From my standpoint, there are narratives about men that fall behind in dating (and want to discuss those issues) in both the pills. And of course, there's no shortage of actual incels and Nice Guys^(TM) to help these viewpoints reach mainstream popularity. The worst guys who fall behind in dating often tend to be the loudest.

The blue pill assumption tends to be that men who want to discuss their problems in dating are misogynistic, creepy types. Blue pill wants to protect the feminist imperative of women as a virtuous gender who can do no wrong and so they tend to ignore questions of status, looks and other factors like wealth that can determine a woman's decision to sleep with a man. The blue pill Nice Guy narrative therefore assumes a perspective on men who fall behind in dating in which when they want to discuss their issues - for example "I am a nice guy so why can't I get laid" - the unsuccessful man in question must be a misogynist.

This actually get's talked about a lot though and is quite easy to break down. Because niceness in itself is not a sexually attractive quality. Some feminists are inclined to argue that it is a bare minimum but it is not necessarily even that. Some men can get laid that are psychopaths, woman beaters, drug dealers and worse. And it's not just because they are holding influence over vulnerable women: some of these women actually find these men attractive and actually fantasise about dark triad personality (DTP) traits in guys. What is more difficult to criticise is the red pill narrative.

The red pill narrative on Nice Guys^(TM) accepts the premise I've just endorsed that men with genuinely virtuous traits can be unsuccessful in dating. Red pill are more inclined to argue along the lines that these men are not sexually attractive enough to seduce women: Nice Guys^(TM) do not have the balls to be aggressive in a way that is sexually attractive to women, while Incels are just not attractive for a variety of reasons (lack of charisma, ambition, muscularity, looks or whatever else). It is effectively the neckbeard narrative that blue pill espouses but without all the moralising.

And it's difficult to breakdown because technically they're right: in a black and white situation where other factors such as slut-shaming, personal risk and cock-blockers are not evident, any time a man approaches a woman and is rejected the problem is that the man wasn't attractive enough (to her). So what I don't want to address is the question of attractiveness in this thread but the neckbeard stereotype: a physically out of shape guy, with no ambition, no passions, who lurks in his mother's basement, only looking to date women significantly hotter than him and doesn't groom correctly. Can we say that men who fall behind in dating fit such a caricature? And if they want to discuss issues in dating, is it fair to generalise them in manners such as what I have mentioned with the above blue pill and red pill narratives?

Tl;Dr do men that fall behind in dating necessarily fit blue and red pill neck beard stereotypes: misogynistic, a physically out of shape guy, with no ambition, who lurks in his mother's basement, only looking to date women significantly hotter than him and who doesn't groom correctly