Discussion It's really sad how society treats incels

[EvisceratedJester]

society hates incels because they are an obvious scapegoat in a world of equity. they are at the bottom of the hierarchy in our modern world.

They aren't hated because they are scapegoats, they are hated due to their misogynistic attitudes towards women. Also, they are nowhere near close to the bottom of the hierarchy. Most incels are cis-het men, so despite their issues with living up to gender expectations they are granted a lot of privilege from being a part of those identities.

the term 'incel' appears to be applied to any dysgenic man regardless of whether he is hostile to society and the fairer gender or not; take 'nice guys' for example, they are kind to women yet get labelled incels anyway.

The term incel has become one frequently used to describe a specific subset of virgin men who happen to be misogynistic towards women, blaming them and society for their issues with getting laid and going into a relationship. They are generally hostile towards sexually active men and women (especially women). That is an essential characteristic of being an incel.

"Nice guys" also aren't usually very nice. They are men who view themselves as being nice and thus believe that entitles them to women's bodies. A lot of these men are quick to turn hostile when denied things, such as sex, hence their poor reputation.

the fact that women are much more valued and desired in society due to the halo of their womb and men's hypersexual lust.

Women aren't valued in society. This comment in of itself proves that, reducing us down to our wombs rather than viewing us as people. Women are treated as objects by wider society.

 

[casual_existence]

Most people WANT to treat other people nicely. Whatever the reason it can be expected that on average you will be treated well by society. Just spend more time away from electronics and more time doing anything else around people.
You don't even need to interact with them.
Just notice how people won't try to beat you up for no reason. They won't scream at you. If you buy something they won't stop you. If you try to talk to someone they won't immediately run away. If you start doing weird things they still might not run away but at that point you're taking advantage of someone's kindness.
If something does happen you're in the wrong environment.
In relationships it's very similar but now trust is involved. They need to know that you won't hurt them. That you won't take advantage of them. That you'll be reliable. That you can take care of yourself. That you can deal with negative situations. That you can deal with positive situations.
Even in one night stands this is applicable. Even in prostitution this is applicable.
So in a framework where women are seen as sex objects where does trust and kindness have space? Objects don't strictly need to be treated with kindness because no matter how poorly a set of shoes are treated they'll still be there for you. If you forget them somewhere then who cares. Just buy another pair. Shoes can be worn whenever and in any way. Shoes do not need to be tricked into being worn. They might have a technique to them but you don't need to follow. Tuck in the lace or get laceless shoes.
Carefully analyze your beliefs about the world or else stay in ignorance.

 

[sceáwere]

They aren't hated because they are scapegoats, they are hated due to their misogynistic attitudes towards women. Also, they are nowhere near close to the bottom of the hierarchy. Most incels are cis-het men, so despite their issues with living up to gender expectations they are granted a lot of privilege from being a part of those identities.


The term incel has become one frequently used to describe a specific subset of virgin men who happen to be misogynistic towards women, blaming them and society for their issues with getting laid and going into a relationship. They are generally hostile towards sexually active men and women (especially women). That is an essential characteristic of being an incel.

"Nice guys" also aren't usually very nice. They are men who view themselves as being nice and thus believe that entitles them to women's bodies. A lot of these men are quick to turn hostile when denied things, such as sex, hence their poor reputation.


Women aren't valued in society. This comment in of itself proves that, reducing us down to our wombs rather than viewing us as people. Women are treated as objects by wider society.

Well, society doesn't grant privilege based on identity, except in the case of women; women are put up on a pedestal due to the intrinsic value of their womb, and an identity of femininity is built up around it to assist them. Men do not have this intrinsic value, unless they are gifted with congenital traits that women desire. Society bases male value on exemplariness. If one is not exemplary in his appearance, he must make himself exemplary through feats. You yourself admit incels cannot live up to the expectations of their gender. Whether they possess a label of 'cisgender heterosexual male' is utterly irrelevant..

To address your second point, being an incel isn't based on one's convictions, it's a biological reality. The word incel for women seems to serve a dual purpose, one to mock things that they don't like by denying them access to their own sexual marketplace, and two to reinforce social hierarchies by ensuring a certain stratum of men remain anxious to pursue women. Even on this forum I've seen women designate anything that they dislike 'incel', for example, I saw a woman who called Donald Trump an incel.

Regarding your third claim, men are proactive in seeking a partner because biology and society compel them to be. These factors are often drive even platonic intersexual relationships. Men certainly do have an ulterior motive, their biological imperative to reproduce. Thus, we have established that an ulterior motive is irrelevant in this matter, and that therefore it is quite trivial to women whether a man is deferential or not. The labels of 'incel' and 'nice guy' are arbitrarily ascribed to a league of partner-seeking men to devalue and discourage them from seeking a partner, and their application is based on whether the man in question meets the subjective criteria of the female.
I'd also disagree that 'nice guys' usually turn hostile, most soyboys never learn the error of their ways and continue simping while meekly accepting rejection.

With concern to your ultimate paragraph, women possess immense value in a sexual and social sense precisely because of their reproductive capacity, which society has historically and biologically revered. The womb, as crass as it may seem to state, is a locus of value because it determines the future of any lineage. Men, on the other hand, are disposable unless they can distinguish themselves, and this disposability is the very reason men are more likely to be left behind, scorned, or labelled as incels. This is a biological truth, and can be seen anywhere you look. Despite your entitled and romantic view of the world, nothing has value unless it is of practical worth.
Additionally, when have women not treated men like objects?
Throughout history and across cultures, men have often been valued not for their intrinsic humanity but for what they can provide- be it protection, resources, or status. Men are consistently objectified in this transactional sense, expected to demonstrate worth through utility or prowess. This is no less an objectification than what women decry when they are reduced to their physical appearance or reproductive role. Men are judged by superficial criteria such as height, wealth, or status- factors that women openly prioritise in selecting mates. And unlike women, whose inherent reproductive capacity imbues them with value from the outset, men must prove themselves through constant achievement or sacrifice to even be considered worthy of attention.

 

[lamargue]

Well, society doesn't grant privilege based on identity, except in the case of women; women are put up on a pedestal due to the intrinsic value of their womb, and an identity of femininity is built up around it to assist them. Men do not have this intrinsic value, unless they are gifted with congenital traits that women desire. Society bases male value on exemplariness. If one is not exemplary in his appearance, he must make himself exemplary through feats. You yourself admit incels cannot live up to the expectations of their gender. Whether they possess a label of 'cisgender heterosexual male' is utterly irrelevant..

To address your second point, being an incel isn't based on one's convictions, it's a biological reality. The word incel for women seems to serve a dual purpose, one to mock things that they don't like by denying them access to their own sexual marketplace, and two to reinforce social hierarchies by ensuring a certain stratum of men remain anxious to pursue women. Even on this forum I've seen women designate anything that they dislike 'incel', for example, I saw a woman who called Donald Trump an incel.

Regarding your third claim, men are proactive in seeking a partner because biology and society compel them to be. These factors are often drive even platonic intersexual relationships. Men certainly do have an ulterior motive, their biological imperative to reproduce. Thus, we have established that an ulterior motive is irrelevant in this matter, and that therefore it is quite trivial to women whether a man is deferential or not. The labels of 'incel' and 'nice guy' are arbitrarily ascribed to a league of partner-seeking men to devalue and discourage them from seeking a partner, and their application is based on whether the man in question meets the subjective criteria of the female.
I'd also disagree that 'nice guys' usually turn hostile, most soyboys never learn the error of their ways and continue simping while meekly accepting rejection.

With concern to your ultimate paragraph, women possess immense value in a sexual and social sense precisely because of their reproductive capacity, which society has historically and biologically revered. The womb, as crass as it may seem to state, is a locus of value because it determines the future of any lineage. Men, on the other hand, are disposable unless they can distinguish themselves, and this disposability is the very reason men are more likely to be left behind, scorned, or labelled as incels. This is a biological truth, and can be seen anywhere you look. Despite your entitled and romantic view of the world, nothing has value unless it is of practical worth.
Additionally, when have women not treated men like objects?
Throughout history and across cultures, men have often been valued not for their intrinsic humanity but for what they can provide- be it protection, resources, or status. Men are consistently objectified in this transactional sense, expected to demonstrate worth through utility or prowess. This is no less an objectification than what women decry when they are reduced to their physical appearance or reproductive role. Men are judged by superficial criteria such as height, wealth, or status- factors that women openly prioritise in selecting mates. And unlike women, whose inherent reproductive capacity imbues them with value from the outset, men must prove themselves through constant achievement or sacrifice to even be considered worthy of attention.

interesting. how do you think undesirables are regulated by communities so that they may be discouraged and selectively eliminated from sexual competition? do you think there's a threshold for overcoming what you call discouragement (by women) from seeking partners? you mentioned that both men and women are complicit in this, in that men will try to one-up eachother in order to have a higher chance in sexual competition, and women do so to regulate undesirable attributes; so assuming, for the sake of argument, that physical and social qualities are the only factors that matter, which are more desirable fitness indicators? or do you need both at a certain point? not trying to critique, as most self-identifying incels only seek to wax their polemical bile rather than articulate their positions, which are either met equally with further dogpiling of insults or vapid, conciliatory remarks

 

[sceáwere]

interesting. how do you think undesirables are regulated by communities so that they may be discouraged and selectively eliminated from sexual competition? do you think there's a threshold for overcoming what you call discouragement (by women) from seeking partners? you mentioned that both men and women are complicit in this, in that men will try to one-up eachother in order to have a higher chance in sexual competition, and women do so to regulate undesirable attributes; so assuming, for the sake of argument, that physical and social qualities are the only factors that matter, which are more desirable fitness indicators? or do you need both at a certain point? not trying to critique, as most self-identifying incels only seek to wax their polemical bile rather than articulate their positions, which are either met equally with further dogpiling of insults or vapid, conciliatory remarks

communities deal with mal-integrated people, dysgenic people and other undesirables through various means, from bullying to social ostracism to culling. overcoming this discouragement is considerably difficult, and the threshold depends on local, contemporary socio-cultural conditions and one's constitution. one may make up for his shortcomings with wealth or attaining a social status, but these can only buy certain forms of love, and there are certain deficiencies that cannot be surmounted..
and while i do believe that attractiveness and intrasocial capabilities are of a primal nature, there is another aspect of mate selection besides eros, that being logos and the practical considerations one must abide by (my definition of logos including here concepts such as arranged marriage)