Vulnerable people tend to be the target of abusive ones. They'll basically reinforce that vulnerable person's beliefs from their experiences to say they shouldn't risk anything but to stick with that abusive partner. So they tend to reinforce the focus more on anyone else being oppressive, to create a sense of "why should you bother?" Also those women who care so much about height tend to be assholes. I saw those types from Twitter a long time ago and I would roll their eyes whenever they, at the same time, sexualise asian men or are outspoken about racism even though asian men tend to be shorter. Also one thing that's almost a parallel to the manosphere are the radfems (or at least they call themselves that way, because whatever they are seems different from what radical feminism is supposed to be). A lot of these radfems tend to just only see men in a bioessentialist or utilitarian way, because they think men are incapable of genuine connection. And it too, is a pipeline of sorts (which I encountered firsthand through Pinterest) because they start with women voicing out real concerns, to "rule of thumbs", to defending the use of generalised language such as "men are...", until they become prejudiced and start seeing individual men as only a part of a greater whole for this perceived collective identity of a "man".

I haven't seen this mentioned elsewhere, but at least in my anecdotal experience women seeking taller men is another symptom of patriarchy being toxic to everybody.

When I was growing up the pressure on women was to be as thin as possible - in essence, take up as little space as possible. I love the body positivity movement for starting to change that mentality but for me the damage was done in my formative years and has never gone away. It has resulted in me being physically uncomfortable if I am the biggest person in the room. The taller/broader a guy, the smaller I am by comparison. It's completely fucked up, I'm quite tall so there are LOTS of incredibly attractive men shorter/thinner than me but I could not have been comfortable dating any of them without a lot of therapy for myself first.

I never put anything like "nobody under 6ft" on a dating profile, though, so maybe I'm off-base.

Didn't see much of that and I was on 5 or 6 dating sites a few years ago. I'm 5'8" and dated 3 women that were 5'10".

Funny thing is, it never occurred to me that I was short until around 35. Despite being broke I always had a pretty gf, never thought I needed to be taller. My first wife used to joke about my "short ass" and it finally hit, maybe I am a little short. Still, never bothered me. God told me I could have long femurs or a long dick.

In case you want a woman's view of this stuff:

I think (at least for me & other women I've asked) looks work differently for women, it's a primary filter, like you have to look good enough, but not a scale - better looking than "good enough" doesn't make a guy more attractive to me, it's a yes or no on looks only. So it's not that I don't care, exactly, but there is not any man on earth who is so good looking I would want him because of his looks (I might want to look at him, same as I like looking at beautiful women, but looks don't cause me to be attracted to someone). And there are some who are so unattractive physically to me that they would never dig out of the "no", it's a scumbag brain deep illogical screening.

Height, as long as not much shorter than me, it doesn't matter. Weight, as long as not too fat (and honestly weight is probably the one criteria I can change mind on - fat and active is A-OK, my immediate knee jerk reaction can be overriden, and no guy has ever been too skinny, I have such nice memories of one guy who was like 6'5" and 140lb, when I was 5'9" and 115lb, it was like two skeletons, lol but he was so hot in so many ways not related to looks). Skin color, eye color, hair texture, bald, I don't care, those are not factors. Overall build and features yes, but nothing outrageous, average is good looking if the guy is good in other ways (considerate, thoughtful, competent at something, good lover, funny not in a mean way, there are so many not physical qualities that are attractive).

It's my understanding that guys are more like - better looking is more attractive, and that it's weighted heavier - so a lady who was better looking could be attractive with fewer of the other good qualities, and also that a lady who did not at first be so physically attractive to you could become so if she was awesome in other ways, that she could climb out of the immediate "no" and into the "yes". That doesn't happen for me - I can like those guys so much but won't want them.

Here's a discussion thread about a video that presents aspects of "healthy masculinity" and contrasts them to their "near enemies" - corrupted versions of those same points.

It basically is going over what you said, how the manosphere takes something like perseverance and changes into stubbornness, assertiveness into dominance, etc.

Hmmm you might be polishing the intentions of the military a little bit. The Army wants a private who will follow orders without hesitation or even thought. You break down a person and build them into a tool, a cog in the machine. Yes, some will grow and advance, some will gain valuable skills that promote lifelong achievements, some will rise from a life devoid of options to become contributing citizens. But also, some will become cannon fodder, sent to secure a hill or defend an oilfield or depose a democratically-elected socialist.

But otherwise, yes. Incel culture and basic training have a lot in common with cult indoctrination.

The difference is that the military wants them to be proud and adaptable

Lol

Bro, there's a shit ton of military/veterans in America.

Please stop randomly guessing what it's like, what it causes, and why it's happening if you have no real idea and only assumptions.