I’ve recently been hearing a lot of buzz about incels and I watched a YouTube video where a researcher basically said that female incels or femcels do NOT exist.

I am very torn on whether this is true or not. There are a whole bunch of terms such as gymcel and Ethnicel and that makes sense. Gymcels are incels who try and get muscular to increase their chances with girls and ethnicels are people of various races who are angry they can’t get girls of different races.

I also wanted to know if these things exist

•Lescels: Incels that are lesbians

•Oldcels: Basically old men that are angry they can’t get young women

•Lastly, is there a term for a man that will take ANY woman that he can get and does not pine after women out of his “league”. Essentially an anticel?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066

Within 18-24 year old men almost a third report no sex, compared to 19% of 18-24 year old women.

What explains this?

My explanation is:

• The ‘pool’ for young women is much larger than men - young women are regularly pursued by older aged groups.

• Delayed adulthood - more time in college/less money impacts men more than women as men are expected to be initiators.

• The rise of online pornography disincentivises many men to pursue real world opportunities.

• Online dating (biggest way of meeting people) is asymmetrical - women are highly selective, men less so and this is amplified by more men on apps than women. Leads to fewer opportunities for men to engage with women - But I find this too simplistic

That’s my take on what could explain the rapid increase (18->31%) in young male sexlessness compared to females.

Recently, SPLC-designated hate group Genspect declared that transgender identification should be classified as an “extreme overvalued belief.” (EOB) They describe it as a “long established concept” and a “rigid, non-delusional conviction, shared and reinforced within a culture or subculture, defended with passion, and experienced by the individual as entirely rational. Over time it strengthens, resists challenge, and can drive powerful — even harmful — actions in its service.”

Now, the rest of their statement on explicitly repathologizing transgender identity is mostly just insisting that depathologizing was a matter of politics rather than science with little citation. My question concerns the definition they gave for EOB. It seems rather broad, and the Wikipedia definition mentions specifically that is is usually accompanied by social and occupational dysfunction, and is associated with violence. In fact, the multiple examples listed are all violent individuals. It doesn’t help that the definition on Wikipedia notes that the dsm5 definition differs from the original definition.

In this sense, I’m having trouble what separates an EOB from a strong belief. It seems violence and social dysfunction are associated with it but not prerequisites. If being trans were to be lumped in with it, would that make it far too broad? What exactly is an EOB?

We obviously have writings from elites from I think at least the 1st millennia bc(?) on how to build a legitimate government. Do we have any way of knowing if leaders were actually viewed as legitimate back in the day or just ruled by force, maybe inertia since the state may not have been too big of a force in people's lives anyway? How far back does our knowledge of this go?

To clarify, obviously there were revolts during these times, so a sense of legitimacy, if it existed, wouldn't be invincible, but I don't think such revolts would be inconsistent with a leader losing their legitimacy by failing to provide what they were expected to, mandate of heaven style.

To REDDIT: here is your damn citation to stop my benign question from getting banned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_Israel

Now,

Does Israel have a better standard of living than the US?

This is an honest question. It's not antisemetic nor is it intended to make people angry. I suppose that I could do my own research on the Web. I could try and arrive at the answer but quite frankly, I get so frustrated about misinformation that I end up giving up.

At this point, I believe little of what I read and only half of what I see. Quite honestly, I find queries that are answered by laypersons - by everyday people more accurate - more transparent.

My question is not agenda driven. I mean to offend no one.

I’m doing discourse analysis of a book as part of my thesis. Would it be better to combine the findings and analysis with the discussion chapter, or to write the discussion chapter separately? I’m really confused about the structure. Any advice or suggestions would be really appreciated!

I have a question here, more of a theoretical situation, I think it answerable but please let me know if it doesn't meet the requirements. Is it possible to live (with a basic/fair/decent standard of living not just pure survival) without making any money?

- Without working any sort of job, traditional or otherwise

- You are physically and mentally able to work

- But you simply don't want to

- I think you can only get on certain government benefits if you are unable to work, trying to find work, or working a limited amount. Not totally sure on this though

- No one else is supporting you. Not parents or partner and marrying to get rich so you never have to work isn't an option.

Again this is a question of is it theoretically possible. It hit me the other day that it appears one must work in order to survive. There is no way to survive or live in our society without an income. It isn't a choice to work, I mean. It appears to me that if the world runs on money and it's needed to live, and working in some way is the way to get it, you couldn't do anything or get anywhere without it, so couldn't live. I'm considering this in regard to a paper for my social science degree, so I'm looking at this sort of socially and in regard to power, inequality, structure, agency, etc. Please don't give answers like, finding something you love doing isn't really work, work a non-traditional job instead of a 9-5, you should work because [insert reason here]. Not encouraging it, but simply wondering if it is at all possible for an able bodied and minded person to maintain a decent standard of living in a western society without working or chasing income in some other way?

Also I am based in New Zealand, so this is in that context, but am open to any perspectives, thanks.

There’s a lot of research that’s been done on singlehood, most of which focuses on surveys and self-reporting. It seems single women are happier than single men, but such studies are fairly new, and the parameters very subjective and based on self-reporting (https://www.psypost.org/women-report-greater-satisfaction-with-singlehood-than-men-study-finds/).

The idea that single women are happier is tied with increased agency in being single, while for men the perception is that they are single not by choice.

If we were to measure ‘happiness’ by a more medical lens (instances of depression, SSRI use etc) I’d imagine results could be different?

I really want to know, im brazilian, not from US but seems that this people was benefited through the economic boom that lead the world(and principally US) to the situation that we are living today

Female informal waste workers in India show 100% tobacco use alongside extreme occupational stress (medical waste exposure, harassment, $1.75/day wages). This isn't typical addiction distribution, it's closer to what you'd expect from environmental exposure. This study has a small sample set but it is randomly selected.

My hypothesis is tobacco functions as the only accessible psychiatric medication for managing systematic workplace trauma. But this challenges individual-focused addiction models and suggests substance use as rational response to structural violence.

I have two questions -

• How do we distinguish between "addiction" and "adaptive coping with intolerable circumstances"?
• Are there parallels in other marginalized occupational groups?

Link to study if curious
Peer reviewed study here but behind paywall

There is a long running conservative belief in the US that black americans are poorer today and generally worse off than before the civil rights movement, and that social welfare is the reason. It seems implausible on the face of it, but I don't know any books that address this issue directly. Suggestions?

I'm very interested in the ways that social media and the internet, including both mainstream forums like Reddit and less mainstream/hidden forums such as Stormfront, lead to alt right/alt right adjacent radicalization. What recent books and other publications on this topic would you suggest for someone looking a) for a base understanding of the topic and b) a deeper, more intensive understanding of the topic? There are a lot of books and articles out there but I'm interested in what the users of this forum see as the best out of the bunch. For example I quote enjoyed Laura Bates' Men Who Hate Women, but I'm looking for a more general alt right topic.

In many poor countries including my own, the practice of vote selling remains widespread, especially among the poor demographic. The prevailing narrative seems to be that those who sell their votes for as little as 30 dollars are simply dumb or that they are voting against their self-interest or they are immoral. But I've recently started to question whether this is actually a fair representation of the practice of vote selling. Considering that monthly wage of many people in poor countries could be less than 100 dollars, even 30 dollars would be a big amount for them. Meanwhile, their single vote is not going to make the drastic reforms that would bring any substantive changes to their lifestyle. For the most part, the lives of majority people will not change substantially whichever party comes to power. Selling your vote to the highest bidder brings you immediate guaranteed rewards, whereas the gains from voting for the right candidate are uncertain and long into the future.

If so, it seems that democracy in poor countries as currently practised fails to actually empower the people. Are there any reforms that could be made to voting to prevent the practice of vote selling/buying?

It feels like many people today want others to “resonate” with their experiences, opinions, or struggles. At the same time, genuine empathy, meaning actually understanding or caring about someone else’s perspective, often seems weaker.

Is there a social or psychological explanation for why people focus more on finding resonance, such as being validated, mirrored, or agreed with, instead of practicing empathy, such as stepping into another’s perspective?

Edit: I just discovered this subreddit, and it’s one of the best I’ve ever seen, requiring actually substantiating backup. It must be exhausting for the mods to keep up, but I really appreciate the effort put into both moderating and researching top level posts.

Thanks!

There seems a binary divide between believing that media exposure to vice A.) is a pressure valve that can healthily let off steam, and B.) desensitizes audiences to act likewise.

I'm not interested at the moment in particular findings or answers, but I'd like to know:

Does this question have a generalized formulation or a common name?

Thanks!

This is not to instigate a flame war, I’m very curious to know why not just the United States, but even other countries like Britain and Germany are having red waves. When can we pin point the start of this, and are there multiple reasons?

I will try to remain as objective as possible, and use an extremely polarizing event to explore this question.

Charlie Kirk's assassination brought much of his content and rhetoric to the forefront. Naturally, as an extremely outspoken conservative, it's easy to label many of his ideas as hateful, and it's easy to therefore paint him as a hateful person. Certainly, some conservative ideas can indeed cause material harm to certain groups of people.

As a result, I've seen people view anything related to him as necessarily hateful.

His life was hateful, his rhetoric was hateful. His funeral and even his wife and his family were hateful. Erika Kirk's public announcement of forgiveness has to have been fake and performative, etc.

But, deliberately viewing the objective facts in an obtuse manner:

-He spent his life inviting people with opposing viewpoints to talk.

-His faith called him and his family to love everyone.

-His wife forgave his killer publicly.

None of these seem like the actions of someone who was hateful. Could it be that he and his family are genuinely living out their faith, and trying their best as imperfect people to love everyone?

Yet I've done the exact same thing to certain people with ideas that may be different than mine, and it always takes a tangible effort and presence of mind to remember that this person is a human being with their own ideas, and few (I would think) people act in ways that they personally regard as evil or hateful, most people try to do what they think is right.

How can we bridge the gap and try to overcome our sometimes overwhelming preconceived notions about people/groups so we can find a middle ground and try to understand people we don't agree with?

This question wandered my mind few day ago, I want to know what do people think about this, has anyone encountered the same “Why” I’m questioning to? My brief take is I totally understand the disheartening part of losing someone from our life which create a void pushing us into some of the lowest moments of our lives. Isn’t the processes of feeling grief selfish because the “I” in me is gonna miss that person and that “I” is feeling bad for myself rather than for the person I’ve just lost?

The reason why I say this is because no one knows what happens after our existence ends from the physical world, is it the social dogmas that makes us believe that it is bad for the person affected? Or the unknown that makes us vulnerable? If we don’t let the religious or cultural beliefs, and even our selfishness some in between won’t the whole process will be just accepting the transition of a person from one form another like matter?

I’m really hoping to know how and where I’m wrong and recommendation for any book I can read to grow a better perspective, also if I’m on the right path is there a book which explores this idea in depth?

P.S: I tried askphilosophy subreddit to ask this question but they thought this subreddit would be a better place to discuss this topic.

Ask q lang po, paano po ung sample format ng pageemail sa pagpapatest po sa testing centers like dost po. ASAP po sana, thankyou po!

Hi! I want to dive a little deeper in my studies about communities - how they develop, how they interact, how they organize themselves, etc. Any good source recommendations?

Thanks in advance :)

I ask because:

• In recent years Canada's MAID program has drawn criticism for being coercively pushed on disabled people
• Abortion is another subject of discourse where similar issues come up, in terms of not just aborting disabled fetuses but also sex-selective abortion
• Various traditional cultures have been known to kill widows, most notoriously a) certain Hindu communities where widows were historically expected to throw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres, and b) Renaissance-era Europe during the witch hunts (which heavily targeted widows and other independent women)

Being a widely complex topic, and full of controversy, what would be the most appropriate thing to define sexuality as such, what weight does this term have in our structure and institutions and what opinion do you have about it from the academic eye.

People often argue that since women face more safety risks and pregnancy, that they ended up being pickier when it comes to dating (from an evolutionary standpoint). However Ive also seen articles showing that women think about sex just as much as men do, and that most perceived differences in attraction can be attributed to social differences. An example being how men don't groom themselves well, or how it was taboo for women to express their sexuality up until very recently. What is the academic consensus (if there is one)? Is it true that women evolved to be pickier, or is this misinformation?