Okay, it’s clear that you’re not even reading my posts. Or my cites. I even addressed this.
No I’m not saying they’re “defined” by it. You are constantly putting words to me that I didn’t say and misquoting me. I said that the primary difference between the communities is how one is toxic to the point of violence, and that comes from privilege. You are arguing with me by claiming I said things I never said and then contradicting that. You’re arguing with someone not in this thread apparently.
It’s obvious you have nothing to stand on here. I’ve asked for cites to contradict what you’ve said and all you can offer is strawmen. So my point is clearly made.
Very eloquently put, and it conforms to what I’ve cited.
Honestly my point was straightforward and your response not addressing it.
I don’t think those are misquotes.
Not worth more back and forth. To me “toxicity” is not a useful word to draw a distinction and I disagree with what you literally said you meant by it. Done from my end.
I’m not going to get back into this conversation until we get agreement on when a person who can’t form a satisfactory relationship becomes a “_cel.”
Is it an unwillingness to “settle” and the inability to find a perfect match?
Is it an overinflated set of expectations and self-entitlement which leads to resentment when they can’t find a perfect match?
Is it the outward expression of anger at their failure to find the perfect match?
Is it participating in a community that acts as a reinforcement loop?
Is it commission (or at least open approval) of violence?
It’s a good topic, but it seems to me that we’re all arguing past each other, and when A makes a statement that B disagrees with then C comes in with a good observation that moves the conversation to a different point.
Women in general - incel or otherwise - seldom engage in violence (or much else) with random strangers. Women who are violent with strangers tend to be either in a violent profession (like soldier), or motivated by ideology (terrorist/militants). There’s probably more female terrorists than female muggers, despite how few of the former there are.
Women tend to socially interact with fewer people than men (if more intensely); when applied to violence that means that they just don’t care enough to be violent to some random person. Unless their job or their ideology tells them to.
Which I suppose does qualify as a difference between incels and their “female equivalent”, since male incel ideology is very approving of violence. I expect if there was a large effort to encourage women to be violent towards men, you’d see more violence towards men by women.
Women attack men? The men can defend themselves more capably. No: women who’re pissed at the world seek softer targets for their wrath
The onus of finding a mate falls disproportionately on men. Some resent this and turn on women. The onus of parenting falls disproportionately on women. Some resent this and reach for the curling iron when those grubby little hand are caught digging in mommy’s purse.
FWIW the spirit of the OP was NOT to focus on exact equivalence or male incel behavior at all, but if the similar sorts of frustrations within females had any equivalent on line community response.
There are different ways that members of genders in our culture respond even to the exact same frustrations and the gender associated frustrations are not exactly the same.
I appreciate those who have participated in the discussion as intended rather than fixating on whether or not the incel word applies, or that since the focus is more on the sex act for men and more on relationships for many women that is the end of it, or having yet another discussion about male incel ideology and what it is and is not. As the OP thank you to those people.
Not really; women who are violent against men are also more prone to use a weapon than men, presumably because they aren’t idiots and that’s how humans have always dealt with a bigger and stronger opponent. And muscles are no match for a knife, just more meat to be carved.
I remember some jokes and snickering in the media after Lorena Bobbit cur off her husband’s penis. Not exactly the same thing, and not for the same reasons, but it was a case of violence against a man that was condoned and widely mocked in popular culture.
Hmmmm, that sounds odd, partly because AFAICT women are more likely to be in situations like customer-facing service jobs, where they’re interacting with lots of people all the time.
Or do you just mean that women have fewer friends/family members than men do in their personal social circles? That claim appears a bit overblown, according to this 2023 study.
I can easily believe that back when most women spent most of their time in their own homes, they interacted with far fewer people on average than men did, given that men were the ones out in the workplace and activities like sports, civic offices, etc. But I’m not sure that that remains true today.
That attitude was by no means unique, either. There’s a strong cultural tradition, perpetuated by men and women alike, of gleeful snickering about situations where wives are violent towards husbands who (a) physically abuse them or (b) are unfaithful to them. (Think of all the “comic” songs about wives emasculating or murdering bad husbands, for example.)
Husbands beating wives for disobedience or laziness used to be similarly viewed as a comic trope, but it’s a lot less popular nowadays. I think it’s likewise high time to stop presenting “husband-punishing” spousal violence by women as funny.
Still, I think there’s a significant difference between that type of response and the stereotypical “violent incel” cheerleading for violence against random women just for being women. Punitive violence towards a specific individual, even if it’s way disproportionate and inexcusable, is quite different from terroristic hate-ideology-fueled violence towards random members of a hated group.
As noted above, someone like Valerie Solanas is a much more apt example of that latter type of anti-male violence than Lorena Bobbitt.
Socially interact. That’s a job. And one very few people take because they enjoy it, at that. Women are pushed into that role since women generally get shoved into lower status, lower paying jobs. If customer service became high status and high paying we’d all be wondering why most customer service people are men.
In it’s way, sure. But the post I quoted mentioned a few who commit violence, and a larger community who condone and encourage that violence. I was specifically offering an example of the latter.
This whole thread is about whether there are attitudes among some women analogous to the frustration and anger of “incel” males. I think there are moments when there are, but we don’t remember or think of them in the same way.
Last spring, I was working very late and came across a female colleague as I was leaving work. Before that, she had expressed extremely dismissive views on men in general, I may have written about her in a thread here at the time.
That evening, completely out of the blue, she told me “I want to punch you right now.” Nothing in our preceding interactions could explain what she said, and she even later admitted that she had no idea why she said it. Still, I laughed it off because what else was I supposed to do? It took me a couple of months to realize that if the roles had been reversed, I would have been sacked first thing in the morning, and with good reason. In this case, it didn’t even occur to me to complain about it.
However, I agree with @Atamasama that physical violence is almost exclusively a male incel phenomenon, disgustingly so. From what I’ve seen, women tend to resort preferably to emotional violence, even between themselves, but I admit I don’t have a cite to confirm that. Not that I have looked for one, actually.
I seem to remember reading about Reddit forum that was rabidly anti-men, to a level that was caricatural. I never felt the need to set foot there, obviously.