We can simultaneously tell individuals to work on self-improvement to get themselves out of tough situations while also recognizing that society can do things to make life fairer and better for everybody.
I unequivocally do not condone folks who go off the rails in ways that cause harm to others (self destruction and harm is similar, but a different conversation), but I've seen enough mental health challenges and crises to understand why it happens. In general, life is hard, and no one is coming to save you except yourself.
Incels call this "maxxing". It doesn't seem to be particularly effective for them.
> Pushing the blame outwards to some other group for not bending to fulfill your needs is a real problematic stance.
Why? Reducing inequality in dating seems like a fair goal to me. People become incels because everyone else rejects them. If that doesn't change, the number of incels will keep growing.
> Reducing inequality in dating
What does this mean, be specific. I cannot think of anything except absolutely ghoulish ideas that remove agency from women.
So they don't need to improve themselves, they just need to believe in the right things and suddenly women will value them.
Really?
> I cannot think of anything except absolutely ghoulish ideas that remove agency from women.
And yet it's this agency that created such a thing as incels. Look at data from online dating services, plenty of evidence showing over 80% of men are rejected outright. Do you think this is normal?
> And yet it's this agency that created such a thing as incels.
No, incels were not created created because women have agency in who they date. What toxic nonsense.
And also, you still haven't put forward any changes you'd like to see to remedy the situation as you see it. Bring solutions to the table if you think there is a problem.
Which is?
> incels were not created created because women have agency in who they date
Did you not look at the evidence? Online dating is already the primary means of forming relationships. There's data showing women reject over 80% of men they see on dating apps. They actively choose to compete over the other 20%. They'd rather share a top 20% man than settle with a bottom 80% man.
How is this supposed to not create a class of universally rejected men?
> Bring solutions to the table if you think there is a problem.
Why bother? I doubt you'd consider any real solution since they would naturally result in disadvantages for women in favor of men and would therefore be "toxic nonsense".
Let me use an analogy. As a manager I help my folks get promoted all the time. The folks who struggle the most are the ones who think about promotion as a set of checkbox items they have to cross off. The ones who are easily promoted are the ones who are looking less at the criteria and more at how they can be introspective and develop themselves.
Framing finding a relationship in a "I'll just check these checkboxes and then I will immediately get a relationship" fundamentally misunderstands that we aren't generally selecting partners for one trait. No one is working from a checklist when they select their partners, so why set yourself up to fail by imagining they are.
Develop a growth mindset, focus on building your skills, build rich and fulfilling friendships. Ask for feedback and accept it. Build others up. People will want to be around you.
> Did you not look at the evidence?
I did a cursory Google search, which suggested online dating results in roughly the same outcomes as in person dating.
> How is this supposed to not create a class of universally rejected men?
If you are suggesting that 80% of men will face universal rejection, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. It's quite frankly trivially falsifiable.
> Why bother?
Because you've made vague gestures that somehow society is to blame, but won't say how you'd fix it. Either that means you aren't sure, which undermines the idea that society is actually to blame, or your ideas are so repugnant that you are afraid to show them the light of day. You do not get to claim a moral victory by claiming to be a victim and then failing to engage with even the lightest questioning of your narrative.
They're not doing this consciously. Research supports the notion that people widely agree on what features make a person attractive:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0033-2909.1...
It follows that if you fail to meet these criteria you are considered unattractive.
> Develop a growth mindset, focus on building your skills, build rich and fulfilling friendships. Ask for feedback and accept it. Build others up. People will want to be around you.
This assumes attractiveness is caused by factors that are within our control. This doesn't seem to be the case. Height is a very simple and uncontroversial example. How is a "growth mindset" supposed to help the incel who gets rejected by women on dating apps because he's shorter than them?
This isn't some insane idea either. Women I've dated have complained about short men on dating apps to my face. They want those men to reject themselves so as to spare them from even acknowledging their existence.
> If you are suggesting that 80% of men will face universal rejection, I find that extraordinarily hard to believe. It's quite frankly trivially falsifiable.
I said the data shows women reject about 80% of men they see on dating apps. The set of rejected men is different for every woman. Universally rejected men (incels) are the insersection of these sets, naturally it is a smaller set than 80% of men.
The fact is there's massive inequality in dating. Like all inequalities, it'll probably get worse over time.
> Because you've made vague gestures that somehow society is to blame, but won't say how you'd fix it.
Not providing a fix doesn't invalidate my point.
> Either that means you aren't sure, which undermines the idea that society is actually to blame, or your ideas are so repugnant that you are afraid to show them the light of day.
Yeah, I just encountered this subject. The most obvious solution is to go back to enforced monogamy. Nothing repugnant about that but obviously female agency will be impacted. You don't seem to be open to any ideas that don't maximize female agency.
> You do not get to claim a moral victory by claiming to be a victim and then failing to engage with even the lightest questioning of your narrative.
No, you don't get to dismiss people's arguments as "toxic" and then demand they "engage" with your questioning.
And there it is. Yes, that stance is awful. Going back implies removing the right of women to choose who they partner with. Enforced monogamy removes the ability of folks to choose how many partners they have. And who gets to define 'monogamy' and who does the enforcement?
It also completely ignores the poly folks out there, or the folks who are not interested in long term relationships.
It's at best, a narrow and puritanical view of human sexuality.
And I suspect that's exactly why he said "Why bother?".
And having a dating scene with an 80/20 distribution isn't? Monogamy seems like the only way to give everyone chance.
So I guess this comes down to whether you think everyone should have a fair chance to find a partner. Do you? And if so how would you achieve that?
> Going back implies removing the right of women to choose who they partner with.
Nope, they can still choose whoever they want. The point is to get the top 20% of men committed and off the dating pool as quickly as possible.
> Enforced monogamy removes the ability of folks to choose how many partners they have.
Yes? That's the point.
> And who gets to define 'monogamy'
... The dictionary.
> who does the enforcement?
I don't know, society?
> It's at best, a narrow and puritanical view of human sexuality.
Probably. I did say it was the most obvious. Do you have a better idea? Because this "just be better" stuff doesn't seem to be working.
Assuming people even want to help these incels to begin with. Other posts I've seen just want to pacify them so they don't become violent or something.
Does it really top all other qualities? Doesn't seem to be the case. There's evidence showing personality is only considered after a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness is met.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0092-x
> But in-person the initial “not-as-good-looks” can very easily be overcome if one is kind, honest, funny, etc.
Attractive people are perceived as nicer, funnier, kinder, more honest, more intelligent, etc.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/weexperimenton...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
You can work out and get into shape, you can have good hygiene, you can dress nicely, etc. Just because someone is luckier and doesn’t really have to pay attention to what he/she eats to get a good figure doesn’t mean that others can’t achieve that, although with more work.
Also, the face itself is much more important for men than women.
So do you now agree this statement is obviously false?
Height is just one of the first filters women use, and often the requirement is more strict than just "taller than me". You also have to pass other commons filters. Another very important filter for most women is race, and we're just getting started.
They do. You think those women are single? They are not. I know one with 99+ likes on Tinder.
Just like in many other animals, female choosy selection is the limiting factor, and the males either prove themselves or might as well die. That's where all this lack of empathy is rooted.
It was hardly a scientific statement. Men like attractive women and women like attractive men, in other news the sky is blue...
I don’t hate men at all, most don’t share this misogynistic mindset.
Based on what?
> who are already heavily privileged
Depends on country. I’m not supportive of some new-found feminist movements, but all for it in some Muslim secular countries where women are not allowed to drive and are all around thought of as the property of their husband.
> I've seen women with your left wing mentality talk about women's rights and BLM and then, in the next sentence, move on to making fun of Indian men and talking about how they would never date them
That’s called a hypocrite. And I don’t see how generalizing an entire gender based on n=1 is any different than your example where you rightfully was offended by the making fun of Indian men. You do the same shit for half of all people.
> Most of society does share this hateful mindset.
And a significant percentage of men also share the mindset that women are inferior/object, or other misogynistic shit. Neither should happen.
> You responded by saying "the sky is blue", do you believe some races are objectively less attractive than others?
Heh?
In another thread I did write that men usually don’t want to have relationship with women of another race (and vice versa). But it is all around true, most cultures look down on interracial relationships — which is said.
The fact that you blamed "personality" for all problems.
> Depends on country.
Well I'm talking about the West, the US in particular.
> generalizing an entire gender based on n=1
It's not n=1, the reason people do it is because it is generally considered socially acceptable.
> And a significant percentage of men also share the mindset that women are inferior/object, or other misogynistic shit. Neither should happen.
You really don't realize how many men are not misogynistic, and how much more acceptable it is to make fun of men for their insecurities (like height).
> Heh? In another thread I did write that men usually don’t want to have relationship with women of another race (and vice versa). But it is all around true, most cultures look down on interracial relationships — which is said.
This is not true, men are more open in general, and women, especially white women, have the strongest bias. Women will even refuse to date ethnic men they find attractive. There are lots of studies on this although I'd have to dig them up. Also why doesn't this affect white men as much if it's just about opposition to interracial relationships? They are preferred by many ethnic women.
Which is all around the most important; the catch is that one can't really get to it over a picture. And unfortunately even in real life (especially now with COVID) it makes first moves harder. But there are many places where one can get to know others - work place, school/college. There people can show their true personality. And many part of one's appearance can be changed.
> It's not n=1, the reason people do it is because it is generally considered socially acceptable.
I'm fairly sure each culture have stereotypes of other cultures; but it is getting better. I'm sorry if you have been the target of such negative stereotypes, it's absolutely not okay, but one should not hold grudges against unknown individuals of that society, because it is the same shit.
> You really don't realize how many men are not misogynistic, and how much more acceptable it is to make fun of men for their insecurities (like height).
I said a significant percentage of men are misogynistic. And it is never acceptable to make fun of someone's insecurities - if it happens to you, quit those circles, they are toxic people. But I doubt non-popular high school girls have it better. My point is that the problem is bullies, not another group who is often hurt.
> This is not true, men are more open in general, and women, especially white women, have the strongest bias. Women will even refuse to date ethnic men they find attractive.
Well, how about blaming society instead of the individual? Behind every such woman there is a father and mother who repeatedly told her how bad these "other" people are and to never bring one home, etc. Or even just implicitly meaning that. It takes time to "heal" a society and interracial couples are much more acceptable than even just a decade age.
The science simply doesn't back this up. And nowadays, even without covid, most people meet online where the simplest filters (race, height, face) are the most important. Imagine if men used a "breast size" filter, do you see why this is so disturbing?
> I'm fairly sure each culture have stereotypes of other cultures; but it is getting better. I'm sorry if you have been the target of such negative stereotypes, it's absolutely not okay, but one should not hold grudges against unknown individuals of that society, because it is the same shit.
There is no stereotype like this about white men, they are considered extremely attractive.
> I said a significant percentage of men are misogynistic.
This has not been my experience in general, most men I meet in tech and in the US share your types of beliefs.
> Well, how about blaming society instead of the individual? Behind every such woman there is a father and mother who repeatedly told her how bad these "other" people are and to never bring one home, etc. Or even just implicitly meaning that. It takes time to "heal" a society and interracial couples are much more acceptable than even just a decade age.
Even asian women show these biases for only dating white men. A lot of these women are very left-wing, it is not because of their fathers and mothers. They should take responsibility.
No it would be heavily criticized to filter based on that, and it often is not that apparent. Men would not be able to ask for it even if they wanted to know. There is also no weight option, which men would like. All of this is because women control the market.
> Where? Do you think a Muslim women would prefer a white men over another Muslim? An Indian women (living in India) a white one over another Indian?
In the US, and yeah all women pretty much prefer white men. White men are heavily preferred in india.
> Maybe you just don't consider those things misogynistic, because frankly you do sound like one..
Because you consider me pointing out how racist/sexist women can be as misogynistic. It's an easy way to avoid the issues I bring up.
> I doubt asian women date white men over other asian ones, but stereotypically asian people can be very racist, except for white people, I agree with you on that.
Asian women raised in the US often strongly prefer white men, you rarely see it the other way around.
> For daring to prefer someone with the same skin color as themselves?
For the societal biases and helping to fix them. You're clearly a complete racist, that is practically the definition of racism. Why would you word it like that unless your a psychopath? Also it's not about skin color, it's about race. Again I even mentioned how women admit to finding ethnic men attractive but still won't date them. Women will even ask for ethnic background for ambiguous looking people and unmatch based on that. This is not comparable to sexual orientation, it's very much about societal issues and you know it. You are disgusting. You fight so much for women's issues but don't care at all about fixing problems like these.
Yeah, I'm sure every dating apps' CEO and other important positions are held by women...
> In the US
There you are, at least read what I was writing. You know there are other countries than one that is predominantly white from its inception?
> Because you consider me pointing out how racist/sexist women can be as misogynistic
No. There is a difference between being racist and not being attracted to someone from another race. And your conclusion of some women being racist is in no way in disagreement with what I say. But you've been saying that all women are racist, which is not true.
> Asian women raised in the US
raised in the US, maybe that has to do something with it??
> Again I even mentioned how women admit to finding ethnic men attractive but still won't date them
SOME. They are racist, or has parents that would disown them if they would have an interracial relationship, or other reasons.
And thank you for your kind remarks, that's a great way to emphasize your points...
EDIT: I do apologize if I upset you, it was not my intention at all. I just feel that in your reasoning you are thinking of an object instead of another human being. Unfortunately, even if the other's choice is due to some evil reason, like blatant racism, it is only their choice who they want to date with and you can't do anything at all with it at this level. But as I noted earlier: more and more interracial couples, even at first surface-level things like more attention to diverse casts in movies will slowly make it more acceptable at a societal level. Of course there will always be racist people, but exactly the societal-pressure-free choice of women will let go of the old stigmas.
And yet, quite often they need help. Changing one's personality, mastering new skills, etc etc. are not small nor easy steps. And some people may not even be capable of doing them by themselves. So what do they do? They seek out people and go public with their frustration... and they come across two groups: Group A, who call them names and shun them out, and Group B, who claim they understand them and talk with them.... all while telling them things like "Look, it's not your fault, man." "They're all whores", etc. What do you think happens next?
What I am trying to say is, some empathy and understanding would go a long way. I get that some people don't want to help themselves and are beyond saving, but there are many others who just need a small push to improve themselves.
> That's your opinion
Yes, and it's shared by nearly everyone. The alternative is that you believe someone does owe you a relationship, which is anathema to anyone who values individual liberty and freedom at any level. Everyone who is advocating for making changes to society to improve their chances is really fucking cagey about the specifics.
So let me ask you, what changes do you propose, and who owes you a relationship?
Not really. If you're talking specifically about whether an unmarried man that fits some particular criteria is owed a wife, most people in the western world at this point in time would agree with you. But that's far from universal.
>The alternative is that you believe someone does owe you a relationship, which is anathema to anyone who values individual liberty and freedom at any level.
Not really. "Individual liberty and freedom" is not one concrete set of ideas that you have to either accept or reject wholesale.
>Everyone who is advocating for making changes to society to improve their chances is really fucking cagey about the specifics.
Some are, probably. I don't know which you've been talking to.
>what changes do you propose
Bring back severe social shaming for women that engage in sexual activity outside of a committed monogamous relationship (e.g. marriage or on the way to marriage). Bring back social pressure for a man to marry a woman that he has had sex with outside of marriage.
>and who owes you a relationship
I am married, so I think from society's perspective, my wife should owe me a relationship. If either of us denies the other a relationship without very good reason (meaning something more than just not being happy any more), the one abandoning the marriage should be looked down upon as having done something very wrong.
> I think from society's perspective, my wife should owe me a relationship.
I'm going to assume you mean owes you a supportive, caring, platonic relationship. Eg, two married people support one another to their mutual benefit. I'm going to assume you don't mean to imply your spouse owes you sex.
If that's what you want to call shaming them for certain behavior, yes.
>Why have you gendered it at all?
Because women are, on average, different from men, and, on average, exhibit different tendencies. Different measures are needed to push their behaviors to the same point.
>Why do women have to face social stigma and not men?
As I said, a man who has sex with a woman outside of marriage should be pressured to marry her, or in other words, if he doesn't marry her, he should be shamed for it.
Note that I don't think that should apply if he's not the only man that's had sex with her. In that case she is the one that should be the subject of social shaming to discourage other women from following in her path.
>What about gay relationships, presumably you'd apply the same thinking (en route to a marriage or married)?
I don't think homosexual behavior is very relevant to the discussion of men being unable to find suitable wives, but generally speaking, I don't think society should put any effort toward ensuring homosexuals end up in healthy marriages. And if there is any conflict between the interests of homosexuals and the goal of getting normal people in to healthy marriages, the conflict should be resolved in favor of normal people every time.
>What about poly relationships?
I think society should reject polygamous relationships.
>I'm going to assume you mean owes you a supportive, caring, platonic relationship. Eg, two married people support one another to their mutual benefit. I'm going to assume you don't mean to imply your spouse owes you sex.
I mean both. Both are important to the maintenance of most healthy relationships.
As in, potential partners are better off single and alone.
And it is also true that such setup would make women super vulnerable for rape or sexual abuse and then forced them to marry their rapists. That is exactly how it worked in the past and how it still works in some radical Christian circles.
It would also create environment in which domestic violence would flourish as women were unable to leave as partner starts the abusing.
The whole plan, in multiple comments, is about creating coercive setup that don't care about violence it puts people at risk for.
"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."
(Or, if you prefer Old Internet, please don't feed the trolls.)
When they don't get replies and are properly flagged, egregious comments are deprived of oxygen and the fires quickly die out. When they are fed, we end up in various circles of flamewar hell. Such flamewars are a co-creation of the provoker and the provokees. We're trying to avoid that here.
You banned my account because you don't like my opinions. It's as simple as that.
You've been creating accounts to break HN's rules with for a long time now. Would you please stop doing that?
I never said I wanted to shame women. I said I thought society should do it to alleviate a problem I consider very serious, not because I'm personally enthusiastic about doing it. I think people around here are able to understand the nuance.
>You've been creating accounts to break HN's rules with for a long time now.
Now I'm starting to think you just don't like me.