Have states abdicated their responsibility for tackling misogynist incels?

policypressblog

by Elsa Bengtsson Meuller and Elizabeth Evans

Have states abdicated their responsibility for tackling misogynist incels? 

Incels, which stands for involuntary celibate/celibacy, are mostly associated with the spate of deadly in-person attacks which have occurred across the US, Canada, and the UK. The attacks, and the misogynistic views espoused by those who commit such atrocities, are widely condemned; but we wanted to find out specifically what states are actually doing to address incel violence? In our recent article published in Policy & Politics entitled Comparing policy responses to incels in Sweden and the UK, we looked at how politicians and states are responding to the rise of incel violence. Incel is an identity that is self-ascribed. While ‘incel’ has its origins in a non-misogynistic community1, today it is mostly associated with a group of men who form misogynistic networks across multiple websites and online forums. These incels2 believe that women oppress men through a “rigged” dating market that disadvantages incels. To address their perceived injustice, incels dehumanise women, argue for controlling women’s sexuality, and engage in misogynistic and racist violence both on and off the internet.  

Levels of incel activity are high in both the UK and Sweden3 so we were keen to find out what the governments were doing in response. We find that the UK and Swedish governments’ responses to incels are unclear, resulting in a policy lacuna. The state in the UK and Sweden has, in effect, abdicated its responsibility for countering incels’ violence. This is especially concerning because recent reports suggest growing incel activity on social media platforms. Parliaments in both nations are, however, starting to show some interest in the issue; there have been parliamentary debates on incels in both cases. However, of the two, Sweden seems to have a clearer, although limited, response to incels in their countering violent extremism (CVE) strategies. Recent reports suggest that the UK is also heading in the same direction4. However, is taking a CVE approach to incels the right way to go?  

We know that the incel phenomenon is a multidimensional problem; the topic of incels frequent mental health and violence against women and girls debates. We also note that tech companies are not properly addressing the issue of violence conducted through their services. Ultimately, we are concerned about how little these debates, and resulting (in)action, have done to help victims/survivors. Subsuming the phenomenon into an already existing strategy, such as a CVE approach, may overlook effective policy responses. 

We suggest that a bespoke policy is needed to properly address the (misogynist) incel phenomenon. We need to develop targeted policies to address all its forms, including recognising the community’s connection to white supremacy. We argue that a targeted policy could bring about positive policy feedback. In turn, gendered attitudes and behaviours could be transformed. To help governments and tech companies to address their role in countering the incel phenomenon, we suggest some priorities for action: 

  • Governments should conduct research into the area,  specifically allocating time and resources for deliberation and debate concerning how best to develop effective policy.  
  • Policies need to include victims/survivors of violence conducted through online technologies. 
  • Tech companies should work with governments to develop practices that effectively support victims/survivors of violence conducted through their platforms.  
  • Governments should better regulate tech companies to hold them accountable for the material published through their platforms. 

In summary then, although analysis of incels to date has tended to focus on what incels mean for our understanding of gender, as well as the role that the internet plays in fostering extremist ideologies, this article breaks new ground by providing a comparative critical frame analysis of policy responses in Sweden and the United Kingdom and draws out the implications of the findings.  

This research is important on two counts. Firstly, because of its theoretical argument that the absence of specific policies to tackle the threat posed by incels in both countries can be understood as an abdication of responsibility. Secondly, that the diverse policy frames at work make it more difficult to argue for the development of new targeted policies.  

You can read the original research in  Policy & Politics  at:
Bengtsson Meuller, E., & Evans, E. (2024). Comparing policy responses to incels in Sweden and the UK. Policy & Politics (published online ahead of print 2024) from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2024D000000045

If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Caravantes, P., & Lombardo, E. (2024). Feminist democratic innovations in policy and politics. Policy & Politics, 52(2), 177-199 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000009

McCabe, L. (2024). An intersectional analysis of contestations within women’s movements: the case of Scottish domestic abuse policymaking. Policy & Politics, 52(3), 521-545 from https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000021

Leave a comment