Incels badly want attention from women, but the way they act basically guarantees they will never have what they want. No self-respecting woman would ever want someone who blames them for all their suffering.
Radical, toxic feminists badly want success, but the toxic behavior they display will ensure that anyone successful and smart will do their best to stay away. No self-respecting businessperson would want to do business with someone who, given criticism they don't like, might turn on a dime and call them a horrible, sexist, patriarchal monster.
You can't have it both ways IMO. You can't say I'm a strong, independent woman, in control of my life, but any time things don't turn out the way I want, it's the fault of sexist cis-white-men. The world is not a fair place, you don't always get what you want when you want it, and sometimes, that's nobody's fault.
Just because some people think in ways that don't work, doesn't mean that there isn't unfairness toward women. But just because there is unfairness doesn't mean that's the cause of everything.
But i think the incel notion didn't even have a grounding in reality underlying it. Isn't it that sex is scarcity and and there's some sort of conspiracy against them as individuals that means they get no sex? Maybe i don't understand their view, but as i state it's, to me, anyway, complete and utter balderdash.
Just because that's bs, doesn't mean that all women are good people who treat everyone fairly, it doesn't mean that some women don't deliberately try to hurt people in relationships and surrounding matters, just like some men do... But the notion that there's a conspiracy targeting some self identified subset of the male population to deprive them sex is just crazy. Plus the notion that somehow they are entitled to some minimum sex quota and are being unfairly shortchanged...which is like the flipside of toxic masculinity. Like defeatist beta male toxic masculinity. Plus the notion sex is scarcity. It's not at all. So the underlying narratives are just bullshit i think. But atop that bs narrative the same type of disempowering delusional pathology that women attributing every failure to institutionalized patriarchal oppression also succumb to.
Another connection I see albeit less commonly occurring in the population is the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. You know like it's not your fault that everything sucks in fact it's the result of someone else some institutionalized oppressor who is deliberately targeting you because of a group membership (that you can rally around), and you need to blame them for everything. It provides a fake pretext for violence, which i think you also see to a lesser degrees with incels and then a type of emotional or reputational violence with twitter mobs.
And i think there's connections with Trump supporters and the white Christian America under attack narrative, although in that case there's a lot of different dynamics at play and it's not as easy to parallel because it's such a popular movement.
I do think there's a common thread that runs through all of these different movements, and whether consciously or unconsciously at work, it's a tool in tool box of people who try to enroll you in these movements and get you to do useful work in them, and that is to cast you as a disempowered member of some targeted group, setting you up to realize that there's "salvation" (or at the very least comforting consolation) achievable via this new group identity.
Apart from the tragedy of the violence which sometimes results, and which is then justified and explained away within the parameter set up by these narratives (at least by the supporters themselves), there's another tragedy where the group identity or "cause" is abused to lend legitimacy and motivation to the movement, and this often disenfranchises people who are authentic members of those groups by clouding their message and hijacking their collective voice (such as actual victims of discrimination, or true followers of Islam)
Of course there's a lot of room within these group definitions for a diversity of people to be genuine members of the group but I suppose that's the point, because it's the inclusivity of these groups that provides this vulnerability of their "brand identity and message" (if you will) to the abuse and exploitation of these movements that co-opt these for something else. These platforms could be sources of good. But when misused like this, the hijacked groupe messaging ends up getting in the way of people who should be doing good, or seeking good, through them. I think such misuse is the second tragedy.
the third tragedy is the that you end up with all these people who are ostensibly seeking empowerment ending up disempowering themselves by believing and acting in alignment with this stuff.
None of these tragedies insignificant. Even in the case where the second tragedy doesn't apply because, at least to me, there's no legitimate narrative underpinning the movement such as in the case of incels, the remaining tragedies are not insignificant.