I suspect that every case of extreme actions by a self-identified “incel” has different nuances, but at the core of it all is an unsettling detachment from self.

On one side we have a case of male entitlement,  as males think they are entitled to female bodies. It would thus follow that having sexual relationships with females is well within their human rights. And when denied this right, they are justified in retaliating.

In some cases it is an issue of white entitlement. Many whites do actually believe they are entitled to pretty much anything in this cosmos and beyond. Being white, male and extremely disconnected from self brings about a kind of violent, greedy, impatient entitlement. This has been displayed in history time and time again.

Another aspect in this is envy, which can be seen in how some of the self-identified ‘incels’  have terms for those who fit the white supremacy physical ideal (Chads and Stacys). Looking like “Chad” supposedly makes it easier to have relationships, including sexual ones. And this is true. But this is a result of a very flawed system, and of course, people’s lack of integrity. The “incel” wishes they were a Chad because then they could probably have sexual relations. Never mind that the idea of Chad is itself problematic.

Involuntary celibacy is not necessarily synonymous with lack of suitors. It is sometimes lack of desired suitors. The people deemed attractive within white supremacy - the Stacys. Because few are immune to this socialisation, one will find that the same system that marginalises people is the same system they are fighting to be recognised and approved by. Some people are simply blind to fat, short, non Western-looking people. This in a way makes the celibacy inflicted.

I have come across arguments that we are ‘sexual beings’, aimed to imply that we NEED and MUST have sex for our very basic day-to-day continuity. I was once personally convinced of this. So that even if the person ‘available’ to you is full of crap, one should tolerate it because you are a ‘sexual being’ that needs a sexual partner.

Another angle I think is worth pointing out is the offender’s history. In some of these cases, the offender has shown signs of violence prior to incidents carried out on a large scale. Be it towards themselves, others or both. What tends to happen is that the “loved” one choose not to report these cases. Timely intervention that could have prevented a repeat of similar or bigger magnitude is impeded.

Indeed, I think this is an issue of gross lack of self-knowledge, self-esteem and integrity.

What I initially thought was already said.

The article is weak because the writer failed to mention the role classism, sizeism, racism, colorism and other social inequities play in denying even whites sexual partners or their desired sexual partners. Even people’s desires are unfair to themselves, so a wealthy white may desire a certain type of partner and be terribly unhappy and violent because he or she cannot get what they want.

Most people’s desires have been poorly conditioned therefore even those who get sexual partners often remain unsatisfied. Where both males and females are conditioned to view ideal beauty based on a certain Eurocentric appearance, then most would consider some of the same limited number of model-type persons to be their ideal. There isn’t enough of them to go around. Money is a great attraction and since the patriarchal system made females dependant on males, many males are under pressure to demonstrate they are providers to get partners. However, males who are preferred by looks can get females to provide for them.  Generally, people enter relationships settling for others because they could not get who they fantasize. In more indigenous non-white cultures, relationships were based on both parties being able to provide. Beauty had a function.

White people react the worst when faced with societal pressures because of their strong feelings of entitlement. Although Blacks are denied the most, Blacks generally have more experience with these pressures and generally, do not have a sense of entitlement. Blacks are therefore less prone to such extreme behaviours as highlighted in the article (although some can ape poor white conduct). Many Blacks may also not react to societal pressures based on low self-worth. We see Blacks, like Kanye West, behaving rashly after becoming rich because they then crave white privilege and cannot make sense of not being abe to get it.

In the case of Whites who feel they cannot measure up economically, they are taught to first turn their anger on non-whites as the source of their problems. Non-whites, and more so Blacks remain the ultimate victims of White Privilege.

One of the iconic persons in this ‘movement’ was Elliot Rodger, a rich, spoilt brat who used his white privilege to acquire guns, go undetected and perform acts of violence. The introduction of  terms such as ‘Incels’ are mostly about justifying negative white male behaviors. It is common for them to try to hijack sympathy movements which leaves no room for others to consider the most marginalized people .

They turn to movements such as the #metoo slogan but it seems more like  ‘#mealone’ campaigns.

While the article has points worth discussing in a general context or quite another context, I am left wondering why all this time was spent attempting to psychoanalyse and excuse the actions of those whites (mentioned in the article and maybe those that may have plans to commit similar acts later on)

I don't think the same consideration would be extended to persons who are most affected by systemic injustices.

Must admit....that was a chore to read. I find the juxtapositioning of the crazed Toronto driver to some theory about sexual dissatisfaction quite weird...but then again, I have not followed the story closely. Anyhow, the idea that males are poorly conditioned is true. But to claim that white males are the greatest "victims" of such is plain ridiculous.

Valid responses.

The article explains the issue in some strange ways though. For example: "Here in America the problem is purely cultural in that entirely too many women of all ages believe most men are just plain bad and therefore of no use romantically or sexually. "

Also strange is his description of "poisonous femininity" which he says is perpetuated by the mothers in the family. The example he gives of this is that "Too many women simultaneously teach their daughters that nice girls don’t “give it up” to a boy"without respect... and this respect is sometimes seen in terms of "dates and gifts". This is a weak argument that puts the blame on mothers.

So while he have a few  parts of the explantation, other parts of the article are suspect, and so  i don't find he nails the analysis, which for me would involve going past sexual/relationship issues.

I have been following this debate on twitter in the past couple weeks. I agree the incel movement is about white male privilege and feelings of entitlement. As there are many other groups of people who don't have sex not by their own choosing but because of many  prejudices. However they don't go on murder sprees. Some persons have argued that when there is an unequal distribution of other resources (wealth, food etc.) groups and persons argue for redistribution and that is seen as okay. But given the demands of incels who are white heterosexual males this is demanding womens bodies to be used as they please.

As the debate expanded on twitter a point came up that it should not be a question of the redistribution of sex but questioning why certain people are not deemed attractive or persons do not wish to engage with them in a sexual or romantic way. That points to poor socialisation, structutral  notions of attractivenes and sexuality. At the heart of it is layers of discrimination.

"Girls of the same age are given no clue what their male peers are going through, or how they might sympathize with and help them emotionally as opposed to sexually" this invalidates his argument because he is continuing in the same vein that created the privilege by using the same gender roles and assuming that those said young women aren't grappling with their own "powerful onslaught of directionless lust" and attempting to place the responsibility for giving that male lust direction on their female counterparts.

The problem isn't toxic masculinity or femininity...as I see it...the problem is the commodification of sex which is one of the manifestations of capitalism. It isn't that these guys can't get sex or romantic relationships it is that they cannot get it with who they find valuable and by extension who their 'world' would find value in and reward them for being able to possess. Women are still considered possessions in the Western context (which has spread all over the earth due to enslavement and colonisation)and because of that one of the value positions of men within this society is who they partner with based on the value society has placed on that woman.

They are mad that they are to the top of the 'food chain' but have no access to choice meat those are the same frustrations being felt by poor and middle class whites in this current climate. Therefore they fixate on the object women, blacks, sexuality etc. they believe is their Right to dominate rather than the dream that was sold to them as their birthright according to Hollywood and the Bible. Sadly they are being forced to come to terms with the fact that it isn't their birthright to dominate and instead of dealing with themselves and why it is they believe what they do and admitting that they do unfairly benefit from oppression and it isn't as far removed as they would have us think.

Their frustrations and subsequent response is wanting to sustain the oppressions that gave them that benefit without admitting that they have no issue with subjugating others to fulfill that dream.

Unless i missed something...this Incel thing is another irresponsible action to justify white previledge. Males and females experience social insecurities with the opposite sex for reasons that goes back to a misguided foundation...social structures...society.

By Robert Anderson
May 07 2018 - counterpunch.org

The recent slaughter in Toronto has many people chattering away about “Incels”, or involuntary celibates. Several people have taken to Twitter to offer explanations via links to sites in the “manoverse” – that is, web pages dedicated to the notion that men are somehow the real victims of gender discrimination and, more specifically, misandry. Many of these sites hoist the Incel flag as a way to demonstrate their bona fides to a supposed terrorist army of young (or youngish) men whose self-alleged sexual frustration has reached murderous proportions.

The great irony of this is that “involuntary celibacy”, as a socio-cultural development, was first identified by the Georgia State University’s Department of Sociology in the late 90s, after which they published a paper about it here. It was a new social trend of large numbers of people in the United States who had become sexually and romantically redundant due to social dysfunction, or disability, chronic illness or obesity. These are people who are hardly ever or never able to engage in romantic relationships and sexual congress. One of the chief emphases of the study is that this is a problem afflicting both men and women, gay and straight, young and old, white, brown and black.

And yet somehow, through the often bilious alchemy of the Internet, this problematic social trend became appropriated by angry, sexually frustrated young white men, who have proceeded to weaponize and aim it at those they perceive as more sexually successful, referred to on their sites as “Chads” (socially successful men) and “Stacys” (socially successful women).

Alek Minasian frequented many sites associated with this utterly bizarre “movement”, and may have been inspired by Elliot Rodger, the sociopathic killer who gunned down six people in Isla Vista, California after uploading a ludicrous “manifesto” onto YouTube, in which he described the on-coming “Day of Vengeance.” Apparently Rodgers is referred to as “the Supreme Gentleman” in Incel circles, a kind of hero.

In my opinion, the real question is just what, exactly, is driving so many young men to identify themselves as Incel in the first place, what is making them hate with such ferocity. As usual in such cases, the answer is much more systemic than most people would care to admit. It is not so much their rejection by women that drives them, but what is behind those rejections, the how and why.

Here in the United States we have failed miserably to educate our adolescents about their budding sexuality. Moreover, we have over the decades allowed a culture of poisonous masculinity to develop that abates and feeds the sexual and social ignorance created by this failure. Boys grow into adolescence completely unprepared for the powerful onslaught of directionless lust that begins to fill them, while the surrounding culture gins up that lust with endless images of gorgeous women who appear available but in fact are, as figures of fantasy, not at all. Girls of the same age are given no clue what their male peers are going through, or how they might sympathize with and help them emotionally as opposed to sexually. Buttressing that ignorance is an equally poisonous form of femininity taught to females starting in early adolescence, usually by the women in their family, especially their mothers. The latter is one of the great unmentionables of modern America.

Too many women simultaneously teach their daughters that nice girls don’t “give it up” to a boy without respect while implying – or, in some cases, openly stating – that said respect is made up of dates and gifts and, therefore, their vaginas somehow have a price tag. If a boy or man doesn’t take a girl or woman out on a certain number of fancy dates while being polite to a fault, then he has not “earned it.” In this way are girls taught to understand, however unconsciously, the enforcement role they play in our socio-economic system. Meanwhile, too many fathers are teaching their sons that if they want to “make it” with a girl, they’ve got to “earn it” with – guess what? – dates and gifts. These venomous “lessons” have been taught for a very long time in this country and, despite valiant attempts by smart feminists to change them, continue to be taught to this day.

Because of all this, commentators in the media make mistakes when trying to grapple with the sometimes tragic aftermath of the Incel problem. Mary Elizabeth Williams wrote in Salon, “It’s not because they’re lonely. It’s not because they can’t get laid. It’s the misogyny, stupid.” Of course, this gets the problem precisely backwards. The loneliness and frustration of these young men leads them to lay the blame on women, rather than on the societal system that created the rejection in the first place. Their justifiable anger and frustration is mis-directed. And writers like Williams likewise fail, however understandably, to place the onus where it belongs. For example, Williams correctly argues how wrong-headed is Russ Douthat’s idea that sexbots will douse the Incel flame, but not for the reasons she thinks. No young man I have ever known, including myself at that age, has ever found it appealing to f*** a piece of plastic, however “real.” All of us understand that to do such a thing is a kind of creepy social failure, similar to having to go to a prostitute. And yet Williams implies that while, yeah, young guys can and will enjoy purging their lusts with an anatomically semi-correct robot, that won’t cool the ardor of their hate because, well, misogyny.

What is truly remarkable about this mess is how similar it is to what is going on in China. Young men in that country endure sexual frustration because of a demographic nightmare created by the Chinese government’s former one child policy combined with rural Chinese culture’s elevation of sons and denigration of daughters. At the moment there are about 33 million more young men than women. Here in America the problem is purely cultural in that entirely too many women of all ages believe most men are just plain bad and therefore of no use romantically or sexually. There was more than a whiff of this in Lori Gottlieb’s Marry Him: The Case for Choosing Mr. Good Enough. The women featured in that well-researched but disturbing book are filled with a breathtaking sense of entitlement that, ironically, none of them would tolerate in men. And rightly so; self-entitlement of any sort has no place in relations between couples, gay or straight. But there it is, angry opinions creating here in America what only the communist party could accomplish in China.

Combine all of the above with a nation as steeped in gun culture and violence as the United States (and, to a lesser extent, Canada), and you end up with young psychopaths like Rodgers and Minasian. But tranquilizing the culture and seizing all the guns won’t help. All of us, male and female, young and old, must take stock of our own attitudes about relationships and how the nature of same are warped by the demands of commerce, and do something about it. Perhaps it will take a kind of socio-cultural Marshall Plan, with an intense focus on early and adolescent education and, perhaps, adult re-education of some sort (preferably benign). I’m not sure. But something must be done, and quick. Otherwise we can expect more and more young men identifying as Incels, and ever more massacres.

Robert Anderson is a resident of Fremont, California and a screenwriter, technologist, composer of novels and short stories, insatiable reader and lover of words, and, last but not least, an enemy of tyranny and exploitation in all of its forms.

Source: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/07/the-shooters-in-the-rye/