Sympathy for the Incel(thedailybeast.com)
thedailybeast.com
Sympathy for the Incel
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sympathy-for-the-incel?ref=author
39 comments
"Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power." - Oscar Wilde.
The incel phenomenon is not about the act itself. Especially not in an era of many forms of highly available internet-based sex work. No, it's about power and status. That is fundamentally harder to solve. A more egalitarian society just makes them angrier, as suddenly there's fewer people they can feel superior to.
(Remember that the word was coined by a queer woman; there are plenty of people who feel that they are unwanted sexually but aren't going to flip into mass murder because of it.)
The incel phenomenon is not about the act itself. Especially not in an era of many forms of highly available internet-based sex work. No, it's about power and status. That is fundamentally harder to solve. A more egalitarian society just makes them angrier, as suddenly there's fewer people they can feel superior to.
(Remember that the word was coined by a queer woman; there are plenty of people who feel that they are unwanted sexually but aren't going to flip into mass murder because of it.)
How is society more egalitarian? Old-world monogamous societies were egalitarian, today you have sexual inequality which leads to online movements like these.
To quote Houellebecq:
> “It's a fact...that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
To quote Houellebecq:
> “It's a fact...that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.”
> Old-world monogamous societies were egalitarian
Not for the women. At what date in your society were women given the right to not be raped within marriage? (In the UK this was 1986, by the way)
Not for the women. At what date in your society were women given the right to not be raped within marriage? (In the UK this was 1986, by the way)
i m talking about inequality in the sexual marketplace. if you re talking about equality of rights then i dont follow how "suddenly there's fewer people they can feel superior to"
At least until artificial sperm is invented.... at which point we wouldn’t need males at all anymore.
Thinking of men solely as a source of sperm is as goofy as thinking of women as only wombs.
Evolutionarily speaking it makes perfect sense to reduce us to our ability to reproduce and support the offspring. I don’t really think men provide anything women can’t.... except sperm.
As one fond of Dawkins's ideas around the "extended phenotype", I'd argue that the biggest contributors to human procreation in the past several millennia were technological and economical rather than directly biological.
I'm sure when the rest of the tech world wakes up this will be flagged which might be ironic as it might show that that happened due to a lack of empathy - the two responses that the featured article recommends - and instead represent a denial or an opposition to discussion. (I'm being flppant here - most flag killing happens because the discussion turns into a flame war, which I can see happening here too!) but...
Empathy is pretending to feel what its like as another person. It's not the same thing as sympathy. It is possible empathise with an angry hateful person as much as with a happy loving person. For me, it's a good tool to use to help understand what the other person wants, and how they are behaving.
How many times do you read something which says "I don't understand why they would do this thing / act this way / vote for that / like this thing"? How many times is that person you? Those statements are true statements about the giver - that person literally doesn't understand the other person. But the question they ask is not actually asking for understanding - they are telling you that their target is The Other - that it is impossible to understand. And they haven't tried empathy. Sometimes that person might be disgusted even thinking about using empathy on the other that they disagree with.
Empathy is pretending to feel what its like as another person. It's not the same thing as sympathy. It is possible empathise with an angry hateful person as much as with a happy loving person. For me, it's a good tool to use to help understand what the other person wants, and how they are behaving.
How many times do you read something which says "I don't understand why they would do this thing / act this way / vote for that / like this thing"? How many times is that person you? Those statements are true statements about the giver - that person literally doesn't understand the other person. But the question they ask is not actually asking for understanding - they are telling you that their target is The Other - that it is impossible to understand. And they haven't tried empathy. Sometimes that person might be disgusted even thinking about using empathy on the other that they disagree with.
In Japan the handicapped have access to physical sexual release through tax payer funded services that help with their emotional well being.
https://coed.com/2013/06/01/japanese-medical-hand-jobs-for-d...
Not saying incel folks are in need of this but it’s obviously beyond time we legalize sexual services as a profession.
https://coed.com/2013/06/01/japanese-medical-hand-jobs-for-d...
Not saying incel folks are in need of this but it’s obviously beyond time we legalize sexual services as a profession.
Reddit’s incel subreddit seems to believe paying for sexual services doesn’t technically break celibacy.
I think some men are missing three things:
- Belonging
- A Path
- Status
For most men in the past, family has provided both the path and belonging (in addition to career and hobbies etc).
As for status, it was a lot easier to be good at something in your small circles. Now with the internet it's almost impossible to be good at anything vs the rest of the world.
As for how we solve this, I'm not sure.
- Belonging
- A Path
- Status
For most men in the past, family has provided both the path and belonging (in addition to career and hobbies etc).
As for status, it was a lot easier to be good at something in your small circles. Now with the internet it's almost impossible to be good at anything vs the rest of the world.
As for how we solve this, I'm not sure.
I sympathize with people who can’t get what they want. The problem is, most people can’t. A foundational error in the incel world-view is not that they are lonely, but that they are uniquely lonely.
I don't think it's unique to the incel worldview. In fact, it strikes me as rather logical that if crippling loneliness is the defining cause of suffering in your life, you'd turn to something that finds the solution in something similarly isolating/insular.
I've seen quite a few very lonely people turn to obscure cults, obscure philosophies, weird health communities, or smaller, sectarian movements within a bigger religious community. And from personal knowledge of some of these people, the underlying dynamic was always a kind of resentment towards and rejection of 'everyone else'.
One example that I found particularly painful to experience was a guy I met a few years ago. We got along well, but he had the extremely grating tendency to describe everyone as stupid ('sheeple'), unintelligent, inferior, etc. He was really taken with what I suppose you could call 'scientism' and gravitated towards the aspects of it that were mainly about belittling others. For example, he was a huge fan of some videos where Richard Dawkins would read semi-illiterate letters people had written to him, many of them religious obviously. All his colleagues were stupid too.
Over time I discovered that he'd had a shitty childhood (terrible family, school bullying), and this had just kind of continued on until his thirties. In the years he'd lived in our city he'd not made a single longer-term friend, and had never really had anything resembling a relationship. It seemed rather obvious that hating/rejecting the world because it never included him was more a defense-mechanism than anything.
What really hurt to see though, was that he was actually a pretty nice guy, he'd just never learned how to 'do' inter-human relationships! He was smart, funny, creative, sorta-caring and far from an 'inherent' asshole. He just truly never learned how friendship works. He never learned how to have a 'normal' conversation. And considering how much work and experience it takes to do social life right, it depressed me to think that he might never 'catch up'.
As an aside, I suspect this guy was on the autism spectrum. I think we often overlook how much effort, anxiety, and experience it takes for some people to even just pull off 'weirdo, but okay' socially.
I've seen quite a few very lonely people turn to obscure cults, obscure philosophies, weird health communities, or smaller, sectarian movements within a bigger religious community. And from personal knowledge of some of these people, the underlying dynamic was always a kind of resentment towards and rejection of 'everyone else'.
One example that I found particularly painful to experience was a guy I met a few years ago. We got along well, but he had the extremely grating tendency to describe everyone as stupid ('sheeple'), unintelligent, inferior, etc. He was really taken with what I suppose you could call 'scientism' and gravitated towards the aspects of it that were mainly about belittling others. For example, he was a huge fan of some videos where Richard Dawkins would read semi-illiterate letters people had written to him, many of them religious obviously. All his colleagues were stupid too.
Over time I discovered that he'd had a shitty childhood (terrible family, school bullying), and this had just kind of continued on until his thirties. In the years he'd lived in our city he'd not made a single longer-term friend, and had never really had anything resembling a relationship. It seemed rather obvious that hating/rejecting the world because it never included him was more a defense-mechanism than anything.
What really hurt to see though, was that he was actually a pretty nice guy, he'd just never learned how to 'do' inter-human relationships! He was smart, funny, creative, sorta-caring and far from an 'inherent' asshole. He just truly never learned how friendship works. He never learned how to have a 'normal' conversation. And considering how much work and experience it takes to do social life right, it depressed me to think that he might never 'catch up'.
As an aside, I suspect this guy was on the autism spectrum. I think we often overlook how much effort, anxiety, and experience it takes for some people to even just pull off 'weirdo, but okay' socially.
No, the foundational error of the incel world is the denial of the fundamental humanity of literally everyone else in the world.
If you want to explore the topic from first-hand perspective instead of reading these stupid articles spend a week in 4chan's /r9k/ board.
When you back a rat into a corner even it will strike back.
If this is just about not getting laid, I think it's time for sex work to become legal. Or is that not an option these folks have considered?
sorry, but didn't you read the article?
It begins with years of bullying at school, well before puberty.
Making sex work legal doesn't seem like a solution that addresses anything about the actual root cause of this issue.
It begins with years of bullying at school, well before puberty.
Making sex work legal doesn't seem like a solution that addresses anything about the actual root cause of this issue.
You are not going to get rid of bullying at school. You may be able to make it more subtle, but not eliminate it entirely. It’s the basic pissing contest with which social dominance hierarchy is established. Those on top get the best looking girls (who come to them voluntarily), and more dopamine in their bloodstream. This mechanism is rooted in evolution and goes all the way back to crustaceans. You are not going to be able to eliminate it, period.
So I think as a palliative measure, legalizing sex work is long overdue. Some sex is better than none at all.
So I think as a palliative measure, legalizing sex work is long overdue. Some sex is better than none at all.
Incels don't want to use prostitutes, because sex workers have the right to say no.
Also, incels are prepared to murder other people. Why do you think sex work laws are a deterrant?
Also, incels are prepared to murder other people. Why do you think sex work laws are a deterrant?
We probably have a different definition of “incel” then. To me “involuntarily celibate” means “unable to find a willing sexual partner”. That’s the problem prostitution has been solving quite handily for thousands of years.
That's the etymology of "incel", but in practice it's not just a definition, it's a community identity with a lot of associated baggage. There are plenty of lonely young men who don't consider themselves "incels", often because they don't want to associate themselves with that community.
And if you examine the community, you'll quickly find that they don't think sex work "counts". Because what they want isn't sex, it's the status they imagine it confers, and if you had to pay for it, you didn't "earn" that status.
And if you examine the community, you'll quickly find that they don't think sex work "counts". Because what they want isn't sex, it's the status they imagine it confers, and if you had to pay for it, you didn't "earn" that status.
It doesn't do anything about the perception of being low status, which is at least half the problem.
Maybe It's time for people to realise they don't 'deserve' sex and that they should get counselling, seek help and form constructive relationships that improve their lives rather than kill people.
This sounds like the equivalent of "Poor people should realise that society doesn't owe them anything, and should stop being lazy and instead work hard and be happy like me". "Incels" aren't all just too stupid to get out of a situation they don't want to be in, they're not willfully miserable. If it was as simple as just doing the right thing and becoming "normal" they'd probably have done it.
The word 'deserve' is not used in the article. I think you're missing the point by laying that on them (and by suggesting they're all killers). But counseling and help forming constructive relationships is what they need. On that we agree.
This is a tough read, and I admire the author for tackling the subject, especially in the wake of the recent killings. To even suggest sympathy for a group that are so manifestly unsympathetic is brave. And the incels themselves, man, I just want to shake these guys and say, "It's not all about sex. It's not all about you. Get over yourself. Get a life."
No one deserves sex. But I don't think we're doing the world any favors by piling on to people who are clearly in pain, no matter how much it's of their own making.
This is a tough read, and I admire the author for tackling the subject, especially in the wake of the recent killings. To even suggest sympathy for a group that are so manifestly unsympathetic is brave. And the incels themselves, man, I just want to shake these guys and say, "It's not all about sex. It's not all about you. Get over yourself. Get a life."
No one deserves sex. But I don't think we're doing the world any favors by piling on to people who are clearly in pain, no matter how much it's of their own making.
[deleted]
But I have my doubts that they just have some simple biological need that's so easily satisfied with a prostitute. I also have the feeling that poverty or being an economic loser underlies this social phenomena, rather than simply unmet sexual needs.
This option has been largely stigmatized in modern society.
How is the exploitation of women a solution to anything ?
Prostitution does not have to be exploitation.
It is exploitation most of the time though. And it's pretty hard to say when it isn't : you can't talk about choices without considering the conditions in which they are made.
There are most likely situations where prostitution is not exploitation, but I don't think they justify making it something normal. I'd rather live in a society in which we agree that some things are not for sale. Intimacy seems to me like a good candidate for something that is not for sale.
We want people to stop objectifying women, let's not have womens' bodies routinely sold and bought.
There are most likely situations where prostitution is not exploitation, but I don't think they justify making it something normal. I'd rather live in a society in which we agree that some things are not for sale. Intimacy seems to me like a good candidate for something that is not for sale.
We want people to stop objectifying women, let's not have womens' bodies routinely sold and bought.
You mean a world where women can decide what to do with their own bodies? You are advocating for a world where we have to take care of the poor downtrodden woman who just doesn't know any better. Instead of realizing that she likely knows her own needs much better than you do.
Perhaps it is the best way for her to get ahead and escape her current situation. People do it anyway and now they have almost no recourse when they are being manipulated. If it were legal, women would actually have more power in the situation.
Perhaps it is the best way for her to get ahead and escape her current situation. People do it anyway and now they have almost no recourse when they are being manipulated. If it were legal, women would actually have more power in the situation.
Society is all about limits on freedom. We need to find the right balance. I think a society where some things are not for sale is a good thing.
Consider also according to studies, a majority of voluntary prostitutes have been victims of abuse as children.
Consider also according to studies, a majority of voluntary prostitutes have been victims of abuse as children.
Someone really needs to do a write up looking at all the times race has altered the public discourse.
Theres a consistent theme here in portraying culprits who are white as victims or sympathetic. Whether its contrasting breivik to jihadists, or incels to african american victims of police shootings or white nationalists to BLM protesters.
I think a bit more intellectual honesty might have a dramatic effect on the level of social engagement.
Theres a consistent theme here in portraying culprits who are white as victims or sympathetic. Whether its contrasting breivik to jihadists, or incels to african american victims of police shootings or white nationalists to BLM protesters.
I think a bit more intellectual honesty might have a dramatic effect on the level of social engagement.
I find that various groups will do exactly as you say in various ways. In my particular surroundings, for example, there are some who do as you describe, but most actually do the opposite: the incels/alt-right/sad nerds are openly mocked, and the jihadist is purely a victim of circumstance.
Personally I'd like it if we could just empathize with all of these 'culprits' and actually do something about the situation, even if just for one of these groups, rather than argue about who deserves more empathy or sympathy.
Personally I'd like it if we could just empathize with all of these 'culprits' and actually do something about the situation, even if just for one of these groups, rather than argue about who deserves more empathy or sympathy.
You have a valid point, but to be fair, this article is about the broader movement of so-called incels.
So there is a cost to polygamy, a cost to preferentially aborting female babies, a cost to women not needing men for survival, a cost to not sending men off to die in war, and so on. The result is a greater potential for violence and general mischief.
We tend to think of sex as low-priority compared to things like air and water and food. If we ignore the time scale though, and instead focus on what these things mean in an evolutionary sense, it is clear that they are equal. We need air... so that ultimately we can pass on our DNA. With a long-term perspective, it is clear that sex is on an equal footing with things like air and water and food.
When a good chunk of the population is being denied something so essential, we're facing serious trouble.