In both cases, the outcome is decided by both men and women.

Undoubtedly, there are some men that simply aren't charismatic, are slovenly, creepy, sexist, etc. and that is why they are lonely. But women ultimately decide the outcome. That is, they have a social advantage in the dating market. So is it fair to assume all lonely men, even most, are gross incels, when it could also be that maybe sometimes women have unfair standards?

Similarly, there may be some women that lack good judgement, ignore red flags, or have some kind of personality flaw that causes them to seek out dangerous men. But men ultimately decide if they're going to abuse women or not. That is, they have a physical advantage. So is it fair to assume all or even most battered/raped women are simply irresponsible?

The answer is obvious for both cases: no. Yet people will make the former claim, even as they rightly denounce the second claim as misogynistic.

One of the things I hate about the "incel subculture" (though it isn't ubiquitous even there) is the tendency to laugh at battered women. "Lol, stupid Stacys chasing abusive Chads", some say. And I understand the dark impulse to do that, though I recognize it is wrong. It feels like shit to be the one that didn't get picked when so many much shittier men do get picked. Imagine being a highly qualified law school graduate and a highschool dropout junkie gets hired at the firm instead of you. "What a fucking joke that firm is" you'd think. "They deserve what's coming for them."

People love to point out how wrong it is to apply that same analogy to women all the time. But I think we can catch them in a hypocrisy. Because if they think one person's misfortune isn't necessarily their own fault in one situation, they must also be willing to admit it isn't necessarily their fault in another. And if they can't admit it, then its clear they just have a sex bias at that point. That is, they only care about problems that affect their own gender.