MRA website closes as the movement changes for the worse

[luchog]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

Anorexia forums.

The difference between incel and pro-ana groups is that the former are clearly working from a position of entitlement and sexism, and are prone to violence; while the latter are working from a position of mental illness and often personal trauma as well, and are self-destructive.

[Drewbot]

Originally Posted by Travis

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Are there really people outside the "incel-movement" who refer to themselves as "incels"? During dry-spells I wouldn't call myself an "incel".

It's actually a topic of debate amongst them as to how long/how fully one has to go without to be considered an incel. If your "dry spell" is a few weeks, probably not. But what if it's a few years? A decade?

Of course the extreme cases are those who have never had any sexual contact at all. And yes, one can live that way all one's life and still never feel inclined to murder women. Or even dislike them.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by luchog

Except that the Incel movement is inherently misogynistic and always has been

I imagine nothing I could say would every change your mind on this, but it is a factual error on your part.

Quote:

, although formerly in a much more subtle way. Okay, misogynistic may be a bit too strong a term, but it has always been based on sexism and objectification of women at the very least. Women are treated as some sort of alien race competely removed from men, as objects to be pursued and acquired, not as individual people with similar desires and needs.

No, it has not. There are doubtless some - many - who identify as incels who feel that way, but there are equally those who do not and never have. What you are doing is a disservice to them, and absolutely no different from those who bandy crime statistics about black people around to "prove" that black people are inherently criminals by nature.

But as I say, I don't imagine I could possibly change your mind. So I won't try.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Maybe they have fractured "communities", but what you are describing does not match what I found when I did a deep dive into their territory. There is a huge, massive, gargantuan difference between a person who is single, lonely, or even socially isolated and an incel. It's an ideology and an identity, not a passive social situation.

It may well be so, now. I couldn't say. The point I made was that it didn't used to be that way; fifteen years ago you could go to an incel forum (if you could find one; they were rare as hell) and you'd rarely if ever find all this hatred and misogyny. Just unhappy people wishing they knew how to do relationships.

I think it's sad that the haters have moved in. Sadder still that the haters are what people now think an incel is, by definition. Sad enough to be one without having most people think you're some sort of horrid hate-filled violent nutcase because of it.

Quote:

Incidentally, most I've seen would deny that a female incel could even exist.

Then they would be wrong. I've talked to many of them.

[pipelineaudio]

Its quite amazing to see how much bigotry is expressed by those people who virtue signal to be complaining about bigotry

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Travis

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Tony

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

Edited by kmortis:

removed previously moderated content and response

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

It's actually a topic of debate amongst them as to how long/how fully one has to go without to be considered an incel. If your "dry spell" is a few weeks, probably not. But what if it's a few years? A decade?

Of course the extreme cases are those who have never had any sexual contact at all. And yes, one can live that way all one's life and still never feel inclined to murder women. Or even dislike them.

I know you didn't mean to, but the way you wrote that implies that it's more or less equally common to live one's life that way and feel inclined to murder women. I would say that wanting to murder women because someone can't get someone to have sex with them is ****** up and a sign of mental illness.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I know you didn't mean to, but the way you wrote that implies that it's more or less equally common to live one's life that way and feel inclined to murder women. I would say that wanting to murder women because someone can't get someone to have sex with them is ****** up and a sign of mental illness.

I would agree. At least for those that are not having sex because they are shy or otherwise not aggressive. Those that are not like that might be having no luck because they are wacko and women can tell.

[ThatGuy11200]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

It's actually a topic of debate amongst them as to how long/how fully one has to go without to be considered an incel. If your "dry spell" is a few weeks, probably not. But what if it's a few years? A decade?

Of course the extreme cases are those who have never had any sexual contact at all. And yes, one can live that way all one's life and still never feel inclined to murder women. Or even dislike them.

Exactly. But we can still feel lonely and depressed because of it.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Travis

I would agree. At least for those that are not having sex because they are shy or otherwise not aggressive. Those that are not like that might be having no luck because they are wacko and women can tell.

Indeed. Some incels bristle at the implication that maybe it's something about their attitude or personality that pushes potential mates away. Some of them insist this can't possibly true because they "do everything right", open doors for women, are unfailingly polite all the time, and so forth. But their posts drip with rage and entitlement; and they refuse to understand that people can often see these things bubbling beneath the surface in their day-to-day interactions, no matter how many doors they open.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Indeed. Some incels bristle at the implication that maybe it's something about their attitude or personality that pushes potential mates away. Some of them insist this can't possibly true because they "do everything right", open doors for women, are unfailingly polite all the time, and so forth. But their posts drip with rage and entitlement; and they refuse to understand that people can often see these things bubbling beneath the surface in their day-to-day interactions, no matter how many doors they open.

I think it goes deeper than that, into their fundamental view of women, which does not portray them as people, but as prizes to be won, or prey to be hunted (although the latter view is stronger in the PUA worldview). There is always that separation, that distance, that inability to understand.

This is very much a cultural thing, particularly in Anglo-American culture, and there is a lot of pop-psychology that pushes that view, but the incel mindset take it to extremes that veer into objectification and misogyny.

[JoeMorgue]

Honestly this is just what happens when all the "Nice Guys" grow up and turn bitter.

It's the same mentality, just with outright bitterness replacing the passive aggressiveness.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Indeed. Some incels bristle at the implication that maybe it's something about their attitude or personality that pushes potential mates away. Some of them insist this can't possibly true because they "do everything right", open doors for women, are unfailingly polite all the time, and so forth. But their posts drip with rage and entitlement; and they refuse to understand that people can often see these things bubbling beneath the surface in their day-to-day interactions, no matter how many doors they open.

I think a lot of them face an uphill battle in terms of looks, social status, money and social skills.

But the Elliot Roger case was interesting because he was conventionally good looking, came from money and should have been seen as 'a catch'.

He probably had some qualities or social problems that precluded him winning the ladies over, and I think that fact that he 'checked all the boxes' but wasn't successful, fed his anger.

Most incels would probably kill to be a thin, angel-faced, BMW driving trust fund-kiddie with a closet full of Armani.

I guess Kim Dotcom has better social skills, considering who he manages to date.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

But the Elliot Roger case was interesting because he was conventionally good looking, came from money and should have been seen as 'a catch'.

He probably had some qualities or social problems that precluded him winning the ladies over, and I think that fact that he 'checked all the boxes' but wasn't successful, fed his anger.

Most incels would probably kill to be a thin, angel-faced, BMW driving trust fund-kiddie with a closet full of Armani.

Some of them are, not just Elliot Roger. The problem is, that they do not have the social skills and worldview necessary to engage with someone on an intimate personal level. When you already have a profoundly sexist or misogynist worldview, and serious attitude problems, all the money and good looks aren't going to help much. And that's the problem with the overwhelming majority of incels, their attitudes are enough to put off most of the sorts of people they want to be involved with, even if they don't have the presentation problems. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of incels and similar sorts who describe themselves as "nice guys" are little better than passive-aggressive jerks who see women as sex vending machines. They're rarely if ever interested in friendship with women as a desirable end in itself, but only as a means to getting sex.

I've also seen that a number of the "good catch" incel types do have women interested in them, but their demands on the sort of women they want to be involve with range from ridiculous to outright misogynistic. They are typically looking for a passive, subservient sort of woman who caters exclusively to their whims, and does not impose her own personal needs and desires on the "relationship". They're looking for someone who is more of a servant than an equal partner, and women who demand equality in a relationship are dismissed and derided as "feminazis", "ball-busters", and/or "high-maintenance", among other considerably less polite terms.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

This is the worst analogy I've ever seen, for any subject in any debate whatsoever. "Bosses" aren't personal relationships; they typically represent an organization and the decisions they make regarding things like pay aren't arbitrary, but likely based on company policies. And finally, they're not paying you their own money. In fact that money typically doesn't belong to any one person at all. Aside from the individual person's wanting something and not getting it, there's nothing similar between these situations.

It's just a bad analogy. The fact is, money is a currency, it is supposed to be given in trade for goods or services like labor; employment agreements are established with the explicit goal of getting money in exchange for effort and both sides are aware of this from the outset. There are a whole number of circumstances when someone CAN BE or IS entitled to money, and to be upset when that entitlement is not realized. But even when that entitlement isn't objectively supported, at least the money that's not given still exists somewhere as something the individual can feel is being deliberately or arbitrarily withheld from them.

By contrast there is never a situation in which someone is entitled to their chosen interest's affection. Affection and sexual attraction isn't a commodity; it's an emotional response in a person's brain. It exists or it doesn't. It's illogical for a person to feel entitled to it, as if it's something their target has a stockpile of and could give if they really wanted to and is just deciding not to for whatever unfair reason. And even if it was, the analogy of affection given to a target that hasn't agreed to an affectionate or sexual relationship as "work done that deserves to be compensated" still fails because even in a world where work in exchange for money is the universally-understood norm, nobody would agree that a person can, without permission, give some random dude's car a new paint job they didn't ask for and then demand payment from them.

Sorry I forgot to respond/acknowledge some comments.

I agree that that analogy is very poor, in fact I think it's by fat the worst part of the article. I don't agree with it.

That said, I think the rest of the article is valid and well-stated.

The over-arching point is that we keep labeling people as "entitled" and "sexist" when a better descriptor of their feelings are: "I am better than X crappy person, but X crappy person keeps getting affection even by those who he abuses... why can't I do at least as well as X does in terms of relationships?"

This is framed as entitlement. Desiring intimacy and expressing sadness or jealousy over scummy people doing better is framed as hatred or entitlement. I don't think this is an accurate descriptor of most people in this camp, not do I think it's particularly helpful.

Sadness + loneliness -> more sadness and loneliness, and blaming people for what isn't necessarily their fault or easily fixable isn't helpful and is probably counter-productive

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Donal

So how much do you spend when you expect a certain amount of affection?

But seriously, I find something weird about MRAs. I've seen them in the wild and spoke with them. Hell, I've discovered friends and relatives who identity as one. Usually, he will start with stuff that is pretty agreeable. Courts are messed up and put more restrictions on men with custody, hit them with child support more often. Higher suicide rates among men and rising rates among older men.

But, the thing is, a lot of these problems actually come from the very same gender roles and societal expectations that feminists are fighting against. Yet, the MRA usually ends up insulting and blaming feminists within a few minutes of the conversation. And I don't even mention them. And its not long until race comes up.

and yes, that anecdotal. But, the stuff I see on the internet reads like these guys if they weren't worried about seeming polite. A strong scent of All Lives Matter.

I know feminists like to deny this, but feminists engage in plenty of traditionalism as well -> towards men.

Men are still expecting to throw away or sacrifice their lives for women, and to place women on top. Feminists demand this as well, even if not all of them do.
Part of how they do this is through things like affirmative action. A much more significant way that they do this is they frame (nearly) all issues as "male perpetrated, with primarily female victims" then claim to be fighting patriarchy and thus helping men. Even issues where females are equal or greater in perpetration or equal or lesser in terms of number of victims, the problem is still framed as "patriarchy" which is just one step removed from blaming all men for all of societies problems (which mostly affect women).

The duluth model is one of the strongest examples. See INTERNATIONAL organizations like White Ribbon, or the UN for framing violence against women as a unique problem that needs addressing (while completely erasing male victims and female perpetrators). The US government does this as well as many others ("council on women and girls", www.womenshealth.gov vs www.menshealth.gov , etc. )

For example, any time I see someone mention how afraid women are of walking alone at night, I point out that they are safer on average than men, especially from strangers. ie men make up the majority of victims of violence in general, especially life-threatening violence.

What is the typical feminist response to this?
I'll let you think about it for a moment.

The answer is to say "but most violence is perpetrated by MEN!" as if this somehow means we should erase compassion for all male victims and erase the female perpetrators that exist. It's the secular version of original sin, and makes even less sense than the Abrahamic version

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

I think a lot of them face an uphill battle in terms of looks, social status, money and social skills.

But the Elliot Roger case was interesting because he was conventionally good looking, came from money and should have been seen as 'a catch'.

He probably had some qualities or social problems that precluded him winning the ladies over, and I think that fact that he 'checked all the boxes' but wasn't successful, fed his anger.

Most incels would probably kill to be a thin, angel-faced, BMW driving trust fund-kiddie with a closet full of Armani.

I guess Kim Dotcom has better social skills, considering who he manages to date.

Lack of social skills is by far the largest obstacle for these types, generally speaking. Incels like the frame world as being very polar, made up of those that can effortlessly interact with women and have easy access to sex and relationships and those doomed to perpetual rejection. This is on its face absurd of course as ordinary people of varying wealth, attractiveness, charisma, and all other qualities manage to have normal and happy relationships. They ignore the vast majority of the dating pool: average people who have to put in the hard social work of finding someone and cultivating a romantic relationship.

I would speculate that many of these incel types have trouble forming non-romantic relationships as well. They lack the general social skills required to interact and form friendships with others. This lack of social skill is a severe barrier to interacting successfully with others and forming both romantic and non-romantic relationships. Pick up artist "techniques" are popular because they are ready made templates for social interaction that don't require much social skill to follow. Simply disregard the resounding disgust that such superficial and insulting approaches engender until you find some emotionally vulnerable woman that can be badgered and bluffed into dispensing sex.

Rather than acknowledge that they lack social skills and work to improve that, they decide that society is the problem.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Rather than acknowledge that they lack social skills and work to improve that, they decide that society is the problem.

I'm always wary of people who blame everybody else for their own problems or failings. Smacks of conspiracy theorising to me.

[JoeMorgue]

The internet has been trying various ways to turn "Doesn't have social skills" into a virtue across multiple topics for a while now.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The internet has been trying various ways to turn "Doesn't have social skills" into a virtue across multiple topics for a while now.

To be entirely fair, those without social skills (nerds and the like) have been on the receiving end for a good while, so it's not surprising that they'd try to flip things around, now that they are more empowered or able to connect to each other.

Personally I never had any delusions about my own social difficulties. They're entirely on me, though I've managed to make friends in the real world anyway. Also the wife.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by luchog

Some of them are, not just Elliot Roger. The problem is, that they do not have the social skills and worldview necessary to engage with someone on an intimate personal level. When you already have a profoundly sexist or misogynist worldview, and serious attitude problems, all the money and good looks aren't going to help much. And that's the problem with the overwhelming majority of incels, their attitudes are enough to put off most of the sorts of people they want to be involved with, even if they don't have the presentation problems. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of incels and similar sorts who describe themselves as "nice guys" are little better than passive-aggressive jerks who see women as sex vending machines. They're rarely if ever interested in friendship with women as a desirable end in itself, but only as a means to getting sex.

I've also seen that a number of the "good catch" incel types do have women interested in them, but their demands on the sort of women they want to be involve with range from ridiculous to outright misogynistic. They are typically looking for a passive, subservient sort of woman who caters exclusively to their whims, and does not impose her own personal needs and desires on the "relationship". They're looking for someone who is more of a servant than an equal partner, and women who demand equality in a relationship are dismissed and derided as "feminazis", "ball-busters", and/or "high-maintenance", among other considerably less polite terms.

Some helpful types on incel forums have suggested Incels (I really wish we could expand terminology to separate the toxic guys from the lonely guys) hire a sex worker to get over their shyness, learn to interact and get the sex-starvation out of their system.

Then actual sex workers interjected and politely asked not to send these guys their way. They are not the most pleasant of clientele, apparently.

When you can't pay people to hang out with you, it's time to ask yourself some serious friggin' questions.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Then actual sex workers interjected and politely asked not to send these guys their way. They are not the most pleasant of clientele, apparently.

One could think that sex experience based solely on porn could be the cause, but I'd disagree. It would take someone particularily sheltered to not understand that porn isn't how things usually go in real relationships.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Some helpful types on incel forums have suggested Incels (I really wish we could expand terminology to separate the toxic guys from the lonely guys) hire a sex worker to get over their shyness, learn to interact and get the sex-starvation out of their system.

Then actual sex workers interjected and politely asked not to send these guys their way. They are not the most pleasant of clientele, apparently.

When you can't pay people to hang out with you, it's time to ask yourself some serious friggin' questions.

I think that most incels would realize, after visiting a prostitute, that sexual release did little to improve their quality of life. Their inability to interact with women, or other people generally, in an emotionally fulfilling way would still exist. Incel insistence that sexual frustration is the soul source of woe in their lives is dubious. Being socially and emotionally underdeveloped likely negatively affects most aspects of their lives.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think that most incels would realize, after visiting a prostitute, that sexual release did little to improve their quality of life. Their inability to interact with women, or other people generally, in an emotionally fulfilling way would still exist. Incel insistence that sexual frustration is the soul source of woe in their lives is dubious. Being socially and emotionally underdeveloped likely negatively affects most aspects of their lives.

That realisation would be worth the price of admission, I think.
Having someone help you empty your gland is not the life-changing rite of passage that pop culture has made it out to be. Losing one's virginity has become an overvalued idea. You become more of a 'man' by doing rewarding things in your community.

I mean, sex is great. But I think these guys need to put it in its proper perspective. Important, but not all consuming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I know you didn't mean to, but the way you wrote that implies that it's more or less equally common to live one's life that way and feel inclined to murder women.

It was more a comment on how that does seem to be the common perception of incel people now; that hating women is inherent to the entire group, with violence thrown in.

I’ve no idea how common misogyny is amongst incels. Maybe it’s very common. But nothing about being an incel means that you automatically must hate women. Claiming that they must is no different to the “all black people are criminals” or “all muslims are terrorists” mindset.

Quote:

I would say that wanting to murder women because someone can't get someone to have sex with them is ****** up and a sign of mental illness.

So would I. So would most people, I hope. So would at least some incels.

[JoeMorgue]

Is there anything being discussed here beyond categorization of what is an "incel?"

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Is there anything being discussed here beyond categorization of what is an "incel?"

Depends on your definition of "is".

[pharphis]

This thread fell apart when the OP said their mind couldn't be changed, and no one cares about that website.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Sorry I forgot to respond/acknowledge some comments.

I agree that that analogy is very poor, in fact I think it's by fat the worst part of the article. I don't agree with it.

That said, I think the rest of the article is valid and well-stated.

The over-arching point is that we keep labeling people as "entitled" and "sexist" when a better descriptor of their feelings are: "I am better than X crappy person, but X crappy person keeps getting affection even by those who he abuses... why can't I do at least as well as X does in terms of relationships?"

This is framed as entitlement. Desiring intimacy and expressing sadness or jealousy over scummy people doing better is framed as hatred or entitlement. I don't think this is an accurate descriptor of most people in this camp, not do I think it's particularly helpful.

Sadness + loneliness -> more sadness and loneliness, and blaming people for what isn't necessarily their fault or easily fixable isn't helpful and is probably counter-productive

Except that people merely feeling sad about being romantically unfulfilled and wishing they could have better luck someday isn't what is meant by "nice guys", and never has been; and one of the most frustrating things about that article is that the author steadfastly maintains this false equivalence even while quoting other pieces that have pointed out the distinction.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Except that people merely feeling sad about being romantically unfulfilled and wishing they could have better luck someday isn't what is meant by "nice guys", and never has been

Except that to plenty of people it actually does mean exactly that. The people who believe that "nice guy" means "horrible ******* with a huge sense of entitlement" don't get to have sole ownership of the words, or to dictate to everyone else what they mean.

To some people a cigar is just a cigar. To some people a nice guy is just a guy who is nice.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Except that to plenty of people it actually does mean exactly that.

Okay I should specify: as used by people who actively complain about insufferable "nice guys", the term does not refer to people who are merely sad about being romantically unfulfilled and wish they could have better luck some day. Yes, there are other contexts in which the term means different things; for instance when your grandmother refers to her neighbor as a "nice guy", she probably is using a face-value definition.

But that is not the context in which the op-ed I am criticizing was using it, so I don't understand the point of this objection aside from a semantic haggle.