DANGEROUS", then you are running head first into the point and still missing it.
Men are armed. They cannot disarm. Women aren't afraid in the same way of men in wheel chairs, or men they can clearly get away from, or even outnumber.
If you really, truly can't understand why women take precautions, there's nothing more I can say to you. It's not bigotry to be aware that you can be overpowered and fear for your own safety. Full stop.
Accusing this mindset of bigotry only really highlights to people who get it that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go to bed.
I don't think you understand what a trait vs an immutable trait is. Being a driver or a gun owner is not an immutable trait. So those aren't applicable to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bigotry based on immutable traits, such as sex or race. Which is unlawful under certain circumstances and is always highly illiberal
A woman could also have done that to your MiL, especially if she had a knife or gun. Which should be presumed as we are in the United States. Any stranger behaving in such a manner should raise red flags, including if that stranger is a woman. My point is not that stranger danger isn't a reasonable concept under certain circumstances, it's that you're a bigot if you only apply that concept to certain sexes or races. White women, for example, should raise just as many red flags and protective measures as black men do if we are talking about strangers acting strangely. In fact, you're a mark and a bigot if you think a would be assailant is actually a friend just because they're a white lady
Suspicious behavior should always raise your suspicions. Race and sex don't play any part in that analysis
At this point you are nitpicking what I said to fit your own idea, despite understanding the point perfectly.
Being a tiger is an immutable trait. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't discriminate when I decide whether to approach it? Or are you going to say "Duh, it's a wild animal known to maul people"? Because if you said that you'd be running head first into the point and missing it like you have already done twice now
Just because being a man is an immutable trait does not mean that men aren't the ones committing violent crimes. 99% of sexual assault cases in the US are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women. Just because you don't like that fact does not change the reality that women have to be statistically overwhelmingly more wary of men than other women. That also doesn't mean that women don't ever have to be wary of other women. Nobody said that.
It could very well have been a woman with a knife in my mother-in-law's situation. Here's the thing though, it's very nearly 100x more likely to have been a male. It's not bigotry to recognize that pattern. Telling a woman to ignore that pattern so she won't hurt a man's feelings is completely nuts, especially if you are a man, which I strongly suspect you are.
This entire conversation is exhausting. You're so bent on being right about women being bigots for not trusting men as readily as they might trust other women, that you actually agree with me about "stranger danger", you're just playing completely blind to the statistics to suit your politics.
My man, I don't know how to say it any other way. If you're still stuck on this concept being bigotry, I can't see another way for me to hold your hand through this.
You may never get it. I've spelled it out for you so thoroughly that you have to actively not want to understand at this point. Your politics are proving to be more important to you than women's actual safety, and so I'm done here. Good luck explaining your point to a woman you know without getting laughed at.
Being a tiger is an immutable trait. Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't discriminate when I decide whether to approach it?
So now you're dehumanizing and othering men by comparing them to wild animals. Which is another example of bigotry, and the first step towards such things as crimes against humanity and genocide. I remember hearing a lot recently about how all Palestinians are animals. And reading about how Germans in the 30s claimed that all jews were inhuman. And if not all then certainly most, which is why we need to round them up just to be sure
I'm really not interested in FBI crime stats unless you're going to be honest with them and use them to make similar points about race. If you're not willing to argue that the stats show that whites and blacks cannot live together, or at least that whites cannot trust blacks (which are clearly ludicrous and bigoted statements) then you shouldn't be using sex to make that same argument. We shouldn't refuse to make business dealings with Jews just because they're Jewish, we shouldn't refuse to hire black people as cops just because they're black, we shouldn't refuse to hire Muslims in LGBT organizations, and we similarly shouldn't distrust men just because they're men. And honestly if you think we should do any of those things then not only are you a bigot, but you also don't know women. Because I know for a fact that my wife, her friends, colleagues, and family members highly resent this sort of pseudo feminist hate speech that people like you peddle supposedly on their behalf. Then again, most of them are educated and have functioning brains, which may be why they are able to discern the difference between reality and bigotry, and the distinction between groups based on immutable traits and individuals.
👍
(Didnt read, see above)
To put it out there, bigotry is defined as:
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group
The reason this isn’t bigotry is outlined pretty clearly here: https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
In case you don’t want to open the link:
1 in 5 women experience rape, and 33% of them were raped between 11-13
81% of women experience sexual harassment
There’s nothing obstinate or unreasonable about women treading lightly around men. Nearly all women experience unwanted and/or aggressive sexual advances from men. Being cautious of men is the right and reasonable thing to do.
How should lgbt people view Muslims?
You can't help but draw a false equivalency to make your points, I'm glad it isn't just with me.
Here's the thing, neither lgbt people nor Muslims are defined by their physical superiority to the other. That's why it's a false equivalency.
Furthermore, the argument isn't "all women should be distrustful of all men all the time because of the rapists", it's "women have a reason to, at their discretion and in times of vulnerability, be cautious of men"
It's not comparable.
You're laying a basis for the "reasonable" use of sex segregation in society and for a bifurcated social grouping of men and women. Which is sexism.
Also your arguments about biological strength differences were used as a justification for racial segregation in the United States and in Apartheid South Africa as a basis for keeping the "inherently brutish and rapacious African" away from the more "civilized" whites, mainly white delicate women. You're doing the same thing here. You're a bigot, and the rationalizations you're using are of the same type that bigots always employ
Maybe you should read a history book. Or just stop othering people and enabling prejudice. It's inherently immoral, illiberal, and counter to Western enlightenment thought.
^ still pushing the same fallacy, using the same false equivalency, as if I'm saying all men need to be taken out back and shot
You literally can't get a foothold in this argument unless you falsely compare what I'm saying to historical genocide, when you said yourself that my initial argument essentially boils down to "Stanger danger"
So yeah, you're misrepresenting a concept you already understand to push some fake genocide that you need to exist so that you don't have to think about women's safety.
The vast majority of Muslims in the west, like Christians, are ideologically against folks that are LGBTQ, but they aren’t out there assaulting 81% of LGBTQ people. This, like the other commenter is saying, is a false equivalence and not relevant.