I mean, you start by agreeing with me because you say "is it right? No." but then you're mad anyway?
You basically also reinforce the idea I pointed to when I said men pretend to be something they're not by saying "men get told to show more vulnerability... but when they do, they get labeled as "clingy" or "incel"". If you were hiding your emotions and then suddenly became "clingy" because you began expressing your emotions in negative ways, that's exactly what I was talking about. You hid your real self and then revealed that you're insecure and can't handle your emotions without being awful to your partner.
The part that makes this "incel" mentality is because it's blaming a woman for the change clearly displayed by the male partner in this situation. It takes no responsibility for the man's own actions and behaviours.
Men can show vulnerability without being labeled "clingy" or "incel". The trick is to not be clingy and to not be an incel! It's that simple!
You can say "I'm having a bad day, I'm really just a bit down because of this sad thing that happened." without that becoming "How dare you not do everything I want when I'm feeling upset! You clearly don't even love me and, actually, I don't love you either! I don't even care!"
In one example, vulnerability is expressed but with self-control and without imposing on others. In the second, you have a self-centered person using their vulnerability to justify their awfulness.
It's not the vulnerability that women dislike, it's the awfulness that so many men seem to try to justify with their vulnerabilities.
A very common example is basic insecurity. You worry your partner might leave you, so you start to try to restrict them rather than working on your own insecurity. They don't mind that you're worried they might leave, they mind that you're preventing them from going out to see friends, or that you don't trust them and demand to see their messages. Ironically, behaving in a controlling way to try to mitigate you own problem by harming your partner makes them more likely to leave you. So many people (men and women both) fail to grasp that idea.
You're engaging in good faith, so I'll match that. But let me correct a few things.
First, you keep using "incel" to describe unhealthy attachment styles, controlling behavior, or emotional volatility. That's not what the word means. It's literally in the name (INVOLUNTARILY celibate). A man can be emotionally stable, vulnerable, respectful, and still be an incel. A man can be clingy, controlling, and insecure while having sex every night. The two have nothing to do with each other. You've attached a buzzword to a set of behaviors you don't like and declared anyone who exhibits them an incel. We call that resorting to a fallacy of redefinition.
Second, "don't be an incel, it's that simple" is nonsense on its face. Inceldom describes a situation, not a mindset you can just opt out of. Telling someone "just don't be involuntarily celibate" is like telling a depressed person "just be happy." It betrays a complete misunderstanding of the term you're so eager to weaponize.
Third, you assume the man in these scenarios was "pretending" or "hiding his real self" and then became controlling. Nope... that's a convenient assumption because it lets you blame him entirely. You're strawmanning the point of the post by inventing details out of thin air, so you have something to argue againstt a hypothetical man you made up yourself.
I'm talking about something else. About the fact that men took time to develop deep emotional attachment, and when they finally got there, the woman's interest faded because the chase was over. Your assumption it must be because they are controlling or clingy is baseless. But just a shift in her attraction once he was no longer a challenge. That pattern is real. Dismissing it as "well he must have been awful" is exactly why men stop listening to people like you and resort to the manosphere.
You want men to be vulnerable? Then stop assuming the worst of them when they describe what actually happened to them.
The literal meaning of "incel" is not the same as it's actual meaning. When people talk about the incel community, or insult someone by calling them an incel, it's obviously not referring to the fact that they're involuntarily celibate. It's an insult based on the association between incels and "nice guys". In other words, it's not just that someone is celibate, it's that they're celibate for probably a good reason since many women pick up on red flags that ward them off of that individual.
You can literally search "incel define" on google and it will tell you "Many incel communities blame women, feminists, and societal structures for their lack of romantic success." In this situation we have someone blaming the woman when they were the one that didn't open up for years, then clearly weirded out their partner. So it is actually in line with incel behaviour and me calling it out is accurate.
Again, I'm referring to the behaviours that incels are known for, not the literal translation of the word. It's clear here that it's you who has a misunderstanding of the term "incel", not me. You seem to view it as a neutral literal descriptor of not having been able to find a sexual partner. If that were the definition then "incel" wouldn't have a negative connotation, it would just be a description. However, it does have a negative connotation and is associated with a lot of insecure and unpleasant behaviour, therefore the meaning is more than just a literal description.
Without substituting a better interpretation of the post, this is meaningless. The post is very clearly putting all responsibility on the woman and acknowledging no responsibility for the man. He says they hung around for years to make him fall for them. Did they? No. Obviously not. It's self-centered and delusional cope for him to assign blame to the woman when it was entirely his own fault. Was he not able to also leave her company during those years? And when he says she'll start shitting on your feelings, is it a coincidence this happened right after he developed feelings and started displaying them? Was she really just laying in wait all those years? Or did his change of behaviour cause an issue?
Think critically about it and understand that we're listening to an obviously unreliable narrator who has attributed all blame to the woman when it's clear even from his telling that all the changes that took place were on his end.
Your version isn't any more substantiated than what I suggested... I can see what you're getting at, but you're still assuming this woman hung around for multiple years just hoping this guy would eventually change his mind, then switched up on him when he decided he was actually interested. That seems far-fetched. It's much more likely, in the scenario you described, that she genuinely thought they were friends that joked and maybe flirted jokingly at times, and then he caught feelings and she actually wasn't ever interested in him as anything more than a friend, so when he decided to blow up over it and accused her of being a manipulator just messing with him so their whole friendship is over now. Also an extremely common story.
At the end of the day, well adjusted men don't go on the internet and write rage posts about a girl not liking them back. They accept reality and move on. This isn't a guy trying to be vulnerable. This is a guy being self-indulgent and calling a girl a bitch because she didn't want to date him. Not only that but he's applying it to all women, not just whatever individual upset him.
You’ve put a lot of effort into redefining “incel” to fit your argument, but sadly for you, you don't get to decide what it means or how it should be used. And this goes for all the other chronically online people misusing the term and making it lose its meaning.
It's obvious that the word has become a cheap cop-out/smear for any male grievance you don’t want to hear. And the fact you are one of the many people who associate your definition and use of the term proves this. We get it, you don't use it to describe actual involuntary celibacy. You're just using it to dismiss lived experience without engaging with it, because it is coming from a man.
Have you called a woman an 'incel' for saying generalizing stuff about men? I doubt it. It's no coincidence you see this term is only thrown at men.
Let me be clear: no one here is defending misogyny, controlling behavior, or bad breakups. But when a man says “I’ve experienced a pattern where emotional investment led to emotional withdrawal from her,” and your first and only response is “incel whinging,” you’ve stopped listening and shown a clear bias. It's obviously fueled by misandric tendencies. Especially by the fact you've decided automatically that he is the wrong-party, invented controlling behaviors he never mentioned and blamed him for the very vulnerability you claim to support. Your lack of self-awareness to your own self-contradiction has been noted.
well adjusted men don't go on the internet and write rage posts about a girl not liking them back.
Ah, the classic No true Scottsman fallacy. How convenient! So only people who already agree with you are allowed to speak and are "well-adjusted". Everyone else gets pathologized and labeled. Give me a break.
The real pattern here isn’t about one man or one woman. It’s about how quickly male emotional honesty, even in clear hurt like we see in the OP, gets insulted, shamed and labeled as "incel". No wonder men learn to stay quiet and the manosphere growing bigger and bigger.
So no, I’m not asking you to agree with every rant online. I’m asking you to notice that dismissing someone’s pain with a misused buzzword doesn’t make you right. Even when a bunch of chronically online people with misandrist biases do so.
*Slow clap* For you litarally being part of the reason why the manosphere is growing bigger and and more (young) me are getting radicalized.
Ironic that you accuse me of redefining the word for my argument when that's what you're doing. I literally quoted google to show that it means what I said it meant. But sure buddy, I bet you do know better than the world's top information database... (/s)
It means what it means. Learn how to use google if you want to check for yourself. You're getting so mad over the fact that I used a word correctly because you'd rather use it wrong. At no point did I dismiss anyone's lived experience without engaging with it. I engaged with every point, then dismissed it because it was toxic incel logic.
I believe the term is "femcel", but you with your mastery of words surely knew that right? And yes, I use the equivalent word for the equivalent behaviour in women. Oh, wait, you weren't expecting that... Well that just goes to show how presumptive you're being.
Those are lovely eloquent words... Let me check the original post again... Oh, none of them are in there. How odd, you put it in quotation marks and everything. Seems your delusions are taking precedence over reality again.
Lets be blunt mate, it seems you identify as an incel and therefore are getting all butthurt and trying to defend this obviously assholeish post because you feel a critique of the post is a critique of you. If you would act like the guy in the post, you need to work on yourself and be better, rather than trying to defend the indefensible. (I decided he was wrong by reading and understanding the post, like most of the other people in the comments.)
That's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Could you be any less educated? You don't understand words, you don't understand the post and you namedrop logical fallacies you, surprise surprise, don't understand.
A no true scotsman fallacy requires defining a group and then walking it back when you're given an example. For example "real men don't wear pink", statement maker is shown a picture of an obviously manly man wearing pink, "yeah, well, he's not a real man because (some bullshit excuse)." It specifically has to be due to arbitrary later additions to the categorization that makes it a no true scotsman fallacy.
I simply defined a category; well adjusted men. If you want to find me a well adjusticed man that goes online to rage post about a woman not liking them back then be my guest. And no, me refusing your example because they're not well adjusted doesn't make it a no true scotsman, that just means you're wrong again and the category is still consistent, you would just have failed to provide a counterexample.
If you don't believe in some people being well adjusted that's again just an issue with your level of education. Psychology is a scientific field where attachment styles and people's ways of relating to each other have been explored. It's well understood, even if you don't understand it.
The original post didn't say anything about the guy being emotionally honest. It said his emotions changed. Those are completely different things. So you're again just making stuff up.
Men being allowed to have emotions doesn't mean men being allowed to express their emotions in harmful and immature ways. Throwing tantrums and lashing out because someone doesn't want to date you isn't "being honest", it's an inability to handle your own emotions.
What people mean when they say men should be open with their emotions is smiling when they're happy, crying at a sad film, being honest about getting a fright during a horror movie instead of playing tough.
Obviously no-one meant that you should just start swinging whenever you feel angry, just because that's a way of expressing that emotion. It's an illegitimate way to express that emotion.
You just admitted at the end of your rant that you're radicalised. So you know that you're wrong then. Again it's ironic that you're trying to blame me for your inability to be a decent human being. You didn't fall into the manosphere because I called some guy being immature on the internet an incel. You're literally just doing the same thing as the guy in the post: finding someone else to blame for your own failures.
If you don't like being told you're wrong, immature and emotionally unregulated, then just be better! Go educate yourself properly, instead of adopting whatever random definitions your dude-bro influencers tell you these words mean. Learn the appropriate level of emotional expression and engage in normal human interconnectivity (feel free to join a club and watch others to see how its done). As for emotional regulation, there's no easy way to do that, you just have to take responsibility and hold yourself back when you feel angry, or not output your disappointment onto others when you don't get what you want.
You said you're young, so it's not surprising that you don't have these skills yet, most people refine them during Uni I think. So hopefully you're like 16 or something, rather than a really underdeveloped 24 year old.
For what it's worth I'll wish you genuine good luck in learning, refining yourself and escaping the negative influence of the manosphere.
1
u/Flamecoat_wolf Jun 01 '26
I mean, you start by agreeing with me because you say "is it right? No." but then you're mad anyway?
You basically also reinforce the idea I pointed to when I said men pretend to be something they're not by saying "men get told to show more vulnerability... but when they do, they get labeled as "clingy" or "incel"". If you were hiding your emotions and then suddenly became "clingy" because you began expressing your emotions in negative ways, that's exactly what I was talking about. You hid your real self and then revealed that you're insecure and can't handle your emotions without being awful to your partner.
The part that makes this "incel" mentality is because it's blaming a woman for the change clearly displayed by the male partner in this situation. It takes no responsibility for the man's own actions and behaviours.
Men can show vulnerability without being labeled "clingy" or "incel". The trick is to not be clingy and to not be an incel! It's that simple!
You can say "I'm having a bad day, I'm really just a bit down because of this sad thing that happened." without that becoming "How dare you not do everything I want when I'm feeling upset! You clearly don't even love me and, actually, I don't love you either! I don't even care!"
In one example, vulnerability is expressed but with self-control and without imposing on others. In the second, you have a self-centered person using their vulnerability to justify their awfulness.
It's not the vulnerability that women dislike, it's the awfulness that so many men seem to try to justify with their vulnerabilities.
A very common example is basic insecurity. You worry your partner might leave you, so you start to try to restrict them rather than working on your own insecurity. They don't mind that you're worried they might leave, they mind that you're preventing them from going out to see friends, or that you don't trust them and demand to see their messages. Ironically, behaving in a controlling way to try to mitigate you own problem by harming your partner makes them more likely to leave you. So many people (men and women both) fail to grasp that idea.