“Misogyny is Self Defense”: A Critical Analysis of Incel Discourse and Belief on Incels.is
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to understand who Incels are as a community and how they radicalize and incite gender-based violence.I engage in a thematic and critical discourse analysis of discussion posts from popular Incels website Incels.is to uncover the ways in which the discourses employed by Incels are shaped by, and are reflective of patriarchy, heteronormativity and white supremacy.I consider how Incels externalize the cause of their involuntary celibacy and use women as scapegoats for their lack of romantic and sexual success and use biologically determinist discourses to justify their anger that they are unable to perform a masculinity characterized by sexual conquest.This research provides insight into how Incels are not a mere fringe abnormality, rather their misogyny is a logical but extreme extension of patriarchal, heteronormative and white supremacist power relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".