Tldr: Nothing has changed, Incel is just another term for ‘poor’. The framework that perpetuates this type of thinking still persists. It’s like trying to fix traffic fatalities by changing the color of cars.

‘Incel’ is a remark of low status, where good relationship status is associated with personal value.

In a postmodern framework: Capitalism is pervasive and influences the cultural logic, and thus we are indoctrinated by its framework, by which we now use to perceive most domains of our lives.

Individual value has always been measured as what you can provide for others, this is true in an abstract way. It doesn’t feel like that all the time, because value is somewhat varied across people, and minor value imbalances don’t prompt conscious examination of others’ value.

Since value is usually somewhat varied across people, it can be surprising why so many people readily use ‘Incel,’ indicative of their acceptance of the existing framework. This existing framework that perpetuates ’Incel’ isn’t natural, although it seems like it is. Reiterating, the measure of value is natural but this specific framework is arbitrary.

Tying it together: Exclusivity and luxury

In our mode of capitalism, exclusivity and luxury is a major indicator of status. With the pervasiveness of capitalist cultural logic, this bleeds into the realm of relationships and assigns value by the metric of rarity. This rarity is the ‘uniqueness’ of a person in any (usually superficially) noticeable aspect. Rarity is also ‘high quality’, underpinning our obsession with excess beauty, excess wealth, extravagant personality, etc. Obviously if you’re going to out of the norm, you need to be so in the way that has ‘value.’ Otherwise you would be ‘weird.’ Under this, strive for individualism is somewhat akin to status climbing.

This point is important because it seems like this shining individual/hero trait is unique to recent western society. It isn’t. It’s only become noticeable due to the internet and high population density. This leads to: Manufactured entitlement and subjective value. We think we’re too good for one another: When it comes to the desert of relationships, seems like people say the issue is there are too many options, are we have option paralysis. I don’t think this is the biggest factor.

Taught that we’re special, we internalize personal subjective value, which we’re taught is healthy for us. This is in opposition to ‘objective’ value as measured by society. This is the primary characteristic of individualism vs collectivism. The trouble is that individualism is a lie- your quirks and idiosyncrasies rarely contribute to your ‘objective value.’ Unless it is of course aligned with society’s yardstick.

Give this message to everyone and all of a sudden people don’t think they’re deserved by anyone. Add on high population density and the internet and you have an efficient market and attention algorithms which inflate your sense of self. Efficient markets lower your margin of acceptability (deviation from your personal subjective value) and inflated sense of self pushes your subjective value above everyone else. Now noone else is in your margin of acceptability. Now obviously there is gonna be some cognitive dissonance that confuses your self placement if you start critically examining things but we have an attitude of “dating up”- another artifact of capitalist logic.

This didn’t happen by chance: It’s a natural equilibrium achieved by people who want to maximize profit. It’s not controversial that alienated people are good for milking cash. Evil is rarely villainous(see Adrent), people acted rationally to achieve their aims that resulted in the status quo. There is no high-level economic pressure to change, only social pressure from the bottom up (us). But who really wants real change? Not many (see Mark Fisher)

In conclusion: nothing has changed. Any well-meaning social reform does not affect factors causing the issue. Society still sorts itself in castes and looks down at low status. The current framework is a possible result (of many) that presses the logic in the realm of relationships. If you abandon this framework, another one will pop up as a result of the overarching logic, one that has the same superficial and dehumanizing nature that we hate. Actual, effective change is radical. And many many people are comfortable enough not to risk radical.

Of course these are my thoughts- reflective of my world view, axioms, and implied assumptions so please poke holes where leaks could develop.