Many factors producing toxic masculinity are explored in the interview attached below for our consideration, on “incel” ideology; (which they define as referring to those whom self-identified with the term).
They oppose incel denigration, (perhaps especially from our left), by deepening understandings of both the various perspectives and social dynamics of interrelated complex issues, all in an empathic and curious mindset.
(the video’s framing (eg: “the expert”, “the truth”) is somewhat counter-productive to their intents).
I’ll post some of my summary of their discussion, and my own commentary.
The linked discussion makes a point in introduction about how one’s self-development-motivated-by-romantic-goals is important, particularly so for young men; and further, that ceding a mindful social response to such then enables pick-up artists (like Tate) to occupy this space. (Although, I think it is not always ceded per se, since social tech capital invests in creating vacuous space for empowering the likes of Tate). Their intro point (even out of context, both their conversational context as well as what I just added above) is a fair evaluation of it’s significance.
I would then add, I suspect a broadly shared left politics should appreciate the importance of that issue to both our culture as well as to our social members. Both the root issues as well as the then manifest incel ideologies require attention; ie, I would want to explore how we should think of and politically redress both the up stream and down stream aspects as one. More concretely, near the end of their discussion they end up suggesting a culture which attributes social status value to men-as-homemakers, (which may help at that root I spoke of); but then in keeping a realistic timeframe in mind, I am skeptical of how that would concretely help our currently incel social members.
On that gap, maybe the left should ask how our current youth (about to grow into, or around, our otherwise dysfunctional social status structures) could instead grow towards such a cultural state (with functional status structures); and then also ask how society could help or support those not as young, perhaps with universal economic and health rights, and even public investment in socializing activities; and then ask, how all such things would interact and be integrated cohesively. (All those concrete examples are just top-of-mind illustrations, not meant as a thorough argument). Looking at such concrete potential ways of addressing how I conceive the complex issue, if getting ahead of myself, I would also look at how current social structures, such as cultural status signals, are politically defended by capital and patriarchal empowered agents; they stand to lose the value their worldview grants (and projects onto) their methods of status, wealth, privilege, power, etc. Much analysis around such things could be pulled into our broader political discussion, of how is our left to think and be, in relation.
Now moving past their introduction, they soon note the personal importance of sexual/romantic relationships (in part to disarm uncritical incel critics) (in “why study incels” segment), and (in “what are incels” segment) also they define their incel self-identity ideology of study, (and some similar groups’ definitions). I thought the definitions (and following demographics) were interesting, if not important, since it informs some limits of their scientific conclusions, which may inform questions of broader considerations. Some demographic details from their studies were how incels (as they defined) are disproportionally: persons of color, low education, low employment, poor mental health.
Entering the next important aspect, (in “are incels violent” segment), they note how incels can be perceived as a risk to others, yet a more accurate risk seems to be of their self-harm. Though they note the risk of incels to be mobilized into violence, as well as the risk of suicide-by-cop; but despite those risks, the trends may lead one to expect more violence than is actually found, (and they speculate on that). They also touch on some historical cultural adaptation with incel-ish persons (roughly defined as “sexless young men”); (eg: monastery, vikings, etc). And they clarified how a more extreme minority of incels are louder and more offensive online than the rest of their group, (ie: an extreme 10% incels is >50% online content; though I’d be interested in how bots play into the figures).
The next interesting and important section (in “what do heterosexual women want” segment), they explore “cross-sex mind reading”. They discuss how the online resources, such as pick-up artists, lead to informing incels’ unrealistic expectations for how they can think they should-be-yet-are-not attractive, (ie: “looks, money, status”). And importantly, just before and into the next segment (“the apps and dating culture” segment), they move to discuss how the social setting (or app) mediates and changes the selections and preferences of participants. Here they also clarify how incels’ issues could be conceptualized as their broader disengagement from society, which leads to commodifying dating app mediation and atomization. They make a point about dating issues being improved by understanding it as social problem, (as opposed to how apps atomize). Notably, they also claim about 70% of ancestral mateships were arranged by kin; (sounds like evolutionarily non-atomized sexual selection to me, which I find skeptically interesting).
Here I would add, it is important to me that we understand incels as just an aspect manifest from our own larger social-atomization problems; some individuals identifying as incel may have their personal issues to work out themselves (and/or with therapy), but some of those issues are not disconnected from our sociocultural issues at the root. Basically, it is important to me that the left does not treat our incel phenomena as one person might deal with one creepy interaction, which may be an understandable if counter-productive reaction. How and where we might do such a thing, I’m not sure. But, if we’re ever working on an economic bill of rights, I would hope it would be informed by how it will affect issues such as these discussed here, which may otherwise seem to be disparate issues.
The next part in their discussion (still in “the apps and dating culture” segment) is when they approach the point they clipped into their intro, (about ceding space to pick-up artists). It is important that they address here how men have an evolutionary intention for status seeking and mating, which often manifests as misogyny (perhaps especially in our current techno-cultural socialization). I idealize that we would mindfully find how we would socially cultivate our men’s evolutionary intentions to be functionally not misogynistic, or at the least discuss this well enough to have a more broadly shared idea of this issue among the left. Here they mention, besides how we think of sex education, we could think of a potential pre-sex education that could demonstrate how pick-up artistry can be gross, to help young men to not be confused by it.
Beyond such pre-sex ed, (in “what is the model for relationship” segment) the next important aspect explored healthy relationships, (in how it could inform the pre-sex ed). They explore aspects of transactionality, relationality, and idiosyncrasy. And how those inform how one might replace pick-up artistry with a healthier method of answering questions young sexless men ask, (metaphorically). They express here how getting off apps and into society would reshape and improve our ways of thinking around those topics. They also push back on that, in how some people are made so busy with work that they don’t have much opportunity other than with apps to meet people; then go on to claim that means apps are here to stay (as if taking our being increasingly overworked for granted, which I would not).
I suppose I’ll take a break here for now. The next important thing they discuss is cultural evolution.
Videos like this are right up my alley, which is why I got a degree in psychology. I skimmed the video and think every person would benefit from listening to the section about evolution and sexual violence—just my thoughts. There were just a few other things I wanted to add. First, I find the term “incel,” which I had to look up, to be demeaning. In fact, I would guess that a lot of, as people apparently call, “celibate” men that would be deemed “incels” are actually voluntarily “celibate” because they refuse to disrespect, subjectify, and use women. (I apologize for only using heterosexual examples; I only do it because it’s my experience and requires less typing.) Second, I think it is a misnomer to use the word celibate in this way. The term denotes a choice, often for religious reasons, a person makes to not marry or have sex. This tells me the term is both misused and is likely misused on purpose to make someone who is not currently in a relationship where they have sex sound terrible, weird, or fill in the blank. Last, our culture extols toxic masculinity, easy money and sex, and narcissism. These factors create a much greater danger to women than healthy men who are currently not having sex with someone.
I had always heard that the term “Incel” was actually coined by the members of that community themselves, and that the founder of the movement actually wrote a manifesto referring to himself in that fashion. I’ve done almost no research on this topic, so your insight makes me realize I need to invest time and effort into learning more about the topic. Thanks.
Awesome stuff so far. Thanks for taking the time, not only to view the video, but to provide such in-depth analysis. I am woefully uninformed on this topic, and you are inspiring me to change that.
In the linked video, shortly after minute 25, they make a point about the term “incel” originating from a woman, and some info online seems to support that claim. For instance, the history section of this wiki page, and also this page at BBC. That BBC link states:
She was living in Toronto, Canada, and started the website, Alana’s Involuntary Celibacy Project, for those who were struggling to form loving relationships.
She described the site as “a friendly place”, a simple website where she posted articles and ran a mailing list.
It became a forum for men and women to talk about being lonely, where they could wonder aloud about why they couldn’t meet anyone.
“There was probably a bit of anger and some men were a bit clueless about how women are unique, individual humans, but in general it was a supportive place.”
However, the use for the term has changed since then. I have also heard of manifestos using the term, which may have more to do with how the term is now used; (this page speaks to some of the current use, and to manifestos):
The term incel first became well-known following Elliot Rodger’s 2014 spree killing in Isla Vista, California. Before carrying out his attack, Rodger left a video and a manifesto-type autobiographical account detailing his “involuntary celibacy”.
It’s such an interesting topic, which makes it so sad that there appears to be a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation around it (from me too, admittedly!). Do you think that it may be because men are often taught in our society to be overtly dominant (toxic masculinity), so when a man chooses not to be, they are instead seen and labeled by some as less manly? I hate even writing that because I could not agree less with that summation, but I do think there are plenty of people who do, unfortunately, think this way.
Yeah, I think I get what you mean about how interesting some of these complex dynamics are. They are tricky to deconstruct. I’m not quite sure how to think, let alone articulate, my thoughts on this. But, it reminds me of my earlier thought:
There is an autopoietic aspect to the worldview projections; it is like an attractor. At least, that is how I feel about the systemic nature of the issue. Maybe you’re speaking more to the interpersonal perspectives of the issue. In that vein, I would say that other ways of being (a man) can be naturally threatening to certain ways of being (a man).
Maybe I’m still not articulating my thoughts well. Let me know if this makes any sense or not, I guess.
Absolutely. When faced with uncertainty, insecurity or rejection, we are taught that the approach to dealing with it is to “take charge” of the situation. Failure to do so, whether by choice or as a result of that very insecurity, often incurs the label you refer to. I’ll use myself as an example. The times in my life that I have felt insecure or uncertain, and have sought solace from friends and family, I have often been told that my predicament was a result of that failure. Often this message was reinforced, not only by my associates, but by the women in my life as well. I was in my 40s before I learned, through therapy, surround myself with people who do not add to this toxicity.
Makes perfect sense to me. The structure and functionality of our brains contributes this dynamic, and in exactly the way you described. Men’s are hard-wired to value action over reflection, and to put aside such emotions as fear and in and insecurity. I forget which part of the brain connects thoughts and feelings, but I was taught that, in the female brain, the connection is like broadband. For men, however, it is like a dial in connection. By the way, the platform just sent me a tutorial box suggesting I update my initial responses, rather than responding to each post individually. This apparently makes it easier for people reading the posts. I will try to do that in the future, I guess.
Unfortunately I’m not as well informed on how the brain works, especially in terms of sex differences. Though I would expect those differences to matter here.
Regarding the tutorial, I recall getting one of those messages myself. Though, I don’t know if I understood it correctly. To me, it easier to understand and follow a thread when posts are separated as being in reply to another’s post. For example, your last three posts were separated by what they were each responding to. I would have a much harder time, especially in a more active thread, if your last three posts were not organized by what they were intending to reply to. Which to me sounds maybe contradictory to the tutorial. So, I guess it is mostly just personal preference. Maybe someone else feels differently, and can explain why they prefer what I would find more confusing.
To try an clarify what I mean (with an example of being “a man”):
If I were an anti-gender-expansive minded man, or in other words an anti-inclusive minded man, then my own experience of my manliness could be in part defined by that worldview (perhaps I even have a history of sharing and defending that worldview with and/or from my similarly manly friends). Now, when observing another person being a man in an antithetically expansive or inclusive way, then this other person’s way of being a man could by its nature contradict my own way of being (or feeling like) a man. Next, my reactions are constrained by my worldview; since I am anti-inclusive, I cannot feel them to be included under my worldview’s categorization of manly, (unless I change). If I were to change and include them, then it would undermine and threaten how I defined myself to myself, (not to mention the social status pressures from my similarly manly friends). How that reaction manifests could be performative in order to shore up the security of my social status among my in-group; (and otherwise, without such a reaction, my social status may be questioned). If I am particularly insecure, I may be similarly performative without any of my in-group around, simply for my own sake; (or to impose a projection of my worldview into strangers).
Then, this all goes nuts with social media and political propaganda. Now we get the culture warriors defending their manliness and opposing the woke mind virus.
I prefer this way as well, but wanted to be considerate of those reading the posts. I am glad to hear that we are on the same page regarding our reply preferences. I get the feeling I’ll be replying to you a lot, my friend. Your posts are informative and thought-provoking.
Yes! Especially the comment regarding those whose masculine are performative even in the absence of one’s in-group. I once read that being an adolescent is like having an unseen audience that you must perform for at all times, even when alone. I realize that is not exactly the same thing as what you are stating, but somewhat similar. I wonder if the behavior you describe in that sentence begins during adolescence, and persists into adult life.
I am not that knowledgeable about brain function either, but I used to manage a program that provided recidivism related services to individuals involved in the critical justice system. I attended several trainings designed to educate me and my staff on the how to effectively communicate with our clients, especially across gender lines.
