While the rest of the Western world grapples with the horror of the Manchester bombing, Reddit’s incels are looking back three years to another terrorist massacre — and lauding the angry young incel who carried it out.
It’s been three years since a disturbed loner named Elliot Rodger murdered six and injured fourteen others in an extended rampage in Isla Vista, California, leaving behind a series of videos and a book-length manifesto detailing his deep hatred of, and equally intense desire for, women. Had he been able to get inside the sorority that was his primary intended target, the carnage would have likely been far worse.
Naturally, many of Reddit’s incels — self-described “involuntary celibates” — have embraced Rodger as an incel hero. In a series of posts in the Incels subreddit today, the regulars are celebrating what they call “Saint Elliot’s Day.”
In one thread with several dozen upvotes titled “Happy Saint Elliot’s day! The third anniversary of the day of retribution!” numerous Reddit incels sing the praises of the man they hail as the “supreme gentleman.”
A Redditor called thebillstone really, really wishes that Rodger had been able to get inside that sorority.
Naturally, some visitors to the subreddit are appalled by the celebration of a murderer:
![DigDugDactylus 27 points 6 hours ago* Do people here seriously support a serial killer? Edit: I thought people exxagerated, so I decided to check. People here need help permalinkembedsavereportgive goldreply [–]justendmefamThe only thing left to do is to dog 1 2 7 points 4 hours ago He's wasn't a serial killer first of all and second of all plenty of females admire serial and other killer](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/el5.png?ssl=1)
But in fact not all incels think Rodger was a hero. Some are appalled to see fellow incels lionizing a mass killer — something that, at the very least, makes incels look bad.
![Know_What_Fvck_ThisRacecel: Enemy to All 5 points 8 hours ago Tbh, fuck this faggot, he's the reason we're associated with school shootings. permalinkembedsavereportgive goldreply [–]xxxrivenmainxxx 0 points 2 hours ago school shooters are true heros](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/el6.png?ssl=1)
Others look down on Rodger because his body count wasn’t higher, and not enough of his victims were women.
Still others complain that Rodger was simply too good-looking to be a true incel.
The Incels subreddit may be the scariest place on Reddit.
yea a bit late but after reading the thread here I just feel like I need to say this:
if you want it to be seen as if it is completely welcome, and ok, and “feel free to” comment on ways other comments might strike you as ableist here…
…you cant also get hyper-defensive & dismissive about it.
That action actively discourages people from pointing out that ableism, because no one wants to be seen as “a bitch” who “starts shit” & get scolded as if “over-reacting”.
If you actually do want to encourage people to point out ableism, your reaction should be more like “ok, sorry that came off that way, I hear you”, and moving on. Not gonna stick around to discuss so dont feel the need to address me, I just wouldnt feel right not sayin it.
Requoted for truth.
Francesca said
Not to egg you on, but as a long time Stephen King fan, that sounds kinda awesome.
Thanks for the Birthday Wishes, Everyone! 🙂
I got some other remembrances and a few small gifts including –
An “Arctic” polar bear beanie – here –
https://store.ty.com/newtys/tyshop_items_preview.cfm?ITEM_NO=42108
A pink glass vase that is more – like a round bowl – it’s my own *Glowing Orb*, it’s fantastic!
And several candles, I like candles.
About the thoughts on cheer leaders – I went to private school, we didn’t have it, we did hang out with all other kids in other private (including religious) and public schools.
I was more like a goth / punk sort of kid. If even that. Not overly interested in that either, this is probably how grunge came about, ha, from lazy people like me.
We did hang out with cheer leaders and when I was at Uni some “sorority girls”. I am trying to remember that – one of my party friends from that group – became a dentist.
Yeah. Wild Swinging Times.
We did have enough of fun as kids but it was NOT a “Girls Gone Wild” video.
I had an idea about this, and these “men” we are discussing here –
OK – a lot of them seem to think there are all kinds of “conspiracies”. And against them specifically, too. Not to mention the far fetched ones like “Jewish Plots”.
They also seem to base a lot of their ideas on what they see in the media.
So why don’t they question the various entertainment and media they look at? Put your tin foil hat on and do some “research” on that – why don’t you?
They don’t though.
They are not basing their thoughts on actual people, but on actors and scripted scenarios they absorb via various media.
Step One is to separate these things in your head.
And to reiterate the above, which might blow all their gaskets –
Sorority Girl. Became a Dentist.
Sandra – So sorry about your script! Hope you weather the gap all right.
Re: cheer leaders – I graduated in 1978 and the cheer leaders were okay. It was the drill team that were better than every one else.
Whoa. The medication just kicked in; it took me 12 minutes to type that last paragraph . Hi Sinkable John, if you’re out there.
@Everybody
Thanks! I hope I do too. My hormones have seriously helped a lot of my mental problems. My symptoms have been so much less severe since I started them.
I just finished with rehearsal, and I was actually outgoing and enthusiastic and enjoyed time with most of my cast members. It was like a different woman was doing it. And then I saw a picture of myself, wanted to destroy it, and realized it was me.
@Dalillama & Francesca
I am completely certain that the only reason for my difficulties is because of the medicine I need and that my legal name is still my dead name. So I am certain that I will need to badger this pharmacy as long as I don’t have a physical script, in writing, in my hand. A week off is the minimum time. If I have to fight the pharmacy to do their minimum goddamn job, it’ll probably be nearly two weeks. When I see my doctor, I’ll mention my issues and ask if he knows a pharmacy that keeps it’s nose out of the patient’s life.
Because, y’know, what helps this patient is irrelevant. She needs to conform, especially if she’s miserable. If she’s not miserable and suicidal, she’s not being the human “god” made her to be. Fucking hell.
Harking back to that whole male gaze and “scantily clad beautiful women in peril” discussion, I must disagree that the reverse does not exist or is not as prevalent. The reverse is called “scantily clad handsome men experiencing torments” usually because they have been caught by the inquisition or perhaps sentenced to die by being tied to a stake at the bottom of a deep well that is slowly filling with water or they are James Bond about to be murdered in some particularly interesting fashion.
The sexy appeal being promoted is different. While the point of a “scantily clad women in peril” trope appears to be either revenge fantasy or power trip that has as its goal getting off on someone’s helplessness, the reverse appears to feed on the resilience of the trapped character.
While men are being sold fetishized vulnerability, women are being sold fetishized willpower (within more or less the same perilous framework where the situation is similar, the clothes are scant, even the the traits – vulnerability and strength – are both present, but the emphasis on them is different). Make of it what you will, and a solid argument can be made for pervasive entrenched stereotyping of femininity versus masculinity, but both men and women are sold this trope by the movies in equal measure.
Equally, women have a hard time understanding how men can enjoy the trope aimed at them and men absolutely hate the trope aimed at women (even though it presents their gender in a much better light). This, as has correctly been surmised, is mainly due to empathy with one’s own gender. Women don’t enjoy being terrified, especially if the slasher or monster or whatever gets them in the end, and men do not enjoy being stripped and tortured, even if in the end they do escape. Whatever gender the viewer identifies with determines which trope they find repellent and which seems titillating.
@Dashapants
I think comparing those two things is a bit like saying that portrayals of characters in videogames isn’t sexist, because the male characters are sexualized as much as the female characters. But it’s been well established by now that both the male and female characters in videogames are designed for the male gaze, with the female characters being the sexually objectified prize (for men) and the male character being the power fantasy (again for men).
It’s mostly action flicks that show the male protagonist being tormented, and men make up the majority of those audiences. Movies that have a large female fanbase don’t usually feature men being tortured.
I won’t try to debate this much more because I’m just not the greatest at clarifying my point, but I do think that, when you want to know who a certain trope is appealing to, all you have to do is look at the fanbase and who makes it up.
The only exceptions I know of exist in yaoi culture (Does anyone else here read Killing Stalking?) but most of us reading are inserting ourselves into the position of the one being tormented in these cases, and finding the psychology and push-and-pull fascinating.
Anyway, I think my point is just slipping further and further away from me now. : P
Pictured: me in this post (aka a cute ferret trying to reach a donut and failing) http://imgur.com/cuKxcfv
@dashapants:
The difference is the audience.
When we say “objectified” we mean it in the linguistics sense of the word “object.”: someone or something which is acted upon, rather than acting in its own right. As such, a key part of objectification is that the person is presented as something which the audience want to own or use, rather than someone that they want to be.
Fetishised women are objectified for a male audience: men aren’t expected to want to be them, but to want to own or use them.
Fetishised men (which certainly exist, as you point out) are also presented for a male audience: men aren’t expected to want to own or use them, but to want to be them. They’re still very much the active participant.
If we look at media intended for women, and then at the men presented as desirable in it, we don’t see a lot of fetishised willpower. For my own part, what I’ve seen is:
– Men who are charming and have their shit together, but whose lives are in just enough disarray to be “a project.”
– Men who, having just met the woman, accept her unconditionally and will continue to do so despite her behaviour.
Both of these tropes are often ridiculed by male observers because they don’t feel like power fantasies. They aren’t aggressive or domineering, and they present the man as an object to be acted upon rather than as a subject who acts upon others. However, the male ridicule is usually aimed at the loss of aggression rather than the objectification.
(An aside: Is there a male fictional trope which manages to both fetishise and objectify the man, without losing the aggression? Yes, in my view. I’d argue that the depiction of mooks or henchmen, willing to kill or die at the orders of a their leader, counts as this. We’re not intended to identify with them; we’re intended to identify with their leader and to fantasise about how great it would be to own a group of obedient badasses.
I think this is why comedy based around henchmen talking to one another and asking why they’re henching is often so funny: it turns an object into a person, which inverts our expectations.)
So yeah: men do get treated fetishistically, I agree with your thesis point. But let’s not call it objectification, because it usually isn’t.
‘Men who, having just met the woman, accept her unconditionally and will continue to do so despite her behaviour.’
I just wanted to highlight/reinforce this because I think it’s a significant trope, going all the way back to Elizabeth Bennett. We (women) like to imagine that we’ll meet a man who will love and respect us for who we are, no matter how many or how large our ‘defects’–that we can find a man who loves us without us having to hide and pretend. (This trope often also includes the more beautiful, pleasant and ‘acceptable’ but hypocritical or phony woman as a comparison.)
I haven’t completely caught up on this thread yet, but for those who were wondering, I didn’t make the Elliot Rodger saint graphic; it’s the work of some awful Elliot Rodger fan.
“Dude, are you okay? Let us know if you need to talk.”
Because I was included in important stuff section by someone, who seems to be concerned about my well-being, I feel obliged to answer: I’m OK, thank you, In fact: I’m more OK now I’ve ever been in my life. I just seem to lack that pink veil which most people cover their memories of childhood and adolescence with and it grows thicker with age.
It couldn’t possibly just be that commenters knew nice girls growing up. Yzek knows everyone’s life better than they do. Any fond memories are just a “pink veil” whatever that is.
I met one of my best friends when I was 9 and the other when I was 15. I guess I only think they were and still are good people because I’m lying to myself. Now that Yzek has told me the truth, I’m going to have to go tell them that they’re actually terrible and I don’t want to be friends with them anymore.
@Peevee thanks for checking )))
@dasha pants thank you! You explained very well. And yes – also what it is saying there on the book makes it even worse. Just generally horrible to look anyway. This one you said is like the way my friend is describing it, that this is mistranslated but it also the way that everyone is saying anyway in english because to explain properly takes long time…
Well, good for you, yzek. Thanks for stopping by.
@Valentine, you are more than welcome.
“It couldn’t possibly just be that commenters knew nice girls growing up.”
Yeah, and your anecdata is more more anectadive than mine.
Scroll back to OP and see how he switched from “I was too shy to talk with girls” to say 40 years after that “they were nice to me”. How could he know if he didn’t actually talked to them then?
Yzek,
Can you go awfulize, comdesend, insult and feel sorry for yourself somewhere else?
We’re all full up on hearing how repulsive and foolish we all are. You’re attempt to get away with being shitty to other people while playing the victim is kind of an old worn out act we’ve all had enough of.
Ugh. “Your”
Women are all fiendishly cruel liars and anyone who says anything else is just delusional?
Yeah, why don’t more women throw themselves at you?
It’s a mystery.
Yzek,
GoM was just sharing a personal experience, not making a scientific claim. He gets to have anecdata about his own life. You’re telling him that the girls in husband school were awful without actually being there or knowing. You were the only one making sweeping claims.
And he didn’t say he never talked to girls, he said he didn’t ask them out. There’s a difference.
@WWTH
Is it just me, or is there something really fuckin’ creepy about a guy who assumes that the only reason to talk to a woman is to ask her out? He clearly thinks this, otherwise he wouldn’t have changed “Didn’t ask women out” to “Didn’t talk to women” in his head.
If we are discussing who actually said that, please point me where I actually said anything like “the girls in school were awful”, or played the victim.
I’d happily admit being generally repulsive, foolish and awful, but none of the above. I sincerely am constantly amazed about power of cut the edges of memory and I’d like to hear what actual experiences lead OP to his conclusion.
Y.
“And he didn’t say he never talked to girls, he said he didn’t ask them out.”
Yeah, he engaged often in small small talk or whatever: that’s why they considered thim painfully shy and never expected any advances from him. It’s logical.
Y.
I’ve figured it out: yzek actually is all of the women GOSJM went to high school with, and that’s why they’re a better authority on GOSJM’s own memory and experiences than the man himself.
Are you still here?
Shoo.
You’re dull, rude and dishonest. I didn’t invite you to a debate. I said you should see yourself out.