So four years after the Elliot Rodger attack, we see another attack, this time in Canada, from another self-described "incel" which basically means people who can't get laid and are very angry about it. I believe there was also a lesser known incel murderer in the UK shortly after Rodger but I don't remember if that was serious enough to describe as a terrorist attack.
This isn't anywhere as big of a deal as people make it out to be, no it's not "systemic" and it's not ISIS-scale terrorism, but it is something that will need to be addressed somehow, perhaps in ways that will benefit the normal people too, a serious conversation on prostitution and the role of government is needed.
What's clear to me is that the people most vocal about incels have no idea what to do.
There are social conservatives on one hand, people like Jordan Peterson who say a return to monogamy will fix the issue. I don't think that's the case, if you can't even get a date, then don't expect marriage, it's just not happening since dating is the first step to marriage. I also cannot agree with the idea that somehow a free market of sex leads to a handful of men getting all the women, that's just not happening. At worst this just means men may have to wait their turn (assuming they have the basic social skills for a relationship), relationships come and go, even rich successful men are not going to hold multiple women at once and certainly not for life. Ask yourself how many women to do you know who would be okay with being with someone for life who openly cheats on them? Besides, a true free market of sex would include prostitution. So even if some men got multiple women, there would be women open to sleeping with multiple men EVERY DAY.
If anything monogamy would make it even harder to get sex.
Then there's the feminists. I honestly can't believe anyone seriously thinks that third wave style male-bashing feminism is somehow going to get angry virgin men to stop being angry virgins. Come on, it's basic common sense that if someone is a failure in life and they're angry because of it, calling them "privileged" or telling them to "check their privilege" is only going to infuriate them even further. Then there is the laughable suggestion that "you don't actually need sex" as if abstinence ever worked. Suddenly, leftist feminists turn into puritans when it suits them.
A common suggestion feminists also make is that we simply teach men that they're not entitled to sex, which would be a good way to go about it if personal liberty was actually a feminist value. It is not, so it would be a hard point to sell coming from a feminist. It would seem far more credible and honest coming from a libertarian or small government conservative. Our current societies shower people with entitlements and they do this by taking money from other more productive higher income people: food stamps, housing welfare, medical welfare, welfare for having kids out of wedlock, government run pension plans etc.
In one extreme case, Greece, you can even get welfare for being a pedophile or some other form of degenerate now classed as a disability. Cause you know, pay up that protection tax or they'll get your kids or something.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/118903/paychecks-pedophiles-steven-plaut
Feminists (particularly of the body positivity variety) also may believe the following:
- fat people are entitled to the same affection thin people get, you're a "bigot" if you don't date fat people
- women are entitled to the commitment of men, men aren't allowed to simply desire them sexually, the whole "objectification" nonsense which can be summed up to "you're evil if you find her hot".
- women are entitled to equal outcomes to men even if they don't put in the same effort or have the same interests (they must be reserve 50% of political office seats, 50% of CEO positions)
So it is any wonder incels just take this a step further and think they're entitled to sex without putting the effort for it?
From a far left perspective that puts happiness over liberty and equality of outcome over merit, what exactly would be morally wrong in say having the government tax people in order to pay for hookers for incels? Incels are simply another interest group trying to exploit an ever expanding government and trying to put the burden on society to fix their problem. As Sargon of Akkad pointed out, incels are basically sex communists.
I don't think they can be opposed effectively without an appreciation for liberty.
There are also legitimate concerns that some incels have. For one thing, why is prostitution illegal? It shouldn't be. I'm not saying it works for everyone, there are clearly a lot of incels too proud to pay for sex, but it would reduce the number of incels and at least then they won't have a single excuse. People with no social skills will just have to get a job and they'll be able to have sex free from any government intervention if they contribute to society enough.
Feminists keep forgetting, just because you're not entitled to sex, doesn't mean you're not entitled to pursue it through voluntary interaction. They should read the Declaration of Independence. Sadly, most feminists hate freedom and most of them oppose prostitution even if it's voluntary and doesn't involve trafficking.
Another way to reduce the number of incels is to be realistic about male/female differences. They are not equal. They will never be fully equal. Women want certain things in a relationship, certain personality traits like being assertive. Telling men that "genders are equal" and you just need to "be yourself" is doing them a great disservice and peddling lies in the name of an impossible utopia.
This isn't anywhere as big of a deal as people make it out to be, no it's not "systemic" and it's not ISIS-scale terrorism, but it is something that will need to be addressed somehow, perhaps in ways that will benefit the normal people too, a serious conversation on prostitution and the role of government is needed.
What's clear to me is that the people most vocal about incels have no idea what to do.
There are social conservatives on one hand, people like Jordan Peterson who say a return to monogamy will fix the issue. I don't think that's the case, if you can't even get a date, then don't expect marriage, it's just not happening since dating is the first step to marriage. I also cannot agree with the idea that somehow a free market of sex leads to a handful of men getting all the women, that's just not happening. At worst this just means men may have to wait their turn (assuming they have the basic social skills for a relationship), relationships come and go, even rich successful men are not going to hold multiple women at once and certainly not for life. Ask yourself how many women to do you know who would be okay with being with someone for life who openly cheats on them? Besides, a true free market of sex would include prostitution. So even if some men got multiple women, there would be women open to sleeping with multiple men EVERY DAY.
If anything monogamy would make it even harder to get sex.
Then there's the feminists. I honestly can't believe anyone seriously thinks that third wave style male-bashing feminism is somehow going to get angry virgin men to stop being angry virgins. Come on, it's basic common sense that if someone is a failure in life and they're angry because of it, calling them "privileged" or telling them to "check their privilege" is only going to infuriate them even further. Then there is the laughable suggestion that "you don't actually need sex" as if abstinence ever worked. Suddenly, leftist feminists turn into puritans when it suits them.
A common suggestion feminists also make is that we simply teach men that they're not entitled to sex, which would be a good way to go about it if personal liberty was actually a feminist value. It is not, so it would be a hard point to sell coming from a feminist. It would seem far more credible and honest coming from a libertarian or small government conservative. Our current societies shower people with entitlements and they do this by taking money from other more productive higher income people: food stamps, housing welfare, medical welfare, welfare for having kids out of wedlock, government run pension plans etc.
In one extreme case, Greece, you can even get welfare for being a pedophile or some other form of degenerate now classed as a disability. Cause you know, pay up that protection tax or they'll get your kids or something.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/118903/paychecks-pedophiles-steven-plaut
Feminists (particularly of the body positivity variety) also may believe the following:
- fat people are entitled to the same affection thin people get, you're a "bigot" if you don't date fat people
- women are entitled to the commitment of men, men aren't allowed to simply desire them sexually, the whole "objectification" nonsense which can be summed up to "you're evil if you find her hot".
- women are entitled to equal outcomes to men even if they don't put in the same effort or have the same interests (they must be reserve 50% of political office seats, 50% of CEO positions)
So it is any wonder incels just take this a step further and think they're entitled to sex without putting the effort for it?
From a far left perspective that puts happiness over liberty and equality of outcome over merit, what exactly would be morally wrong in say having the government tax people in order to pay for hookers for incels? Incels are simply another interest group trying to exploit an ever expanding government and trying to put the burden on society to fix their problem. As Sargon of Akkad pointed out, incels are basically sex communists.
I don't think they can be opposed effectively without an appreciation for liberty.
There are also legitimate concerns that some incels have. For one thing, why is prostitution illegal? It shouldn't be. I'm not saying it works for everyone, there are clearly a lot of incels too proud to pay for sex, but it would reduce the number of incels and at least then they won't have a single excuse. People with no social skills will just have to get a job and they'll be able to have sex free from any government intervention if they contribute to society enough.
Feminists keep forgetting, just because you're not entitled to sex, doesn't mean you're not entitled to pursue it through voluntary interaction. They should read the Declaration of Independence. Sadly, most feminists hate freedom and most of them oppose prostitution even if it's voluntary and doesn't involve trafficking.
Another way to reduce the number of incels is to be realistic about male/female differences. They are not equal. They will never be fully equal. Women want certain things in a relationship, certain personality traits like being assertive. Telling men that "genders are equal" and you just need to "be yourself" is doing them a great disservice and peddling lies in the name of an impossible utopia.
