An Exploration of the Involuntary Celibate (Incel) Subculture Online

Abstract

Incels, a portmanteau of the term involuntary celibates, operate in online communities to discuss difficulties in attaining sexual relationships. Past reports have found that multiple elements of the incel culture are misogynistic and favorable towards violence. Further, several violent incidents have been linked to this community, which suggests that incel communities may resemble other ideologically motivated extremist groups. The current study employed an inductive qualitative analysis of over 8,000 posts made in two online incel communities to identify the norms, values, and beliefs of these groups from a subcultural perspective. Analyses found that the incel community was structured around five interrelated normative orders: the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity, male oppression, and violence. The implications of this analysis for our understanding of extremism and the role of the internet in radicalization to violence are considered in depth.

Keywords

extremism masculinity violence technology subculture

Introduction

Over the last two decades, research examining ideologically motivated violence driven by various cultural, political, religious, or nationalist beliefs has increased dramatically (e.g., LaFree & Freilich, 2016; Silke, 2008). These studies demonstrate a range of foreground and situational factors that compel individuals to engage in acts of violence (Freilich, Adamczyk, et al., 2015; Freilich, Chermak, et al., 2015; Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; LaFree & Bersani, 2014; Parkin & Freilich, 2015; Smith & Damphousse, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated the importance of an individual’s exposure to ideological belief systems largely as a function of social relationships to others (Bartlett & Miller, 2012; Borum, 2011a, 2011b; Hegghammer, 2013; Simi & Futrell, 2010). Although many studies emphasize the importance of intimate peers and family associations who introduce ideological beliefs to an actor (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011; Simi & Futrell, 2010), the internet and technology may also provide access to extremist ideologies (Holt et al., 2019; Weimann, 2011). Evidence suggests that social media and websites provide individuals with access to social networks that may espouse radical beliefs that are not present in their off-line relational ties (Freilich, Chermak, et al., 2015; Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2019; Weimann, 2011). Additionally, the internet serves as a resource for information to engage in violent actions off-line, as noted in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing where the attackers utilized bomb-making designs obtained from online sources (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2019).

In many respects, the belief systems of extremist groups are similar to deviant subcultures in that they form as a reaction to or rejection of societal norms (Holt et al., 2016; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011; Simi & Futrell, 2010). Individuals who become a part of these movements also learn verbal and non-verbal cues that signal their membership and provide status cues to denote position within the community (Holt et al., 2016; Simi & Futrell, 2010). Additionally, the rise of the internet also provided a common point of entry to movements that were otherwise fragmented and dependent upon geographic or interpersonal connections to join (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Weimann, 2011).

To date, the majority of research on extremist or ideologically motivated violence focuses on those who primarily target minority and religious groups in the context of radical far-right groups, and Western populations more generally among jihadi actors (Borum, 2011a; LaFree & Freilich, 2016; Silke, 2008). There is less research considering the ways that ideological groups target individuals on the basis of gender. There is growing evidence of subcultures that directly target women based on their perceived role in marginalizing and subjugating males in modern society (Dragiewicz, 2008; Gotell & Dutton, 2016). These groups emerged in part from online forums and communities that promote anti-feminist beliefs and the need for protection of men’s rights, particularly in the context of divorce and parenting decisions (Dragiewicz, 2008; Gotell & Dutton, 2016).

In the last few years, a subset of this movement emerged called Incels, a portmanteau of the term involuntary celibates, who operate in online communities to discuss difficulties in seeking and succeeding in sexual relationships. The term involuntary reflects a perceived lack of agency in one’s current sexual inactivity, which causes them to experience significant personal distress (Donnelly et al., 2001). Individuals who perceive themselves to be in this situation may become embroiled in online discussion communities focused on their predicament and attempts to find meaning in their alienation from dating culture (Tolentino, 2018; van Valkenburgh, 2018).

Members of online incel groups engage in rhetoric that may reflect normative anxieties among young men transitioning into adulthood. Prior assessments of incels suggest they focus on sexlessness among males between the ages of 18–25 (Tolentino, 2018). More broadly, young males between the ages of 18–29 are more likely to use forum-based social media, such as Reddit, where incel discussions are most often reported (Duggen & Smith, 2013). These demographics cover emerging adulthood and early adulthood periods, which are characterized by exploration in work, love, and worldviews (Arnett, 2000; Levinson, 1986). Emerging adulthood, in particular, is situated between adolescence and adulthood and is relatively free from the constraints of adult social responsibilities, including consistent employment, marriage, and parenting (Arnett, 2000; Neugarten et al., 1968).

As a result, it is normal for young adults to engage in both committed and sporadic romantic relationships (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Emerging adulthood is also a time in which individuals are faced with more age-specific tasks and life decisions than any other developmental period (Caspi, 2002). Since most young adults profess an interest in future marriage (Carroll et al., 2007), decision-making that integrates romantic relationships with other social responsibilities and desires, such as employment, is a critical preoccupation for young people (Collins, 2003; Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Thus, to be frustrated and anxious about romantic relationships may be developmentally appropriate for young people.

While emerging concerns over the social responsibilities of adulthood may be normative, rhetoric indicating a willingness to act on their negative emotional states with violence against those who may affect their celibate status is unusual and alarming (Baele et al., 2019; Gotell & Dutton, 2016; van Valkenburgh, 2018). Research and news reports have found that multiple elements of the incel culture are highly misogynistic and favorable toward violence against women, indicating that this subculture may be at risk for future violence (Baele et al., 2019; Ging, 2019; Jennings, 2018; Tolentino, 2018). In fact, there have been several instances of real-world violence performed by incels (Baele et al., 2019; BBC, 2018a; Conti, 2018; Tolentino, 2018), most notably Elliot Rodger who killed seven people in Santa Barbara, California in 2018 (BBC, 2018b). He engaged in multiple online incel communities and wrote a manifesto highlighting the need to seek revenge on women and masculine men who rejected him and made it difficult for him to seek out sexual relationships (BBC, 2018b).

The risk of violence stemming from incel communities and their online operational practices suggests they may resemble other ideologically motivated extremist groups. There is, however, a dearth of research considering the ideological beliefs of incels or the ways they express these sentiments in online spaces. Such insights are needed to improve our understanding of incels generally and their similarities to other extremist groups to identify strategies to counter their beliefs and de-escalate the risk of violence. The current study employed an inductive qualitative analysis of over 8,000 posts made in two online incel communities to identify the norms, values, and beliefs of these groups from a subcultural perspective. The implications of this analysis for our understanding of extremism and the role of the internet in radicalization to violence are considered in depth.

Assessing Subcultural Values and Their Relationship to Extremist Belief Systems

The advent of online discussion communities and social media enables individuals to come together and express their beliefs and feelings about myriad forms of behavior (Ging, 2019; Holt, 2007; Holt et al., 2016). The shared online spaces enable individuals to create a sense of community that may be absent in their real-world interactions with others (Holt et al., 2016; Maratea, 2011; Simi & Futrell, 2010). In turn, these communities can foster the formation of subcultures, whereby individuals develop a shared value system that can justify various deviant or criminal activities (Holt, 2007; Maratea, 2011; Miller, 1958).

Subcultures typically operate in opposition to the dominant culture, or as a rejection of its values (Maurer, 1974; Quinn & Forsyth, 2005; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967; Young, 2011). Subcultural perspectives contend that individuals identify one another and develop a shared set of beliefs and values through conflict over scarce resources, such as employment, financial security, prestige, and power (Cohen & Short, 1958; Miller, 1958). Researchers also note that subcultures may also form around a common role or value, as in occupations like policing (Herbert, 1998; Muir, 1977; Skolnick, 1966). Other subcultures have developed as a strategy to find connection in the face of social stigma and deviant labeling (Braithwaite, 1989), as noted with pedophiles (e.g., Holt et al., 2010; Jenkins, 2001), and the customers of prostitutes (Blevins & Holt, 2009). Others, like Swidler (1986), argue that subcultures form in competition with other cultural views, such as those of the dominant culture, are considered “unsettled” (p. 278). Members of unsettled cultures (i.e., subculture or countercultures) generally display greater coherence and commitment to an overarching ideology, which is used to inform new strategies of action (Swidler, 1986).

Applied to deviant behavior, subcultural members become inculcated into deviant norms, attitudes, and values that free them from traditional social constraints on their behavior (Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958). As a result, subcultural participants structure their behaviors in ways that demonstrate their belief in a shared set of values (Cohen, 1955; Herbert, 1998; Holt, 2007). In addition, subculture participants utilize a unique language, or argot, to demonstrate their attachment to the subculture and identify those who exist outside of its bounds (Hamm, 2002; Holt, 2010; Maurer, 1974).

Research on violent extremists and terror groups illustrates that members frequently operate within online spaces that resemble traditional criminal or delinquent subcultures (e.g., Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Simi & Futrell, 2010). The beliefs expressed by participants in forums and social media encourage the use of violence in furtherance of their ideological cause, whether political, religious, or racial in nature (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2016; Simi & Futrell, 2010). The perceived safety of online spaces also allows individuals to express ideas they may not share in public due to fear of social rejection or a lack of shared values in their physical peer networks (Holt et al., 2016; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008; Simi & Futrell, 2010). In addition, individuals need not directly engage with others in direct communications to come to accept radical beliefs. They need only review posted content to find a sense of belonging and eventually accept such views (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2019).

Membership in such online communities may represent an important first step towards indoctrination and acceptance of extremist and terrorist ideologies. Moghaddam (2005) uses the metaphor of a staircase to explain how individuals increasingly become engaged with terrorist groups. Climbing the staircase begins with individuals’ perceptions of injustice and a desire to improve their situation (Moghaddam, 2005). Those who react to perceived injustices with anger and frustration may be more likely to engage with, or be recruited by, extremist organizations. For instance, individuals involved with white nationalists and white power movements broadly discuss their experience of a racial awakening that makes them aware of differences in how they are treated relative to racial minorities (Simi & Futrell, 2010). Similarly, jihadi movements often emphasize the negative perceptions of the Islamic faith portrayed by Western nations’ media and politics as a source of anger that compels individuals toward radical clerics who espouse jihad (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2018). Individuals then learn to displace their aggression toward a common enemy, whether racial minorities, religions, or entire nations (Simi & Futrell, 2010). Those who begin to accept such beliefs and espouse their importance become increasingly become embedded in the group, and may gain ties to more central players within movements (Moghaddam, 2005).

Assessing the State of Knowledge of Incel Values and Violence

Since subcultural values guide new strategies for action (Swidler, 1986), individuals tied to movements that are oriented towards violence may be more likely to engage in such actions in support of their beliefs (Khalil et al., 2019). To understand and mitigate such behavior, we must understand the value systems that impact and guide subcultural members’ behavior (Miller, 1958). This has particular value when discussing incels, who have formed online communities as a means to find community in their perceived isolation. In the past, celibacy research typically focused on individuals who voluntarily, or willingly abstained from sexual activity (Donnelly et al., 2001). Although it is normal for individuals to go through periods of sexual inactivity, particularly as they age (Laumann et al., 1994), incels are those who have been without sexual activity for at least six months despite their desire to be in a sexual relationship. The lack of sex causes some to report significant psychological distress such as depression and loneliness (Burgess et al., 2001; Donnelly, 1993).

One of the earliest investigations of incels was conducted through open-ended surveys of 300 men and women recruited through the internet (Donnelly et al., 2001). These men and women shared similar frustrations regarding their inability to enter sexual relationships. The men sampled in this study described masculine norms and dating double standards as major barriers in finding sexual partners. For example, men were likely to state that adhering to traditional masculinity norms, such as working long hours and feeling pressure to perform, prevented them from finding mates. In addition, the double standards of having to make the first move when approaching females were viewed as unfair and prohibiting them from access (Donnelly et al., 2001).

Involuntarily celibates were considered a difficult-to-reach population among researchers, mostly due to self-stigma and their inability to form community around the issue (Burgess et al., 2001). The growth of online spaces enabled incel groups to form, particularly in the mid-2000s in the broader milieu of communities characterized by an anti-feminist and anti-female framework. Some refer to this as the online manosphere, a loose-confederacy of online groups connected by an interest in male-rights and anti-feminism (Ging, 2019; Gotell & Dutton, 2016; Ironwood, 2013). Within the manosphere, several online groups exist to discuss difficulties with females, such as revenge pornography communities, men’s rights groups, father’s rights groups, and groups that encourage violence against women (Crisafi et al., 2016; Salter & Crofts, 2015).

Participants in these communities prescribe to a “red-pill” philosophy whose premise originates from the popular film The Matrix, in which the main character is offered the choice to take a blue-pill and continue to live in a constructed, comfortable delusion or take the red pill and discover the truth of how the world works. To be red-pilled is to come to the realization that we all live under a feminist, far-left constructed delusion and need to take steps to revolt against it (Ging, 2019; Nagle, 2017; van Valkenburgh, 2018). Social media and the internet have played key roles in the formation of the manosphere, and specifically, the incel community which has mobilized and reclaimed the incel term of the past.

Masculine identity may therefore be an important source of strain guiding the formation of anti-women subcultures online. Whereas womanhood is viewed as the function of permanent biological maturity (i.e., puberty), manhood is perceived as transient, earned, and the collection of highly specific traits, behaviors, and responsibilities (Vandello et al., 2008). As a result, manhood is seen as a precarious social status that is both hard-won, easily lost, and often under threat (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Men who experience social threats to masculine identity or power are more likely to engage in behavior that reestablishes their power over women, such as promoting ideologies that subordinate women (Dahl et al., 2015; Weaver & Vescio, 2015) or behaving aggressively (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Thus, acceptance of traditional masculine identities may increase perceptions of gender-power threat.

Both empirical studies and the news media have criticized online incel communities for their extreme views, particularly their anti-feminist and anti-women rhetoric (Ging, 2019; Jennings, 2018; Kini, 2017; Nagle, 2017; Tolentino, 2018). Yet there is a dearth of empirical research that investigates incel communities through a subcultural and ideological lens. Such analysis is necessary to better understand the dynamics of incel communities and the ways their norms and values situationally justify violence toward various groups in society. In turn, we may be able to identify prevention strategies to challenge the beliefs held by its participants and decrease the risk of lethal violence from those who accept an incel identity (refer also to Holt et al., 2017; Simi & Futrell, 2010).

Data and Methods

To examine the incel subculture online, this qualitative study used existing data from two active web forums created by and for the incel community. Forums are online communities composed of sub-forums that focus on specific areas of interest to participants (Holt, 2007; Mann & Sutton, 1998). They allow individuals to create ongoing discussions through threads, which begin when an individual posts a comment or question to the broader user population. The responses to that post are then threaded together in sequential order to create an ongoing, natural conversation similar to what is observed in real-world spaces (Holt, 2007; Mann & Sutton, 1998).

Both forums in this sample were identified by searching key terms related to “incels” and “incels” into Google search engine. All posts were publicly accessible, meaning the site did not require the user to subscribe or create a username to view the posts (Holt, 2007; Mann & Sutton, 1998). One forum existed on a large social networking site composed of several sub-forums. The second forum operated as an independent website created expressly for incels.

For this study, 8,324 posts made by 703 unique users were analyzed across 452 threads from two different forums. The 452 threads were identified based on chronology, meaning that the most recent threads were used in this analysis, such that posts from the summer of 2018 until January 2019 were selected for analysis. Threads were excluded from analysis if they included un-responded to queries for research or un-responded to posts identified by a forum moderator as trolling. For example, some outsiders from the community would post rants onto the incel forum advising incels to change their attitude or to criticize their belief system. If these posts were identified as trolling, and left un-responded to by other community members, they were excluded from analysis. Only the narratives of those who directly indicated through their own posting behaviors that they were a member of the incel community were included. As such, rants by outsiders based on assumptions of the community were not included. The only exception to this was in cases where trolling posts generated responses from other incel members validating and describing their own belief system. In these cases, the thread was included for analysis.

Qualitative Analysis

Features of this subculture were measured using the concept of normative orders, which are an analytic concept that describes “a set of rules and practices centered around a primary value” (Herbert, 1998, p. 348). Subcultures are comprised of both formal (e.g., structural, bureaucratic, or legal) and informal (e.g., values, perspectives, and identity) elements that structure and guide social responses to situations. The normative order approach was thus developed to combine formal and informal elements (i.e., link rules and practices with values) and treat them as equally important within analyses (Herbert, 1998). Thus, normative orders constitute a specific type of theme emerging from grounded qualitative methods. Specifically, normative orders acknowledge the cognitive aspect of behavior, how thoughts and beliefs can dictate action, and demonstrate that rules and norms derive their meaning from the value they uphold (Herbert, 1998). Researchers have used this frame to assess subcultures operating in off-line (Herbert, 1998) and online spaces (Holt, 2007; Holt et al., 2010).

Inductive qualitative methodology was used to assess the normative orders operating within the incel subculture online. The identified threads were archived, and each post was analyzed using a grounded theory approach with three waves of inductive methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). First, open coding was performed by hand to analyze key repeating themes emerging from the data. A repeating theme was identified if two or more individual posters describe the same idea, action, rule, or belief (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). For example, key themes concerning attractiveness, short guy, resources were initially identified within the data when multiple forum participants discussed a perception of what females desired in a sexual partner. Preliminary codes were organized into a master file tagged with the relevant quotations of each theme.

A second wave of axial coding was performed to re-order preliminary codes (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003; Saldana, 2009). Each preliminary code and tagged relevant text were re-read and re-organized based on higher-level concepts concerning incel norms and beliefs. For example, the original open-codes attractiveness, short guy, resources were re-configured into the higher-order code attractiveness. Lastly, these higher-level codes were similarly re-read, re-ordered, and re-analyzed in order to refine and create final, broad conceptual categories that reflect the normative orders of the incel subculture.

The relationships between each of these orders were explored using quotes from the posters in their own words, where appropriate. The usernames of the individuals quoted were replaced with pseudonyms reflective of the broader naming conventions of the forums to provide a modicum of privacy for the users in keeping with basic ethical guidelines for the presentation of qualitative data derived from online sources (Holt & Bossler, 2015; Hutchings & Holt, 2015; Silverman, 2013).

Findings

A grounded theory approach was used to critically explore the norms, values, and beliefs present in an online incel community online. This analysis found that the incel community was structured around five interrelated normative orders. The first four reflect participants’ views on the sexual market, women as naturally evil, ways to legitimize masculinity, and male oppression. These normative orders connect to a broader fifth norm: the validation and justification of violence, especially against women. Congruent with a normative order approach, the espoused values, norms, and structure of relationships between participants were reflexively related to one another and inform social behavior.

Since the incel community has exhibited itself as a group capable and willing to engage in violent behavior, understanding how these normative orders imbue meaning into violence is critical for intervention. The norms of the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity, and male oppression justify a world view in which evolutionary reproductive pressures combine with gendered socialization to produce an environment in which males are oppressed and women are illegitimately powerful in society. This deep-seated sense of injustice is reminiscent of Moghaddam’s (2005) staircase towards increasingly extremist behavior. Due to the illegitimacy of women and society, violence against them both is advocated and reinforced as acceptable, courageous, and humorous.

The Sexual Market

As a group primarily concerned with accessing sexual relationships, incels’ discussions focused on making sense of socialized dating activities. The foundation for the incel populations’ conception of sexual activity is that of a female-led marketplace operating under the laws of natural selection. Women reside in a place of sexual privilege in the sexual marketplace, as females act as the sexual gatekeeper by deciding who they reject and with whom they have intercourse. Thus, a female-dominant sexual market is cited as the most powerful barrier to sex among incels:

I heard a friend of mine say once that women have all the power.… A female coworker of mine also said to me once, she (and all other women) are sitting on a pot of gold between their legs. Can’t remember the context, but it was the fact that women are born with the power to hand out the prize of the only real goal that exists. All other goals are essentially set to put us in better position for sex. I wonder if women are generally happier than men? Is this why men are more violent? I’d assume so. Because most men don’t get what they want, and all women have what men want (Isolcel)

Incels promote the salience of an unjust female-led market on the basis that women have the most power in sexual markets, and society in general. Since they have agency to choose their sexual partners, they can negatively impact less attractive or desirable males. As insidecel put is, “you have to be the top .000001% for a woman to even look at you.” Therefore, males are forced to become incels due to their rejection by women rather than through voluntary choice.

Consistent with the natural selection framework, incels believe that the most important human goal is to attain a mate and reproduce. This was exemplified in a post stating: “Since the purpose of humans is to reproduce, there’s no reason for me to exist if I can’t even find a mate to do that.” Incels are both preoccupied with competition for sexual partners that they construct as sexual privilege. From this perspective, one’s place within the sexual market appears to be hierarchical and is entirely dependent on what incels call sexual market value (SMV). An individual’s SMV is comprised of physical attractiveness and money. As caritacel says, “it’s social programming. Women like good looking guys.” Women only select mates with superior genetics, evidenced by physical attractiveness, a product of one’s genetics and resources.

Incels make meaning out of their inability to have sex by blaming their own physical appearance. Importance is placed on the physical attractiveness of an individual’s face, height, and having an athletic body. Incels therefore use self-degrading terms such as “ugly,” “monsterous,” or “manlet” to give scathing appraisals of their own looks. For example, a poster wrote:

I’m fat, ugly, poor … degenerate, manlet, got mental problems, skin disease, bad breathe, bad teeth, and so on. I’m not good enough for stacy let alone any woman, I barely deserve to be on this earth, I’m a failure. I’ve accepted my fate, and am done with coping.

Some incels will share pictures of themselves through private messages to other members in order to affirm their belonging within the community. Indeed, some members are accused of being “fakecels,” or fake incels, as they could have dating success if they tried hard enough. On the other hand, “trucels,” or true incels, are the most alienated from sex because of their perceived ugliness and inability to conform to strict masculine beauty norms pushed by women. As lordcel comments, “chads can never be incel, the difference between truecels and incels are truecels cannot get laid even if they have a nice house and car.” Self-disclosure of ugliness affirms an incel’s belonging to the incel community, and the purpose of sharing images with other members is for them to affirm the user’s perceived ugliness rather than offer assurance or compliments.

Although engaging in self-loathing, self-degrading behavior may lead to a sense of depression, apathy, and hopelessness in some users, it also had a role in uniting forum users. Discussions on physical attractiveness supported and reaffirmed their shared belief in a superficial sexual market and common disdain for attractive men (“chads”) and women (“stacys”). In addition, both the disdain felt for beautiful men and women as well as self-loathing may result from adhering to a value in which physical attractiveness, a concept seen as genetic and therefore unchangeable, is critical for romantic attainment. It should be noted that self-hatred is not an essential part of being a “trucel,” but incel preoccupation with and commitment to the SMV may lead to depression in this group in general.

Resources are another important currency in the sexual market. As Maincel posts: “The second-best thing apart from looks is status.” Under the framework of resources, incels discuss other elements of their disadvantage in terms of employment. Some incels claim that employment success is equally dictated by attractiveness and social skills, which incels generally lack. Incels also complain that female standards are not only high when it comes to physical appearance, but also regarding money and wealth. The overwhelming sense of a female-centered demand for “perfect” men creates a sense of competition for romantic partners, as noted in this post:

To really have a chance at love, sex and relationship, you need to have all these costly things, as well as interests, friends, a social network, access to television, current events, the internet, hobbies, things to talk about, confidence, and if not a job at least a future w financial stability.

The normative order of the sexual market serves two important functions. First, it demarcates the social boundaries between incels and others in terms of entry into and performance within the sexual market. This forms the primary identity of incels as those who are unable to access sexual relationships no matter their efforts due to a rigid social structure that emphasizes certain traits and favors attractive and successful males. Second, it legitimizes all other normative orders related to women, male oppression, masculinity, and violence. In turn, incels frame themselves as a marginalized and an oppressed group in a society in which they have little to no value.

Women as Naturally Evil

Central to the incel belief system is the normative order of women’s inherent evil. Within incel users’ personal narratives, many discussed feeling bullied and humiliated by women, which was framed as a source of trauma. To make meaning of these experiences, one of the core beliefs of incels is that females are inherently cruel. Consistent with the natural selection framework, female evilness is seen as a caustic combination of evolution, biology, and culture. There were myriad comments to this effect, for example, this post from f1recel: “Women use lies to manipulate men into doing what they want. It’s nothing except how nature has designed them.” Similarly, bladecel stated: “What makes female Evil that’s easily answerable.… Culture and biology … combine female bio which is already horrible in its own right with a cultural that gives them power and control and you lead to corruption there a reason most men lead.”

Within this perceived framework, women are evolutionarily compelled to manipulate men to attain important resources for survival as a species. Women are also considered to be “less evolved” than men in their animalistic drives towards reproduction and safety. As anoncel stated, “Female brain is very childlike.” Much of incel communications are focused on the construction of women as inherently manipulative, dishonest, narcissistic, and villainous. Incels also re-interpret women’s behavior in ways that supports their views of natural evil. One incel, SunDudeCel, wrote about his hatred for his roommate’s new girlfriend, stating: “That’s the thing, she’s never directly said anything to me. She just looks at me so smug and like she owns the world because she gets her choice of men and I get no one.” Another incel, Isolcel responded:

She’s definitely paying attention to you. She prefers to be there and wants to live there, but she doesn’t have the right to, and the only person who can and would protest her being there is you.… She gives you attitude/a negative vibe to make you feel small, make you feel like the outsider who doesn’t belong, so you either move out or keep quiet.

The normative order of women as naturally evil is consistent with past research into the incel community, which found that sexism is a key component of their ideology (Ging, 2019). Incels draw from perspectives such as evolutionary psychology and natural selection to validate their perception that women compelled by the desire for reproduction and are narcissistic and cruel in pursuit of these goals. In addition, incels use bio-deterministic language to advocate for the natural differences between men and women that affirm a society in which males should have more power over women. Incels frame feminists, or those who continue to advocate for what they believe is an unnatural and unwarranted advancement of female equality, as an enemy. Frustration stems from this combination of female inferiority, their illegitimate power in modern society, and their hypocritical claims of oppression. These beliefs fuel the anger and hatred of the incel members while justifying their argument that they are the truly oppressed group.

Legitimizing Masculinity

Another important normative order organizing the incel social structure is the idea of legitimizing common masculine norms. Incels justify unequal gender relations through gendered-power dynamics within sexual attraction. For instance, incels normalize male aggression and male sexualization of females since they argue that women desire to be sexualized, and males are programmed to sexualize. As once incel states, “Also, its [re]tarded we are shamed at lusting for chicks who objectify and sexualize their own bodies.”

Interestingly, incels also have discussions concerning age and sexual attraction. Employing concepts from evolutionary biology and psychology, incels claimed that aging women are inferior to young women and glorified the idea of “young love.” This theme has been previously investigated by Klee (2018), who noted that incels have a strong sense of missing out on teenage love. As the user Sniffcel stated: “Missing out on teen love is ragefuel in pure form.” An obsession with young love comes from a biological sense of physical attraction. Incels repeatedly discussed that minor women, whom they described as jail baits, or JBs, were the most attractive, reinforcing an attraction to minor girls as being “biologically normal” and “appropriate.” For instance, Babicel wrote: “Real 10/10 stacy is no more older than 13. Maybe 14.” Similarly, the user ragecel stated:

How society and feminism have redefined normal healthy men as “Pedophiles”

That it has been normal throughout human history for men to be sexually active with girls from puberty and up.

That it is normal for all animals to do this as well.

What possible harm it causes men to tell them they are all “pathological” just for feeling normal arousal they are biologically programmed to experience.

This preference for younger girls was accompanied by a distinct distaste for older women, usually defined as mid-20s and older, because they are “less fertile.” These subcultural norms and distortions based on claims of evolutionary biology underlie the argument that many incels espouse, which is that the age of consent is an unreasonable social construction, another way in which they are oppressed by women.

Incels believe that modern society has created a world in which both men and women are suppressed from natural roles and identities. They expressed nostalgia for a more patriarchal past, one which is constructed as more aligned with the “natural,” biological differences between men and women. This belief was evident in one incel’s post:

I think that the patriarchal family used to be the ultimate socially designed cope that would prevent a man from losing hope in his life. From his childhood he’d be brainwashed into thinking that he will have a household to run, a lifelong mate to protect and to get validation from and his kids to raise. For this purpose a man was supposed to work hard and achieve his goals and many men did that. What we see now is seemingly the result of dismantling the construct of family and its replacement for a legal form of male enslavement to provide for genetically superior men’s leftovers.

At the same time, incels legitimized masculinity by delegitimizing females. For instance, some used the term female humanoid or “foid” to refer to women in conversation. Many users also discussed the ways in which women are inferior to men, usually by pointing to their intellectual inferiority and absurdity. For instance, Emergencel stated: “Foid have the mental capacity of children without the supervision restrictions.” By labeling women as inferior, incels rationalized the legitimate rights of men to oppress them. Within this view, women and men are not and should not be equals in any sense. This was evident in multiple quotes across the forums, as with this comment from simcel:

Woman [sic] don’t deserve the right to vote. They can’t think logically or come to any of their own conclusions, everything they do is for some Chad and lacks any thought at all. They don’t deserve a fucking say in anything, they don’t care about anything beyond having sex with some idiot with a six pack.

Similarly, the user manletcel used religion to justify the subjugation of women writing: “When you force women to wear burqas every time they leave the house and restrict their interactions with men other than their husbands, you’re eliminating the means by which women become attention addiction junkies, theoretically preserving marriages and families.” These boundaries allow incels to retain some sense of worth despite their perceived marginalization from sexual relationships and the status afforded to other men.

Male Oppression

The normative order of male oppression focused on the perception that men were oppressed within modern society. Incels consider themselves an oppressed group due to their biological subordination to more masculine males as well as their social subordination to the “modern woman.” Forum users discussed both generalized male oppression and specific incel-oppression, as in this quote from lordcel:

As a male, we have no rights, the entire world is against us, women don’t care about us … the only males with male privileged are chads … and even they are beginning to slip into the same boat … like how can I be happy when so many males are oppressed by this terrible world.

The normative order of male oppression is consistent with previous red-pill literature such as Warren Farrall’s The Myth of Male Power and popular blog-based literature discussing the hardships of men (Nagle, 2017). For example, multiple individuals writing on behalf of men’s rights advocacy, such as Paul Elam (2019), have actively criticized social institutions, such as feminism and family court systems, as being especially biased against males. Red-pill literature is actively consumed by members of the incel community. For example, a poster stated: “divorce means not only risk of never seeing his (even if actually biologically his) children again, but being homeless and in debt thanks to the alimony robbery. All divorce courts are biased toward females.”

Consistent with previous work conducted by Donnelly et al. (2001), incels also discussed the barriers of dating double standards and male socialization. They conceptualized male oppression around gendered socialization and a perceived marginalization from “male-ness.” For example, a user noted: “there is a double standard. Women expect males to carry the date and be the lively jesters making it entertaining. Never do they look in the mirror or self-reflect of them putting zero effort into the relationship of making it happen.”

Incels mentioned their exclusion from the sexual market as a consequence of socialized expectations of male-ness from which they feel alienated. For instance, their preoccupation with attractiveness caused them significant distress. One entire thread in a forum was dedicated to whether incels should seek out plastic surgery in order to increase their chances of inclusion. These anxieties are found in other masculinity research concerning male body image issues in response to media representation (Waling, 2017). In addition, incels discussed differences in gender-socialization and lamented that to grow up male is to grow up unable to express yourself. As OnceLaidCel, wrote:

As a boy, I could never be myself and express myself. My father was not there for me. Whenever I was enthusiastic, I was silenced. Whenever I showed intention I was restricted. Whenever I [wanted] to go outdoors I was not allowed.

Thus, incels legitimized traditional ideas of masculinity, as well as a desire for more masculine expression and diversity. Instead of criticizing toxic masculine socialization, incels blamed feminists and so-called social justice warriors who they claimed invalidate male struggle and continue control access to the sex market. Conversations concerning male oppression focused on the hypocrisy of women, societal double standards that are biased in favor of female privilege and power, and the offensive mischaracterization of incels by social justice advocates.

Legitimizing Violence and Revenge

Subcultural interpretations of female behavior, the sexual market, and male oppression promoted general feelings of animosity towards society and specific hatred towards females. In turn, incel forum participants made comments encouraging and justifying violence against women. As a result, all four normative orders reflexively converge to give meaning to a fifth norm within incel forums: violence. Violence was actively discussed among forum users through allusions to “going ER,” which stands for Eliot Rodger, a self-identified incel who murdered seven other people before committing suicide. “Going ER” was used both as an innocuous expression to describe being pushed to the limit, as well as a way to vent frustration about their perceived victimization.

Although approval of Eliot Rodger himself, and mass violence in general, was mixed there were user comments that glorified the behavior of Eliot Rodger and others. Users posted stories of men murdering women and “normies” into a folder called “lifefuel.” This section was intended to give incels a feeling of joy and hope. For instance, one thread linked to an article in which five female bank tellers were murdered during a rampage shooting in Florida. Multiple posters responded with comments, such as: “Finally a hero who can aim,” “He chosen his targets wisely. What a slayer,” “lifefuel,” and “Pure and raw LifeFuel™. I will sleep a lot better now.”

In this exchange, the letters “ER,” and “CHO” were capitalized to pay respect and homage to both Elliot Rodger (i.e., ER) and Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho. It was common for incels to use this code to promote violence in other posters. As Gymcel responded to another poster, “Just accept yourself and go out there bro.” Incels tended to support others who indicated a desire to be violent:

If you were to hypothetically [Go ER], I would hypothetically recommend that you write a manifesto on the blackpill, why you did it, mention the fucked up state of hypergamy, dumb sluts, and explicitly link it to incel ness like ER. Also I would recommend you livestream you doing it and upload it to live leak. If people saw ER in action, I bet it would inspire mores lol. (garbagecel)

Not all forum users supported the use of violence, though many minimized harm to “deserving” victims and glorified offenders. The most reasonable target for violence across the forum populations were women. As one poster commented, “Life fuel, [mass shooters] are hero’s. But I only like foids [female humanoids] get killed. Not really a fan of random ppl dying.” Women were constructed as deserving targets for retribution through physical and/or sexual violence, as noted in this post:

I really want to kill this whore. I would punch her in her face over and over again and force her to say this phrase over and over again: “Teehee you are not entitled to this, but I am entitled to anything, now rot.” I will make her rot in hell for sure. I will turn her life into a living hell.

Similarly, incels discussed their approval of more indirect, passive forms of violence as an alternative to active, physical violence. Since women were constructed as deserving of violence, a lack of intervention when a woman is in danger or is victimized can be an act of revenge. This was evident in multiple posts, as noted by remembercel: “Reminder, if you deny me sex or validation, I deny you safety and protection when you get raped in the alleyway by an ethnic.” A more detailed post by romancel provided their thoughts on female victims of sexual violence in general:

There are no laws saying you have to help anyone who’s getting raped or murdered, or report it to the police. Not in most jurisdictions, at least. If I saw this happening while passing by, and the “victim” called out to me for help, I’d just chortle and keep going my own way. Most rapists are close associates to the ones they rape, so in all likelihood, she deserved it and was probably asking for it.

Taken as a whole, this norm incorporates aspects of the other subcultural norms espoused by incels to justify the view that women are particularly deserving of any violence they experience. In this sense, both the informal and formal reinforcement of violence within the incel subculture is informed by key values and beliefs related to the injustice of the sexual market, the natural evil of women, the legitimacy of masculine identity, and the oppression of men.

Discussion and Conclusion

Social media and online spaces provide avenues for individuals to connect with others who share their interests, no matter how deviant or esoteric (Holt, 2007; Quinn & Forsyth, 2005; Weimann, 2011). These platforms enable the formation of subcultures, through which individuals justify involvement in deviant and criminal activities (Holt, 2007; Maratea, 2011; Miller, 1958). There is also growing concern over the ways that extremist and violent ideological groups now use the internet and social media as a means to expose individuals to their beliefs and encourage violence (Freilich, Chermak, et al., 2015; Holt et al., 2017; Weimann, 2011). One particular group, the involuntarily celibate, use social media and the internet as a platform to express their feelings of marginalization and rage (Ging, 2019). Individuals have engaged in acts of targeted violence against the general public as a result of their acceptance of an incel identity (Ging, 2019; Jennings, 2018; Kini, 2017; Nagle, 2017; Tolentino, 2018). There is, however, little research examining incel communities from a subcultural perspective, calling to question what they value and how this might justify involvement in violence.

To address this question, this study examined the subcultural norms of incels using posts from two online forums run by and for the incel community. The findings demonstrated the incel subculture was organized around five normative orders: the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity, male oppression, and violence. Individuals structure their dealings with others off-line as a function of these beliefs, which are understood using natural selection and a bio-deterministic framework. The values expressed are consistent with previous research on the “manosphere” generally as an internet culture organized around an anti-female perception (Nagle, 2017).

The belief system of those who identify as incels is consistent with other deviant and extremist groups as they are formed as a reaction to their difficulty in accessing sexual relationships (Holt et al., 2017; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008; Simi & Futrell, 2010). Incels used forums as a method of social support and received validation through other posters. Incel communities allow male users to consume and propagate ideas and media, legitimate or manufactured, that reinforce anti-women beliefs and support the notion that they are an oppressed and marginalized group.

The incel community can be understood as a subculture that directly targets women because of their role in the perceived marginalization and subjugation of men (Dragiewicz, 2008; Gotell & Dutton, 2016; van Valkenburgh, 2018). As a response, participants in the forums encouraged and condoned violence against women through both direct calls for violence and indirect support of sexual violence against women generally. Males who were viewed as superior to incels were also justifiable targets for violence, though they were not as inferior as those women who foster reproductive competition and freely navigate and control the sexual market. Only through subjugating women could the participants in incel forums regain a sense of power.

Participation in these forums may generate acceptance of the core beliefs that females are an evil gender who are undeservedly in power. Such notions facilitate anger and attitudes favorable to violence towards women while further legitimizing toxic gender inequalities. A sense of disenfranchisement may lead young males towards these online communities where a pseudo-scientific, but highly attractive, philosophy serves to begin the process of radicalization. Consistent with male support theory, the social group processes and perceptions of masculinity may contribute to real-world physical violence committed by incels.

It should be noted that a very small number of individuals are likely to act upon the violent beliefs and ideas espoused online, as noted in similar research on violent extremism (Borum, 2011a; Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Weimann, 2011). Additional study is needed to assess the factors that may account for involvement in incel-perpetrated violence. In particular, researchers must consider the extent to which individuals express awakenings or turning points that increase their willingness to accept an incel identity (refer also to Simi & Futrell, 2010). Similarly, it is unknown if individuals who are more willing to engage in acts of violence come to accept an incel identity through direct engagement with others or move through a self-radicalization process of observing content without interacting (refer to Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2017). What is clear, however; is that despite the minority of users who engage in physical violence, online incel communities are inherently dangerous.

To that end, this analysis has implications for our understanding of criminological and sociological subcultural theories of behavior. Historically, researchers have focused on the formation of subcultures as a rejection of broader social norms or norms and values, or as a way of opposing the dominant culture (Maurer, 1974; Quinn & Forsyth, 2005; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967; Young, 2011). In the case of incels, their subculture reflects a subversion of the natural experience of rejection in the course of seeking romantic partners. The online forums in this analysis present adherents with a subculture based on a maligned view of typical human experience that empowers its adherence to use violence against an entire gender. It is unclear to what extent the views of the participants in the forums sampled are informed by actual negative encounters with women and men. Additionally, the online nature of this sample limited our ability to assess the degree to which participants engaged with others who share their views in off-line spaces, which may help to reinforce their online opinions (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt, 2007). Future research is needed to better document the intersectionality of the incel movement in on and off-line spaces, and the ways experiences in one or both environments affect acceptance of incel identity (refer also to Blevins & Holt, 2009; Holt, 2007).

Similarly, there is evidence of growth in online subcultures that stigmatize other aspects of the human experience, including opposition to vaccinations (Hotez, 2019; Moran et al., 2016) and scientific research broadly (Hotez et al., 2020; Wootton et al., 2019). While these groups have not generated direct acts of violence against specific subgroups in society, they may produce indirect harms as with a lack of vaccinations for children that may decrease herd immunity and disproportionately increase risk of illness (Hotez, 2019; Moran et al., 2016; Wootton et al., 2019). Therefore, research is needed to better understand the foreground and situational dynamics that compel individuals toward subcultures that weaponize basic aspects of the human experience (Holt, 2007; Moran et al., 2016). Studies must disentangle the social and behavioral factors that lead online subcultural engagement to affect individual actions in the real world, especially when acts of serious harm or violence are involved (Hamm, 2002; Holt, 2007; Holt & Bossler, 2015).

The findings of this analysis also provide potential direction for policies to help counter the ideological beliefs of incels. Although incel forums continue to be monitored and censored, many may simply move to less visible online spaces (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017). Thus, simply removing posts that are harmful or unacceptable will not address the underlying beliefs. The use of programs designed to counter violent extremism (CVE) in the United States involves presenting broad-spectrum messaging campaigns to those audiences most likely to seek out or engage with extremist movements (Koehler, 2016; Williams et al., 2016). The content of these campaigns usually focusses on dispelling reasons or justifications for the use of violence. Targeted messaging may be one way in which incel beliefs and values could be addressed (Koehler, 2016; Williams et al., 2016). These interventions should occur online within the space in which individuals are most comfortable.

Messages could focus on countering the narratives surrounding gender, sexuality, and power. Paradoxically, while many incels expressed nostalgia for the patriarchal structures of the past, incels are also highly critical of traditional constructions of masculinity. Prevention efforts that are strength-based and include education surrounding toxic masculinities, and gender equality may be useful and may allow for a healthier expression of anger or negative emotions related to lack of self-esteem or self-worth. It is possible to have discussions regarding their beliefs and to validate their experiences while also dismantling narratives of females as “the enemy” or the root of their problems. This may be an important step in preventing or deescalating radicalization.

In addition, it is crucial that education for youth, specifically young males, include critical media engagement and consumption, as these sources may facilitate and reinforce dangerous beliefs that condone gender-based violence. This education is known as digital literacy and critical consciousness (Watts et al., 2002) can help to reduce engagement and belief in media that advocates gender inequality or gender-based violence.

The present study had several limitations that should be noted. The results of this exploratory investigation are limited due to the small sample size of threads operating on two online forums. In addition, the selected threads seemed to be heavily dominated by key forum users who posted more than others. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize these results without incorporating additional threads and forums to the data analysis. Despite these limitations, the findings of this study elucidated a need for interventions, through prevention and outreach with male youth who may be vulnerable to the values and beliefs espoused by incels as well as self-proclaimed incels online.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Roberta Liggett O’Malley

Author Biographies

Roberta Liggett O’Malley, MA, is a doctoral student in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Her research interests include technology-facilitated sexual violence, sexual offending, and life-course criminology. She is a member of Michigan State’s Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence.

Karen Holt, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose research focuses on sexual deviance and offending and deviance and identity. Her work has been published in Sexual Abuse and Deviant Behavior. She currently serves on the Board of Directors for Small Talk Children’s Advocacy Center.

Thomas J. Holt, PhD, is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose research focuses on computer hacking, malware, and the role of the internet in facilitating all manner of crime and deviance. His work has been published in various journals including Crime and Delinquency, Deviant Behavior, The Journal of Criminal Justice, and Youth and Society.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist , 55, 469–480.

Auerbach

C. F.

, & Silverstein

L. B.

(2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis . New York University Press.

Baele

S. J.

, Brace

, & Coan

T. G.

(2019). From “incel” to “saint”: Analyzing the violent worldview behind the 2018 Toronto attack. Terrorism and Political Violence . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1638256

Bartlett

, & Miller

(2012). The edge of violence: Towards telling the difference between violent and non-violent radicalization. Terrorism and Political Violence , 24(1), 1–21.

BBC. (2018a, April 25). Alek Minassian Toronto van attack suspect praised “incel” killer . Author. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43883052

BBC. (2018b, April 28). Elliot Rodger: How misogynist killer became “incel hero.” Author. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189

Blevins

K. R.

, & Holt

T. J.

(2009). Examining the virtual subculture of Johns. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 38, 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241609342239

Borum

(2011a). Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social science theories. Journal of Strategic Security , 4(4), 7–36.

Borum

(2011b). Radicalization into violent extremism II: A review of conceptual models and empirical research. Journal of Strategic Security , 4(4), 37–62.

10.

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration . Cambridge University Press.

11.

Burgess

E. O.

, Donnelly

, Dillard

, & Davis

(2001). Surfing for sex: Studying involuntary celibacy using the internet. Sexuality & Culture , 5(3), 5–30.

12.

Carroll

J. S.

, Willoughby

, Badger

, Nelson

L. J.

, McNamara Barry

, & Madsen

S. D.

(2007). So close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research , 22, 219–247.

13.

Caspi

(2002). Social selection, social causation, and developmental pathways: Empirical strategies for better understanding how individuals and environments are linked across the life-course. In Pulkkinen

& Caspi

(Eds.), Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course (pp. 281–301). Cambridge University Press.

14.

Cohen

A. K.

(1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang . Free Press.

15.

Cohen

A. K.

, & Short

J. F.

(1958). Research in delinquent subcultures. Journal of Social Issues , 14(3), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1958.tb01414.x

16.

Collins

W. A.

(2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 13, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1301001

17.

Conti

(2018, November 5). What we know about the “male supremacist” who shot up a Florida Yoga Studio. Vice . https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xp4kk/what-we-know-about-the-male-supremacist-who-shot-up-a-florida-yoga-studio

18.

Corbin

J. M.

, & Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology , 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

19.

Crisafi

D. N.

, Mullins

A. R.

, & Jasinski

J. L.

(2016). The rise of the “virtual predator”: Technologyand the expanding reach of intimate partner abuse. In Navarro

J. N.

, Clevenger

& Marcum

C. D.

(Eds.), The intersection between intimate partner abuse, technology, and cybercrime: Examining the virtual enemy (pp. 95–123). Carolina Academic Press.

20.

Dahl

, Vescio

, & Weaver

(2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology , 46(4), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000248

21.

Donnelly

(1993). Sexually inactive marriages. The Journal of Sex Research , 30, 171–179.

22.

Donnelly

, Burgess

, Anderson

, Davis

, & Dillard

(2001). Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis. Journal of Sex Research , 38(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552083

23.

Dragiewicz

(2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWA activism. Feminist Criminology , 3(2), 121–144.

24.

Duggen

, & Smith

(2013, July 3). 6% of online adults are reddit users. Pew Research Center . https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/07/03/6-of-online-adults-are-reddit-users/

25.

Elam

P. D.

(2019) Men, women, relationships: Surviving the plague of modern masculinity.

LPS Publishing.

26.

Freilich

J. D.

, Adamczyk

, Chermak

S. M.

, Boyd

, & Parkin

W. S.

(2015). Disorganization, diversity and deadly far-right ideological violence: A county level analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 31, 383–411.

27.

Freilich

J. D.

, Chermak

S. M.

, & Gruenewald

(2015). The future of terrorism research: A review essay. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice , 39(4), 353–369.

28.

Ging

(2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities , 22, 638–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X17706401

29.

Gotell

, & Dutton

(2016). Sexual violence in the “manosphere”: Antifeminist men’s rights discourses on rape. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy , 5(2), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310

30.

Hamm

M. S.

(2002). In bad company: America’s terrorist underground . Upne.

31.

Hamm

M. S.

, & Spaaij

(2017). The age of lone wolf terrorism . Columbia University Press.

32.

Hegghammer

(2013). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining variation in Western jihadists’ choice between domestic and foreign fighting. American Political Science Review , 107, 1–15.

33.

Herbert

(1998). Police Subculture Reconsidered. Criminology , 36(2), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01251.x

34.

Holt

T. J.

(2007). Deviant Behavior subcultural evolution? examining the influence of on-and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior , 28, 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620601131065

35.

Holt

T. J.

(2010). Examining the Role of Technology in the Formation of Deviant Subcultures. Social Science Computer Review , 28, 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309351344

36.

Holt

T. J.

, Blevins

K. R.

, & Burkert

(2010). Considering the pedophile subculture online. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 22(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063209344979

37.

Holt

T. J.

, & Bossler

A. M.

(2015). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses . Routledge.

38.

Holt

T. J.

, Freilich

J. D.

, & Chermak

S. M.

(2016). Internet-based radicalization as enculturation to violent deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior , 47, 1–15.

39.

Holt

T. J.

, Freilich

J. D.

, & Chermak

S. M.

(2017). Internet-based radicalization as enculturation to violent deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior , 38(8), 855–869.

40.

Holt

T. J.

, Freilich

J. D.

, Chermak

S. M.

, & Lafree

(2018). Pathways toward terrorism and genocide Examining the utility of social control and social learning in the radicalization of violent and non-violent extremists. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict , 11, 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2018.1470661

41.

Holt

T. J.

, Freilich

J. D.

, Chermak

S. M.

, Mills

, & Silva

(2019). Loners, colleagues, or peers? Assessing the social organization of radicalization. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 44(1), 83–105.

42.

Hotez

(2019). The physician-scientist: Defending vaccines and combating antiscience. The Journal of Clinical Investigation , 129(6), 2169–2171.

43.

Hotez

P. J.

, Nuzhath

, & Colwell

(2020). Combatting vaccine hesitancy and other 21st century social determinants in the global fight against measles. Current Opinion in Virology , 41, 1–7.

44.

Hutchings

, & Holt

T. J.

(2015). A crime script analysis of the online stolen data market. British Journal of Criminology , 55(3), 596–614.

45.

Ironwood

(2013). The Manosphere: How the res-pill, game, and the internet are revalorizing masculinity for the 21st century . Red Pill Press.

46.

Jenkins

(2001). Pedophiles and priests: Anatomy of a contemporary crisis . Oxford University Press.

47.

Jennings

(2018). Incels categorize women by personal style and attractiveness. Vox . https://www.vox.com/2018/4/28/17290256/incel-chad-stacy-becky

48.

Khalil

, Horgan

, & Zeuthen

(2019). The Attitudes-Behaviors Corrective (ABC) model of violent extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1699793

49.

Kini

A. N.

(2017, November 15). How Reddit is teaching young men to hate women. Vice . https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gyj3yw/how-reddit-is-teaching-young-men-to-hate-women

50.

Klee

(2018). The disturbing reason incels are obsessed with teenage love . MEL Magazine. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/incels-teenage-love

51.

Koehler

(2016). Understanding deradicalization: Methods, tools and programs for countering violent extremism . Routledge.

52.

LaFree

, & Bersani

(2014). County-level correlates of terrorist attacks in the United States. Criminology and Public Policy , 13, 455–481.

53.

LaFree

, & Freilich

J. D.

(Eds.). (2016). The handbook of the criminology of terrorism . John Wiley & Sons.

54.

Laumann

, Gagnon

, Michael

, & Michaels

(1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States . University of Chicago Press.

55.

Levinson

D. J.

(1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist , 4, 3–13.

56.

Mann

, & Sutton

(1998). Netcrime: More change in the organization of thieving. British Journal of Criminology , 38, 201–229.

57.

Mccauley

, & Moskalenko

(2008). Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence , 20, 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550802073367

58.

Maratea

R. J.

(2011). Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-line community. Deviant Behavior , 32(10), 918–943.

59.

Maurer

D. W.

(1974). The American confidence man . Thomas.

60.

McCauley

, & Moskalenko

(2011). Friction: How radicalization happens to them and us . Oxford University Press.

61.

Miller

W. B.

(1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues , 14, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351157803-2

62.

Moghaddam

F. M.

(2005). The staircase to terrorism a psychological exploration. American Psychologist , 60(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.161

63.

Moran

M. B.

, Lucas

, Everhart

, Morgan

, & Prickett

(2016). What makes anti-vaccine websites persuasive? A content analysis of techniques used by antivaccine websites to engender anti-vaccine sentiment. Journal of Communications in Healthcare , 9, 151–163.

64.

Muir

(1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians . University of Chicago Press.

65.

Nagle

(2017). Kill all normies: The online culture wars from Tumblr and 4Chan to the Alt-right and Trump . Zero Books.

66.

Neugarten

B. L.

, Moore

J. M.

, & Lowe

J. C.

(1968). Age norms, age constraints, and adult socialization. In Neugarten

B. L.

(Ed.), Middle age and aging: A reader in social psychology (pp. 23–28). University of Chicago Press.

67.

Parkin

W. S.

, & Freilich

J. D.

(2015). Routine activities and right-wing extremists: An empirical comparison of the victims of ideologically and non-ideologically motivated homicides committed by American far-rightists. Terrorism and Political Violence , 27, 182–203.

68.

Quinn

J. F.

, & Forsyth

C. J.

(2005). Describing sexual behavior in the era of the internet: A typology for empirical research. Deviant Behavior , 26(3), 191–207.

69.

Saldana

(2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers . Sage Publications.

70.

Salter

, & Crofts

(2015). Responding to revenge porn: Challenging online legal immunity. In Comella

& Tarrant

(Eds.), New views on pornography: Sexuality, politics and the law (pp. 233–253). Praeger.

71.

Shulman

, & Connolly

(2013). State of the field the challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood , 1, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330

72.

Silke

(2008). Research on terrorism: A review of the impact of 9/11 and the global war on terrorism. In Chen

, Reid

, Sinai

, Silke

& Ganor

(Eds.), Terrorism informatics: Knowledge management and data mining for homeland security (pp. 27–50). Springer.

73.

Silverman

(2013). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . Sage Publications.

74.

Simi

, & Futrell

(2010). American swastika: Inside the white power movement’s hidden spaces of hate . Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

75.

Skolnick

(1966). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society . John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

76.

Smith

B. L.

, & Damphousse

K. R.

(2009). Patterns of precursor behaviors in the life span of a US Environmental Terrorist Group. Criminology and Public Policy , 8, 475–496.

77.

Swidler

(1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review , 51(2), 273–286.

78.

Tolentino

(2018, May 15). The rage of the incels. The New Yorker . https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rage-of-the-incels

79.

Valkenburgh

S. P. van.

(2018). Digesting the red pill: Masculinity and neoliberalism in the manosphere. Men and Masculinities . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18816118

80.

Vandello

J. A.

, & Bosson

J. K.

(2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 14, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826

81.

Vandello

J. A.

, Bosson

J. K.

, Cohen

, Burnaford

R. M.

, & Weaver

J. R.

(2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95(6), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453

82.

Waling

(2017). “We are so pumped full of shit by the media:” Masculinity, magazines, and the lack of self-identification. Men and Masculinities , 20(4), 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X16652654

83.

Watts

R. J.

, Abdul-Adil

J. K.

, & Pratt

(2002). Enhancing critical consciousness in young African American men: A psychoeducational approach. Psychology of Men and Masculinity , 3(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.1.41

84.

Weaver

K. S.

, & Vescio

T. K.

(2015). The justification of social inequality in response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles , 72, 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0484-y

85.

Weimann

(2011). Cyber-Fatwas and terrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism , 34, 765–781.

86.

Williams

M. J.

, Horgan

J. G.

, & Evans

W. P.

(2016). The critical role of friends in networks for countering violent extremism: Toward a theory of vicarious help-seeking. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression , 8(1), 45–65.

87.

Wolfgang

M. E.

, & Ferracuti

(1967). The subculture of violence: Towards and integrated theory in criminology . Sage Publications.

88.

Wootton

, Hotez

P. J.

, & Boom

(2019). Texas: Averting disease and confronting a new vaccine refusal hierarchy. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk , 10, 1–4.

89.

Young

(2011). Moral panics and the transgressive other. Crime, Media, Culture , 7(3), 245–258.