I think the problem with dealing with incel modes of thinking is they deal in partial truths. This isn't unlike many other regressive and far right leaning ideologies. They point out the few women who are only concerned with the social/economic/physical status of men, actually hate all men, and view themselves as without fault. They then take that seemingly loud minority and frame it as though they represent the whole, preying on the insecurities of a lot of boys, men, and even women. What complicates this further is the additional fact that amongst many left-leaning individuals online (the internet being where most of this incel ideology grows and metastasizes) these very things they call out are present.
I say this with empathy, though. I imagine the many women who, jokingly or not, say things like "I'll never do 'x,y,z' for a man," or "men are all trash," do so from a place of hurt and these are statements that reflect that as opposed literally beliefs. As far as I can tell, MANY women have been incredibly hurt by the men in their lives. Even if they meet the majority that wouldn't do that, the intensity and frequency of that hurt from before left a mark, and it's one that's hard to erase. That being said, the nuance of human experience and interaction makes this something difficult to parse at times. Sure, I understand much of this kind of talk doesn't actually mean what it's saying in a literal way, as many of the people saying these things have male partners (though that opens the door for the few that really mean what they're saying to say their man is one of, if not the only, "good one"), but without that level understanding due to proximity of relationship (this being the possible origin of much incel thought) it only appears as it does on its face.
There's a complexity here that I think may be best parsed out on a person-to-person basis. Boys/men making legitimate friendships with girls/women is an obvious first step, but there's a weakness there in the form of how both parties are typically socialized. So, maybe that would be the first area to look. At any rate, the great truth undergirding all of this is no group is a monolith. Painting with broad brushes isn't a particularly great way to engage people emotionally since it disregards the individuality of each person. I'd argue there should be a greater focus on person-to-person interaction and experience, as opposed to assumption. I've found that to be incredibly beneficial in my own communications with everyone. That being said, the one broad brush I'd paint is this: people generally want to be appreciated and want to feel a sense of security, whether they're men or women, or gender fluid. If one approaches their interactions with that in mind, I feel they'd have a lot more success interacting with others.
