RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis

Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis | Result: Deleted, but not before a ban evader just had to defend it

Sexual revolution caused incels hypothesis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This reads more like an essay than a mainspace article, and it was created by a banned editor who tried to promote his wiki and whitewash incels. This perspective is obvious looking through the article, as it conflates many different things and doesn't really address the misogyny that defines incels. Normally I'd be fine with moving stuff like this to essayspace, but since the user is banned and probably had ulterior motives writing that article it should be deleted. Plutocow (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
2. So niche it renders it completely fucking worthless. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
3. Strange article from a strange banned editor. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 15:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Ick. While this article does have some interesting points, overall it is a mess and beyond redemption. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. posted the reasons for keeping on talk of the page. Also looks like DuceMussolini was the one who decided, agreed, or encouraged to take this out of draft, judging by the talk page 212.102.36.251 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Hi Neil. Plutocow (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Goat

Is this a claim which is, in fact, frequently made? Or is it a straw man?

If it is a common claim, then I guess refuting it would be worthwhile; but if it's largely been invented so that an editor can grind their particular axe then we don't need it.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, it's not a direct topic per se. The sexual revolution does seem to be used some, as this Outline article describes, as a genesis for their "Chad and Stacy" style mythology. However, as the Outline article mentions, it is not the only supposed "root cause". And the surface level arguments are a bunch of malarkey at any rate. If sex really was the problem, the "world's oldest profession" has an answer. A lot of the incel mythos is just an extension of misogyny, typical conservative "good old days" wishing, deep social conservatism, and cartoonish morality. I mean, the top quote is in relation to Jordan Peterson wailing for a desire for "enforced monogamy" as a solution to the problem. If that isn't "turn back the clock" wishful thinking, I don't know what is. (It's clear these folks haven't looked at cultures which do have arranged marriage too deeply.)

You can see this in one place I did find this directly mentioned, a quote from OANN host Kara McKinney. Apparently if an incel man doesn't get the sex, according to her, the incel man turns to porn, alcohol, drugs, and mass shootings, and it's the sexual revolution's fault for the incel man not getting the sex. Too bad it isn't the 1980s anymore, elsewise she could have added heavy metal and Dungeons and Dragons. It's a ridiculous argument.

The problem I see is the article is a mess. For instance, one of the quotes (the Ross Douthat column here) really refers to this blog entry from the weird mind of Robin Hanson, who isn't an incel but has occasionally made some really weird statements concerning sex (as noted in the RW article). Several of the non-sourced quotes I could not verify.

I actually don't think this essay (it's not an article) is *complete* bunk, it is decent at bringing up some bad points from the incel universe about how whacked out their mythos is (however, I don't think it's that important to go too deep in that universe, personally). The biggest fallacy I see in this essay is that somehow "unmarried / not having sex = incel". This dumb comparison is brought up frequently and is completely garbage logic. BobJohnson (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Ross is a conservative NYTimes columnist who was vaguely arguing for "redistribution of sex", based on Hanson's reasoning yes. As far as 1800s celibacy in the USA, if you were unmarried, you were for the most part not socially allowed to have sex. Involuntary sexual abstinence is not a hard concept to understand and of course applies to social pressures. As far as that not being a proper definition of incel, rationalwiki has no idea what to define incel as, as everytime it is pressed on the talk page of incel, they keep changing the definition. First it was self-identified people, then it wasn't, then it was weasel words like subculture (defining PSL culture as incel or something, even though PSL forums never self-identified as such). Turns out when you appropriate a word it can be whatever you want it to be. 212.102.36.251 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources for those quotes can be easily dug up, but this page is being deleted because an IP pointed out that plutcow was likely a bigot on the topic of sexual disability, so they're being a child 212.102.36.251 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm late to the party, but AFAICT this is actually as big as you could get. Sure, they aren't so explicit about it (and elevating this to the status of "hypothesis" and "[legit] sociology" was quite the BS), but insofar as incels are reactionaries this seems the fundamental grievance that everybody moans about. Though I'd argue it's a bit more specific to the increased egalitarianism/feminism that ensued the sexual liberation, rather than the way sex is perceived itself.
And this doesn't look any different from what "non-racialist racists" would tell themselves to still maintain a facade of moral high ground: it's not that they want to deprive anybody's rights.. but the others trying to infringe on their god-given privilege. --Mirh (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)