Yesterday I put off writing about the first line, about an incel killing 10 people. That referred to the Toronto van attack:
I put it off because of something else that happened with the news coverage - which I will get to - but it could also have been reasonable to separate it because with the other groups, their hatred has tended to focus more on racism, and for incels it is more about misogyny.
I hadn't thought about that too much when I started writing. On one level it doesn't seem like the most important distinction. It is not unusual for white supremacists to be sexist, even as they have women among their members. I don't know that a lot of the more sexist affiliations spend a lot of time on racism, but I think you will find that their beauty standards are influenced by white supremacy. That could simply be a result of structural racism, where it can have an unrealized impact, but hey, if hate and inequality are your thing, that stuff will spread.
Actually, incels are a good example of that, because while their biggest hate is for "Stacys", they have a ton of hate for "Chads". Time for another tutorial.
Incel is short for involuntary celibate, meaning that they want sex but can't get it. "Stacys" are the women they want to have sex with (meaning attractive women who meet their standards). "Chads" are the men the "Stacys" want, so good-looking guys are enemies too. Also, "Chads" are clearly jerks, because women only like jerks, they say. I have definitely heard that one before, and while I would like to think that none of those people (mainly ones I met at church) would drive a van into a crowd, repeating harmful stereotypes to yourself can come out in ugly, ugly ways.
Interestingly, the term "involuntary celibate" started with a woman from Toronto, who in exploring her own sexuality and writing about it was looking for ways to describe things.
Here's the way today's post relates to the previous two posts: a queer woman (hence subject to marginalization in at least two ways) was sincerely exploring and looking for inclusion, and it was adopted by resentful men as a label of victimhood. Real attacks happen on marginalized people all the time, but the dominant groups center themselves in hateful self-pity.
Beyond that, no matter how badly their claims fall apart upon closer inspection, they keep getting attention and validation in the interest of presenting both sides.
Now we get to the thing that made this item stand out for me. One of the reactions to the van attack was a piece about unequal distribution of sex, likening it to income inequality.
I am not going to link to this one (it can be found easily enough), because it's trash. Incels are not merely complaining about a lack of sex; they are complaining about being discriminated against for their physical appearance while discriminating based on physical appearance themselves. What they regret is that the women have a right to choose. The appropriate response to that is not thinking that maybe they have a point.
And it's not surprising at all, because a lot of men were coming forward after the Isla Vista killings and lamenting that girls hadn't been nicer to the shooter.
That one bad take got further publicity because of Ross Douthat of the New York Times. I'm not linking to that either, because again, the reasoning was very poor. Once more, it is largely that instead of seeing the flaw in not considering the consent of women important, they replicate it. Thanks guys!
Douthat tried to dress it up by bringing in other groups that might be undersexed, but the problem is none of those groups are frequenting Reddit to talk about hating and killing the objects of their desire. Is it because they are not members of privileged groups who don't know how to handle the world not catering to them? Could it be a factor that it is not in fact the looks of these men that is keeping them from getting sex, but their toxic viewpoints?
Mainly, I'd like to point out that this is an excellent example of male privilege. No matter how horrific the things you say are, you will still find people wanting to hear you out. Think of how many people defended Kevin Williamson when The Atlantic did not go through with his hiring, because liberals are so prejudiced. The key content in question, about Williamson's sincere belief that women who have abortions should be hung - so not just the death penalty, but one associated with public executions to be a warning to others, and for something that is legal and without any interest in punishing the partners of the pregnant women - but no, The Atlantic is just being too biased. THIS IS MALE PRIVILEGE.
And yes, it is possible that good supplementary material for this would be a post on how easy it can be to get sex, but I still have another issue that worried me, and this is already part 3.