Talk:Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis

I think the current name is now fine
But if anyone wants to change it please let me know here. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Page looks pretty good now. 23:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Great thanks Neiltyson1fan (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this an article?
Sociologists speculate erroneously every day. Because we view some or all of the people named in the article to be crackpots or unreliable, that doesn't make the hypothesis more necessary to debunk or untrue, as it would seem this hypothesis has not been presented as a formal construct. It is just another wrong opinion, if indeed it is wrong: the way the hypothesis is stated it is unclear if it is even wrong, because it is not definite enough to be tested, or even to be referred to as an hypothesis. At best, this sort of thing should be noted in the Incel article.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "this hypothesis has not been presented as a formal construct"
 * It has been presented formally, see quotes section. "Spiteful mutant hypothesis", which is it's own page here, also was never given that name before RW, similar to this page.  And this page is has many more people
 * "Sociologists speculate erroneously every day"
 * this is about a specific hypothesis.
 * "if indeed it is wrong"
 * it is wrong.
 * "This should be in the incel article"
 * the incel article is too big right now and this would not fit
 * This hypothesis is the basis of a whole line of thought about mating, including jordan's whole 'enforced monogamy' spiel that 5000 mainstream articles were written about, so this article is notable. Additionally quite a few mainstream articles were written about Houllebecq's and Nagle's formulation of this hypothesis.
 * Also, I don't really like delitionism Neiltyson1fan (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally it is noted as a "favorite line of the manosphere" by third party observers like Wonkette here and also by many others.
 * "This is, of course, a favorite argument of the manosphere. That the evil sexual revolution led to hypergamy, which has left low status men without vaginas" --Robyn Pennacchia Neiltyson1fan (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Is that the Robyn Pennacchia who describes her qualifications as follows?-- "Robyn Pennacchia is a brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning angel of a human being, who shrugged off what she is pretty sure would have been a Tony Award-winning career in musical theater in order to write about stuff on the internet. Follow her on Twitter at @RobynElyse." If so, I am skeptical of her credentials. UncleKrampus (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it your position it's not common in the manosphere for men to blame their celibacy on feminism? Regardless it's a huge alt-right talking point.  Think Richard Spencer, Roger Devlin, and edward Dutton have devoted hours to this absurd line of reasoning so far, among others listed in the article.  2600:8806:0:C2:5CF0:C422:DA06:B29 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. It is my position that this wiki shouldn't consider the statements from online gossip rags to be quote worthy. This is supposed to be a science based wiki. The entire article has that flavor--of online gossip. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Neiltyson1Fan author of this page and the page on incels is the admin of the incels wiki
The article panders to the ridiculous claims of the incels such as WillWill0415 (now banned from theotherwiki). Y'all need to banish Neiltyson1fan.

24.161.22.53 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better evidence please? 16:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those edits were made ages ago. We don't ban people for ideological reasons on here, unless they're really annoying and obviously bad-faith editors. (In which case we will bloody well notice without being passive-aggressively dressed down.) And besides, please give one specific example of how we "pandered" to incel claims. I've just added some less weasel-wordish versions of your highly critical adjectives in, in addition to having heavily reworked a significant portion of the article I felt needed improvement. Happy?
 * Oh, and P.S. Can you in any way substantiate your personal attack on this page's author? -- Goatspeed. 19:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He's a blackpiller incel who helps run incels.co named JoesphR on here who wanted this page deleted by attempting to launch a personal attack across RW under multiple identites because I left the blackpill cult despite having written a bit for them in the past (otherwise how would I know so much about them ;) ). The article I wrote here was extremely critical of blackpillers as you know and your additions were good.  Expanded on them in new section.  Not responding to IP editor as he is doing what cults do and trying to tarnish someones reputation for leaving an ideology, (in this case the blackpill). Neiltyson1fan (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh really, ThisSiteRuxExDee (who I presume is this IP based on his silly pattern of editing that matched the pattern of our less-than-well-written articles covering difficult topics and acerbic holier-than-thou comments) is an incel? That would make A LOT of sense, because crank magnetism. -- Goatspeed. 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems like it might be relevant to the article
https://ruinmyweek.com/relationships/the-rise-of-lonely-single-men-greg-matos-psychology-today/

Allgoodusernamesweretaken (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to be combining two very different claims.
This article seems to tackle one claim that the sexual revolution increased the number of incels, *and* the claim that in the distant past there were far more incels then now. Not only are these two claims different they seem to be nearly opposite of each other. It's confusing to conflate them both in the same article the way they are. Either we should have two separate pages or we should make the page title more generic to disproven incel claims and have a separate section for each of the two claims.
 * The author of this essay was eventually banned for RW and prior to that was well known for bad takes on incel related topics. There's a lot wrong with this essay. EG: Attempting to conflate "unmarried=incel" in the 1800s is ludicrous. "Sex" really isn't the root issue with incels anyways, it's female equality / feminism and how this lightly upended the Western patriarchy system (in addition to other society hierarchies such as class / wealth / etc., of which they tend to make a laughable cartoonish mess out of). The sexual revolution era coincided with second wave feminism, but that's only tangential. BobJohnson (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis in the article in a common attempted explanation from conservatives for an alleged increase in the existence of sexual abstinence. The book mentioned in the lede is one such example.  The hypothesis itself makes three claims often,


 * 1) That pre-history had a very high amount of sexual abstinence, that this is a 'natural state', and that this took the form of a Pareto distribution
 * 2) That patriarchy interrupted this alleged 'natural order', bringing about a golden age for incels
 * 3) That the sexual revolution brought sexual selection back to the table, bringing a return back to pre-history.

The article as it says there is enough counter-evidence to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd points to toss them. All three points can be wrong and not contradict each other by being wrong. This theory is also the foundational tenet of the most irresponsible and popular incel forums, as this theory was spelled out in Marjan Siklics "why you are incel" post, which was the first pinned post in the line of r/truecels -> r/incels -> incels.me etc posts. This article was a good shot at debunking that stuff, and have reposted it elsewhere. 00:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Will also mention there is an academic named William Costello also promoting this theory 212.102.36.251 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)