Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Dec;24(5):823-841.
doi: 10.1177/1097184X211017954. Epub 2021 May 18.

The Black Pill: New Technology and the Male Supremacy of Involuntarily Celibate Men

Kayla Preston  1 , Michael Halpin  2 , Finlay Maguire  3
Affiliations

The Black Pill: New Technology and the Male Supremacy of Involuntarily Celibate Men

Kayla Preston et al. Men Masc. 2021 Dec.

Abstract

Involuntary celibates, or "incels," are people who identify themselves by their inability to establish sexual partnerships. In this article, we use analytic abduction to qualitatively analyze 9,062 comments on a popular incel forum for heterosexual men that is characterized by extensive misogyny. Incels argue that emerging technologies reveal and compound the gender practices that produce involuntarily celibate men. First, incels argue that women's use of dating apps accelerates hypergamy. Second, incels suggest that highly desirable men use dating apps to partner with multiple women. Third, incels assert that subordinate men inflate women's egos and their "sexual marketplace value" through social media platforms. We argue that incels' focus on technology reinforces essentialist views on gender, buttresses male domination, dehumanizes women, and minimizes incels' own misogyny. We discuss findings in relation to theories of masculinity and social scientific research on the impacts of emerging technology.

Keywords: communities; hegemonic masculinity; incels; misogyny; online; social media; technology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abramova O., Baumann A., Krasnova H., Buxmann P. 2016. Gender Differences in Online Dating: What Do We Know So Far? A Systematic Literature Review. Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL), (77661). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
    1. Baele S. J., Brace L., Coan T. G. 2019. “From ‘Incel’ to ‘Saint’: Analyzing the Violent Worldview Behind the 2018 Toronto Attack.” Terrorism and Political Violence. doi:10.1080/09546553.2019.1638256.
    1. Bellmore A, Xu A. J. Calvin J. M., Zhu X. 2015. “The Five W’s of ‘Bullying’ on Twitter: Who, What, Why, Where, and When.” Computers in Human Behavior 44: 305–314. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.052.
    1. Besen-Cassino Y. 2019. “Gender Threat and Men in the Post-Trump World: The Effects of a Changing Economy on Men’s Housework.” Men & Masculinities 22: 44–52. doi:10.1177/1097184X18805549.
    1. Bridges T., Pascoe C. J. 2014.“Hybrid Masculinities: New Directions in the Sociology of Men and Masculinities.” Sociology Compass 8: 246–258. doi:10.1111/soc4.12134.

LinkOut - more resources