The Problem With Incel Ideology

The move towards authoritative government regimes in the early 21^st century is a godsend to sub-communities that were once in danger of being marginalized. These sub-communities are dangerous, for sure, as they exist solely for the purpose of expressing power over other people, though ‘people’ may be stretching definitions a bit since these sub-communities undoubtedly view non-members as less than human. Such is the case with the Incel community, a white-male dominated group hellbent on securing unfettered access to any woman of their choosing.

To say Incels (involuntary celibates) are misogynist is an understatement. They have very particular notions of how the relationship between men and women should be based on the supposed fact that men are superior to women. This is allegedly evidenced by the domination of men over women throughout history. But their ideology is a little more nuanced than that: They despise the idea of ‘whores,’ women who have had too many sex partners/experience or are sex-workers. Young and preferably virgin women must make themselves attractive so as to make themselves worthy of an Incel’s attention. After all, women are shallow, cruel creatures who only give their attention to the most attractive men and therefore must be punished for this behavior. Incels blame the changes in Western culture that have granted women rights and allowed them to pick their own sexual partners, inevitably leading to women picking more attractive men.

Incels are typically described – by themselves – as physically unattractive and this is their major obstacle to securing sex. Since this isn’t their own fault however, they should still be allowed to secure sex by any other means. It is their belief that it is their biological right to have sex at will with the chosen object of their desire, despite any examination of the idea that their biology is what made them ‘unattractive’ in the first place. Incel ideology quickly falls apart upon even the most cursory of examinations.

For instance, Incels are adverse to the idea of being chivalrous (‘white-knighting’) which they see as a façade in order to obtain a woman’s attention. Of course, holding a door for someone – anyone – is just the polite thing to do. Instead, Incels are more likely to go out of their way to dress better or make money, presumably because these are the only things women are attracted to which again makes women unworthy of being so much as equal to a man. As I said, subhuman. By logical extension of the Incel ideology, a man who makes less money than a woman is unworthy of being with her. But the fact that the woman is even allowed to make more money when for centuries this has basically been forbidden is what roils Incels. They can’t stand the idea of a level playing field and people getting by on their merits. To be fair, much lip service is given to the value of meritocracies but very few people dare practice it. This is due largely in part to the laziness of human beings who’d much rather be given what they want than work for it. Laughably, the alt-right despises such ideas from the alt-left, like free college tuition, despite benefiting from their own ‘hand-outs’ for so long, such as unfettered access to women. Again, in being hypocrites, Incels are in good company at least.

The overriding principle of Incel ideology is that women are inferior to men, citing pretty much all of history in which men have physically dominated women. This raises the question that if by some quirk of evolutionary fate women became stronger than men, men should then be subjugated? If we continue this line of reasoning, no one should be upset if we’re hiking in the woods and we get mauled by a bear because the bear is physically superior? But this rarely happens. Mankind has subjugated the animal kingdom through brains, not brawn, so it seems difficult to justify the general physical prowess of men over women as the reason women should be classified as less than human. This, especially given more and more evidence that many women are just as or even more physically capable than men in many instances. (I would rather enjoy watching the average Incel compete against any female American Ninja Warrior.) If women have come to their current state of being able to choose their own sexual partners through cunning, then Incels should be doubly kicking themselves for having never seen it coming. Leave it to blinded-by-frustration-and-rage Incels to not understand that the current state of women in the West is due to, among other things, the long-reach of a precious few Renaissance philosophers who happened to mostly be white. I’m sure white Incels would label them as race traitors.

Fortunately, few Incels have the strength of their convictions to go about casually raping women who refuse them or, as they’ve done in recent years, go on shooting sprees. Unfortunately, they also don’t have the strength to get out from behind their gaming computers and phones to learn skills that might make them a valuable member of society and therefore more attractive. To reiterate, though, Incels are lazy and simply want what they want handed to them on a silver platter, having done nothing to earn their station – which is a large part of what has placed them in their predicament. If an Incel isn’t intelligent enough to see this, what makes them think they’re worthy of being allowed to have their genes spread?

Solutions have been proposed to combat Incel ideology and these solutions mostly revolve around ways to avoid alienating members of society so that they are not prone to radicalization. My proposals are more practical; there’s masturbation for one. No, it’s not quite the same but at least no one gets hurt and one can fantasize however brutally to their heart’s content. They can take masturbation further by purchasing one of the many high-end sex dolls that are currently one the market, such as RealDoll ™. Yes, the dolls are only that, but one can do with them as they please and they will stay young and beautiful forever. Or, Incels can swallow the pill they would like to women to take and stop refusing to do the things that make themselves more physically attractive. If that demand is placed on women, there is no objective reason it should not be placed on a man. (Incels see this demand they place on women as the right of the ‘superior’ sex but as I’ve easily shown, this idea is nonsense.)

As I’ve alluded to earlier this is less about sex than it is about power, where the powerless simple want power placed in their hands by virtue of some arbitrary fact/accident of birth. (Again, despite that accident of birth contributing to their undesired state.) While I certainly understand the burden of feeling powerless, the solution is not to rush headlong in the exact opposite direction. The solution, in this case, is not to utilize violence as a means to an end because this means that violence is okay as a means to any end. Surely an Incel would be opposed to being sodomized by a physically superior gay man. But that is perfectly okay given the particulars of their ideology. When one is forced to think about the consequences of their ideology, it is only then the flaws of that ideology became apparent.

Nothing More Than Feelings

Observing the behavior of my students as they interact with other faculty, it occurred to me that Millennials are now running with the torch of hypocrisy with absolutely no hindsight. While the hypocrisy of human beings is nothing new, it seems odd that it doesn’t occur to our social justice warriors, Millennials, that in seeking restitution for hurt feelings (whether anyone meant to hurt their feelings) they take no heed of whose feelings they hurt in the process.

For example, as Millennials go to war over trivialities such as Halloween costumes, college

presidents have to give in to whatever demands their students make in an effort to save their own job. One could scarcely imagine the stress Peter Salovey, the President of Yale University, recently underwent after a campus-wide email detailing how students should deal with Halloween costumes that they deemed offensive. Worse, that situation escalated and in early November 2015, an incident at Yale saw “…students surround[ed] Nicholas Christakis—husband of Erika [Christakis], a professor of sociology and medicine, and master of Silliman. One African-American woman, seemingly speaking for the crowd, told him that his wife’s email [about Halloween costumes] and his failure to apologize for it made her feel “unsafe.” When Christakis earnestly explained that he would need to consider the matter before apologizing, the woman shouted at him, “Be quiet!”; “Why the f--- did you accept the position!”; “If that’s what you think, you should step down!”; and “You should not sleep at night! You are disgusting!” She then turned and walked away” (as reported by Peter Berkowitz). While Millennials are not going to stand for having their feelings hurt, they think nothing of how they make anyone other than a Millennial feel.

One would suppose this failure to apply their ideology equally stems from a lack of shared values. Nonetheless, if the desire to spare the feelings of Millennials only applies amongst themselves, this is an indication of a culturally relativist practice, which surely Millennials do not mind since they go out of their way to respect – almost – all cultures.

The problem is, Millennials don’t respect the cultures they have the ability to usurp or wrest power from. Millennials respect, say, the practices of the Islamic State, since they believe all culture is relative and as such who is to say IS’s murderous tendencies are wrong. Millennials, however, don’t actually have to ever deal with IS directly. If they did, they would quickly find out IS has no respect for the belief of Millennials and getting upset about an email about Halloween costumes would soon be the least of a Millennial’s worries. And that’s just the thing; if all cultures should be respected because their practices are relativistic, there is absolutely no reason for anyone who is not a Millennial to respect the beliefs or practices of Millennials because to not respect the beliefs of Millennials is neither right nor wrong. As many liberals before them, Millennials fail to see this error in their philosophy. As many people before them, Millennials are blinded by ideology.

And so they go to war against the people they can control. Using the fact that colleges are for-profit, Millennials battle against college professors and administrators who don’t want to simply give them a degree without a student actually working for it or with whom they have a difference of opinion. Lost on Millennials is the fact that if colleges were not for-profit, a college administration would never give into their demands. Millennials get their way not because their demands are reasonable or philosophically justifiable, but because college administrators are capitalists. (Also lost on Millennials is that capitalism begets inequality and they fail to realize this because in actuality a Millennial’s smart phone is more important to them than social justice.)

But all of this is a symptom of a more pressing question, one I keep asking for which no Millennial can answer: Why is it more important to spare a person’s feelings* than to have a reasoned, civil debate in which we may have to settle for “agreeing to disagree”? If a person falsely believes that 1 + 1 = 3, why is it worth not correcting them, because it might hurt their feelings? If an attempt is made to build a person’s self-esteem by giving them an award for simply showing up, doesn’t this make it more likely that when that person’s feelings do get hurt, for whatever reason even by accident, that person is going to be ill prepared to deal with it? Why do feelings matter more than the analysis of a situation?

[* By person we should take to mean anyone that agrees with Millennial ideology or that may disagree with Millennial ideology but lives outside of the U.S.]

In my opinion, that is, the opinion of a seasoned thinker experienced in life, I rarely if ever have my feelings hurt because someone said such-and-such about me. I’ve been called plenty of names and shouted out and vehemently disagreed with but all these things amount to are words. Words by themselves have no power. All power lies with the person hearing the word. In order to be insulted or offended by words, one has to internalize them and make the decision for those words to hurt them. If one sees a Halloween costume that offends them, the offended party has to decide that they are offended. Granted, what is deemed an offensive costume may be a symptom of some systematic oppression, but this merely means there is a chance to have a debate with someone and possibly have the offender understand why a costume is offensive. I might add to this that if a certain group currently possesses more power than another group, I do not believe one should be offended by past transgressions such as in the case of a Jew seeing a Nazi Halloween costume. (I am open to debate on this point, though.)

Feelings are irrelevant in the face of more pressing concerns. IS, economic inequality and climate change do not care about the feelings of their victims. Nor is everyone special; it is quite clear the opposite is true as we see it again and again every day and there would be no CEOs or celebrities if everyone actually were important. I certainly understand the desire to ignore inconvenient truths, but this doesn’t make feelings more important than anything else out of necessity. While I would agree that it is basically cruel to hurt someone’s feelings intentionally, there should not be consequences for unintentional harm, as Millennials would have it. While we can never know someone’s true intention, neither can we know whether someone is truly having their feelings hurt or trying to manipulate others to their advantage. Millennials should beware the trappings of power; power corrupts and that corruption will wind up hurting someone’s feelings. Don’t be a hypocrite by refusing to examine your own beliefs, Millennials. If you want to be the stewards of the future, try to avoid operating from false premises like all of your predecessors.