Aspie1 wrote:
It actually started with PUA. PUA has its roots in late 1980's in printed books, but it remained very obscure until early 2000's, when the internet went mainstream. (I own a PUA book that's copyrighted 1989.) Unlike today's Red Pill, which is 100% free, online PUA writers charged people for their e-books, although there was also enough free stuff out there to get by. The biggest problem with PUA e-books was their high noise-to-signal ratio. That is, a subset of each book was very helpful, but the rest was fluff at best and damaging at worst. The onus was on the reader to sort out trash from treasure. No such skill is needed with Red Pill sites today. They don't even focus so much on what to do, but rather on how women think, and are mostly user-contributed content, with no centralized publications.
Red Pill and Incel developed from PUA, partially as a reaction to its flaws and partially to address those flaws. When the incels (lowercase) read the PUA e-books without critical thinking and tried out the tactics, it backfired on them. So they reacted. Some by trying to figure out how women actually think, which led to Red Pill, and others by overtly hating women, which led to Incel (uppercase).
That all makes sense, and even fits the chronology of all three movements. You might want to go even further back to Playboy Magazine (and similar men's magazines) for the origins. Many of its article were devoted to how women act and react to certain visual, audible, and olfactory stimuli. Playboy was founded in 1953.
Men's magazines (a polite euphemism for pornography) had a great deal to do with raising the expectations of adolescent males as to what the girl-next-door was supposed to look like, how she was supposed to act, and what was supposed to attract her. Most young men were disappointed, if not frustrated, when they found out that real women were nothing like those air-brushed and made-up nude centerfold models (a polite euphemism for women who posed naked for pornography photos).
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.