The "Incel" Crisis May Have A Simple Explanation

When you don’t live close to one another, of course there’s going to be lots of single, sexless men out there.

Source

Yes, it’s our friend KaiserBauch again! He really is one of the best YouTube channels in existence. His studies on demographics are among the best you’ll find without going down the academic road. Demographics can be quite boring, in part due to being so numbers-heavy, so it’s a real talent on KaiserBauch’s part to so simply convey what it all means and why we ought to care.

In his latest video, he wades into the controversial, emotionally-charged “incel” crisis plaguing the West. “Incel” stands for “involuntary celibate,” referring to primarily young men who have not only never had a sexual experience with a woman, but no relationships, either. It’s a crisis without precedent in history, where young men and young women aren’t forming intimate relationships. The scope of the problem can be easily overstated, but the fact that it’s happening at all to the point it’s now a societal issue is concerning.

KaiserBauch takes all the emotion out of it, however, by focusing on the numbers and providing a wholly practical explanation for what’s causing the incel crisis. The explanation may or may not surprise you.

Watch the entire video when you have nothing better to do. Like all of his videos, they’re worth your time:

Here are the Cliff Notes on KaiserBauch’s argument.

The Incel Crisis Is Caused By Too Many Men, Too Few Women

Just as the video’s title suggests, there are, indeed, more men in this world than there are women. Now, we need to unpack that a little bit. As with so many things in life, demographics are driven by two contravening forces: at the bottom end of the population pyramid, you have a surplus of young men compared to young men, while at the top, you have surplus of old women compared to old men. But the incel crisis afflicts young men; when there are fewer young women compared to young men, it’s only inevitable that some of the latter will be left out in the cold.

To illustrate what’s being talked about, take a look at the following population pyramid of Germany, which shows a surplus of males at younger ages and a surplus of females at older ages:

KaiserBauch notes that this is a phenomenon you see throughout the world: more males being born than females. Why is this happening? He says there’s no widely-accepted explanation for this phenomenon. For now, it’s enough to note that more males than females are being born. Until this trend reverses or at least balances out, it suggests the incel crisis does have some longevity, unfortunately.

But it goes a lot deeper than just the gender imbalance…

Young Men And Women Lead Different Lives In Different Places

KaiserBauch observes that men and women pick different career tracks, leading them not only to lead different lifestyles, but to live in different places altogether. To put it bluntly, men pick “harder” careers, women “softer” ones. Men work in fields that deal with things, where they get to work with their hands, and where the occupational hazard is higher. Women, on the other hand, Surely, this doesn’t mean men and women never interact with one another, nor end up in relationships, no?

This is where the location disparity comes in. Male careers tend to take them away from urban areas, while female-dominant careers tend to draw them towards urban areas. Therefore, the closer you get to the city, the higher the concentration of women and lower in that of men, while the further away you get from the city, the higher the concentration of men and lower in that of the women.

But any demographics study shows there are plenty of women far away from the city, including rural areas! Yes, but again, the key qualifier is “young.” Populations in rural America, at least, tend to be older than the national median, and the women who live in these areas also tend to be older. Young women don’t predominate away from the city, while there exists a higher concentration of young men. Similar patterns can be seen in Europe.

The bottom line is that young men live where there’s are fewer young women, while young women live where there are fewer young men. When you don’t live close to one another, of course there’s going to be lots of single, sexless men out there.

When Native Men Do Marry, They Marry Non-Natives

Though men are considered, stupidly, I might add, to be the less tolerant, more close-minded of the two sexes, the data doesn’t bear this out, at least when it comes to relationships. Throughout the West, Europe included, men are leading the charge when it comes to interracial relationships, marriage encapsulated. Women, despite supposedly being the more tolerant, less close-minded sex, are more likely to form relationships within their racial in-group, or not be in a relationship at all.

What’s happening here? Because men are having difficulty finding women to marry due to the aforementioned dynamics, they’re turning to women outside their racial in-group, including foreign women. The increasing multiracialism of the West is being driven by this phenomenon - native men marrying non-native women. KaiserBauch has on more than one occasion discussed the curious case of Sweden, where native men marrying non-native women is seen most acutely in the country’s non-urban areas.

You also see a similar phenomenon in non-Western countries. In South Korea, where the rift between young men and women is as wide as anywhere on the planet, with birth rates the absolute lowest, men are marrying women from places like the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, as finding suitors among natives has become stiflingly difficult.

If the West’s racial history is indeed headed for Brazilification, the “incel” phenomenon will have had a played major role.

Where Is The “Incel” Phenomenon Most Acute?

The answer may surprise you. Based on the geographic breakdown of users on incel forums, research shows that, at least in Europe, the incel phenomenon is most prevalent, by far, in Germany.

From the video:

Why this is is unknown, certainly the basis for more research. It’s not even clear that these numbers are reliable. There’s not much more to say here, except Germany appears to be playing the same role it does in any major worldwide social trend, be it fascism, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.: overdoing it.

Further research reveals other interesting facts about inceldom, much of which goes against conventional wisdom. For example, incels are characterized as primarily “angry young White males,” but studies reveal White males either comprise a majority only by virtue of their proportion of the overall population, or, in some cases, to not comprise a majority at all. In fact, Asians of all ethnicities appear to be over-represented, and in global incel forums, they even comprise the majority.

All this shows is that the incel phenomenon is nowhere near as well-understood as many seem to believe, underscoring the need for further research. But can that research be conducted evenhandedly? In today’s hyper-politicized, pro-feminist era, that’s always a concern.

Women, Not Men, Are The Drivers Of The Political Divide

This is less a point KaiserBauch makes and more one that I’m making. Other voices with bigger profiles than mine are catching on to something I noticed long ago: in the West, the increasing political divide between young men and women is often blamed on men, but the data clearly shows it’s women who were radicalized.

In America:

Source

Compare the U.S. situation to that of other countries:

Source

Though we don’t have data for every country (I wish to God we did!), in the West, a general trend appears quite obvious: women radicalized to the left, men more or less consistent, with a recent gradual shift to the right. South Korea appears to be an outlier, where men and women turned dramatically in completely opposite directions, politically. A lot of erstwhile intelligent Western commentators seems to want the South Korean situation to apply to their countries, including in the U.S., but this simply isn’t what’s happening here. South Korea is truly one-of-a-kind, deserving a discussion all its own.

But back to us: this year’s presidential election revealed that yes, there exists a statistically significant gap between young men and women. However, the gap is nowhere near as large as some feared. In fact, slightly more young women voted for Donald Trump this election over the last. The gap between young men and women grew only because the former overwhelmingly went for Trump. This is something of a reversal of what we saw beginning 10 years ago, when both men and women shifted left, but women more drastically so. Just as there’s a limit to how far left young Americans can shift, there’s likely to be a limit to how far right they can shift as well.

That said, the Fourth Turning looms large. It’s very possible events could force both young men and women to shift decisively right, establishing more conventional, in the words of Neil Howe, social norms, in the wake of hardship and tragedy.

I hope you’ll all take the time to watch the entire video. Like all of KaiserBauch’s works, you’ll learn a lot, and you’ll be able to explore a controversial subject without getting your emotions wrapped up in it. That’s another rare talent of his: the ability to talk about an emotionally triggering topic without doing so in the process.

Man Or Woman, We Are What We Are

A video clip from a podcast (click the source hyperlink below the screencap to watch) sparked an interesting, if fleeting, debate about the strength disparity between men and women:

Source

As someone who once trained in Krav Maga, there’s a reason I call it “Krav Magic.” It’s one of the more easily-accessible combatives, but that accessibility makes people believe they’re more capable of handling themselves in a violent situation than they really are. I can attest that they don’t train their students on how to avoid dangerous encounters, the parameters of the use of force, the most important aspects of personal safety. Most martial arts don’t, but Krav Maga is marketed as having greater real-world applicability than the more traditional martial arts like Tae Kwon Do, which makes their decision to not teach these things deeply problematic, in my view.

Conventional wisdom holds that the more skilled fighter will overcome the stronger, less-skilled fighter, but this isn’t necessarily the case. It may not even be true at all. The reality is that the person who is both strong and willing to bring all their strength to bear possesses overwhelming advantages over the person who doesn’t. Men are generally far stronger than women and can bring more of that strength to bear in a physical struggle. If that man happens to be skilled as well, the woman is no match.

In response to the video above, “Allyson Taft” said:

Early on in my relationship with my very tall guy, we had an ongoing debate about whether or not I would win in a fight against him, provided I was armed with a pool stick.

I may have seen one too many movie, but I genuinely believed that a pool cue would give me the edge needed to overcome a 9” 75+ lb difference (in addition to the gender strength gap).

After months of debating this back and forth, one night at a bar he finally had enough, threw me a pool cue and told me to swing it at him as hard as I could.

After some convincing, I did it.

I swung as hard as my tipsy self could. And he effortlessly caught the pool stick and pulled it from my hands, leaving me unarmed and defenseless. (And completely ending that debate.)

Most women are delusional about our physical capabilities relative to men.

Thanks, Marvel.

The last sentence is a reference to how popular media has completely warped perceptions of not only what women are actually capable of, but also what real-world violence is actually like. In an attempt to subvert society’s values, it may only have set women up for fatal failure. Women are woefully ignorant of violence because it’s generally not their biological realm. They are disproportionately its victims, which influences their sentiments on the utility of violence, as well as who should be allowed to legitimately exercise it.

Apply this to the issue of women in combat, certain to become another hot topic of discussion during the process to confirm Pete Hegseth as the next Secretary of Defense. It’s unfortunate we can’t have an adult, informed discussion on the matter, but it’s what happens when everything is viewed through the lens of “civil rights.” Here in my space, however, we’re not afraid of having tough discussions, right? Even when it comes to our society’s sacred cows.

Put aside your personal feelings on the topic and instead focus on what we all should be able to agree on, which are the following facts:

• Women are generally weaker than men.

• Women are uniquely at risk at the hands of men.

Assuming everyone agrees on these two points, ask yourself: why should women then be allowed to become soldiers and police officers, where their job would be to close with and engage dangerous men in violent, life-or-death struggles? How does that make any sense?

I often make note of the fact the most dangerous job in America is that of a tree trimmer, but there’s no big push for more female representation in the occupation. Meanwhile, the military and law enforcement community expend tremendous capital in trying to recruit women. Why the disparity? The answer is status: equality matters only with respect to being able to reap the same benefits as men would, not the costs. Yet a woman is more fit to be a tree trimmer than a cop or soldier, since there’s no person-to-person strength disparity to contend with. A tree which falls atop a person will crush them whether it’s a man or woman. Conversely, a suspect a male police officer might be reasonably expected to handle will likely overwhelm a female officer.

The difference is that tree-trimming is a low-status occupation. Military and law enforcement are higher-status occupations, henceforth offering greater life benefits. Unlike tree trimming, military and law enforcement careers also constitute positions of social authority, which is the ultimate form of status. It’s the reason why teaching, despite relatively low pay, is considered a higher-status profession than most, because teachers are considered authority figures.

But teaching isn’t the same as being sent into life-threatening situations for a living. Confronting criminals and waging war as a job you get paid to do is a serious commitment that comes with many strings attached. I think our society agrees, at least superficially, that not everyone should do these things and get paid for it. I also think most people, deep down inside, know that most women are probably unfit for such work due to their disparities compared to men, even if they can’t draw the connection between biological limitations and the necessity of limitations imposed by society. Yet once again, in the name of equality, in the interest of civil rights, women are being encouraged to enter professions where they’re expected to get physical with dangerous, violent men, with the contradiction in doing so either lost on everyone or forcibly suppressed.

Lately, I’ve been recalling a story about an incident involving a female police officer which altered my perception of women doing jobs where they need to get physical with violent people. It was a YouTube video I saw many years ago, one I can no longer find, so I may get some details wrong, but my overall summary is probably accurate.

The female police officer responded to a call at a gas station where the clerk, also a woman, was being accosted by her estranged husband. Again, if my recollection is correct, the officer and the man got into a physical altercation, and it ended with him taking her gun. A police officer losing their gun is a no-no and they’re expected to fight tooth-and-nail to get it back.

Instead, this officer retreated inside the store, with the man in pursuit. The officer then went behind the counter, where the clerk was, where I expected maybe the officer would find herself another weapon with which to defend themselves. Instead, by her own retelling, she pushed the clerk down, shielding her with her own body, thinking she might give her a fighting chance if she took the bullets instead.

It all sounds brave, until you realize this officer basically gave up and resorted to a last-ditch move that in no way assured anyone’s survival, especially the clerk’s. That gun magazine holds 8 to 12 rounds; was the officer planning on taking all those hits? If the officer dies, then the clerk is defenseless, anyway, even if the bad guy runs out of bullets.

The really interesting part is how the officer’s actions sound more like what a mother would do for their child than what a cop would do. One of my animating themes is that we cannot escape our biological selves. We do what we do in large part because that’s who we are in physical, real form. Our choices, even when made consciously, are often the function of biology. When that female officer chose to retreat and shield the other woman with her own body, she was doing what she had biologically evolved to do. She had no time to think; her instincts took over in that moment. Nobody wants to say so, but what a person does instinctively is who they really are.

When I was on my super-secret assignment (a.k.a. “vacation”) overseas a few months ago, I bore witness to a bar fight that nearly turned into an all-out brawl. There were two young women of college age - both Americans, I might add - who were sitting next to us in the corner. The fight was happening just a few feet from them and I immediately began to consider the fact I may need to get between the young ladies and the angry men who were more than fixing to start throwing punches.

Similarly, I think the reason why the murder and rape of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray affects me so deeply isn’t just because her killers were illegal immigrants. It’s also because I’m old enough to have a daughter of my own her age. I have no children, but age-wise, it’s “father time” for me. We cannot escape our biological selves.

Back to the story. Compare the actions of the female officer to that of Deputy Steven Rankin of the Crisp County Sheriff’s Department in Georgia. On the night of February 5, 2006, Rankin was shot in the face, but managed to fight back and survive:

The point isn’t that a woman isn’t capable of this kind of bravery. The point is that a woman’s reaction is usually going to be far different from that of a man’s, given similar circumstances, because we’re not the same. In many ways, what the female officer did in the encounter at the gas station (both she and the clerk survived) was indeed brave. However, is that the kind of bravery we should come to expect from our police officers?

I made the point once that there are children out there willing to die for their parents. It’s a wonderful thing, but does that mean children should be allowed to become cops or soldiers? Of course not. Why not? Biology! Children are physically incapable of performing such tasks. Women might be capable of performing some of the tasks, but how well can they perform them against a wide range of individuals?

I’ve been speaking primarily in a law enforcement context thus far, because the folly of sending women into combat, I think, ought to be apparent to all. There’s no harm to teaching women how to fight and defend themselves, and there are certainly roles women can play effectively in the military. But having them perform combat as their day job is a different matter altogether.

Combat humbles the bravest of us, and not everyone proves themselves as worthy. But this calls for a narrower profile of those who should serve in combat, not a wider profile. This rules out most women, like it or not, because their protective instinct isn’t the same as that of men. Even most women who serve in the military likely wouldn’t have intervened as Daniel Penny did in the face of a threat from a threatening individual. This is simply not who women are biologically and no amount of training can overcome that. Men instinctually rise up in the face of danger; women don’t.

But so many men are cowards! Yes, but social policy should always be based on generalities, alongside biological realities. Men are more likely to respond physically to a provocation than women are, often to their detriment, meaning it’s more reasonable to use men in combat or law enforcement than it is to use women. Society cannot be managed along a different set of rules for every unique circumstance.

As for allowing women who can perform at the level required in dangerous situations to serve in combat or in policing, that’s something of a different discussion. I think most people would be open to the idea, as long as women are expected to meet the same standards as men. However, it’s been proven time and again that the standards aren’t what matters to the people in charge; it’s the proportion of women that does. If they could get away with it, I’m sure they’d get rid of the standards completely if it meant every combat unit and every police agency was 100 percent female. The only reason why they don’t is because they need capable, competent males to do the job, along with maintaining a veneer of professionalism.

At some point during the Fourth Turning, America will once again endure high levels of violence, be it in a war against a foreign adversary, or, God forbid, a civil war/revolution on home soil. It ought to be hoped that during this time, our society takes a good, long look at itself in the mirror and asks itself whether having women serve in combat or law enforcement is as a good idea as it seemed at first. There are many brave, strong women out there. But it’s a different kind of bravery and strength. If we also agree that not every brave and strong man should serve in uniform, we should also be willing to say the same for putting women in harm’s way and compensating them for it.

On a more humorous note, check out this video showing, quite accurately, the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to real-world violence between men and women:

Source

I don’t know who these kids are nor where they’re from, but they’re to be commended for having the guts to be totally honest. These kids are definitely alright!

Bravery Doesn’t Come From A Uniform

Let’s close on a more positive note. Readers of a certain age will remember the reality television series Rescue 911. Hosted by William Shatner, it aired on CBS from 1989 to 1996.

Remember the show’s heart-pounding opening? I’ve never forgotten it:

This show had a tremendous impact on me as a kid. Rescue 911 didn’t just tell tales of the heroism of first responders; it showed the heroism of everyday people, all of whom woke up on a fateful day, completely unaware of what life would demand of them. It not only motivated me to consider a career as a first responder, but it’s also probably the genesis of my preparedness.

As I grew up, I unlearned, then re-learned the importance of preparedness. I also learned that bravery alone doesn’t qualify any of us to pursue careers in service of others. But the main lesson of Rescue 911 has always stayed with me: sometimes, whether it’s our job to do so or not, we may have no choice to step forth and offer deliverance to others, from danger, injury, or death.

Hence, as with so many things, we must contend with two seemingly contradictory facts of life: not everyone is made to serve others, but all of us must be prepared to serve others when fate calls upon us to do so. Just because we can’t pursue careers as firefighters, law enforcement officers, or military service members doesn’t make us lesser people. Nor does it mean we can never come to the aid of others. In fact, our deference to those in uniform, to the so-called “professionals” is a problem, in my view.

Watching these old episodes of Rescue 911, which depict incidents that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, almost seem to be from a different country. Learning of real-life incidents where everyday people were forced into extraordinary situations, as well as the courage and selflessness on display, it instills great faith in your fellow countrymen. As a kid, it made me believe I could trust others, that I was surrounded by good people who’d come to my aid if I ever needed it most.

Truth is obviously more complicated, but it’s good to remind oneself of who we once were, that bravery is something which exists in our hearts, and that we all have a responsibility to one another, no matter our age, gender, or race. Many of Rescue 911’s stories involved children coming to the aid of adults, the elderly saving the lives of the young. The time during which Rescue 911 aired is closer to the Civil Rights era than we are to show’s run, yet you see Blacks and Whites, people of all races, helping one another without a second thought. As someone once said, a nation is a giant foxhole, and Rescue 911 proved it. Nothing forges solidarity better than crisis, which can also unfortunately be our undoing.

I don’t know if we’re still that country we saw in Rescue 911. All I know is that we should draw inspiration from the past and become the kind of person we would like our fellow countrymen to be. We may get only one, just one, opportunity in our lifetimes to be of salvation to others. When that time comes, we must be brave enough to step up and deliver. Lives may depend on it.

Watch this video and listen to a train conductor who saved the lives of two small boys from being struck by his train talk about what motivated him to put his own life in danger (clip set to start at 7:19):

Despite having no children of his own, his fatherly instincts were still there. He understood that when it came down to it, he had a responsibility to lay his life down to save the young. It’s what we are. Damn anyone who tries to change that.

One last example: on August 8, 1982, four-year-old Jonathan Keane was struck by a line drive foul ball during a baseball game at Boston’s Fenway Park (it’s why it’s a good thing we have netting now!). With the boy bleeding profusely from the head, Red Sox player Jim Rice immediately recognized the urgency of the situation, emerged from the dugout, entered the stands, and carried the boy in his arms back to his clubhouse, where the team’s top-notch medical doctor immediately went to work. Within minutes, the boy was on his way to the hospital. Despite the severity of his injuries, the boy lived and made a full recovery.

Here’s the iconic photograph of Jim Rice carrying Jonathan Keane in his arms. Notice the stoicism on Rice’s face, despite holding the life of a child literally in his hands:

Rice likely never guessed he’d be in the situation he found himself on that. He probably thought it was going to be just another baseball game and that his team would win. When disaster struck, however, he immediately stepped up. When asked why, he replied, “If it was your kid, what would you do?”

“What would you do?” is a question we must all seriously consider, but can only be answered when that moment comes.

For now, let’s talk about all that’s been discussed here. What are your thoughts on a demographic explanation of the “incel” crisis? Do you find it convincing, or is there much more to it? What do you think about women pursuing careers confronting dangerous men? Was this ever a good idea? Should our society make more of an effort to function along biological reality? Did you watch Rescue 911? If so, did it leave an impression on you as it did on me?

Talk about it in the comments section.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!