Florida Yoga Studio Shooter Identified As InCel

[Ostroeuropa]

So what. Plenty of views do and you're being flippantly dismissive to pretend its relevant to comparing them. Everything TRP stands for is against the MRM and visa versa, and so on. This attitude you've implied here is one of the reasons mens issues go unresolved, because of feminists pretending these things overlap.

Unlike you feminists we at least put in large effort to distinguish each-other and draw clear lines of distinction between each-other, and merely because the overall mens movement has cottoned on to why that might be a good idea and the womens movement hasn't isn't a good reason for you to ignore it. That you think "It all stems from a (gender) victim mentality so its the same thing" is sufficient cause to lump them all together is one of the things wrong with your movement and one of the major reasons it's a trainwreck. Maybe if you didn't think like that, your movement wouldn't be so awash with sexists. We've made efforts to ensure they're happy to sit in their own spaces, under their own labels, instead of infesting our discourse, something you guys should have done.

Or maybe, rather than stupidity, it's a sign that the feminist movement isn't so full of so much toxic behaviour that people need to go "no, we're not like -those- people".

This is nothing more than denial about the level of feminist toxicity frankly. Besides which, it is a mutual thing. Each of the mens movements notes why they are separate and distinct from the other ones in functional and technical terms that draw attention to ideological differences, we don't need to resort to ethics or morality to point out why one is not like the other, and that isn't how we do it, so your characterization is nonsense even if you ignore the denial of feminist toxicity.

The technical distinction approach has meant a cross-movement consensus on the differences between our movement has been adopted. We all agree what eachother are and what makes us different from eachother.

You can then shift from "What IS the TRP/Incel/MRM/MGTOW and what do they believe" to "Why are they wrong" and each member will give different answers.

[Ostroeuropa]

Or maybe, rather than stupidity, it's a sign that the feminist movement isn't so full of so much toxic behaviour that people need to go "no, we're not like -those- people".

When was the last time a self-professed feminist went on a mass shooting spree?

When was the last time an Incel got a domestic abuse victim jailed for daring to ask for help?
The violence the feminist movement enacts is institutionalized, the violence of Incels isn't. it's not much different to if Incel's suddenly got their dream government and started calling women "Terrorists and violent" for seeking to blow open the walls of one of the breeding houses where women were kept under threat of state violence.

[Page]

I'm all for men's rights, I just realize that the problems men face haven't been exclusively inflicted by women, since men still are the vast majority of the people who make the rules.

There are lots of men's issues, but many of them are inflicted by other men. Take a look at those who call themselves incels, that's just men dragging other men down.

Literally none of the mens movements claim mens problems are inflicted solely by women, none of them. Not a single one. They merely discuss the problems women do inflict, through various lenses and methodologies that are mutually exclusive.

Oh look its that superficial and self-serving understanding of politics and power feminists use again.
There are zero billionaires in the senate and congress. Zero. Working class people have more "representation" under feminist logic, a laughable suggestion that would be seen immediately for how insincere and duplicitous it is if used by a billionaire, but feminist women use it all the time and have gaslit you into adopting it. Lobbying power is political power, not someone in government having the same traits as you. There are thousands of womens organizations and lobbies and almost none for men. This is ignored in favor of nonsense by this evaluation you've given because to analyze power properly would reveal feminist narratives to be not only supremacist, but laughably basic and superficial when they have to be in order to keep up the nonsense psychodrama they peddle.

The impact of this power disparity is that women lobby for laws that serve their interests, but men can't. Feminists gaslight the public over them also representing men, but this fails to translate into practice (See the routine ammendments to the sexual offences act in the UK at the behest of feminist lobbies, and how not a single one of those ammendments changed the definition of rape to include women perpetrators and how none of those organizations pushed for it, something demanded by ALL of the handful of mens lobbies in the UK.)

There are zero billionaires in Congress because Congress is an inferior position of power to what billionaires can attain, feminism is not about supremacy, and I have never heard of feminists actively opposing recognizing that women can be sexual predators.

[Thermodolia]

Several Incels want marriage abolished. There’s a massive amount of overlap in those communities. I’d say that a vast majority of MGTOW is Incel.

It's impossible to be both. Incels see value in a romantic(really, sexual) relationship and resent woman because no one wants them. MGTOW have for whatever reason stopped seeing value in such relationships. They're fundamentally opposed worldviews.

Except Incels don’t want romance they want sex.

[Ostroeuropa]

Literally none of the mens movements claim mens problems are inflicted solely by women, none of them. Not a single one. They merely discuss the problems women do inflict, through various lenses and methodologies that are mutually exclusive.

Oh look its that superficial and self-serving understanding of politics and power feminists use again.
There are zero billionaires in the senate and congress. Zero. Working class people have more "representation" under feminist logic, a laughable suggestion that would be seen immediately for how insincere and duplicitous it is if used by a billionaire, but feminist women use it all the time and have gaslit you into adopting it. Lobbying power is political power, not someone in government having the same traits as you. There are thousands of womens organizations and lobbies and almost none for men. This is ignored in favor of nonsense by this evaluation you've given because to analyze power properly would reveal feminist narratives to be not only supremacist, but laughably basic and superficial when they have to be in order to keep up the nonsense psychodrama they peddle.

The impact of this power disparity is that women lobby for laws that serve their interests, but men can't. Feminists gaslight the public over them also representing men, but this fails to translate into practice (See the routine ammendments to the sexual offences act in the UK at the behest of feminist lobbies, and how not a single one of those ammendments changed the definition of rape to include women perpetrators and how none of those organizations pushed for it, something demanded by ALL of the handful of mens lobbies in the UK.)

There are zero billionaires in Congress because Congress is an inferior position of power to what billionaires can attain, feminism is not about supremacy, and I have never heard of feminists actively opposing recognizing that women can be sexual predators.

So you're ignoring the point about lobbying power being more important then and dodging the point. Feminism is supremacist in nature and practice and this is evident from the application of it to society and the effects it causes, rather than the mere musings of its adherents about how things work, see trickle down economics.

When feminist organizations do nothing about it except shut down mens organizations trying to remedy that for challenging their narrative about feminism being about equality, they are actively opposing change and that's the dynamic you're ignoring I've pointed out exists.

This?

The impact of this power disparity is that women lobby for laws that serve their interests, but men can't. Feminists gaslight the public over them also representing men, but this fails to translate into practice (See the routine ammendments to the sexual offences act in the UK at the behest of feminist lobbies, and how not a single one of those ammendments changed the definition of rape to include women perpetrators and how none of those organizations pushed for it, something demanded by ALL of the handful of mens lobbies in the UK.)

This is actively opposing equal definitions, when in conjunction to that the feminist movement and its organizations claim they are a panacea rather than merely a womens movement. When feminists oppose the MRM and insist their movement is sufficient, despite the fact it just flat out isn't, that is supremacism. In conjunction with womens lobbies having far far more power than mens lobbies, and womens lobbies often using feminist ideology to shut down and suppress mens organizations and lobbies, that is the real power disparity, and it is why feminism is a supremacist movement.

[Ostroeuropa]

A good example that shows how feminism works in practice is the recent misogyny/misandry hate crime discussion in the UK and the reaction of the various lobbies/institutions, even the fact that feminist lobbies pushed for misogyny to be a hate crime rather than sexism is demonstrating their supremacist inclinations and the refusal to address mens issues too on an institutional level. The MRM (And specifically, the openly MRA MP in the Conservative party who the press routinely demonizes and feminist organizations have hit the roof over existing) got Misandry on the agenda too, and then feminist organizations either shrugged or started actively opposing it being added. It remains to be seen whether they will get it removed.

[Petrasylvania]

When was the last time a self-professed feminist went on a mass shooting spree?

When was the last time an Incel got a domestic abuse victim jailed for daring to ask for help?
The violence the feminist movement enacts is institutionalized, the violence of Incels isn't. it's not much different to if Incel's suddenly got their dream government and started calling women "Terrorists and violent" for seeking to blow open the walls of one of the breeding houses where women were kept under threat of state violence.

"InCel getting a domestic partner jailed for being an abuse victim." What is wrong with this scenario? Answer: InCels don't have domestic partners period.

And your diatribe is cliché. If feminism had actual institutionalized power like you whine, there'd have been a woman President long ago and abortion would be enshrined as a safe right.

Comparing an InCel rage shooting to a hypothetical women's resistance movement liberating prisoners of a state breeding house really looks like you're justifying Elliot Rodger and company. Shocker coming from you.

[Petrasylvania]

It's impossible to be both. Incels see value in a romantic(really, sexual) relationship and resent woman because no one wants them. MGTOW have for whatever reason stopped seeing value in such relationships. They're fundamentally opposed worldviews.

Except Incels don’t want romance they want sex.

They think they want romance, or prostitution would have eliminated InCels already.

[Ostroeuropa]

When was the last time an Incel got a domestic abuse victim jailed for daring to ask for help?
The violence the feminist movement enacts is institutionalized, the violence of Incels isn't. it's not much different to if Incel's suddenly got their dream government and started calling women "Terrorists and violent" for seeking to blow open the walls of one of the breeding houses where women were kept under threat of state violence.

"InCel getting a domestic partner jailed for being an abuse victim." What is wrong with this scenario? Answer: InCels don't have domestic partners period.

And your diatribe is cliché. If feminism had actual institutionalized power like you whine, there'd have been a woman President long ago and abortion would be enshrined as a safe right.

Comparing an InCel rage shooting to a hypothetical women's resistance movement liberating prisoners of a state breeding house really looks like you're justifying Elliot Rodger and company. Shocker coming from you.

Already been over this. There's zero billionaires in the congress or senate and more working class folk there. You're confusing someone having the same traits as you for representation and power, lobbying power is what generates real representation and real political power. The mere fact theocrats also have a lot of power (In the US, not so much in west europe, where feminists also have huge institutional power) doesn't change that, and in fact they often back eachother up when it comes to applying odious laws and treatment of men.

Comparing the types of violence is important because you're ignoring feminist state sanctioned violence as a valid form of injustice and focusing instead on individual terrorism, which people of dominant ideologies don't need to do.

[Petrasylvania]

"InCel getting a domestic partner jailed for being an abuse victim." What is wrong with this scenario? Answer: InCels don't have domestic partners period.

And your diatribe is cliché. If feminism had actual institutionalized power like you whine, there'd have been a woman President long ago and abortion would be enshrined as a safe right.

Comparing an InCel rage shooting to a hypothetical women's resistance movement liberating prisoners of a state breeding house really looks like you're justifying Elliot Rodger and company. Shocker coming from you.

Already been over this. There's zero billionaires in the congress or senate and more working class folk there. You're confusing someone having the same traits as you for representation and power, lobbying power is what generates real representation and real political power. The mere fact theocrats also have a lot of power (In the US, not so much in west europe, where feminists also have huge institutional power) doesn't change that, and in fact they often back eachother up when it comes to applying odious laws and treatment of men.

Comparing the types of violence is important because you're ignoring feminist state sanctioned violence as a valid form of injustice and focusing instead on individual terrorism, which people of dominant ideologies don't need to do.

Power is power. You're falling back on the same tired old Femilluminati conspiracy talk trying to rationalize why there are no overt displays of female power like a woman President in the United States long ago.

[Ostroeuropa]

Already been over this. There's zero billionaires in the congress or senate and more working class folk there. You're confusing someone having the same traits as you for representation and power, lobbying power is what generates real representation and real political power. The mere fact theocrats also have a lot of power (In the US, not so much in west europe, where feminists also have huge institutional power) doesn't change that, and in fact they often back eachother up when it comes to applying odious laws and treatment of men.

Comparing the types of violence is important because you're ignoring feminist state sanctioned violence as a valid form of injustice and focusing instead on individual terrorism, which people of dominant ideologies don't need to do.

Power is power. You're falling back on the same tired old Femilluminati conspiracy talk trying to rationalize why there are no overt displays of female power like a woman President in the United States long ago.

I've explained to you what real political power looks like and you've ignored it because it debunks your nonsense.
Bias and prejudice aren't a conspiracy and you're falling back on the same tired mischaracterization of your opponents to avoid dealing with criticism of your ideas. If you want an example of a feminist organization that is misandrist and lobbies governments on that basis while also suppressing mens attempts to combat them, check the SPLC and their argument for why the MRM is anti-women and needs to be put down. (They use a forced penetration definition of rape to argue way more women are raped than men, then argue the MRM claiming the rates are close to equal is demonizing women and trying to stop work on a womens issue and thus makes them misandrist. There has never been a coherent argument by feminists as to why the MRM is a hate movement, it always relies on this kind of shit.).

There's thousands of organizations just like that with influence over politics, with massive amounts of funding and connections. It's not an illuminati because they're publicly operating in such a way. You just don't like it to be pointed out.

There is no "conspiracy" by the rich to lobby government. Just like there is no conspiracy by the feminist hate movement to do the same. Often they use the same abuse of power tactics (Tax money going to their organizations that they chiefly use to lobby for more tax money and concessions in their favor), since this is what institutionalized power looks like in western democracies. Thousands of such organizations exist for women, almost none for men. Do you have any proof or argument against that, or just dismissals?

[Petrasylvania]

Power is power. You're falling back on the same tired old Femilluminati conspiracy talk trying to rationalize why there are no overt displays of female power like a woman President in the United States long ago.

I've explained to you what real political power looks like and you've ignored it because it debunks your nonsense.
Bias and prejudice aren't a conspiracy and you're falling back on the same tired mischaracterization of your opponents to avoid dealing with criticism of your ideas. If you want an example of a feminist organization that is misandrist and lobbies governments on that basis while also suppressing mens attempts to combat them, check the SPLC and their argument for why the MRM is anti-women and needs to be put down. (They use a forced penetration definition of rape to argue way more women are raped than men, then argue the MRM claiming the rates are close to equal is demonizing women and trying to stop work on a womens issue and thus makes them misandrist. There has never been a coherent argument by feminists as to why the MRM is a hate movement, it always relies on this kind of shit.).

There's thousands of organizations just like that with influence over politics, with massive amounts of funding and connections. It's not an illuminati because they're publicly operating in such a way. You just don't like it to be pointed out.

There is no "conspiracy" by the rich to lobby government. Just like there is no conspiracy by the feminist hate movement to do the same. Often they use the same abuse of power tactics (Tax money going to their organizations that they chiefly use to lobby for more tax money and concessions in their favor), since this is what institutionalized power looks like in western democracies. Thousands of such organizations exist for women, almost none for men. Do you have any proof or argument against that, or just dismissals?

Again with the Gish Gallop. It's not the fault of feminism if there aren't any men's rights lobbies in the west. Maybe you should move to India. Men's rights movements are thriving there to no surprise.

[Ostroeuropa]

I've explained to you what real political power looks like and you've ignored it because it debunks your nonsense.
Bias and prejudice aren't a conspiracy and you're falling back on the same tired mischaracterization of your opponents to avoid dealing with criticism of your ideas. If you want an example of a feminist organization that is misandrist and lobbies governments on that basis while also suppressing mens attempts to combat them, check the SPLC and their argument for why the MRM is anti-women and needs to be put down. (They use a forced penetration definition of rape to argue way more women are raped than men, then argue the MRM claiming the rates are close to equal is demonizing women and trying to stop work on a womens issue and thus makes them misandrist. There has never been a coherent argument by feminists as to why the MRM is a hate movement, it always relies on this kind of shit.).

There's thousands of organizations just like that with influence over politics, with massive amounts of funding and connections. It's not an illuminati because they're publicly operating in such a way. You just don't like it to be pointed out.

There is no "conspiracy" by the rich to lobby government. Just like there is no conspiracy by the feminist hate movement to do the same. Often they use the same abuse of power tactics (Tax money going to their organizations that they chiefly use to lobby for more tax money and concessions in their favor), since this is what institutionalized power looks like in western democracies. Thousands of such organizations exist for women, almost none for men. Do you have any proof or argument against that, or just dismissals?

Again with the Gish Gallop. It's not the fault of feminism if there aren't any men's rights lobbies in the west. Maybe you should move to India. Men's rights movements are thriving there to no surprise.

It's not a gishgallop, we're pretty much discussing one issue and using examples of evidence for it. If i'm talking about genes having effects and then listing some genes and their effects, that's not a gishgallop. You're throwing out the term rather to avoid engaging with criticism of your ideas, as usual. The feminist movement has made active efforts to ensure mens lobbies don't obtain support and power.

It's thriving in India because feminism is less institutionalized and entrenched, and can't use government power to shut down their attempts. I'd wager India will achieve gender equality quicker than we do as a consequence, even if they start behind.

I'd also argue feminist narratives and gynocentrism they encourage in society is one reason why Incels have gotten so extreme and resort to terrorism as a result of the impulse to pathologize men and marginalize them that feminism has normalized.

[Costa Fierro]

Several Incels want marriage abolished.

There isn't, but trying to convince you otherwise would be like trying to convince the NRA that gun control is a good thing.

[Costa Fierro]

^ this is really the only relevant point on this little argument.

No. You are wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

Several Incels want marriage abolished.

There isn't, but trying to convince you otherwise would be like trying to convince the NRA that gun control is a good thing.

Idk. Depends on the extent. Extremist incels who go in for revolt of the betas type stuff would certainly want marriage abolished. I've seen some advocate for "A real patriarchy" akin to women being kept in camps and used at will by men, collective raising of boys by men (with the girls dumped back into the camps) and no clue as to paternity which wouldn't matter because of "free access" and so on, advocated for as a means to permanently settle the question.

It bares some resemblance to some of the stuff about men in camps feminists have proposed. There's variants of incel and gradiants of how extreme they are. The "Revolt" types themselves exist on a gradiant, from "revolt to install a traditionalist society" to the above.

[Costa Fierro]

There isn't, but trying to convince you otherwise would be like trying to convince the NRA that gun control is a good thing.

Idk. Depends on the extent. Extremist incels who go in for revolt of the betas type stuff would certainly want marriage abolished. I've seen some advocate for "A real patriarchy" akin to women being kept in camps and used at will by men, collective raising of boys by men (with the girls dumped back into the camps) and no clue as to paternity which wouldn't matter because of "free access" and so on, advocated for as a means to permanently settle the question.

It bares some resemblance to some of the stuff about men in camps feminists have proposed. There's variants of incel and gradiants of how extreme they are. The "Revolt" types themselves exist on a gradiant, from "revolt to install a traditionalist society" to the above.

They're still not the same.

[Ostroeuropa]

Idk. Depends on the extent. Extremist incels who go in for revolt of the betas type stuff would certainly want marriage abolished. I've seen some advocate for "A real patriarchy" akin to women being kept in camps and used at will by men, collective raising of boys by men (with the girls dumped back into the camps) and no clue as to paternity which wouldn't matter because of "free access" and so on, advocated for as a means to permanently settle the question.

It bares some resemblance to some of the stuff about men in camps feminists have proposed. There's variants of incel and gradiants of how extreme they are. The "Revolt" types themselves exist on a gradiant, from "revolt to install a traditionalist society" to the above.

They're still not the same.

I agree they're distinct from MGTOWs, red pillers, and MRAs. Merely noting that within the Incel discourse there are those who oppose marriage. It might be more fair to say that someone who adopts both Incel and MGTOW ideology tends toward these forms of extremism, but i'd note that i've only seen these kind of things within Incel, it's possible MGTOWs don't develop Incel tendencies from their discourse or feel the need to adopt them, but some Incel's adopt MGTOW, probably because their own discourse is pretty lacking comparatively and doesn't contain any actual solutions to anything.

[Ifreann]

Then why does he act like one? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck it’s probably a fucking duck

Because he resides in an adjacent volume of the Manosphere.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then why does he act like one? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck it’s probably a fucking duck

He doesn't. Incels do not focus on why interactions with women are to mens detriment and they should avoid many, most, or all of them for their own sake and for the benefit of them and their lives.

Incels focus on why some forms of interaction with women are unfair and they cannot achieve success in them, often for arbitrary and bullshit reasons.

A MGTOW would say you shouldn't sleep with women because there is a huge power disparity there and she can fuck you over in any number of ways (Pregnancy where you have no family planning agency or freedom, crying rape, etc, etc) and might also oppose it on the grounds it validates an unfair dynamic and so on. An Incel would say they can't sleep with women because of biological hypergamy, or because of unfair societal standards beyond their ability to change.

Costa reacts to me going out with a woman and supporting women joining the MRM as it invalidating my perspective and me doing something akin to "sleeping with the enemy" or clearly having a faulty risk assessment and not truly understanding the level of power disparity in play, as no sensible person would behave this way if they did, and "supporting them colonizing the space" and so on, and that I am perpetrating unfairness, undermining mens efforts, putting myself at risk and not understanding the danger I am in.

An Incel would react by saying I am clearly privileged above them in some way, whether looks, cash, social aptitude, and so on and blame the woman for having arbitrary standards often based on unjust things. (She slept with me because I'm White, or Tall, or Handsome, for instance.) and argue such things are beyond their control yet they are subjected to suffering as a result of them, ESPECIALLY in conjunction with societies vilification of romantically/sexually unsuccessful men.

The area of overlap between Incel, MGTOW, and MRA (But NOT TRP), is that all accept MGTOW-sourced discourse that society should not vilify romantically/sexually unsuccessful men. That's about it. It's to that extent that almost everyone in the manosphere is to some extent MGTOW, if they aren't TRP.

MGTOW's might be a variant of MRA. (Viewing the power disparities, risk to men, and unfairness to men as resulting from society and its narratives, sociological causes, and concluding either that they wish to avoid associating with women for their own benefit, or that men in general should do so), or might not be a variant of MRA, and conclude these things are biological and decide to avoid women/advocate men do the same.

Incels are never a variant of MGTOW, because they actively seek a form of association with women and view it as desirable and positive, and the lack of it as harming them. A MGTOW might tell an Incel they should be happy to be unattractive as it means women won't pay attention to them and try to talk to them and so on.

Then why does he act like one? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck it’s probably a fucking duck

Because he resides in an adjacent volume of the Manosphere.

Pretty much.

[Senkaku]

^ this is really the only relevant point on this little argument. They may all call themselves slightly different things and use slightly different terminology or have slightly different ideas of how the world should work out in the end, but it's just minor tweaks or iterations of the same hateful crap.

Fundamentally disagree. Incels are drastically different from MGTOWs in focus, rhetoric, policy, and so on. MGTOWs focus on altering your own behavior to minimize risk to yourself and push for being yourself without consideration for others opinions and so on. One of the reasons Incels lash out is their worldview suggests there is nothing that can be done to improve your situation.

So one retreats into themselves, the other lashes out- in both scenarios, though, aggressively misogynist views mean women are viewed as an unsolvable problem.

I really don't understand why it's necessary to go to bat for such people as part and parcel of trying to point out ways that men can be victimized by more radical modern feminist policy and ideology. Advocating for men doesn't mean one has to tear down women or apologize for hateful and increasingly violent people.

[Senkaku]

Then why does he act like one? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck it’s probably a fucking duck

I think it's more like if it apologizes for the worst-behaved ducks, it's some form of waterfowl, but at some point yeah, the distinction is somewhat irrelevant. Maybe it's a Canada goose, not a duck, but it still swims in the same pond, shits on the same lawns, and eats the same breadcrumbs (metaphorically speaking, I guess ).

[Ostroeuropa]

Fundamentally disagree. Incels are drastically different from MGTOWs in focus, rhetoric, policy, and so on. MGTOWs focus on altering your own behavior to minimize risk to yourself and push for being yourself without consideration for others opinions and so on. One of the reasons Incels lash out is their worldview suggests there is nothing that can be done to improve your situation.

So one retreats into themselves, the other lashes out- in both scenarios, though, aggressively misogynist views mean women are viewed as an unsolvable problem.

I really don't understand why it's necessary to go to bat for such people as part and parcel of trying to point out ways that men can be victimized by more radical modern feminist policy and ideology. Advocating for men doesn't mean one has to tear down women or apologize for hateful and increasingly violent people.

Explaining these people is not apologizing for them. Understanding how and what they think is important.

MGTOWs don't retreat into themselves. They often associate with other men and live fairly fulfilling lives. A sociologically inclined MGTOW might retort that it is not their job to fix women and they aren't owed their effort, if someone concludes they don't want to associate with racists, that isn't necessarily viewing them as an unsolvable problem, its deciding that they have better things to do personally and don't want to devote their life to it. Women have large amounts of prejudice and bias which is empirically measurable, hence the comparison. I agree with you that deciding not to associate isn't productive, that's why i'm an MRA, but I don't begrudge MGTOWs. Often, MRAs who burn out will become MGTOWs for a while before returning to trying to fix the problem. Some are more permanent.

Where women have overly positive and sanitized views of themselves as a group (The norm), yes, they need to be torn down from angelic to human.

Incidentally, feminist and many (but not all) womens reaction to the MRM is often used as the main talking point for the other three as to why it is pointless to bother with women.

Women are in fact an unsolvable problem if they refuse to change, refuse to admit they have a problem, and refuse to take on board the points the MRM has made, which broadly speaking, they do. So long as they have internalized feminist ideology in spite of all the evidence for the harm it is causing and so on, and so long as they refuse to honestly engage with criticism of it, they are an unsolvable problem.

Men cannot force women to be honest and fair actors. Hence why some men go MGTOW, it is reclaiming agency in this dynamic instead of waiting for women to stop being gynocentric chauvinists and listen to reason.

Often, reaction to the MRM is used by the more virulent strains to argue for womens biological incapability of being fair actors (Either that they are biologically malevolent and deliberately disingenous/gaslighting over MRM talking points, or have a biological blindspot that makes them incapable of noticing their own flaws and impulsive in projecting them onto men). This is the stuff that fuels TRP and extremist Incel ideologies, expressed as "Feminism is nothing more than the organized expression of womens nature.", which when viewed through an anti-feminist lens, is pretty damning.

Ultimately it's an open question that is up to women to resolve. ARE you capable of more than this, or is this really the best you can do, outliers excepted?

Personally I tend MRA, but would want to study the matter. Firstly you genetically test MRA women to see if there's a similarity and so on, measure empathy levels in them to see if they are outliers (high empathy), and so on.

Then measure whether low-empathy women can have their level of empathy altered by exposure to MRM talking points. (If so, this goes against the biological narrative).
Then measure whether high-empathy women are more receptive to MRM talking points and more likely to join the MRM. (If so, this validates a lot of MRM ideology imo.)

Two questions need to be resolved;

Can womens levels of empathy for men be altered, and is the level at which empathy is sufficient to stop being chauvinists a level which can be attained the majority of the time?

And so on. I'd want to study it specifically to put an end to this question.

Womens chauvinism, in-group bias, and misandry, and so on being biological is something TRP and some Incels use to argue women having agency is an inherent negative for society. Like if there was a race of people who for genetic reasons were literally incapable of not being racists. You wouldn't want them being cops. You wouldn't want them being teachers. You wouldn't want them to have a vote. Etc.

[Thermodolia]

Except Incels don’t want romance they want sex.

They think they want romance, or prostitution would have eliminated InCels already.

No it wouldn’t have. Incels don’t want romance they want sex slaves who do what they tell them too

[Senkaku]

So one retreats into themselves, the other lashes out- in both scenarios, though, aggressively misogynist views mean women are viewed as an unsolvable problem.

I really don't understand why it's necessary to go to bat for such people as part and parcel of trying to point out ways that men can be victimized by more radical modern feminist policy and ideology. Advocating for men doesn't mean one has to tear down women or apologize for hateful and increasingly violent people.

Explaining these people is not apologizing for them. Understanding how and what they think is important.

I think you (and especially Costa) veer from explanation into apology more often than you'd like to think, though I know that such a suggestion pisses both of you off. But people keep saying it to both of you for a reason, and it's not just because we're all so incredibly triggered by anything that isn't ultra-woke post-gender twelfth-wave feminism that we're blinded with rage and immediately want to attack you.

MGTOWs don't retreat into themselves. They often associate with other men

Fine, into their gender, whatever- you got the point.

and live fairly fulfilling lives.

I don't think a person who automatically decides to cut half of the human race out of their life is probably a very happy or fulfilled person.

A sociologically inclined MGTOW might retort that it is not their job to fix women

"fix women" fucking lmao

and they aren't owed their effort, if someone concludes they don't want to associate with racists, that isn't necessarily viewing them as an unsolvable problem, its deciding that they have better things to do personally and don't want to devote their life to it.

Do you just not see the problem in equating not associating with women and not associating with racists? One is an innate identity, the other is a shitty belief system.

Or you just don't care, or you really do think all women [insert whatever terrible blanket generalizations].

Women have large amounts of prejudice and bias which is empirically measurable, hence the comparison.

I'm just going to hazard two little things- that generalizing three and a half billion people is rarely productive, and also that saying any such large population "have prejudice and biases that are measurable" isn't really remarkable or an argument. Of course- any large identity group may have some statistical correlation to certain biases or what have you, whether it be blacks or Americans or gays or women. Depicting that in terms of a collective moral failing is wrong, and depicting it as a remarkable statistical anomaly is just silly.

I agree with you that deciding not to associate isn't productive, that's why i'm an MRA, but I don't begrudge MGTOWs.

I mean, if you're actually committed to your ideology, then you should- if you genuinely believe it's not productive and not helpful, one would think you'd castigate them.

Where women have overly positive and sanitized views of themselves as a group (The norm), yes, they need to be torn down from angelic to human.

Sure, but your general stance and that of many other MRA types on this forum is generally not only to do that, but to invalidate all women's struggles and issues, claim that those advocating for them are wrong (both morally and from a perspective of policy) and often malicious, and to spend most of your time attacking the various strawmen you collectively identify as "feminism" rather than actually drawing attention to men's issues. You don't just tear down "overly positive and sanitized views", you launch full-scale rhetorical bombardments on almost every front of women's rights in a way that makes it seem more like you have an axe to grind with women than like you have a deep commitment to aiding men's issues. And your response, when this is brought up, is just that we're all too deep in our feminist programming to take any form of criticism or accept that men face any problems in society, rather than to critically analyze what you've been doing.

It's disappointing, because at the end of the day it reinforces the idea that the causes of women's rights and men's rights are fundamentally in conflict, which is an absurd and unnecessary framework to view things through.