The growing army of incels

This blog post is an amalgamation of some comments to a few posts on Facebook. The post were of some URLs posted to Facebook.

The subject concerned was the the increasing number of incels. Incel means involuntary celibacy. There are other names for the phenomenon such as “love shy”, “total force loneliness” and “forever alone”. This post also concerns the increasing parallel phenomenon of what in an earlier post I called misincelry or hate of incels. There has always been suspicion of others who do not fit into normal modes of behaviour such as people, especially men, who are unable to form sexual relationships but in recent years this has reached a crescendo of hitch pitch lynch mob hysteria.

A failure to understand reasons for the growing army of incels and to reflect on on the automatic disgust of them will result in an explosive situation which will explode in our faces. Unfortunately we live in exactly the wrong time, a time which does not favour objective, cool headed analysis, where indeed the failure of one to become hot headed is itself cause for suspicion of oneself or their motives.

The posts to Facebook were about some studies showing an increasing prevalence of celibate men. Up to 1/3 of men in their 20s have been without sex for at least 12 months. The phenomenon of celibacy comes in 2 flavours, incel and vocel, meaning voluntary celibacy. The breakdown of the 2 parts is not clear.

I have 3 hypotheses to explain the growing celibacy, both voluntary and involuntary.

1) Society is organising itself into an informal polygamy as a way of resolving the more energised expression of hypergamy such that 80% of women want 20% of men. On Tinder 80% of men are judged by women to be “under average” which is mathematically impossible. Humans, as a biological species, are slightly dimorphic, meaning men are a little larger on average than women. In nature dimorphism is related to polygamy and monomorphism is related to monogamy in a species. Humans are imperfectly monogamous and many human cultures have practised polygamy. Geneticists tell us that fewer human males than females have successfully reproduced. In humans this makes for hypergamy in females, meaning a preference to match up with a male of at least the same social or educational level or above as herself. This will become more acute in the decades ahead as women out perform men in education and as females earn more than men, as is already being seen at younger age levels. The result is a majority of women looking for a smaller number of men. The natural tendency of hypergamy in women will be culturally exaggerated.

2) The acting out of John B Colhoun’s “Mouse Utopia” experiment which showed that in laboratory conditions of limited space and unlimited food males dropped out of competing for females. Colhoun called those males the “Beautiful Ones” because they did not have the bite and scratch marks of the other competitive males. Ultimately after the mice population peaked it levelled and then crashed as males dropped out. What describes Japan better than limited space and unlimited food? Also the MGTOW monks of the west. It may be that real estate prices are providing the over population signal. Similar phenomena are being observed in South Korea, China (with some added specific aspects) and Iran.

3) The increasing isolation of modern life. Most relationships form through friends in a social circle or work contacts. Very few men are able to just “pick up” women or just find women fawning over them. It was ever thus. Most men required a woman to know them
deeply, in a way made easier through a social network. If we are moving towards an era when first impressions are the be all and end all of matching up then most men will be at a disadvantage. There is a hierarchy of women in first impressions desirability too but it is not as steep as that which applies to men. I hypothesise that it is easier for isolated women to find partners than for men.

Big changes in the decades ahead and unless we understand the processes, and to what extent these are biologically energised, there will be a lot of acting out and temper tantrums on a society wide scale. We live in times of passion and hair trigger hysterias so the signs are that such understanding will not arise.

Male sexual disenfranchisement is only going to get worse in the decades ahead with
no possible solution but the west’s obsession with optimism, positive thinking, can do entitlement complexes will only ferment mental illness, hysterias, hate and unleash the darker angels of our nature. The climate will favour those who know how to to inflame collective passions more than those who know how to apply good analysis. Stoic unconcern for other’s respect for one of lack thereof will serve better than “life
coach” positive thinking in the face of tectonic shifts we can not stop. Positive thinking never stopped an earthquake.

A sociological tectonic shift is happening and no one cares to know. It is as if the positive thinking denialism is kicking in refusing to believe there are any such major problems looming. An earthquake of 9 on the Richter Scale unless will explode in our faces if an effort to understand the biological, evolutionary psychological and societal factors is not undertaken. The very area of study concerned, sociology, is dominated by ideological bullies, intellectual pygmies and agenda wheelbarrow pushers.

Misincelry or Hatred of Incels

We all understand the terms misogyny and misandry. The basic definitions are given below.

Misogyny – The hatred of women.

Misandry – The hatred of men.

The first one is found in standard dictionaries but the latter is not found in most dictionaries. The last word was in use before the Mens Rights Movement and even probably before second wave feminism.  This is why I have not quoted the definitions  from a dictionary reference. One is recognised by standard dictionaries and the other is not. Such is the power of feminists to put pressure on to others that even dictionaries will bend to their demands. I am coining a new term – misincelry or hated of incels . First some more definitions.

Incel – Short for Involuntary celibacy. Someone who in spite of a desire for sexual intimacy is sexually celibate. About 2/3 or more of incels are men. I believe that this gender imbalance of men over women in incel numbers is explained by a biological tendency towards hypergamy of females towards males, the desire of women to marry upwards. This means a greater number of sexually frustrated and unmatched males than is the case for females. It is not an officially recognised term in therapy.  Related terms are love shyness and true forced loneliness.

Vocel – Voluntary celibacy for whatever reason. The opposite of incel. The vocel may be asexual and not have any desire for a sexual relationship or may have have chosen to refrain from acting on his/her sexual desires for religious or other reasons. It may be for a finite period such as before marriage or it may be life time decision such as being a member of a religious order or being tired of sexual relationships in general.

Asexual – A type of vocel. The person has no desire for a sexual relationship or from Wikipedia, “ is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity“.

Hypergamy – The tendency of women to marry above their own position or at least at their own level. A male doctor will be more likely to marry a female nurse than a female doctor is to marry a male nurse.

True Forced Loneliness – Similar to incel in that they have no success in relationships. As good as a synonym. The term was coined by Bill Greathouse. From is this definition “…. areforced” to be alone because they perceive other women (or men in some cases) to be rejecting them….”

Misincelry – Hatred of incels as defined above.

I have noticed an impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting of incels from men and women and very frequently from feminists, very often from the same feminists who criticise men and non-feminist women for ” impatience, frustration, judgement, shaming, belittling and insulting” women”. This is similar to feminists complaining about being “silenced” and then shouting down their critics to the point of ruining careers.

I don’t think this comes down simple rudeness or social blinkers although these things do figure. I believe evolutionary psychology explains much of what is observed in misincelry as well as bullying, racism, homophobia and transphobia. This is where sociologists and especially those of  a strong ideological bent are opposed to evolutionary psychology.

In my post on Oppressive Etiquette I gave the examples of Japan and the US south under the Jim Crow laws. Today feminists are exercising the same requirements for etiquette from men towards women as whites required from blacks under Jim Crow.

This is all the more onerous for men with autism or Asperger‘s syndrome who are more likely than average to be incels and for men who are generally more socially awkward. Feminists on Jezebel and Wehuntedthemammoth web sites take pleasure in shaming in rubbishing incels. One is reminded of school yard bullies. In this case however our feminist messiahs must place themselves on the side of “good” and to that end construct complicated narratives to make their victims the “villains”. Projected hate. A classic example of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender).

This is an extension of the sport of shaming men in general which many women (not limited to feminists) feel free to indulge in a way which would not tolerated if the target was black, Asian, Jewish or of some other demographic minority. This is a way to express the same dark angels of our nature in language which is approved by the cerebral cortex and society collectively. Take a look at this quote by Julie Burchill.

Julie Burchill2

I have substituted Jews for men and Nazis for feminists to see how similar to extreme racist rhetoric is to that of radical feminists. This is not an isolated example. Women and feminists of the non-radical variety, the so called NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) either put their heads in the sand when confronted with this rhetoric or they become offended, not for the men put down and insulted but for the implication that all feminists are like that. After making clear that ALL men must take responsibility for the outrage of Elliot Roger these feminists are quick to distance themselves from any responsibility for their ugly sisters. Double standards as usual.

So to describe the penchant of feminists and many non-feminist women, (joined in by many men happy to impress women with their bullying prowess) to kick incels in the teeth and do do so with relish I have coined the term misincelry. There is no way to control others so that they will nor shame us but we can control our reaction to just shaming. This applies to all shammed males, not just to incels. I will make another post about this called Shamtrinos in the future.