Dissecting the Incel Subculture: Between Marginalisation and Misogyny
Written by Elisa Garbil – 12.05.2025
In recent years, the figure of the “incel” has moved from obscure internet forums into academic discourse, media narratives, and public safety discussions. Initially coined by a queer Canadian woman in the 1990s as part of a support-oriented project, the term “involuntary celibate” once embraced a diverse community of individuals navigating romantic and sexual isolation. Today, the term has been co-opted by a predominantly male online subculture characterised by anti-feminist sentiment, entitlement, and, at its extreme, misogynistic violence.
The current understanding of incel identity is far removed from its original form. Where once there was a sense of communal support and shared vulnerability, there now exists a digital ecosystem steeped in fatalism, nihilism, bitterness, and resentment. Many in the mainstream now associate the term with violent ideologies, driven by an increasingly vocal subset of its members.
The Evolution of Incel Ideology
One of the most central ideas in contemporary incel communities is the concept of the “blackpill”: a deterministic worldview where genetics, societal structures, and cultural preferences are believed to rigidly determine one’s romantic or sexual fate. The blackpill, unlike its more optimistic cousin the redpill (popular in other areas of the manosphere), is a nihilistic admission that self-improvement is futile for the unattractive and socially awkward. For incels who subscribe to this belief, personal failure is not a temporary condition but a permanent sentence.
The culture of inceldom is also structured through mythologies of archetypes. These labels contribute to the community’s othering of both women and conventionally successful men.
Chads are hyper-attractive, socially dominant men who monopolise women’s attention.
Staceys are the prototypical attractive women who choose Chads over average or “beta” males.
Beckys are incels less attractive but still unattainable counterparts.
Online Radicalisation and Violence
The internet has played a pivotal role in shaping, amplifying, and distorting incel ideology. Forum platforms such as Reddit (prior to the banning of r/incels), 4chan, and dedicated .is websites have served as echo chambers where grievances harden into dangerous convictions. These platforms foster a collective identity rooted in victimhood and opposition, particularly toward women and society at large.
This grievance has at times metastasised into real-world violence. High-profile attacks such as those in Toronto (2018) and Plymouth (2021) have drawn urgent attention to the lethal potential of incel radicalisation. Some researchers argue that the incel worldview must be taken as seriously as other extremist ideologies, given the clear ideological framework and demonstrated threat potential.
Importantly, not all who identify as incels are violent, and it would be a mistake to overgeneralise. But the movement’s more visible, misogynistic elements dominate online discourse and are often glorified within insular communities. Manifestos written by attackers are often shared, dissected, and at times idolised, forming a macabre canon of martyrdom and revenge.
Academic Gaps and Conceptual Limitations
Despite the growing body of research, inconsistencies persist in how incels are conceptualised. Current studies often frame incels through three overlapping lenses:
- As oppressors, due to their dehumanising discourse toward women.
- As oppressed, citing personal experiences with social exclusion and mental health struggles.
- As threats, given the radicalisation pathways that have led some to commit mass violence.
This tripartite framing, oppressors, oppressed, and threats, captures the complexity of the subculture but also introduces tensions. Can an individual who espouses misogyny also be a victim of structural or psychological harm? Are all incels inherently radical, or is there a spectrum of belief? These questions remain open, and some scholars argue that greater specificity is needed to distinguish between incel-identifying individuals and the extremist subset that poses a real danger.
Moreover, current research is often limited by access barriers. Many incel forums are difficult to study without immersive, long-term ethnographic engagement. Ethical considerations also make it challenging to engage directly with individuals in these spaces without inadvertently validating harmful beliefs.
Institutional and Policy Responses
Institutions are beginning to respond. Europol and national security agencies have flagged incel ideology as a potential threat, particularly as part of a broader wave of gender-based violence. The European Parliament’s research brief (2024) highlighted the challenge of categorising incel ideology within existing counter-terrorism frameworks, especially as it lacks the organisational structure typical of designated terrorist groups.
Meanwhile, initiatives like the UK’s Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) and NGOs such as Culture Reframed and SafeLine are working to educate professionals, parents, and educators on the signs of incel radicalisation. Prevention-focused resources stress the importance of early intervention, mental health support, and positive masculinities.
Additionally, online regulation is being explored as a necessary tool. Some suggest more robust content moderation strategies, though this raises further concerns about censorship and freedom of expression.
Moving Beyond Stereotypes
What remains crucial is resisting the urge to flatten the incel phenomenon into a monolithic threat. While some elements of the incelosphere are undoubtedly violent and misogynistic, others are more reflective of broader societal issues: loneliness, disconnection, and the crisis of masculinity. Addressing these root causes demands empathy and critical engagement rather than blanket condemnation.
Current scholarship calls for interdisciplinary approaches that account for gender, digital culture, mental health, and social policy. It also insists on linguistic precision, distinguishing between involuntary celibacy as a condition and incel as an ideological identity. Only by disentangling these concepts can interventions be appropriately targeted and effective.
