145
why are incels frowned/hated upon?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
145 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26980 readers
1140 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/w3mv8l/do_women_really_live_in_constant_fear_of_men_if/
https://www.tekedia.com/are-women-truly-afraid-of-men/
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/all-women-live-in-fear-and-men-just-dont-get-it/news-story/36f90cbbce4dc8cb8a9795e4a390cb1e
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 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":
But by your logic if you take any measure to avoid him you are a bigot against people with guns
But by your logic you are being a bigot against people who drive if you decide not to cross the road
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.