The monstrous-feminine in the incel imagination: Investigating the representation of women as “femoids” on /r/Braincels
Abstract
This article presents a study of the discourses circulating /r/Braincels, the (now-defunct) forum on Reddit for self-proclaimed “incels,” that bolster the belief in the structural victimisation of men under a purported gynocentric order. Particularly, it uses feminist critical discourse analysis to explore perceptions created by the term “femoid,” a pejorative generated by incels to refer to women. It examines the dehumanising characteristics of “femoid” that construct women as an abject Other—a monstrous-feminine—thereby justifying the violence enacted on them. I demonstrate how, rather than being unique to online spaces, the misogyny expressed on /r/Braincels is linked to and enabled by broader social practices that similarly position women as inferior Others; these attitudes are symptomatic of, not anomalous to, the deeply misogynistic society we live in.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Confirming previous literature, the accounts aimed to expose women's privilege, unattractive men's victimisation at the hand of women and the immutability of the incel condition.
“Confirming previous literature (Baele et al., 2019; Chang, 2020; Ging, 2017), the accounts aimed to expose women's privilege, unattractive men's victimisation at the hand of women and the immutability of the incel condition.”
From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Chang, 2020
This is a departure from previous incel research examining community dynamics and discourse on more secluded forums and websites, where more overt ideological expressions, including mentions of and calls to violence and dehumanising language, were identified.
“This is a departure from previous incel research examining community dynamics and discourse on more secluded forums and websites, where more overt ideological expressions, including mentions of and calls to violence and dehumanising language, were identified (Baele et al., 2019; Chang, 2020; Helm et al., 2022; Jaki et al., 2019).”
From Mainstreaming the Blackpill: Understanding the Incel Community on TikTok (2023) · cites this paper as Chang, 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 142
- Authors
- Chang, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chang, Winnie
- ORCID
- Chang, Winnie
- Venue
- Feminist Media Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-08-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 254-270
- ISSN
- 1468-0777 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-5902
- OpenAlex
- W3048017857
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 13.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Feminist Media Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
- Keywords
- incels, female monstrosity, Reddit, misogyny, representation of women, dehumanization, abjection, online misogyny, gender-based violence, feminist critical discourse analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
