Incels Celebrate Recent Killing Spree -- and some thoughts on Leftist Failure

What has been a failure across the spectrum is the refusal to listen to women and men like David Futrelle, who does good work on this, for years. The fact that the media is full of primers on incels in the last couple of days is fairly indicative that no one has really been paying any attention. Give it a few days and he will be a lone wolf, probably with mental health issues and the media will be tacitly suggesting that it wouldn't have happened if only women had been nicer to him, just like they did with Elliot Rodger.

There was a men's liberation movement in the US in the '70s/ early'80s which is pretty similar to what you're talking about - pro-feminist stuff about men's issues. I don't know much about it and couldn't find a good summary online (even the wikipedia page is a bit scarce).

There was also a smaller 'Anti-Sexist Men's' network in the UK in the late 1970's that included a local group I was involved with for a short period of time. You can find some brief references to this in the old 'Solidarity for Social Revolution' journal from about issue No3 followed by some extended discussion (in articles and letters) over many of the further issues up to No 15 if you include the wider discussion of feminism - much of it was to say the least confused and contradictory if pretty open and honest - I tend to view it now as a useful past learning experience from which I have tried to extract some positive points from the more negative. Needless to say the Men's group I was in was no more successful than any other in turning me into the perfect non sexist male but a do my best!!

Good points all round - as far as starting points go, I know there's that bell hooks book about men and masculinity, The Will to Change, but I've not read it myself so can't really offer much of a discussion of the content. In terms of reviving practices from 70s liberation movements, I know Plan C London folk were getting quite excited about the idea of consciousness-raising groups at one point, which feels kinda separate-but-related, especially if such groups are mixed-gender.

Anyway, more broadly I'd say that this situation has been a real failure in terms of antifascism - without getting bogged down in boring discussions of terminology, I think it's fair to say that we've seen the emergence of a murderous far-right movement with almost no opposition from those folks who normally make opposing far-right movements a priority. I think partly that's because the whole gamergate/MRA/incel spectrum really doesn't look anything like what we're used to far-right movements looking like, but also because there's a real challenge in terms of how we can oppose groups that have pretty much no offline presence. Does anti-incel/MRA action just look like an endless round of getting twitter accounts banned, YouTube videos reported, servers pulled and so on, or is there anything more we can/should be doing?

My unformed thoughts are that single issue groups are particularly poorly suited to dealing with this. The self help or therapy like aspects will ensure that only a very limited group of converts are likely to fit that format. Saying that the right seem to have some success with their strange attempts at mens groups. I'm quite honestly baffled that men are attracted to their theatrics I read it as in some ways going against traditional masculinity whilst enhancing some toxic aspects. The right have the advantage in that they can project outward against an enemy whilst having, male coded, self help aspects on the side.

Back to the first sentence. I see the problem as many young men have absolutely no afk community. No means of doing anything positive and no emotional life. I've seen this alot and it's frightening if there is an explicit aggressive acceptance of this "incel" identity. Their whole lives need a new context. As I see it the task is huge and the right have been working it for years and years by now.

Lucky Black Cat

There is no movement that addresses toxic masculinity and other ways males are harmed by patriarchy. Feminism occasionally deals with it but it's not a major focus, nor do I think it should be. This is something that men need to take the lead on for themselves, or they won't accept it. And there's nothing like that happening. Out of this vacuum we get the men's rights movement but they deal with male issues but from a sexist position. So the vacuum remains. There is no anti-sexist men's movement.

When it comes to dealing with the male side of gender liberation, the left is failing. I mean, we're failing at a lot of things but it seems like on this one we're not even making an attempt. (With rare exceptions aside, but there is no movement to speak of.)

I'm a woman so I can't really do anything about this. And even if I were a man I don't think I'd know what to do to get something like this started. But I hope it happens. I think it's the only way to address the issue of hateful, violent, and emotionally wounded men.

I agree, something like this is badly needed, but to be honest I think it'd be a real uphill battle establishing anything like this in the current ideological climate. I can't help but think any group or organisation or movement that was based around "men's issues" would be treated with overwhelming hostility and suspicion by much of the established left - both from anti-IDpol haters and the woke intersectional types. Maybe I'm overly cynical but I reckon it'd just be dismissed as MRA-lite by a lot of folks.

Existing, or just non single issue groups, could do this much better. Using separatism is a terrible solution (the right wing solution) to this problem. Normal social and purposeful context where the issue is part of the overall work make much more sense. "our" orgs are unfortunately way to weak and struggle a bit with being useful as it is. They are also generally terrible for people with social anxiety or shyness.

I see that the 'incel' exposure has already made it into the UK tabloid press.

Already? You mean after mere years of women warning about them and 10 dead and 14 injured this week. I know, it's been a bit quick.

R Totale

Anyway, more broadly I'd say that this situation has been a real failure in terms of antifascism - without getting bogged down in boring discussions of terminology, I think it's fair to say that we've seen the emergence of a murderous far-right movement with almost no opposition from those folks who normally make opposing far-right movements a priority.

In some ways I'd go even further than this in that a significant section of the 'left' response to this has been along the lines of the Angela Nagle book - which reinforces the far-right narrative ('post '60s rigid sexual hierarchy due to feminism resulting in incels', 'alt-right generally as the mirror image of/a response to tumblr identity politics') rather than challenging it. A lot of it is from social democrat types but not only. It mostly relies on a very rigid timeline starting in 2014 and not looking at precursors.

R Totale

I think partly that's because the whole gamergate/MRA/incel spectrum really doesn't look anything like what we're used to far-right movements looking like

To some extent yes, but staying on the Nagle book, there's a massive flaw in that book which is the ignorance about some aspects of the far right over the past twenty years or so. She covers gamergate/MRAs but downplays the other entry points a lot.

The anarcho-capitalist -> libertarian -> fash trajectory is a very common one. It might not be the main source of recruitment, but the ratio is exremely high. Also anonymous/Assangeism seems to have led to this end of things vs. any liberatory politics.

Third positionism/conspiracism - LaRouche, Zeitgeist, the Vanessa Beeley/Eva Bartlett/globalresearch/21st century wire Assadism which has ties to people like Limonov and Dugin. This in turn has ended up with links (cross-citation and platform sharing) on the campist left like the US marcyites (WWP/PSL) and the CPGB-ML. Legitimising far-right figures because they're geopolitically aligned against US/Israel hegemony. https://libcom.org/library/investigation-red-brown-alliances-third-positionism-russia-ukraine-syria-western-left / https://libcom.org/library/right-hand-occupy-wall-street-libertarians-nazis-fact-fiction-right-wing-involvement-spe

Steven Pinker, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, outlets like Quillette - celebrity intellectual 'classical liberals' doing popularised evolutionary psychology and slipping into race science via Charles Murray and similar. Jordan Peterson just did a big blog post about jews and IQ "it's not a conspiracy they're just really clever", Pinker has done similar. There's crossover between this lot and skeptics like Sam Harris (Peterson and Harris at the fucking O2 in July: https://www.theo2.co.uk/events/detail/sam-harris-jordan-peterson-douglas-murray)

Spiked Online (boosted by mainstream broadsheets) with campus censorship moral panic stuff (which I'd include Nagle in, who happens to have written for Spiked). Jonathan Pie being a product of both RT and Spiked is fucking bizarre but there it is: https://libcom.org/blog/unsurprising-reason-jonathan-pie-rants-sound-straight-out-spiked-06022018

So there are both multiple entry points, but also once you're in an MRA-ish subreddit you start getting introduced to helicopter ride memes and race science. And at the other end, something like Nagle's book, or the Vampire Castle and similar softens the response to all this because people can lazily blame 'liberal call-out culture' and not research what is actually going on.

Also how much fucking money and promotion is behind this - the Mercers, Breitbart, RT has platformed white nationalists at least since 2012 as talking heads (Heimbach, Richard Spencer).

R Totale

, but also because there's a real challenge in terms of how we can oppose groups that have pretty much no offline presence.

And where there is an offline presence it's stuff like the Milo speaking tour which has a thin veneer of respectability.

I'd pretty much agree with all of that, but thinking specifically of Gamergate, which was, as I understand it, a big turning point/breakthrough for this kind of stuff, it definitely felt like there was a point where every mainstream/left-liberal outlet had a lot of (often quite good) stuff on the situation and how it was affecting women, but looking at libcom or virtually any other site on the anarchist/communist spectrum, from the ICC through to Crimethinc, there was virtually nothing at all, not even your usual vague statement of solidarity, and in retrospect I think that the various leaderships of ideas really dropped the ball on that one.

Also thinking about offline stuff connected specifically to the manosphere, I guess there were those Roosh V meetups that were abandoned - I think we can chalk that up as a win, but not sure how much credit radicals can take for that one - and then that Julien Blanc speaking tour a few years back where Theresa May denied him a visa, which was something of a mixed outcome from an anti-state perspective.

Also, going back to the suggestion made in the OP, what do people think of this as a potential first step that could begin to do some of this work on a small scale?
www.weareplanc.org/blog/c-is-for-consciousness-raising/
I guess the big problem is that the people who come to a discussion group run by communists are not too likely to be the same people who are most at risk of manosphere recruitment, but IDK how you get around that either.

Such 'consciousness raising' style groups, as with those in the 70's women's liberation movement, can serve a temporary purpose for those involved but they do depend on a high level of mutual trust between the participants that inevitably is not always fulfilled. Certainly the Plan C proposal is over-ambitious in its desired transformative function. Not everything that is 'personal' is necessarily political in a way that would allow small groups to transfer up any of their common experiences or conclusions to a society level. Some of Plan C's more recent political trajectory does not bode well for the results of any input (if there has been any) from these proposed CR groups. Ether way such groups are not as R.Totale suggests the right organisational model to tackle the problems they identify.

Not necessarily trying to disagree with you here (my perspective on CR groups is kinda less "this is The Right Answer" and more "well, this sounds better than nothing"), but would you be able to expand more on what you think the right organisational model would be?
I do also think it's worth bearing the context of this discussion in mind here - whatever limitations and objections you might have to "the personal is political" more broadly, in this specific case we're talking about men carrying out mass murders because they've been taught that that is an appropriate response to not being able to get a girlfriend, and I really can't see how you could have any kind of counter-recruitment drive to tackle that without including a heavy dose of "the personal".

Thinking about it, I remember the AWW also had a questionnaire along related lines: angryworkersworld.wordpress.com/2017/10/24/questionaire-for-domestic-work/ not sure what they're gonna do with it, but again, it's a start.

Not sure I have any very useful answers to R Totale's last question. Male violence both individually expressed and collectively organised is a persistent problem in this patriarchal capitalist society. It has never gone away but has retreated to some extent from the combined effect of capitalist modernisation and women's self-organisation and struggle for equality. There remains an unconquered reservoir of fear and resentment amongst many men who unable or slow to adjust to these changes, when faced with the effects of a deepening economic and social crisis of the whole system that breeds insecurity and division will lash out having no other effective collective means of addressing their problems. I don't see how this can be addressed by targeting propaganda or 'education' at specific groups or networks that are deeply mired in this frame of mind. But perhaps hopefully through the extension and growth of 'communities of resistance' through some of the base-line work of the sort that the AWW and many others in our milieu try to develop that cut across capitalist and patriarchal divisions in a practical way as part of everyday life - by the extension of the everyday class struggle if you like. Maybe others have better answers for you.

lolasmo

I can't help but think any group or organisation or movement that was based around "men's issues" would be treated with overwhelming hostility and suspicion by much of the established left - both from anti-IDpol haters and the woke intersectional types. Maybe I'm overly cynical but I reckon it'd just be dismissed as MRA-lite by a lot of folks.

I could understand Lucky Black Cat's employment of the word "gender" here, in the sense that the issues involve not just actual fucking/love, but also the social attitude towards fucking/love (although I prefer to call that just sexuality). But I do oppose generally using the term "gender", when this is just an attempt to ignore or politely avoid the actual sex/love question.
I tried to launch a thread about sex(/sexuality/love), but it was basically mothballed: https://libcom.org/forums/general/talking-about-lovesex-forums-15112017

On the other hand I oppose framing it in terms of biological sex XY, because that's just reducing it to a supposed male nature (so perhaps I agree with the woke intersectional types here but for different reasons). Also, I (as a man) do find it silly/patronising to have events/attention around "men".

R Totale

I'd pretty much agree with all of that, but thinking specifically of Gamergate, which was, as I understand it, a big turning point/breakthrough for this kind of stuff, it definitely felt like there was a point where every mainstream/left-liberal outlet had a lot of (often quite good) stuff on the situation and how it was affecting women, but looking at libcom or virtually any other site on the anarchist/communist spectrum, from the ICC through to Crimethinc, there was virtually nothing at all, not even your usual vague statement of solidarity, and in retrospect I think that the various leaderships of ideas really dropped the ball on that one.

Yes I'd completely agree with this and while there's been very good mainstream/left-liberal coverage of the specific developments and subcultures, the absolute shitfest that is Kill All Normies shows that a decent communist analysis of what was happening has been lacking and/or underpromoted.

Sorry a bit OT but just had a for me terrible experience. Was sat in a pub on a work related thing and suddenly hear one person over saying.

"I was listening to this interesting podcast by this guy Jordan... .... .... Petersen" Gaaah

I'm literally stumped because I don't encounter this stuff afk. The guy spouting nonsense is unsurprisingly one of the bosses. (work for small company)

Annoyingly I haven't kept up with this Petersen garbage so my attempts at countering it were confused and weak. Should have done my homework!

The thing about gamergate is that few people took it seriously because it ostensibly about videogames. The whole concept of ethics in videogame journalism being anything anyone gave a toss about was a non starter. What a yawn, who cares? But it really had nothing to do with gaming, and major protagonists in the movement like Milo and Adam Baldwin had no interest in games at all. What it was was a free for all hatefest on women. It was a nightmare period to be a woman online. I didn't really talk about games much - don't talk about them at all now - but I had random dudes threatening me with violence, with rape, sending me porn, crime scene photos of murdered women. But the mainstream really did not take this misogyny seriously because it was about games and let's be honest, videogames really aren't that important. It wasn't until fairly late in the game did the media pay much attention, nor did the gaming industry speak up until it looked like it would hit their bottom line.However, it did build up a really good base and network for the alt-right to jump in. I think in the Milo/Bannon leaked emails they talk about using gamergate to recruit.

In retrospect, gamergate looks so damned stupid, how could anyone get so vitriolic about criticism of games but it was where the alt-right cut their teeth and I'm so goddamn angry that warnings from women on the rise of this particularly toxic breed of misogynists were ignored. After all, they were just stupid boys in their mother's basements, weren't they?

I heard two people talking about Peterson just behind me in a queue at a shop - it was after the Channel 4 interview (which I didn't watch but sounded like a poorly handled interview) - they were saying the gender gap exists because of different roles getting paid differently (ignores that division of work is itself gendered in many cases like care, cleaning, secretarial etc.) and this was fine compared to getting paid differently for the same work, and something about equalist vs. egalitarian. Was with my kids so interjecting would have been complicated and didn't catch much more than that.

I don't think it's off-topic here because the impression I get is that people like Jordan Peterson (and Milo, and Sargon of Akkad) on Youtube etc. act as a massive recruitment surface for a lot of people who then find the 'harder' stuff via related videos, youtube comments and reddit etc. And in terms of trying to counter it, I think you have to look at the whole ecosystem of how it functions, not just its worst aspects (which is I think where R Totale's point on failures comes in - i.e. people see someone like Jordan Peterson as just another reactionary academic, which he is, but there's a cult dynamic there as well and it feeds into openly fascist politics, even if you can argue what exactly Peterson's own ideology is).

So in answer to R Totale's point I sort of wonder if https://libcom.org/forums/general/favorite-youtubers-10042018 or old-fashioned board raids (finding a relatively popular reddit and infiltrating it with dozens of commies) would be more effective than in-person meetings which would be very self-selecting. But equally a lot of people on that trajectory are already quite gone, so for me personally I think the actual starting point is in explainers - i.e. helping people understand what the fuck is going on, and how to counter it with people they actually know, which could then feed into more practical stuff.

Fleur how did you come into contact with gamergate stuff? It happened in parts of the web I never frequent and I only saw it when mentioned on libcom and mainstream media, so to late. Same goes with the change that women were sounding the alarm ages ago but 'we' didn't listen. I'm guessing but this was probably discussed in blogs and groups on social media concerned with gaming or adjacent culture. Which means it's completely invisible to most people.

This is also the issue with reaching these people. Don't you have to be in gaming or some related interest/internet scene to have a chance at dealing with this stuff? When it's a family member you have a chance afk but otherwise? Normal anti fascist tactics are useless as they don't gather?

It's been known for a long time that really nasty trolling fash culture has been growing in games but it's all very abstract when it happens in another world. Gaming wise I get the chills when reloading the double barreled in Doom2 but since I haven't really had anything to do with gaming. :(

Mike Harman

they were saying the gender gap exists because of different roles getting paid differently (ignores that division of work is itself gendered in many cases like care, cleaning, secretarial etc.) and this was fine compared to getting paid differently for the same work, and something about equalist vs. egalitarian.

Yep my poss was on about the same thing although not justifying any pay gap just insinuating it's all natural which job you take. Because there are no men (wrong) in childcare despite decades o political promotion of equality in sweden.

I used to play co-op on xbox live a lot, and there's always a certain amount of assholery around there but it got substantially worse and I had to change my gamertag to something less girly and abandon the headset, so people couldn't hear my voice. The worst was on twitter though. I used to have a set of mutuals that we only really talked about games and nerd stuff and I can only assume that the gamergaters would word search and find women talking about gaming, even not talking about gaming once they'd noticed you and then the fun began. It was noticeable that the men didn't get half as much shit. I was pretty hard headed back then and refused to lock my account, which I wouldn't be so adamant about now. Tbh, when Meerov told me to kill myself in the other thread I couldn't help but laugh because I had so many complete strangers tell me to do that then I'm pretty immune to it. Women who actually worked in games were under definite physical threat. I had an ex-coworker who went to work for one of the big games companies based in this city in the promotional side of things and she actually had to be taken off the social media side of her job because of unending threats and abuse she got, and this had a serious effect on her mental health.

It seemed to me at the time that everyone knew about it but I did live at that time in a world where everyone I knew were kind of nerdy and were therefore aware of what was going on in our scene, so to speak. I'm not really in that space anymore.

I kind of liked social media back then, I used to have great fun shooting the breeze with people but it's also pretty toxic. From what I understand, GGs would gather on 4chan and subreddits and discuss tactics and targets. The weird thing is that it was only ever a hobby to me, I had no idea that a particular form of entertainment could cause such behaviour but there again, it wasn't really about games. In itself, fighting on twitter is just dumb but it was obvious that there was something going on which was wider and it was definitely a precursor something larger.I don't know how you deal with it but it seemed pretty plain that these men were dangerous.

This gamergate/videogames doesn't seem directly relevant to the present topic. And FWIW the few gamers I know (like Fleur) do get laid.

Noa Rodman

This gamergate/videogames doesn't seem directly relevant to the present topic.

It's very relevant because it galvanised a lot of different fragmentary reactionary scenes into something resembling a recognisable fascist movement, within the past four years. Gamergate in large part consisted of doxxing, rape and death threats to women involved with gaming.

Lucky Black Cat

The link there was confusing to me... was that a mistake? Or are you trying to make the point that making YouTube videos could be part of a propaganda effort to address this?

Sorry that wasn't very clear. Yes I think if we're talking about teens and people in their early '20s who are being radicalised via youtube and reddit, then the response would need to be on youtube and reddit - if you produce youtube content with the right keywords, the algorithm will get it in front of people.

I personally can't stand youtube politics channels as a format, can only just manage podcasts, but then I'm not the intended audience.

The problem though is that the genre of a lot of these videos is two hour unintelligible rants or sixth-form debate societies and who really wants to get involved in that shit. One person who does is Muke - here he is having a go at Jordan Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOBcnTeuwMI and Sargon of Akkad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w81RIz2fIJs (note I have not watched this past the first two minutes, just know they exist).

Lucky Black Cat,
Some of what you are recommending is starting to take place at a limited level in UK schools as part of a 'liberal' reform agenda and presumably would be supported (if maybe critically) by many parents including those with broadly defined radical/left/anarchist views, but expecting the capitalist state to counter all the other pressures working in an opposing direction is too much.
Given my age (absence from a regular work environment) and disinclination to engage widely in social media, a bit as Cooked intimated above, I have been largely unaware of much that has been going on whether tagged as 'incels' or anything similar, let alone many of the long list of named persons Mike Harman seems to reel off at the drop of a hat, so this thread and a few others here has already been something of an education for me! So Mike's other suggestion above of libcom and similar sites increasing their role in educating a wider more receptive population of 'radicals' to be better informed and aware to tackle this when confronted with it in everyday circumstances is maybe the best we can do?

@SpikeyMike - there's a bewildering array of personalities, some with explicit links to each other and some not.

For a communist analysis of one of these people, Shuja Haider's review of Jordan Peterson is worth a look https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/

It's worth noting Peterson is raking in over $10k/month (could be much more) in subscriber donations on Patreon patreon.com /jordanbpeterson - this is a massive business for the celebrity end.

If there's a model it can be compared to, it is more self-help pyramid schemes and cults than far-right parties. The self-help aspect I can't pretend to understand how that shit works but it seems quite central in understanding the strength of recruitment.

For an overview of modern day race science proponents, it's the Guardian, but https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science helps introduce some of the personalities.

There are some blogs like https://angrywhitemen.org/ which I have no idea how you'd start to read from scratch, but you can get a bit of an idea what's going on week to week.

Gamergate is totally relevant, for reasons already stated. It's not about whether you can get laid or not, it's about toxic masculinity and violent misogyny. No one is entitled to sex. Going without sex does not make someone into a violent misogynist. There's an argument going round that if only they could get laid they wouldn't be like this, that maybe if women just took one for the team they'd chill a bit. That in itself is a huge pile of bullshit, that men are entitled to women's bodies and if only they were serviced regularly they wouldn't be like this.

We Hunted the Mammoth has covering the activities of these men for some years.
Trigger warning for violence, misogyny, rape and lots else.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/

I was just coming back to post wehuntedthemammoth, here's a 2013 article mentioning incels: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2013/03/01/getting-their-puahate-on/ via https://twitter.com/redlightvoices (who has also been documenting this for a long time).

A notable thing about that blog post is that there was an entire community set-up by/for people who realised they'd been scammed by the PUA (pick up artist) community - i.e. that the advice by fucking awful misogynists on how to get laid was shit, and their reaction to this was to be even worse.

Thanks to Mike and Fleur for some of those links which I will check out. 'Self-Help' culture has flourished as part of the general growth of commercially promoted individualistic so-called solutions to our problems in circumstances where traditional community structures and class based collective organisation have degenerated so there is presumably a link there as well.

Fleur

Gamergate is totally relevant, for reasons already stated..t's not about whether you can get laid or not, it's about toxic masculinity and violent misogyny.

If you want to discuss the general theme of misogyny of course, but I was referring to the present particular attack with the van, whose perpetrator expresses anger with not getting laid.

No one is entitled to sex. Going without sex does not make someone into a violent misogynist. There's an argument going round that if only they could get laid they wouldn't be like this, that maybe if women just took one for the team they'd chill a bit. That in itself is a huge pile of bullshit, that men are entitled to women's bodies and if only they were serviced regularly they wouldn't be like this

I suppose an argument (which no socialist would make) close to that would be, that these incels should swallow their pride and visit a brothel.

*Eye roll... Something something... Nobody listened when women raised alarms during gamer gate.. Gamergate/PUAs/MRAs/Incels/alt-right are a confluence... Every one who have been following the rise of these men for YEARS knows about the pivotal role of gamergate... but I suppose it was actually about ethics in games journalism. *

Not getting laid doesn't turn you into a violent misogynist. Being a misogynist may however explain why women don't want to touch these men with a 10 foot pole.

Also, the argument that they should be visiting sex workers is an old one. Not only should sex workers not be subjected to these men but it's also part of the fallacy that it's about sexual frustration. It's about hating women.

This is a good and important thread so far and I'm as keen on arguing with a brick wall as the next person but I think it would be a good idea to split all of Noa's posts off so the "attempting to explain basic starting points to a wilfully obtuse crank" stuff doesn't completely drown out the actually useful discussion that LBC has started.

Fwiw, my 2 cents on education I'm keen on young people educating young people, within a good framework. There's been some projects here on university students working with high school students and I used to do something of that kind back in the day. Tbh, teenagers are often grossed out by the thought of old people - by which I mean anyone over late 20s to teens - talking about sex, teachers doubly so!

Yeah a lot of interesting points here.

Don't want to derail the discussion but something which did come to mind in terms of people talking about "anti-sexist men's groups" is that unfortunately while left-wing and "anti-sexist men" wouldn't speak in the same terms as these MRA-types, plenty of left-wing male feminists are creeps who are quite happy to assault, abuse and rape women.

And more than that, huge numbers of men of every political description, like liberals, conservatives etc, who would think these type of people are crazy, kill, rape and assault far more women than these extremists.

Just a few things I thought were worth bearing in mind…

Fleur

Not getting laid doesn't turn you into a violent misogynist. Being a misogynist may however explain why women don't want to touch these men with a 10 foot pole.

Also, the argument that they should be visiting sex workers is an old one. Not only should sex workers not be subjected to these men but it's also part of the fallacy that it's about sexual frustration. It's about hating women.

I remember reading an article in Die neue Zeit by a Zizek-type of that pre-WWI epoch, which argued against visiting prostitutes. I don't think any socialist would argue that it is a solution to men's misogyny (to avoid misunderstanding between us); although some states do provide sexual services to disabled people (and autism could be considered that), and perhaps some Platonian state-utopians want to regulate the entire sexual relations ("down with all that pb individualist dating nonsense")

As to your position about not framing it in their own terms (i.e. sexual anger), my comment strengthens you position, since as far as I know "incels" do not visit brothels, which they would do, if their problem really was just about getting off.

I'm sure that single men are not the only ones visiting brothels, but nevertheless I imagine that is a core group of clientele for prostitution, whether they are misogynist or not. It would be interesting to hear if there are any bad experiences with frustrated young men who visit a prostitute for the first time. I imagine it rather like the scene in Bruno when he visits the swingers' club but finally jumps out of the window from the rough sex play.

I read an article a while back that argued that mocking pua types for not getting laid was bad, because the ones who make the money out of it are generally on the sociopathic rapist end of the spectrum and the ones who can actually come out of it as decent human beings already think they are losers who can't get laid so it isn't going to help. Also it is feeding into the same misogynistic system.

What we need to do is to address the fact that they have reduced their entire self-worth, or maybe concentrated all their negative feelings about themselves into this one part of life and then reduced it to a simple blame game. It is prety much standard demagogery. It reminds me of the old line someone quoted on here about "anti-semitism is the socialism of the fool"

The other thing is people are, or seem to feel, increasingly isolated. There is an exhilaration to doing things together, so one of the reasons that people pile on to people on twitter etc is because it gives you a feeling of belonging, it might only be in a small sense, but people need that feeling.

This pro-feminist mens' webzine might be useful: https://xyonline.net/

I had a guest lecture from the editor, Michael Flood, circa 99 in a uni sociology class and IIRC he seemed pretty sound. There's a wikipedia entry on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flood

Not a groundbreaking article but likens the alt-right YouTube ecosystem to cult recruiting. https://theoutline.com/post/3537/alt-right-recruiters-have-infiltrated-the-online-depression-community

I've split the Noa derail to https://libcom.org/forums/news/incels-101derail-01052018.

R Totale

Anyway, more broadly I'd say that this situation has been a real failure in terms of antifascism - without getting bogged down in boring discussions of terminology, I think it's fair to say that we've seen the emergence of a murderous far-right movement with almost no opposition from those folks who normally make opposing far-right movements a priority. I think partly that's because the whole gamergate/MRA/incel spectrum really doesn't look anything like what we're used to far-right movements looking like, but also because there's a real challenge in terms of how we can oppose groups that have pretty much no offline presence. Does anti-incel/MRA action just look like an endless round of getting twitter accounts banned, YouTube videos reported, servers pulled and so on, or is there anything more we can/should be doing?

The right 'libertarian' movement seems to pull together the gamergate/MRA/incel spectrum, the movement is most certainly misogynist, and attracts white identitarians with a victim complex.

In the UK I think this movement is becoming more organised and the place it seems to be growing is in universities. A number of universities have student led 'libertarian' societies and they all seem to pull together and be sponsored or supported by the libertarian party.

I honestly believe the libertarian party particularly the Scottish libertarians as that's the one I've dealt with is a front for fascism, just check out their facebook pages see the kind of things they post, speakers they invite and views they encourage.

If I am right though it means there is fascist movement infiltrating universities, growing of off the 'free speech' moral panic, recruiting and furthering the white identitarian victim complex which sees itself as being under attack from feminism, trans people, safe spaces and no platforming.

We need to counter this.

People in this thread talking about and trying to address the issue in a sincere way is good.

I really agree with this:

Lucky Black Cat

just generally trying to build up communities of collective struggle to better our lives, is in itself a good thing as well as having an indirect but positive impact on violence and on hatred of all types (whether towards women or people of color or anyone else).

However, I have a concern. Men with these angry 'betrayed' feelings towards women take it out violently on women around them, mass murders are relatively uncommon but men like this attacking their exes, relatives and women who get in their sights for whatever reason are *extremely* common. I would suggest it is very important for comrades to have some kind of plan for dealing with that.

Maybe it’s just that this stuff is more visible now but lately I’ve seen extremes of misogyny that I’ve never experienced in my life before. The fact that these people are building a relatively complex ideology around it is terrifying. They are constructing a theory(that they promote as fact) that portrays the very nature of ‘woman’ to be a child like, totally self interested and self obsessed, that her every thought and instinct is directed at mercilessly using men as a means to get every material and emotional need satisfied.
It’s not only sickening, it’s potential doesn’t bear thinking about.

I've never met anyone who calls themselves an 'incel' but I have met untold men who have a raging and bitter attitude to women at the same time as wanting to have sex with them, and this includes guys who had plenty of girlfriends. Note as well that domestic violence went up substantially with the 2008 crash which suggests a connection with men feeling a loss of control or power in other areas of their lives. I'm not saying that comrades are suggesting we all just invite incels to tea and be nice to them but if we are trying to engage with 'collective struggle to better our lives' (which I do agree with) then having some kind of plan to deal with the consequences of raging men is important.

I have been involved in the anarchist movement a long time, and two things that have happened to me a lot are:

a) getting shouted at about 'identity politics'
b) getting no answers when I ask questions like this

Noah Fence

The fact that these people are building a relatively complex ideology around it is terrifying.

or just rediscovering such gems as Proudhon's Pornocratie (even reprinted today iirc by one French neo-fash).

hey I would really like it if someone responded to my point

btw, formal point: on my "derail", which has been lifted out from this thread by the admin, this was not justified. The point by Sike was, I still think, an exaggeration (and perhaps purposefully hyperbolic, Sike could help clarify). But if it had to be excised, then it would be better to transfer it to my thread on sex/love, instead of creating a new thread.
--

We have here rejected the notion that misogyny is derived from the fact of guys failing to get sex. However, perhaps rarer, but there is also the opposite notion, that misogyny derives from being forced to have too much sex (not even just being seduced).

In Femme Fatales (1976) two guys are persecuted by sex-crazed women. It was a good comedy I thought, although if you're male victim you will condemn the scene where women rape the guys: http://www.imovies.cc/movies/18061/Femmes-fatales/high/fr/

The need for a plan, is that your point fingers malone? We all agree on that I think.

Fingers, I don't actually have an answer or a plan or solution to these awful men. They're terrible and I don't know what to do about them. One thing though, given their level of hate for women, it's seems unlikely that any kind of intervention from women is going to be received positively from them, the opposite more likely. It'll be just another example of harpy feminists trying to ruin their lives. I think this is probably one that the men have to step up to.

https://youtu.be/VbypBbQp8kI

this is probably one that men have to step up to

More than probably I would say, how to do so is extremely vexing though. Working in an almost exclusively male environment reveals the extreme sexism of what would be called regular guys and any attempt to even engage them in conversation results in an unending stream of preposterous but strongly held convictions. Breaking through this has always proved impossible although that may in part be down to my ability to get the message across.
Anyways, the point is that if getting past the crazy ideas of regular men is very difficult then getting through to these disgusting and pitiful creatures is nigh on impossible, any attempt at engagement is met with a volley of accusations and insults ranging from cuck to the hilariously stupid ‘soyboy’! in which case I guess the only way to deal with them is to try to close them down and that gets you back to the question ‘how?’ again.
There is an occasional victory however, I told this story on Libcom the day after it happened but it’s worth repeating - a few years ago some creep had his hands all over my daughter while she was in the crowd at the bar in her local. She stuck a beauty on him and put him on his arse with a single punch! He then furiously came at her screaming about her being an ‘ungrateful fucking slut’ and that she should be pleased that he had ‘complimented’ her by touching her up. Realising she had not quite taught him his lesson she chinned him again and he was immediately back on his arse!

All that said, I’m truly at a loss as to how these bastards are to be dealt with.

Wojtek:

Terry Crews is awesome, I love that guy. I think more men speaking out like that is a hundred times more useful the preaching to the choir discussions that I often find myself in.

thanks for responses people, appreciate it

I wish I knew how to deal with them, they are trapped in a circular logic, which makes it, like Fleur says, very hard to reach them. But to be honest I think that while the extremist nutters are more obviously dangerous, the everyday pressure is where this comes from. Challenging that effectively is hard and I don't really feel like I am having any effect when I try.

fingers malone

However, I have a concern. Men with these angry 'betrayed' feelings towards women take it out violently on women around them, mass murders are relatively uncommon but men like this attacking their exes, relatives and women who get in their sights for whatever reason are *extremely* common. I would suggest it is very important for comrades to have some kind of plan for dealing with that.

I think people have replied to this as wanting a plan for incels, whereas it seems to me more like a plan to deal with abusive exes, stalkers, sexual assault, domestic violence perpetrators.

For me at the most basic level I think this means not promoting people who are known to have a history of abusive behaviour towards women.

This means

1. A framework for people to be able to report abuse (accountability processes in organisations/events, not that they always work well, but complete absence of them is not better, and they can be improved over time).

2. Actual consequences for perpetrators when they don't engage with those processes - like at least not continuing to be in leadership positions, doing speaking tours, getting published, let alone ejection/venue bans etc.

3. Those of us who are blokes learning to support people who are victims of this stuff a bit better, which means participating in the above two rather than leaving it to people who are more likely to be at risk of the behaviour to also organise that work.

There are high-profile non-anarchist cases like Steve Hedley, the SWP - however I think there is a tendency still for people to think these are more a problem with Trotskyist and other 'authoritarian sects', whereas they're not at all.

It's quite an old blog post now, but Ramona's blog on a safer spaces statement from the NYC anarchist bookfair barring someone from entry, and the (bad) reaction from people on this very site, is a good reminder of how not to react - although I think the experience of that thread probably taught some people involved to take things more seriously next time. https://libcom.org/blog/safer-spaces-false-allegations-nyc-anarchist-bookfair-26042012

So that really means that men who do not think they would engage in this behaviour themselves and would like to think they would contribute to stopping it, could be a lot better educated in how it plays out, things to look out for, what's actually useful vs. not if it comes up.

Note that none of these things are going to reduce the 'betrayal'/'victimhood'/'cucks' narrative of MRAs in the short term, but worrying about that is pandering to them, whereas we should not be allowing space for them to propagate in the first space. This doesn't preclude individually talking to people with dodgy views and trying to talk them out of it.

Mike Harman

I think people have replied to this as wanting a plan for incels, whereas it seems to me more like a plan to deal with abusive exes, stalkers, sexual assault, domestic violence perpetrators.

Thanks, yeah that is what I meant.

Mike Harman

3. Those of us who are blokes learning to support people who are victims of this stuff a bit better, which means participating in the above two rather than leaving it to people who are more likely to be at risk of the behaviour to also organise that work.

I agree with the points above but I'd also add just, support, like emotional and practical support for the person dealing with the aftermath of the behaviour. That often is disproportionately left to people who are also at risk of the behaviour and that can be very difficult for those people.

I agree with the points above but I'd also add just, support, like emotional and practical support for the person dealing with the aftermath of the behaviour.

I was once in a position where I was essentially the only support for an abused female sex worker. It was very difficult and I felt(and I’m sure I was) woefully inadequate in the role.
I had no training and suggested she found someone who did but she didn’t want to engage with formal agencies.
Anyways, the point I’m making is how difficult it is to know how to support victims, the best I felt I could do was just listen.

I've been in a similar situation to Noah and I echo his sentiments. Supporting a survivor is extremely hard because typically those that do have no idea what they are supposed to say and do, and how to deal with quite the heavy emotional stuff so it won't affect your mental health as well.

You guys went here from trying to define the specificity of incel ideology (and berating idiots like me of totally not getting it) to talking about "average" misogyny, and from trying to address the incel ideology (and underlying causes) to the realisation that it's almost impossible to reach them, before concluding that it's pandering anyway, so all we can focus on is dealing with the aftermath of abuse.

I guess that’s how conversations develop, eh Noa? Or are we to all shout ‘digression!’ everytime someone strays from the path?
Ftr, I haven’t berated anyone so I hope I’m not included in the ‘you guys’?

It felt more like shutting down a conversation.

Noa, I understand fully the phenomenon of threads being shut down, I’ve witnessed it often enough but I really don’t think that’s the case here. It’s just a baffling problem I guess and blocked ends can often push things into other paths.
Could be wrong of course - maybe Lucky Black Cat could give us their take onit?

Jolasmo (on first page of this thread)

I can't help but think any group or organisation or movement that was based around "men's issues" would be treated with overwhelming hostility and suspicion by much of the established left - both from anti-IDpol haters and the woke intersectional types. Maybe I'm overly cynical but I reckon it'd just be dismissed as MRA-lite by a lot of folks.

.
Mike Harman

none of these things are going to reduce the 'betrayal'/'victimhood'/'cucks' narrative of MRAs in the short term, but worrying about that is pandering to them, whereas we should not be allowing space for them to propagate in the first space.

The first quote is talking about groups to talk about men's issues in a way that doesn't reinforce misogyny.

The second quote is about dealing with perpetrators of sexual assault and domestic violence in political organisations.

So you have proved that people said different things about different things, well done.

You said that worrying about "that" [namely the fact, that "none of these things are going to reduce the 'betrayal'/'victimhood'/'cucks' narrative of MRAs in the short term" - I agree with you here btw, that is true] is "pandering to them".

And then you go on: "whereas we should not be allowing space for them to propagate in the first space". So obviously you think there are in fact people allowing space for MRA's to propagate, and since you were talking about left organisations, I have to infer that you consider the "MRA-narrative" present within these left organisations, and since you were not just talking to the abstract sky, I have to infer that you think there are people on this forum thread who argue the position that MRA's should be allowed space.

That's a lot of inference.

If political organisations take action to deal with sexual assault and DV, and this is in any way discussed publicly (such as even the hypothetical conversation on this thread), then it can/will be used to further a 'victimisation of men by the left' narrative by MRAs. Those MRAs or adjacent people may or may not need to be in the organisation (or this thread).

I have to infer, because you are being coy. You yourself were aware of the inference, since you hastened to add: "This doesn't preclude individually talking to people with dodgy views and trying to talk them out of it." But still, you found it necessary to qualify it by "individually". As opposed to what? Politically, publicly?

Noa Rodman

You said that worrying about "that" [namely the fact, that "none of these things are going to reduce the 'betrayal'/'victimhood'/'cucks' narrative of MRAs in the short term" - I agree with you here btw, that is true] is "pandering to them".

And then you go on: "whereas we should not be allowing space for them to propagate in the first space". So obviously you think there are in fact people allowing space for MRA's to propagate, and since you were talking about left organisations, I have to infer that you consider the "MRA-narrative" present within these left organisations, and since you were not just talking to the abstract sky, I have to infer that you think there are people on this forum thread who argue the position that MRA's should be allowed space.

not at all, I posted on the thread based on some personal previous experiences, and I posted as I felt people would be sympathetic, not because I felt someone was arguing that MRAs should be allowed space.
I'm also not necessarily talking about people who identify as MRAs or talk that narrative, I was talking more about ones who have a bitter and raging attitude to women which makes them dangerous to be close to.

Noa Rodman

"This doesn't preclude individually talking to people with dodgy views and trying to talk them out of it." But still, you found it necessary to qualify it by "individually". As opposed to what? Politically, publicly?

Yes individually, such as in the sort of group discussed at the beginning of the thread, or if they're family members, co-workers, as also discussed in the thread.

Not publicly, as in not inviting them to debates with anarchist groups, or doing talking heads TV slots with them, or youtube channel slots (although I think articles and/or videos debunking their stuff can be useful, but the target of those is not really MRAs themselves).

Mike Harman

Yes individually, such as in the sort of group discussed at the beginning of the thread,

"Individually" – such as in a group? First of all, within a leftist group I would expect some agreed approach to deal with the issue, i.e a plan, i.e. the opposite of doing things individually, which reeks of non-transparency. This is as regards internal affairs. Secondly, and more importantly, it is about addressing the issue externally, in larger society, outside the group. And that requires also some agreed upon, collective action, i.e. plan. The OP even talked about a "movement that addresses toxic masculinity and other ways males are harmed by patriarchy". And further there was talk about a "group or organisation or movement that was based around "men's issues"".

Noa Rodman

"Individually" – such as in a group? First of all, within a leftist group I would expect some agreed approach to deal with the issue, i.e a plan, i.e. the opposite of doing things individually, which reeks of non-transparency.

Quite amazing how you manage to keep going like this, it's almost impressive.

Let's say there is a 'leftist group' which is specifically holding a meeting about mens' issues, per the discussion earlier.

Someone who has been exploring various MRA groups, maybe thinks of themselves as incel already, turns up.

Now that leftist group is dealing with that person as an individual.

There is a Nazi-exit programme in Germany. It is some kind of NGO run by a criminologist and an ex-Nazi, they also deal with people as individuals. The 'group working with individuals' concept which seems very alien to you does exist in the real world: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/8gvx8b/are-you-looking-to-break-away-from-your-nazi-gang-exit-deutchland-bernd-wagner

Mike Harman

dealing with that person as an individual

So now you're defining "individual" as an antonym to incel/MRAs "groups", whereas first you defined "individual" as opposed to the open "public".

Mike Harman

Let's say there is a 'leftist group' which is specifically holding a meeting about mens' issues, per the discussion earlier.

Someone who has been exploring various MRA groups, maybe thinks of themselves as incel already, turns up.

That sounds like a public discussion group, which can get recorded/minutes published. Maybe that is not exactly 'inviting them [incels] to debates with anarchist groups", but surely organising a public discussion on this theme can expect people with misogynist views to be present. And what if the "individual' who shows up is a representative member of an "incel group"? Then you would be debating with a "group" after all.

Noa Rodman

And what if the "individual' who shows up is a representative member of an "incel group"? Then you would be debating with a "group" after all.

Well there are no organised incel groups, which you'd know if you actually researched this.

If we take the wider manosphere, then if for example Mike Cernovich (not a leader of a group, but an alt-right celebrity that can be said to be representative on some level) showed up out of the blue, I'd expect them to get ejected pretty fucking fast, because there is no way that would be a good faith attendance.

Noa, people have posted up links and references, which would illuminate you on the subject.

Two articles I recommend on this subject:

'I'm sad that I didn't have sex until I was 37'- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-43956366

'"Unfuckable" women don't go on killing sprees' - https://splinternews.com/unfuckable-women-dont-go-on-killing-sprees-1825746733

Mike Harman

Well there are no organised incel groups, which you'd know if you actually researched this.

Exactly, so there goes your excuse for using the qualifier "individually".

And if the plan is to reach men with misogynist views (instead of mere preaching to the choir) then how is that possible when you oppose "inviting them to debates with anarchist groups" at public discussion groups, since that is the audience you need to reach.

For roughly the same reasons why you wouldn't invite Richard Seymour or Tommy Robinson. These are not run of the mill, average every day sort of sexist men.

Fleur

For roughly the same reasons why you wouldn't invite Richard Seymour or Tommy Robinson. These are not run of the mill, average every day sort of sexist men.

Did you mean Richard Spencer? Made me lol either way.

Listening to Five Live, eh Craftwork? It was a fascinating interview. The guy was really thoughtful and reflective. I liked him a lot.

Yes, Spencer although Richard Seymour should be run out of Dodge too :p

Fleur

For roughly the same reasons why you wouldn't invite Richard Seymour or Tommy Robinson. These are not run of the mill, average every day sort of sexist men.

I'm responding to Mike's comment: "This doesn't preclude individually talking to people with dodgy views and trying to talk them out of it."

So Mike and I are speaking about the "average" sexist men.

Then Mike tried to come up with a reason for why he used the qualifier "individually":
Mike

Not publicly, as in not inviting them to debates with anarchist groups, or doing talking heads TV slots with them, or youtube channel slots (although I think articles and/or videos debunking their stuff can be useful, but the target of those is not really MRAs themselves).

I understand that Mike here no longer seems to speak about ordinary "people with dodgy views", but about e-celebs. Perhaps it's a mere "evolution of conversation", but to me it sounds like he's dodgy as fuck about stating his view. If it's all a big understanding on my part Mike, then simply say whether you agree with the idea of organising a public discussion meeting that is addressed to an external audience of average sexist men, incels etc.

@Noa do you know what the difference between a discussion group and a public debate is?

In the discussion group you had in mind it was possible (or even desirable) for average sexist men (and even people who "thinks of themselves as incel already") to show up. So external (non-leftist) ordinary people can participate in the discussion. And the meeting can be recorded or its minutes published, like I said. So that is open to the public. And since several guys can show up, they will be debated not "individually", but as a group. Otherwise it's just preaching to the choir.

The "debates" which you call public apparently involve only the spokesperson of a leftist group and e-celebs/pundits/right-wingers (i.e. already not the average guys we were talking about). Here there is an audience, but that does not participate in the debate. Instead the debate here would be directed against an "individual" e-celeb/pundit.

You want to organize this discussion group then? You could put an ad on Craigslist -
"Anarchist group want to invite sexist men for a chat and refreshments."

It's fairly obvious Noa, individual men should talk to other individual men on an individual basis, as and when the subject crops up. However, do not invite the real nasty bastards who advocate rape and torture of women into our spaces.

Fleur

You want to organize this discussion group then? You could put an ad on Craigslist -
"Anarchist group want to invite sexist men for a chat and refreshments."

It's fairly obvious Noa, individual men should talk to other individual men on an individual basis, as and when the subject crops up. However, do not invite the real nasty bastards who advocate rape and torture of women into our spaces.

First you talk about inviting just sexist men, then about real nasty bastards who advocate rape and torture. So no Fleur, I don't think we should invite the latter, i.e. torture/rape-advocates. Although Mike included even self-identified incels among the sexist men who can show up and can be debated with, let's say we're talking only about average sexist men. Apparently you also oppose inviting/targeting them. If this is also Mike's position then I understood his vague comment correctly (I'm no longer holding my breath for him to confirm this – if he's not willing to be a big boy, I'll be the bigger man and let it go).

But thanks to Fleur we can finally debate a more concrete thing: is organising a discussion group addressed at sexist men, or choosing a discussion topic where sexist men will be expected to turn up, a good idea or not?

I can interpret your hypothetical Craigslist's ad example as indicating that it is simply impossible to invite sexist men directly. I agree, since hardly anyone would openly admit or believe to be sexist.

And on, and on, and on and Noa Rodman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUVs7vXNZiw
At least the clip has 9às computer game style music.

As far as I can tell Mike was clarifying that dealing with an individual was not the same as 'inviting Richard Spencer to speak at a debate club' type actions which should have been fairly obvious.

I think it might be worth groups looking at how to counter 'incel culture' as part of how they address sexism, but I don't think inviting people to disucssions will work, because I don't think that is how you persuade peoplewho have locked themselves into something like this. Anyone who came would most likely come to defend their argument at all costs and it would be just like talking to Noa.

If we would be all on board with the idea of "groups to talk about men's issues in a way that doesn't reinforce misogyny", and we are willing to debate with men who show up there who tend to express sexist ideas, then in my understanding that is a plan to deal with the issue politically/collectively (as opposed to individually).

It's not about inviting known rape apologists or right-wing pundits (as Fleur and Mike caricatured it), but choosing a topic that will attract average (non-leftist) guys and where they can try to go into sensitive/controversial issues about men, women, and their relations (etc.). If there's some guy there who can't be convinced, so be it (think of it as a challenge to develop your arguments). Again, otherwise it's just preaching to the choir (or push-overs).

You really ought to do some research on this, then you wouldn't be throwing around words like exaggeration, hyperbolic and caricatured. Until you actually get up to speed with this extreme misogyny 101, it's a bit of a pointless discussion.

What discussion isn't pointless according to you? You're caricaturing, i.e. refusing to address the actual point at issue, which is a plan for dealing with the spread of sexism, which could be done e.g. by holding a discussion group, as mentioned. Seems like you care more about just hand-wringing.

Organising a discussion group? Response from youse:

Noa do you know this guy?

See, this last page is exactly why I thought it'd be a good idea to ruthlessly split all Noa's posts to a different thread, rather than turning this one into yet another iteration of the Great Rodman Argument Clinic.

radicalgraffiti, comments never longer than a single line

R Totale, cannot fathom the possibility of difference of opinion existing

Noa, I’m not bashing here but this has just gone backwards and forwards and is clearly going nowhere and more than that, I’ve totally lost understanding of what you’re position even is.
Also, if everyone is so foolish here, which you seem to have been saying, why keep on arguing? It’s really looking like having the last word is more important to you than the discussion itself.
I’d give it up mate if I were you, the thread has gone beyond repair now which is a shame because whilst the conversation splintered off in various directions, they were interesting and important splinters.

Ok I'm gonna have another go.

What do people think of the common idea that there's the 'not bad people really' guys who are just lonely, angry, working stuff out who we should be reaching out to and then there's the 'really bad people' who are only going to be destructive and waste loads of your time at best and damage the group/hurt people at worst.

1. is this actually true?
2. how do you tell which is which?
3. what would actually 'win over' the first group?

It’s a spectrum but who knows where it begins and ends? To talk of men being simply bad doesn’t really make sense, although it may be true in a tiny number of cases. Surely this is a cultural phenomenon with the results of patriarchy/misogyny in our society playing out in a extreme way in a small minority of individuals?
How you tell who has been made bad or who is intrinsically bad I’ve no idea but I’m not sure how relevant it is to how you deal with them. I mean, if a dog is biting you in the ass, you don’t stop to figure out if the dog has been mistreated or is just naturally a bastard, you just hit it till it lets go.
Unfortunately, the problem with these men is far more complex and difficult than dealing with a nippy dog and I for one, as I said earlier in the thread, am at a loss how to deal with men like this. That sounds really defeatist but I think there may be some things we can do, I just don’t know what they are.

Noah Fence

I think there may be some things we can do, I just don’t know what they are.

Organising a discussion group that reaches out them, for example. Is that "my" position? No, it was raised by others.

Ok if we had a discussion group, how would we run it to get round this 'sexist men are the real victims' problem? It's one thing to have a men's group where people really do want to change their behaviour, have better relationships with women and so on, but it would be difficult to discuss things in a useful way if a lot of the participants don't think there's anything wrong with their own sexism and the problem is just women and feminism oppressing them.

I know from personal experience that even with acute self awareness and a sincere desire to change beliefs and behaviours that have not served yourself and others at all but have instead caused great harm and misery, it is extremely difficult to break out of long practiced patterns of behaviour. It can certainly be done though.
I guess a discussion group may have to have fairly rigid guidelines to prevent the propagation or perpetuation of shitty ideas based around a clearly defined purpose for the group. Any individual that shows themselves not to be there for that purpose would need removing.
Tricky stuff.

fingers malone

1. is this actually true?
2. how do you tell which is which?
3. what would actually 'win over' the first group?

1. Yes

2.No idea.

3. Hard to say.

I didn't see the documentary but I read an article about Kevin Wilshaw a while back that got me thinking.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, he said he had decided to publicly renounce the far right, which he claimed to have joined because he “didn’t have many friends at school” and “wanted to be a member of a group” that had an aim.

He said: “Even though you end up being a group of people that through their own extreme views are cut off from society, you do have a sense of comradeship in that you’re a member of a group that’s being attacked by other people.”

Wilshaw said he had decided to quit after receiving abuse from within the far-right movement over his sexuality. “It’s a terribly selfish thing to say but it’s true,” he said. “I saw people being abused, shouted at, spat at in the street. It’s not until it’s directed at you that you suddenly realise what you’re doing is wrong.”

On the one hand this seems laughable "I didn't realise spitting on people wasn't nice until someone did it to me" and he does seem to be peddling a conversion after having been kicked out, and the media are loving it, even though he had been posting twitter photos in Nazi uniform and speaking at rallied until a few months before coming out. . I don't know who or how to reach people, even the ones who are less extreme, but I think it can be done.

I think racism is in a way easier to confront than sexism and I think that racism is certainly viewed, as a label, as far worse (meaning that people can shrug off being called sexist whereas they don't like being called racist, even if they are quite clearly racist)

I suppose we have to challenge it when we see it and try to explain the actual problems.I don't know if we should actually go looking for these people and challenge them. We probably should but I have no idea how to go about it.

Oh ffs Noa, if you think that holding a discussion group will do any good when it comes to the subject at hand ie Incels and extreme misogynists- a lot of whom have affiliations with the far right, then it is even more obvious that you've not bothered investigating the subject. Now you may want to meander down a route of organizing some kind of encounter group where a load of guys talk about sexism, then have at it. How you might want to entice sexist men into such an activity is a bit of a mystery to me, pizza maybe? On the other hand, a discussion group probably won't do any harm, on account of discussion groups having fuck all influence on anything anyway.

Fwiw, my lack of enthusiasm for discussion was not really about my antipathy to discussion groups per se but my refusal to discuss it with you, until such a time that you move your stubborn ass into actually finding out what it is we are talking about. Do a Google, it's actually very easy. Until you do, it's just pointless

Fleur

the subject at hand ie Incels and extreme misogynists- a lot of whom have affiliations with the far right, then it is even more obvious that you've not bothered investigating the subject.

A general comment, but I find this tactic (particularly from Mike) to direct attention to/warn about various right-wingers under the guise of exposing them, a bit troubling. You're just giving them free exposure. In fact why not start posting directly Richard Spencer et al. stuff in the libcom library while you're at it. A point made also by RedKahina apropos the Spencer-getting-punched video, or apropos brand-boosting fake controversies, beneficial to the two parties involved (e.g. such as Naggle/Chapohouse vis-a-vis Cernovich, or leftcom kiddies talking about Evola and Nick Land). Or like the mainstream NYT covering/promoting the "Alt-Right". Besides, everyone can read twitter, reddit, SpikedOnline, etc. Like you said, people can google it.

Oh ffs

Would be a good name for the topic of a discussion meeting.

Now you may want to meander down a route of organizing some kind of encounter group where a load of guys talk about sexism,

As R Totale mentioned before "I know Plan C London folk were getting quite excited about the idea of consciousness-raising groups at one point". So it's not me "now" introducing some new idea here.

How you might want to entice sexist men into such an activity is a bit of a mystery to me, pizza maybe?

You pick a subject that is controversial or has the potential where those dodgy ideas will get expressed.

On the other hand, a discussion group probably won't do any harm, on account of discussion groups having fuck all influence on anything anyway.

Still more influence than the "individually" tailored conversations Mike preferred.

Oh ffs
Would be a good name for the topic of a discussion meeting.

That raised a pretty broad smile!

Quote:
How you might want to entice sexist men into such an activity is a bit of a mystery to me, pizza maybe?
You pick a subject that is controversial or has the potential where those dodgy ideas will get expressed.

Quote:
On the other hand, a discussion group probably won't do any harm, on account of discussion groups having fuck all influence on anything anyway.
Still more influence than the "individually" tailored conversations Mike preferred.

I’m with you on these points Noa.

I take it back about the discussion being beyond repair as some good points have been raised since my comment.

The way of dealing with run of the mill sexists and men with poor social skills that turn toward extreme online communities must be quite different imho.

I'm not well read on how sexism is formed and I don't really see any overt sexism in my daily life. Perhaps because I'm almost never in men only situations and it's not socially acceptable in any of the contexts I'm in. Sometimes I can feel men criticising women in *subtly* more agressive ways then men but that's the extent of it. So my comments are quite useless but I still have some thoughs.

The few times I've heard overt sexism I've always had a sense of the man in question trying to create an in group. So this relates to the 'normal' sexists.

- says sexist thing gives special glance to gauge approval and/or create special bond with this transgressive act. Signalling this men only special situation that they're used to from growing up. It's almost intimate

Gives me the fucking creeps that stuff!

Sadly some of the mens groups in sweden on the liberal/right spectrum seem to have picked up on this and attract men by creating groups where much of male group behaviour is embraced whilst trying to deal with the overtly toxic aspects by appealing to some revised gentleman idea. Sex seems to be central. They are in word pro equality but also pro gender roles. I find this worrisome because they might well be successful in giving rules to live by, mentors and social context whilst embedding right/liberal politics.

I've unfortunately done military service and I've seen how men with poor social skills and status really thrive in this sort of environment. Not in a superficial way but actual emotional and social growth. It's an environment where the fucked up demands of patriarchy can play out without crashing into progress or indeed women (there were about 5 women per 1000 men at that point). The military was a safe space to live your male upbringing without contradictions.

All this is just a wall of text way of repeating my previous point that discussions are imho pretty useless. Like jef's Wilshaw quote suggests you need something much bigger. A meaningful social situation. Political orgs should be perfect but they struggle to give purpose and something to do for newcomers.

The casual over a pint sexism is best countered by crushing their attempt at creating a cosy male atmosphere. But that relies on you being 'alpha' enough in their status games.

None of this deals with real misogynists but they should just be run out of any context they appear in.

Noah Fence

How you tell who has been made bad or who is intrinsically bad I’ve no idea but I’m not sure how relevant it is to how you deal with them. I mean, if a dog is biting you in the ass, you don’t stop to figure out if the dog has been mistreated or is just naturally a bastard, you just hit it till it lets go.

I suppose I meant more, guys who were worth reaching out to because you would be able to offer them friendship, inclusion, belonging, help with practical problems and they would respond to that, people who were just angry or lonely, and guys who would not be 'reachable' who would not change any of their ideas and would be really destructive, maybe hurt someone in your group.

Cooked

All this is just a wall of text way of repeating my previous point that discussions are imho pretty useless. Like jef's Wilshaw quote suggests you need something much bigger. A meaningful social situation. Political orgs should be perfect but they struggle to give purpose and something to do for newcomers.

The example of the pre-WWI SPD with its hundreds affiliated sport, singing clubs, theatre groups etc. is often given.

The objection is that such socialising stuff (basically turning society's outcasts into "normies") is reformist at best, if not actively contra-revolutionary.

Btw, one complaint of Lenin to Zetkin (which Mike brought up elsewhere) is that some women clubs just are endlessly talking about love and personal relations, instead of like serious class struggle stuff.

So I regard the socialising approach as not useful, if it does not also contain actual discussion.

Lol. Seriously? Red Kahina and Lenin again? I suppose it's a step up from sexist 1970s French soft core sex comedies. Still entirely irrelevant though.

fingers malone

Noah Fence

How you tell who has been made bad or who is intrinsically bad I’ve no idea but I’m not sure how relevant it is to how you deal with them. I mean, if a dog is biting you in the ass, you don’t stop to figure out if the dog has been mistreated or is just naturally a bastard, you just hit it till it lets go.

I suppose I meant more, guys who were worth reaching out to because you would be able to offer them friendship, inclusion, belonging, help with practical problems and they would respond to that, people who were just angry or lonely, and guys who would not be 'reachable' who would not change any of their ideas and would be really destructive, maybe hurt someone in your group.

Well I guess the blatantly dismissive or belligerent ones are more obviously not going to engage but after that, I fear it’s pot luck.
Sorry, not much of an answer. The thing is, that whilst I think such a group could possibly help to create change in the occasional individual, I’m afraid I share much of Fleur’s pessimism.
That said, I personally would be very interested in participating in such an event. If nothing else, it would probably strengthen my understanding of stuff, which certainly wouldn’t go amiss.

Noah Fence

whilst I think such a group could possibly help to create change in the occasional individual, I’m afraid I share much of Fleur’s pessimism.

I don't think we're expecting them to join feminist/anarchist organisations, like in some membership recruitment drive. But if that were the case, then even supposing that the worst misogynists could be easily made to see the light, the fact would remain that just a short time before they had been misogynists. So there would be reason to remain distrustful of them.

Fleur

Lol. Seriously? Red Kahina and Lenin again? I suppose it's a step up from sexist 1970s French soft core sex comedies. Still entirely irrelevant though.

Are you still seriously pretending to contribute anything to this conversation. I suppose your ad hominem attacks are better than your unsuccessful attempts to straight-out ignore the actual point.

And my post was entirely relevant to Cooked's argument. Lest I be misunderstood, I also don't think that women-hatred/abuse occurs because men are insufficiently socialised; prime counter-example Donald Trump.

(btw I stumbled on that Femmes Fatales 1976 movie because the upcoming sequel/spin-off of The Big Lebowski is written by the same guy).

Noa Rodman

And my post was entirely relevant to Cooked's argument. Lest I be misunderstood, I also don't think that women-hatred/abuse occurs because men are insufficiently socialised; prime counter-example Donald Trump.

Imagine if "socialisation" was not a single, neutral process, but something that could take place in a variety of ways, and involve the transmission of one among several wildly different value systems.

R Totale

Imagine if "socialisation" was not a single, neutral process, but something that could take place in a variety of ways, and involve the transmission of one among several wildly different value systems.

Are you saying that is a banal observation? If so, I agree.

I’m am not sure how useful I can be on this thread. Thinking about it I find a bit cringe making.

Noah’s post #66, regarding the bewildered attitude of the fellow, who thought his groping was some kind of complement, suggests to me that he was living, as many are, in an emotional fantasy world.

Some people, particularly boys/men, find the mating/dating game a confusing mess. My childhood taught me to respect women. My dad, who was ill most of the time, did not provide an alpha male model. Most of my workplaces have been 99% male, where I was informed of chat-up lines when meeting girls at the dancing. I learned to smoke to appear sophisticated and offer a cigarette, as an ice breaker to partners between jigs. A line of patter should be developed to impress, and the truth modified to suggest you had more lolly in your pocket than the bus fare home. The norm seemed to be that everyone was telling porkies at least part of the time.

One of my first girlfriends informed me that her pal said, “When a boy tells you he loves you, he really means - can I shag you?” So how could you know what was real and what was kidology? Generally I assumed people were telling the truth. Many think the opposite. Several years ago a judge hearing a rape case cause an outcry when he suggested that when a woman says, “No” she could mean “Yes”. Now the judge was out of order, though he was saying what many men believe.

I was still in my teens when a friend of mine tipped me off, that an anarchist associate, who happened to going out with an old girlfriend, informed some lads that I was possibly a ‘top of the roof’, as I just hadn’t tried hard enough to get inside her pants. So much for ‘no means no’ – at least to some people.

When I’d a bench in a London workshop, about once a month a young woman would walk down the gangway to deliver the office paperwork. Some of the younger lads began to look forward to her appearance and to whistle after her. I objected to this and eventually got their shop stewards involved. Some of these fellows had children of their own and I put it to them, “How would you feel if that was your daughter”, then they agreed to stamp out the behaviour.

The discussions with the young men were interesting as they all claimed to “like women” and “what was the matter with you - too old or puritanical?” It was as if their self-image needed constant pumping up. James Brown sang, ‘It’s A Man’s World’, though for many men the emotional poverty of their real lives reminds them something important is missing – and for some the lack of sexual fulfilment due to supposed female manipulation is a convenient scapegoat.

This reads like a muddle. Unfortunately not much has changed. Feminism drove some of the worst shit underground, however the internet has helped to pull back the veneer of political correctness and expose a deep seated fear of women

Really excellent post Auld Bod although you may leave many bewildered with...

top of the roof

You're absolutely right Noa, there's no point in me contributing anything after you told me that my own personal experiences with these men is irrelevant. I should probably spend a few weeks researching what Lenin had to say about it all.

Anyway, going to go work in my vegetable garden now because my tomatoes are more interesting than some random man on the internet trying to explain sexism to me.

Fleur

after you told me that my own personal experiences with these men is irrelevant.

I said gamergate/videosgames do not seem directly relevant to the OP topic, namely the incel van attack, because the few gamers that I know aren't incels. That doesn't mean one way or the other that most male gamers don't hold misogynist views, but then we're talking about misogyny in general (which you yourself have been keen to point out to me, is worlds apart from the extremist incel ideology). And it certainly also doesn't mean that your own personal experiences with these men are irrelevant. Instead of retreating to your vegetable garden, I would encourage you to write them up for a libcom blog and explain the relevance of the gamergate thing for us so called noobs.

As for contributing anything to somehow addressing the problem, you yourself admitted that you didn't know what to do, except leave it to the men to "step up to the plate".

Noa Rodman

I said gamergate/videosgames do not seem directly relevant to the OP topic, namely the incel van attack, because the few gamers that I know aren't incels.

Do... do you know what gamergate was? You do understand that it was, in fact, not just solely about ethics in gaming journalism, right?

ETA:

And it certainly also doesn't mean that your own personal experiences with these men are irrelevant. Instead of retreating to your vegetable garden, I would encourage you to write them up

Yes, it certainly would be good if Fleur wrote something. Maybe something like this, or like this? Seriously, go back and read those posts a few more times, then maybe come back and rejoin the conversation when you've got your head round them?

Noa Rodman

A general comment, but I find this tactic (particularly from Mike) to direct attention to/warn about various right-wingers under the guise of exposing them, a bit troubling. You're just giving them free exposure. In fact why not start posting directly Richard Spencer et al. stuff in the libcom library while you're at it. A point made also by RedKahina apropos the Spencer-getting-punched video

The same Red Kahina who recently did a twitter thread about how the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a 'pretty good dissection of the operations of despotic power in liberal democracies? And who promotes fash-adjacent conspiracy theorist Vanessa Beeley? That RedKahina?

Noa Rodman

Besides, everyone can read twitter, reddit, SpikedOnline, etc. Like you said, people can google it.

Quite.

Noa Rodman

Still more influence than the "individually" tailored conversations Mike preferred.

Yes people are never influenced by talking to workmates or family members.

Noa Rodman

Cooked

All this is just a wall of text way of repeating my previous point that discussions are imho pretty useless. Like jef's Wilshaw quote suggests you need something much bigger. A meaningful social situation. Political orgs should be perfect but they struggle to give purpose and something to do for newcomers.

The example of the pre-WWI SPD with its hundreds affiliated sport, singing clubs, theatre groups etc. is often given.

The objection is that such socialising stuff (basically turning society's outcasts into "normies") is reformist at best, if not actively contra-revolutionary.

I wasn't thinking full on reeducation via football. I realize my comments could sound like rev groups should become nannies for stunted men.

Noa Rodman

So I regard the socialising approach as not useful, if it does not also contain actual discussion.

I agree, but assumed that feminism and the issues we're talking about would be part of any decent organization and that internal practice as well as occasional talks/discussions would deal with these issues. It's quite difficult to be a libcommie and oblivious to feminism.

R Totale

do you know what gamergate was? You do understand that it was, in fact, not just solely about ethics in gaming journalism, right?

Sure rightwingers use it, just like Mike claims to have said that they would use attention to abuse in left organisations as a means to further their male victimisation narrative. Is there anything they don't use?

Yes, it certainly would be good if Fleur wrote something. Maybe something like this, or like this? Seriously, go back and read those posts a few more times,

My point stands that gamergate isn't directly relevant to incel ideology, let alone sexism in general. I hesitate to say it, but there was sexism and virulent misogyny before videogames existed (e.g. Proudhon) – I'm sure I will get accused again of living in the nineteenth century. Or an even simpler observation (also made by a rightwinger): "Eliott Rodger committed his murders in May 2014. > GamerGate began around August/September 2014 and received widespread media coverage around October 2014".

Mike Harman

That RedKahina?

ad hominem, because you can't deal with the point made.

Yes people are never influenced by talking to workmates or family members.

If you say so.

Btw, this common online ploy to state one's opponents views as if they were one's own, in an attempt to show how ridiculous they are, is very stupid. It's just tiring to have to check whether the person is being ironic or not. I can't take the person's conversation seriously anymore. It also simply promotes one's opponents' views, much like the rightwing can simply appropriates the leftwing lampooning of them.

Noa Rodman

It's just tiring to have to check whether the person is being ironic or not. I can't take the person's conversation seriously anymore.

A mere 5 pages in to the latest thrilling edition of "Noa Rodman: Wrong on the Internet", and Noa declares himself tired. Your stamina is not what it once was.

Noa Rodman

My point stands

No it doesn't. You can't just assert a point about something you know nothing about, dismiss all the arguments and counter evidence (and suggestions that you actually read up about the situation) out of hand and then claim your point stands. Thats not how it works, thats not how anything works.

Also, its clearly relevant that RedKahina promotes fash conspiracy theorists and talks up the protocols of the elders of zion (!!!), if you're citing their argument that you shouldn't share videos of Spencer getting a smack because it makes far right ideas look really great. Because maybe someone who promotes all that stuff... is not a good source of advice for how best to combat the far right?

No it doesn't.

It was actually a point I made ages ago on thread, which Fleur decided to recall (and interpret as a slight against her personally). When I said that she didn't contribute anything to the conversation I was referring particularly to her latest "Lol. Seriously?" post.

You can't just assert a point about something you know nothing about, dismiss all the arguments and counter evidence (and suggestions that you actually read up about the situation) out of hand and then claim your point stands. Thats not how it works, thats not how anything works

I know what Fleur said. Do you think you add anything to the conversation by repeating her?

is not a good source of advice for how best to combat the far right?

Who said anything about a good source of advice, I just take the point on its merit, regardless of who expressed it.

Why are all these people talking about the Football Lads Alliance on a thread that's supposed to be about contemporary far-right groups, I know several football fans and none of them are racist. Also racism exists in contexts unrelated to football as well. Anywhere, here's what Tommy Robinson's been saying on twitter today - really makes you think, huh?

R Totale

Why are all these people talking about the Football Lads Alliance on a thread that's supposed to be about contemporary far-right groups,

It's the opposite; why are all these people talking about other far-right groups on a thread that's supposed to be about the Football Lads Alliance?

Noa Rodman

Mike Harman

That RedKahina?

ad hominem, because you can't deal with the point made.

Your point was that even mentioning the existence of specific far right personalities can give them attention, specifically citing RedKahina (when that point has been made by many others, like Glenn Greenwald or Noam Chomsky).

Noa Rodman

A general comment, but I find this tactic (particularly from Mike) to direct attention to/warn about various right-wingers under the guise of exposing them, a bit troubling. You're just giving them free exposure. In fact why not start posting directly Richard Spencer et al. stuff in the libcom library while you're at it.

So you think critically discussing the far right is troubling because it gives them free exposure. In the same breath you uncritically cite a conspiracy theory-obsessed tankie who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a good analysis of society. Then you dismiss pointing this out as an 'ad-hominem' - just because you can say the term for a logical fallacy doesn't mean that you understand how it works or that it's being used.

I'll say it very clearly, I think uncritically promoting a tankie conspiracy theorist is an irresponsible thing to do, whereas critically dissecting the far right is fine (I'd prefer not to be doing it, but unfortunately it seems necessary at the moment).

We've already written a response to Chomsky's anti-antifa take here: https://libcom.org/blog/6-reasons-why-chomsky-wrong-about-antifa-18082017

If we look at the development of the far right over the past say ten years, then one thing which for me is quite central has been the success that is has had in drawing together all kinds of different reactionary ideologies, from race science to transphobia to violent misogyny, and cross-promote them via online methods but also offline allegiances. This stuff has always been around but the repackaging (into YouTube videos, via mass harrassment etc.) has been effective.

Part of the reason this has been successful, and the response to it inadequate, is that people who would consider themselves 'anti-racist', 'anti-sexist' etc. can still latch onto and reinforce particular far-right narratives - and this in turn happens at least partially due to a limited understanding of how those narratives are developed and deployed. So yes I do think we should simultaneously be shutting down far-right meetings and organisation, while also trying to broaden our (broadly) own understanding of far right movements and ideologies. The idea some posts on libcom are going to give people who regularly get coverage on TV and major news platforms more exposure is a bit silly at this point.

I don't know, maybe because they're all connected and that individual movements don't happen in a vacuum. But you'd know that if you had any actual knowledge about the rise of this neo misogyny, had done any research beyond lifting your information about gamergate verbatim from Wikipedia or deigned to actually listen to anyone who does know about this.

Relevant quote :

"If I word wank on long enough about something I don't know much about, throw in references to post ww1 political pundits, something about Lenin, pretend to know about stuff that I can't be arsed to look up, reference that dog whistle eugenicist Twitter tankie, other people will give up bothering with the subject." - Proudhon probably.

Lucky Black Cat

I hope you’re proud of yourself?

Mike harman

So you think critically discussing the far right is troubling because it gives them free exposure. In the same breath you uncritically cite a conspiracy theory-obsessed tankie who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a good analysis of society. Then you dismiss pointing this out as an 'ad-hominem' - just because you can say the term for a logical fallacy doesn't mean that you understand how it works or that it's being used.

I don't need to go into your diversion about Elders of Zion, but RedKahina's remark, namely that it is an adaptation from a French book against Napoleon III, is, I hope, familiar to you. And her point with that is to illustrate how antisemites can convert/co-opt otherwise incise critiques of society into their own framework. That's a critical discussion of how the far right operates.

You (and Fleur et al.) on the other hand, suggest I crawl into the arsehole of the far right in order to learn its smell. And as for your "critical" discussion of Naggle, SpikedOnline, etc. – it is Johnny-come-lately superficial clickbait to boost your brand among the twitter youth.

Fleur

maybe because they're all connected and that individual movements don't happen in a vacuum.

To repeat my earlier comment to you 'if you want to discuss the general theme of misogyny of course'. I'm not the one who called for someone's posts to be split off from the thread (as R Totale advocates " ruthlessly" to do with my comments here). It's fine if you want to discuss gamergate and misogyny in general on this thread.

Noa, what exactly are you discussing because this thread started to specifically address the rise of neo misogyny, parts of which you have decided are irrelevant, including gamergate - and take it from someone who was there, as opposed to looking it up on Wikipedia - was a big part in the development of this culture, be it INCELS, MGTOW, the alt right. If you actually knew anything about this you would know how intricately they are connected. Instead, you've dismissed this as irrelevant, harkened to historical misogyny and basically you are too arrogant to admit your ignorance about this or you've dug yourself in so deep on this ignorance it's a bit embarrassing for you.

Currently a further iteration of gamergate is happening in the comic book field, same shit, abusing women creators and even women who work in comic book stores. Someone I peripherally know has taken her 2 year old and gone into hiding after doxing and threats against her child. This is all part of the same fucking thing Noa and if you don't understand it, step back and let people who do explain it.

You've done your very best to derail this conversation with your obtuse behavior and pointless references to dead dudes. Well done.

Noa Rodman

Mike harman

So you think critically discussing the far right is troubling because it gives them free exposure. In the same breath you uncritically cite a conspiracy theory-obsessed tankie who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a good analysis of society. Then you dismiss pointing this out as an 'ad-hominem' - just because you can say the term for a logical fallacy doesn't mean that you understand how it works or that it's being used.

I don't need to go into your diversion about Elders of Zion, but RedKahina's remark, namely that it is an adaptation from a French book against Napoleon III, is, I hope, familiar to you. And her point with that is to illustrate how antisemites can convert/co-opt otherwise incise critiques of society into their own framework. That's a critical discussion of how the far right operates.

When people say 'anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools', they don't mean because it identifies jews as at the head of a global conspiracy, but that understanding the operation of capital through the framework of a global conspiracy is foolish. So if someone says anti-Semitism is good analysis except for the anti-Jewish bigotry, they are not exactly being sufficiently critical of it.

Noa Rodman

You (and Fleur et al.) on the other hand, suggest I crawl into the arsehole of the far right in order to learn its smell. And as for your "critical" discussion of Naggle, SpikedOnline, etc. – it is Johnny-come-lately superficial clickbait to boost your brand among the twitter youth.

Are you saying that Nagle is far-right now? For me (to the extent her own politics are discernable at all) she's a social democrat, but one that pushes a very misleading analysis of the far right, one which has been quoted across mainstream media in the wake of the attack that prompted the opening of this thread. Are we not allowed to critically discuss social democrats now either?

Noa Rodman

You (and Fleur et al.) on the other hand, suggest I crawl into the arsehole of the far right in order to learn its smell.

M8, you just cited Ian Miles "Hitler is my fucking idol" Cheong as a source, I think you seem to be managing to do that all by yourself.

And as for your "critical" discussion of Naggle, SpikedOnline, etc. – it is Johnny-come-lately superficial clickbait to boost your brand among the twitter youth.

Eh?

R Totale

And as for your "critical" discussion of Naggle, SpikedOnline, etc. – it is Johnny-come-lately superficial clickbait to boost your brand among the twitter youth.

Eh?

I assume he means https://libcom.org/blog/angela-nagles-plagiarise-any-nonsense-03052018 and https://libcom.org/blog/unsurprising-reason-jonathan-pie-rants-sound-straight-out-spiked-06022018

Fleur

Noa, what exactly are you discussing because this thread started to specifically address the rise of neo misogyny, parts of which you have decided are irrelevant, including gamergate - and take it from someone who was there, as opposed to looking it up on Wikipedia - was a big part in the development of this culture, be it INCELS, MGTOW, the alt right. If you actually knew anything about this you would know how intricately they are connected.

Yes Noa's using Ian Miles Cheong finding a random person on twitter who got the timeline mixed up as proof that there's been no new developments since 2014, whereas it really shows that public understanding of timelines and actors is a bit shaky. On the other hand, educating people on timelines, actors and ideologies is something that Noa apparently opposes, because it might promote the far right accounts he's so keen to link to from this thread. Always great to have things both ways.

Thinking that gamergate sprang into action out of nothing the day Zoe Quinn's ex had a public tantrum is such nonsense anyway. They were already at it, this just gave them a particular focus and a specific woman to center it on. They were already behaving abusively they just didn't have a name for it or a moral crusade to rally it around (ethics in video game journalism.) The major protagonists were already there, the misogynists were already there, the "gamergate revelation" just gave them a specific cause to rally around. But then you would know this if you looked further than Wikipedia and dodgy far right Twitter accounts.

This would have been a great discussion if not for Noa.

Fleur

Noa, what exactly are you discussing because this thread started to specifically address the rise of neo misogyny, parts of which you have decided are irrelevant, including gamergate -

The thread started by putting incels in the context of a rise of neo-misogny, but it clearly focused specifically on incels, not gamergate.

Suppose you start a thread about gamergate, putting it in context of the rise of neo-misogyny, and I direct attention to incels, which is indirectly relevant at best, and how understanding the incel phenomenon is an essential precondition to get a good grasp of gamergate. Would you feel it is a bit of a derail, which deflects from the specificity of gamergate? That's what I thought with your comment on this thread, and that's all I meant. I didn't question your expertise on gamergate or call for your remarks to be split-off from the thread. The latter actually happened to my comments about incel ideology, on a thread specifically about incels. I was judged to derail. This shows that your (incl. R Totale etc) problem with me is not really about alleged derailing, but has to do with a difference of opinion.

Mike Harman

understanding the operation of capital through the framework of a global conspiracy is foolish.

I don't know if the original French author talked about global conspiracy, so much as about ruling class methods in a state like France under Napoleon III. It's not an economic analysis of capital.

Are you saying that Nagle is far-right now? For me (to the extent her own politics are discernable at all) she's a social democrat, but one that pushes a very misleading analysis of the far right,

RedKahina pointed out e.g. that R. Spencer endorsed her book. So you're saying little new, and a little late.

Noa's using Ian Miles Cheong finding a random person on twitter who got the timeline mixed up as proof that there's been no new developments since 2014, whereas it really shows that public understanding of timelines and actors is a bit shaky. On the other hand, educating people on timelines, actors and ideologies is something that Noa apparently opposes, because it might promote the far right accounts he's so keen to link to from this thread. Always great to have things both ways.

I'm using it as proof that there were incels before gamergate (because there was an implication by some here of a causal connection between gamergate and the rise of misogyny). However Fleur herself said about the neo-misogynists before gamergate: "The major protagonists were already there, the misogynists were already there," It's not a direct causal factor, even we simply base it on the timeline.

Mike Harman

I assume he means https://libcom.org/blog/angela-nagles-plagiarise-any-nonsense-03052018 and https://libcom.org/blog/unsurprising-reason-jonathan-pie-rants-sound-straight-out-spiked-06022018

Yep, I knew what he was referring to, it's more that as far as I could tell literally no-one other than Noa was saying anything at all to do with Spiked, so bringing that up seemed like weird beef arising out of absolutely nowhere. Also, maybe it's superficial of me to point this out, but you'd think that a real, serious, non-superficial engagement with Nagle might involve learning what her name is.

Noa Rodman

I was judged to derail. This shows that your (incl. R Totale etc) problem with me is not really about alleged derailing, but has to do with a difference of opinion.

No, my problem is that you seem to be unable to post on a thread without turning it into the Noa Rodman Show through a mix of aggressively wronghead contrarianism and Ralph Wiggumesque inanities ("I watched a 1970s French soft porn comedy once!"). But please, go on with your very important analysis of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, ffs.

I'm using it as proof that there were incels before gamergate (because there was an implication by some here of a causal connection between gamergate and the rise of misogyny). However Fleur herself said about the neo-misogynists before gamergate: "The major protagonists were already there, the misogynists were already there," It's not a direct causal factor, even we simply base it on the timeline.

It's not an all-or-nothing thing. Racism existed before, f'r instance, the rivers of blood speech, 9/11, the Luton soldiers protests or the Lee Rigby killing, but that doesn't mean that all those moments weren't important if you want a historical understanding of where specific racist formulations came from.

Noa Rodman

I said gamergate/videosgames do not seem directly relevant to the OP topic, namely the incel van attack, because the few gamers that I know aren't incels. .

The few Leninists that I have met said that Lenin said that you haven't got a clue what you are on about and view this forum as a place where you can just keep spewing words until people give up and then claim victory.

Noa Rodman

I don't know if the original French author talked about global conspiracy, so much as about ruling class methods in a state like France under Napoleon III. It's not an economic analysis of capital.

Maybe finding out would be a good idea?
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialogue_aux_enfers_entre_Machiavel_et_Montesquieu/Premier_dialogue
As a rule of thumb, I would read a text before characterising it, especially if it is the source for one of the most notorious anti-semitic writings around.

Noa Rodman

RedKahina pointed out e.g. that R. Spencer endorsed her book. So you're saying little new, and a little late.

A few people noticed that at the time, however Richard Spencer saying "I like this book about the alt-right" is not the same as Nagle herself talking about the creation of 'steep sexual hierarchies' or quoting Dugin about himself uncited via Wikipedia. If no-one was talking about the book there'd be no need to take it apart, but it's had a lot of renewed promotion the past month.

Noa

I'm using it as proof that there were incels before gamergate (because there was an implication by some here of a causal connection between gamergate and the rise of misogyny).
However Fleur herself said about the neo-misogynists before gamergate: "The major protagonists were already there, the misogynists were already there," It's not a direct causal factor, even we simply base it on the timeline.

Something existing prior to an event doesn't contradict there being an increase as a result of the event. As a simple example, if there are hundreds of misogynists in MRA forums on reddit or similar, then suddenly they register twitter accounts to harass women, there will be an increase in direct misogynistic abuse against women, as opposed to the previous relatively closed-circuit ranting between men, even if the number of misogynistic people does not increase.

Noa

I didn't question your expertise on gamergate or call for your remarks to be split-off from the thread.

No you didn't because you're quite happy to derail this thread with misinformed contrarianism. I should've continued to split your posts off from here after the original split but will start doing that again soon.

Fleur

Currently a further iteration of gamergate is happening in the comic book field, same shit, abusing women creators and even women who work in comic book stores. Someone I peripherally know has taken her 2 year old and gone into hiding after doxing and threats against her child.

Anyway, to return to the actually important part of this thread: that's really horrible and I'm sorry it's happening to your friend/acquaintance, also thank you for sharing that information with us because I was totally unaware of it. Are there any articles you'd recommend as being a good introduction to the situation? Also, do you have any thoughts about what "we" could do, either to support the people affected or to disrupt the people doing it? The only thing I can think of myself is counter-doxing, but obviously that requires a very specific set of skills that most people don't have.

jef costello

Maybe finding out would be a good idea?
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialogue_aux_enfers_entre_Machiavel_et_Montesquieu/Premier_dialogue
As a rule of thumb, I would read a text before characterising it,

So you have read it and found it was about global conspiracy (as Mike claims)? If not then I would repeat it seems talking about some Machiavellian political methods (as the title indicates).
R Totale

But please, go on with your very important analysis of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, ffs.

It's Mike who brought up the Protocols, but you're right, its a derail.
R Totale

No, my problem is that you seem to be unable to post on a thread without turning it into the Noa Rodman Show through a mix of aggressively wronghead contrarianism .

To be clear, when I said that you have a problem with my views, but express this under the cowardly guise of complaints about alleged derailing, I'm not condemning you for having a disagreement with me, but only for not trying to openly discuss it. You cannot fathom the possibility of disagreement existing, dismissing it instead as contrarianism. Same as Mike:

Mike Harman

you're quite happy to derail this thread with misinformed contrarianism.

Actually the comments I made are totally uncontroversial had they not been said by me as a persona non grata.

I should've continued to split your posts off from here after the original split but will start doing that again soon.

Your intimidation has failed so far. I didn't want to let you nip a potentially interesting debate on incels in the bud. But if that is your intent, I have done my part to prevent it.

Noa Rodman

jef costello

Maybe finding out would be a good idea?
https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialogue_aux_enfers_entre_Machiavel_et_Montesquieu/Premier_dialogue
As a rule of thumb, I would read a text before characterising it,

So you have read it and found it was about global conspiracy (as Mike claims)? If not then I would repeat it seems talking about some Machiavellian political methods (as the title indicates).

Have you read it? You are the one charactersiing it, I am advising you to read it first. I am not going to read a long, dull text (I did have a quick look) so you can ignore what I say about it if it doesn't fit with your assumptions based on the title.

The protocoles of the Elders of Zion was not written by the Elders of Zion and is not a list of their protocols.This is a good example of why we should read more than the title of a work.

To be clear, when I said that you have a problem with my views, but express this under the cowardly guise of complaints about alleged derailing, I'm not condemning you for having a disagreement with me, but only for not trying to openly discuss it. You cannot fathom the possibility of disagreement existing, dismissing it instead as contrarianism. Same as Mike:

I think it is because you change the subject, dismiss people's experience of an issue based on your admittedly scant knowledge, refer to works you haven't read and then expect others to rread them etc. If you could actually stand your ground then it might seem like you believed in things rather than being a contrarian. Although I don't think you are, I just think you want to score points and that you think you are somehow winning rather than wasting people's time. Mine isn't too vluable but it is worth more than this, I could have translated a news article rather than replying. It does genuinely bother me that you do this and I do, for some reason, think that it is possible to help you actually do something productive, although I don't think I have managed to help you in that way at all.

Actually the comments I made are totally uncontroversial had they not been said by me as a persona non grata.

Please explain what you mean, because aside from pointing out your errors, asking you to explain things that you can't because you haven't thought them out or read them, no one has oppressed you in any way. Even if Mike did seperate your comments it wouldn't be censorship or a sign that you were being mistreated.

Your intimidation has failed so far. I didn't want to let you nip a potentially interesting debate on incels in the bud. But if that is your intent, I have done my part to prevent it.

I thought you were claiming that you didn't get irony. This can't be anything but a joke.

[color=white]ps my bet for Noa's response is that he picks up on the word censorship and points out that he never said it. [/color]

jef

You are the one charactersiing it,

Mike is, he brought it up. You should tell him to read it.

The protocoles of the Elders of Zion was not written by the Elders of Zion and is not a list of their protocols.This is a good example of why we should read more than the title of a work.

But Joly's work is as the title indicates a (fictional) dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.

If you could actually stand your ground then it might seem like you believed in things rather than being a contrarian.

Plain baiting.

R Totale:

Comicsgate is just an extension of Gamergate, basically hating on women, people of colour, LGBTQ,damned ess jaw dubyas ruining comics. Until very recently it had no particular focus, just giving women and minorities a hard time. Here's a good enough explanation as any
https://www.inverse.com/article/41132-comicsgate-explained-bigots-milkshake-marvel-dc-gamergate

And The Mary Sue is always a good place to check in on what is going on in nerd world (it's often awful.)
https://www.themarysue.com/

Not really a friend, a friend of a friend. There's an organization of women who work in comics, I've never been particularly active in it because I don't care to talk much about work outside of work and it's far more useful for the creatives. Something of a networking/support group/place to moan about men away from public view. Someone"s got into this membership group and has passed on personal information, including addresses and these women are being at the receiving end of targeted harassment.

One of the protagonists has failed to get his graphic novel published by any of the big publishers (because it's crap and business is bad right now and nobody is picking up anything) and obviously it's all the fault of these women. He's self published and a lot of comic book stores aren't going to stock it, what with it being white supremacist, sexist bullshit and now they have a locus to concentrate their pathetic campaign over. The almighty free speech violation bullshit and obviously the best way to deal with that is to make the lives of individual women miserable. This guy's denial of free speech by not being able to force people to buy his shitty book is the ethics in journalism moment.

It's really pathetic and would be funny if it wasn't real people who are being harassed, reported to cops as pedophiles, comic stores being vandalized and all sorts of crap. Women who's names and addresses were on that list are upset because we all saw what happened during gamergate and nobody wants that shit.

Dumb ass bigotry. Print comics are struggling - dying actually - and apparently all the fault of diversity in comics, which is bullshit anyway, it's still a white boy industry.

Edit:

Actually I have no idea what to do about it. Women in comics are always very good at supporting each other but there's no way these men are going to go away, shut up or calm the fuck down. The Big Four pander to them and have given in to them, cancelled contracts for women and slightly leftward leaning writers on big titles. Best I can hope for is that they're doing to die off eventually but print comics will most likely die first.

I posted this on another LBC thread. It does a good job of taking the piss out of the man victim anti fem/sjw thing...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cfDYcEAg2DA&feature=youtu.be

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/435g9p/how-to-help-an-incel-sex-therapist

Again, this might seem lighthearted on my part, but a comedy movie on the 'victim' situation of men in today's society is The Full Monty. The opening starts by talking about the de-industrialisation (in Leeds iirc).

The effects of the expansion of the labour pool by the (re-)entry of women since the 70s, the disproportional effect on classically male jobs of automation, the rise of services (stereotypically female), - all this is sociological background, as mentioned e.g. by Susan Faludi, Hanna Rosin, etc.

I don't think The Full Monty provides the right answer.

One apparently "progressive" answer is that men should just accept it and learn to be more flexible, go into service jobs (like nursing), etc. Just another example I found telling was about a car factory that closed down. The workers were offered to go to therapy to cope with their trauma (therapists mostly young women – as Badiou also has noted, women are at the social front line in jobs dealing with male outcasts), and had to go into nursing (which probably meant taking a cut compared to their previous wage).

And again, this might seem archaic on my part, but all this sociological stuff was already know by people in the nineteenth century like Engels.

Wtf does anything of that have to do with incels?

To be fair Khawaga, much of this conversation has been only loosely connected with the OP. I don’t see why Noa should be singled out for it.

Noah Fence

To be fair Khawaga, much of this conversation has been only loosely connected with the OP. I don’t see why Noa should be singled out for it.

its extremely obvious what gamergate, the far right in general, how to deal with toxic masculinity etc have to do with the op, noa's post on the other hand just appear to be random thoughts that popped into his head

Well the thread turned to shit long ago and certainly Noa played his part in that but I do see the connection that he’s making with his post.

Toxic masculinity isn't just an attitude, but, as others here have said, has its own ideology (and therefore has to be dealt with theoretically, i.e. in discussion). It has been said that incels (and in general misogynists) rely e.g. on a victim-narrative about themselves. The "sociological" points I mention are a partially real background to a male victim-narrative, as well as to theories of a feminisation of late capitalism (a la Baudrillard, Tiqqun, Nina Power). I'm sure rightwing/misogynists are conscious of these points, and even may portray women as victims of it as well (e.g. being sexualised), yet they would frame/blame it e.g. on some "cultural marxist" ideology of the liberal elite.

There certainly is an issue around work, identification with your work, gender roles and deindustrialisation/low pay/casualisation/service economy, but there's a problem with seeing men as specific victims. This view often involves an assumption that men should have skilled and dignified work, but women doing lower paid and lower status work isn't a problem. Men being pushed out of higher paid work and into the kind of work that women were doing the whole time anyway is seen as a specific attack on male dignity, rather than just fighting for improvements in the conditions of all those low paid workers, men and women.

fingers malone

There certainly is an issue around work, identification with your work, gender roles and deindustrialisation/low pay/casualisation/service economy, but there's a problem with seeing men as specific victims. This view often involves an assumption that men should have skilled and dignified work, but women doing lower paid and lower status work isn't a problem. Men being pushed out of higher paid work and into the kind of work that women were doing the whole time anyway is seen as a specific attack on male dignity, rather than just fighting for improvements in the conditions of all those low paid workers, men and women.

Yes Fingers, absolutely, and it’s pretty clear to us here, but somehow, rather than waking up to the fact that patriarchy fucks men as well as women, and realising that the (slight) rebalancing of gender in the workplace is at least a minuscule move in the right direction, many men see this as women taking away their natural roles and push back at women/feminists/SJWs whilst drawing on many misogynistic myths to justify their actions/attitudes. Sometimes to extremes that are both revolting and mind boggling in equal measure.

Thanks Noah

Not my area, but I think the pyschological term for what Fingers and Noah are talking about is 'status loss'. Not going to try to expand on that point but maybe someone knows more about this stuff:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.609 / https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=41874

Oh God, I am watching the first episode of the Heathers TV show. It has been retooled so bullies are SJWs picking on cheerleaders and jocks. JD could only be considered edgy by Denis Leary and clearly the only reason to ever question anything is to bully people rather than to actually want to change things. Painfully tone-deaf and uncomprehending repetition of things from the film, and both relying on your knowledge of the film for things to make sense even though they directly contradict what the new version actually says. It is awful.

It pretty much embodies the idea of status loss and the complete incomprehension of others that enables the persecution complex that is required to crush social movements.

I hate this show so much. It has nothing but contempt for humanity in the worst sense. I want to punch this show square in the face.

My local paper has been covering the rise of the alt right - pretty well, to my surprise - including sympathetic coverage of local antifa, who have tracked down a fairly big name in online alt-right, with connections to Charlotteville, to a local man. Anyway, this article is a decent 101 on the connections between neo-misogyny and the far right, it's pretty much a gateway to the far right, and it's connections to gamergate etc.

Alt-right in Montreal: The war against women
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/alt-right-in-montreal-the-war-against-women

It's not possible to understand the ideology behind incels without seeing it in context of the bigger picture and these men are not the same as the average common or garden sexists and/or men who are violent against women, which is something which crosses ideological boundaries.

I don't particularly have a solution to them but I think you have to treat them in the same way you treat the fash. You may be able to reason with and debate the average, ignorant racist, with positive outcomes but a committed fascist is much harder to deal with using those methods. These men are the same - literally - and can't be dealt with in the same way.

The concept of the victim narrative is a bit off with them too. They're not unemployed steel workers feeling loss. By and large the alt right are middle class, educated and not the poor white bootboys the media like to portray them as. If you go through the roll call of the men identified at Charlotteville, they were by and large university students and professional men. We know that fascism has always been an ideology of the ruling classes, it's important that we don't fall into the classist trope that it's the ideology of the poor now.

We have to take these men seriously and not just paint them as poor suckers working out their sexual frustration. They are part of a much wider ideological framework.

I don't particularly have a solution to them but I think you have to treat them in the same way you treat the fash. You may be able to reason with and debate the average, ignorant racist, with positive outcomes but a committed fascist is much harder to deal with using those methods. These men are the same - literally - and can't be dealt with in the same way.

Whilst transformations an occur - a very long time ago I once knew a pair of fascist skinhead queerbashers, a pretty interesting and engaging pair they could be at times too, who when I last heard of them around twelve years ago, were living in Cologne as a couple and were very busy anti fash activists, I think Fleur is right about this. These guys were certainly not casual about their ideology and not a single on of my dozens of conversations with them ever had them moving even a fraction of an inch from their position.
Even with casual racists, sexists or whatever it’s pretty unlikely you’ll get anywhere, although Cameron LSR is a pretty amazing example of the phenomenon, but with extremists I think that engaging with them is almost certainly pointless.
I don’t know how the conversion of the two skinheads came about, but my guess is that with them or others who hold a deeply entrenched extremist position the rare occasion when they change is when they realise that their ideology and the actions and attitudes that stem from them are failing them and always will.
Whatever it is though, it’s rocking horse shit rare.

jef costello

Oh God, I am watching the first episode of the Heathers TV show.

to quote Khawaga: Wtf does anything of that have to do with incels?

Probably you just posted on the wrong thread (and still you got 2 up votes).

But school yard social dynamics are an interesting topic for analysis. The Staceys and Chads are at the top of the hierarchy in terms of popularity. School life is a toxic environment, with its conformism, fitting-in, "rackets", test scores, learning by rote, etc. Libertarians have their critique of that ready-made, so they tap into the hatred (which is a justified hatred, probably most people feel, and still have nightmares about school/university years later).

fingers malone

Men being pushed out of higher paid work and into the kind of work that women were doing the whole time anyway is seen as a specific attack on male dignity, rather than just fighting for improvements in the conditions of all those low paid workers, men and women.

or into unemployment. The word that describes this feeling is abjection (a Weimar-era movie on this isDer blaue Engel: "the tragic transformation of a respectable professor to a cabaret clown and his descent into madness.").

Also, it's not simply men, but woman too who can hold "misogynist" ideas (there were female nazis after all, or Trump-voters). Although female online trolls are perhaps indeed a rare breed (or they do it on some other level).

Fleur

it's important that we don't fall into the classist trope that it's the ideology of the poor now.

Proudhon was petty-bourgeois, and Belfort Bax was a lawyer. They were nominally some kind of socialists though, and it's a favorite past-time for some to chastise the traditional working class organisations ("Leninists") on account of their sexism etc. so evidently there is a left-wing version. On the other hand fascists do intend to recruit among the working class, so they incorporate some class demagogy into their discourse or even centre their discourse around it (I think it was Mike who called that "class reductionism").

but a committed fascist is much harder to deal with using those methods.

Yes, but I don't think hardcore misogynists would come to a discussion group to begin with.

This Contrapoints vid was pretty educational for me...

https://youtu.be/fD2briZ6fB0

I thought the stuff about language was interesting. The way these terms and phrases get stuck in peoples heads and shape their thoughts. The far right anti immigration crowd has similar repeated phrases. I've noticed that when researching the far right or just reading to many anti immigration comments in mainstream media the phrases can later pop into my head when I least expect it. I imagine of you expose yourself to memed language whilst sympathizing with the content your mind will be pretty badly reprogrammed. There must be research about it somewhere.

Yeah, this is a really interesting point. In particular, I always felt weird about how popular the "virgin vs chad" meme became for a while - I get that the vast majority of people who used it were doing so ironically, but I always felt quite uncomfortable about seeing people recycling archetypes that only make sense in the incel worldview, even in a joking way.

That meme does demonstrate how incel terminology in wider culture can seem to take on an opposite significance - in wider culture, the 'Chad' is the hero and the 'incel' is the villain. If incels are marginalised in such ways, it's only natural that they group together for a safer space. The incels also tolerate 'lower class' or unemployed life and the sense of ennui towards the system, which would often get them looked down upon in other circles including 'MGTOW' and the 'alt-right.' If you were to portray things in terms of children's popular culture (which children are brought up on and motivated by), there is the Disney 'Prince' whom the heroine must fall in love with (or a high school jock in Cinderella Story, etc.), and then there are incels who are 'outshone' and marginalised by this Prince's portrayal. If 'sex sells,' then it tends to 'sell' when the focus is on a bunch of people who are getting it and are happy about it. You suspect that there is some hypocrisy in the attempt to dismiss, attack, or convert incels by a popular culture which has dedicated itself to promoting the romance of the bourgeois and their dedicated servants. This might just drive the incels further towards extremism.

I think that most approaches to incels does basically involve stigmatising them and calling them 'lame' for not having sex, but that only reinforces their siege mentality. Besides, few other political movements will actually deal with their personal situation and personal qualms, rather than abstract social agendas. The danger is that 'incel' does not only mean a viewpoint but also a type of person, and general stigmas about demographics may come across as frequently in anti-incel material as from the incels themselves. Incels are often poor and sexless in a culture obsessed with sex and wealth.

This seems like a potentially interesting first step towards doing "counter-recruitment" for the PUA/manosphere side of things: https://freedomnews.org.uk/lost-on-the-lane-to-love-aaas-offering-a-unique-space-to-talk/ Dunno how effective it'll be, but gotta respect them for experimenting with it.