By David Futrelle
The “involuntary celibates” who congregate on the Incels.me forum have previously celebrated such lovely fellows as Toronto van killer Alek Minassian, a self-described incel who murdered ten pedestrians in a symbolic attack against sex-having “Chads and Stacies,” and Elliot Rodger, the incel “saint” whose 2014 murder spree in Isla Vista California helped to inspire Minassian’s rampage.
Now the incels — or at least a portion of them — have a new hero: Canadian self-help guru and angry fussbudget Jordan Peterson,
On Friday. you may recall, the New York Times ran a highly critical profile of Peterson in which the Jung-quoting lobster-hierarchy fetishist offered some thoughts on how to stop young men from taking up guns and vans and massacring as many people as they can. In one of his chats with the Times’ Nellie Bowles — conducted after the Toronto attacks but before Friday’s shooting in Santa Fe — Peterson suggested that the real solution to incel violence is “enforced monogamy.”
Here’s how Bowles described their discussion:
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
I laugh, because it is absurd.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”
This is the sort of nonsense you might expect in an incel forum, or from some similarly reactionary manosphere hangout. And so it’s hardly a surprise to see many on Incels.me hailing Peterson as a new incel idol. The only real question is what took them so long?
In a post yesterday, one prolific Incels.me commenter brought Peterson’s interview to the attention of his fellow forum regulars, asking “Is Jordan Peterson, our guy?”
More than a few commenters responded with an enthusiastic “yes!”
“What he is saying is exactly what I have always been saying,” declared someone calling himself SaintMarcLepine, the moniker a dark tribute to the Canadian misogynist who murdered 14 women at Montreal’s École Polytechnique in 1989.
RageAgainstTDL was even more enthusiastic:
This is absolutely brilliant. He is forcing mainstream writers and the public to confront the idea of monogamy and explain why feminism has destroyed it for their own chad-hungry desires.
Peterson is contrarian by nature too. He thrives on disagreement. So he won’t let this go. The more feminists argue they have a right to only fuck Chads, the more he will highlight how damaging this is to society.
The tide is turning.
A wannabe philosopher calling himself TheWitchKing pounded out a thousand-word treatise which could be summarized as “lol, Peterson is triggering the femoids.” Here are a few snippets; I’ve removed, among other things, the author’s extended musings on Peterson’s similarity to Loki, the Norse trickster god.
I usually have little use for Peterson or his philosophy, but I can’t help but admire anyone capable of provocation of this magnitude. … Peterson is striking at one of the most precious values of the modern West: the agency of women when it comes to the matter of sexual selection and reproduction.
With this act Peterson has crossed a kind of threshold … The idea of compulsory monogamy is not some idea that will merely inspire outrage among radical feminists and the members of academia surveying the world from the dizzying heights of their ivory towers. Rather, the idea of enforced monogamy is the stuff of nightmares of every modern daughter of the West. …
Informed by the Enlightenment values that championed the freedom of the individual, the sexual revolution was kind of a dawn for women. What Peterson is suggesting would be tantamount to murdering the light of that new day and plunging women back into the prolonged nightmare they believed that had finally escaped. …
Sadly or happily, depending upon your perspective, the amusement to be had at all of the outraged shrieking is the only good thing that’ll come from Peterson’s scandalous idea.
Mikepence made essentially the same point in a few short sentences:
He really got them riled up with this. Femoids cringe at the thought of being within 10 feet of an ugly guy, she can’t imagine actually being in a relationship with one
It’s almost as though incels are less interested in dating and/or marrying women than they are in terrifying them and/or making them miserable.
Animeincel was equally smitten with Peterson:
Yes he is on our side, and his very very smart. He is just not as aggressive yet cause he know media will slaughter him then. He understands the incel problem 100% and I love him.
Like Animeincel, Weed is convinced that Peterson is an incel ally who can’t quite say that outright just yet:
I think Peterson tries to appear as neutral as possible but deep down he is on our side.
nklfdnblidnfbli wondered if Peterson was directly cribbing from him.
i mentioned enforced monogamy in the incelcast, maybe peterson listened to that and got the idea from me? mainly we need it because almost all girls want only chad and chad is polygynous.
While Peterson was a bit vague as to what he meant by “enforced monogamy,” nklfdnblidnfbli was happy to spell out what he himself meant by the term.
 here’s how i think it should work
– people can opt in or opt out of enforced monogamy
– if they opt in they pay lower taxes and get free basic income from the govt
– marriage laws must first be overhauled so that men aren’t disadvantaged and family courts are fair
– in enforced monogamy people must be married to have sex, and if you get divorced you have to go through a 6 month waiting period where you are not allowed to have sex, this is to discourage people from getting married and then divorced for every hookup
Huh. That seems a bit, er, elaborate, but I guess it might increase the odds that dudes who hate women and love murderers will eventually have sex.
All this said. there were more than a few in the thread who weren’t quite so excited about Peterson’s incel turn. Some were turned off by Peterson’s paeans to self-improvement — incels dislike being ordered to clean up their rooms, Peterson-style, nearly as much as they hate being told they need a shower.
Others thought Peterson was little more than “controlled opposition,” blaming his recent rise to fame on the machinations of, you guessed it, the (((Jews))). (Of course Peterson isn’t Jewish, and while he’s not a Christian either, he’s a big Jesus fan whose beliefs have been described as similar to Kierkegaard’s “Christian existrntialism.”)
“Peterson is a gatekeeper attempting to keep men from turning to far rightwing ideologies to correct their problems,” declared WarriorSkull.
He does warn women that he constantly sees career women … end up in their 30’s desperate for children and unable to secure a man for obvious reasons. This isn’t sufficient to make much of a dent in the direction our culture has and will continue to head, but the jews will continue promoting him as a “safe” alternative to rabid leftism.
ElliotRodgerHere put it more bluntly:
Jordan peterson is a f*ggot judeophile. fuck him, he is popular among the MGTOW cucks
In a later comment he added that Peterson “has a horribly ugly jewish wife.”
Starystulejarz compared Peterson to other alleged tools-of-the-Jews like Alex Jones and … Richard Spencer?!?
he is (((((controlled opposition))))) like alex jones, mark dice, trump, lauren southern, richard spencer, they will tell you 15-50% truths and rest is misinformation to brainwash you and keep you in state which jews want you to be (not to wake up and swallow blackpill fully)
Apparently this sort of conspiracy theorizing is contagious, as I can’t help but wonder myself if this little chorus of anti-Semites, all of them relatively new members on Incels.me, are part of an alt-right recruitment squad deliberately targeting angry, troubled men.
Another new recruit, a fellow calling himself rabbiter, kicked back hard at the notion that Peterson was “controlled” anything.
People like Jordan Peterson have helped a lot in moving the Overton Window in the last 3 years or so. We need more people like him. Anyone who criticizes him as “controlled opposition” needs to be sent to a North Korean Gulag.
Unfortunately, I think rabbiter is right that Peterson is nudging the Overton Window rightward — and bringing some of the worst ideas that have been floating around in the manosphere into the mainstream. “Enforced monogamy” is probably not the last terrible incel idea Peterson will bring to his growing audience in the next few months and years as he continues to explore his own inner incel.
The thing is that the way these people judge women based on appearance doesn’t mean that “Beckys” are the average looking “5s”, they want someone who is average on the above average scale (5-10) so even they should be “7-8s” looks wise.
Is this Becky and Stacey?
They probably want Stacey because she’s just as racist as they are
I’m not sure that it is, given the context around the quote. Since he’s whining about the (bullshit) fact that 20% of the men get 80% of the women, mandating that women only stick to one partner wouldn’t solve this (again, bullshit) problem at all. The women could be 100% monogamous and still all cluster around one non-monogamous Chad.
Mandating that Chads have to pick just one woman and leave the “leftovers” for the beta males/incels would, in theory, alleviate the problem.
Of course, this assumes that women would actually partner up with incel men if they didn’t have better alternatives available. I assume that Peterson has either never heard of the phrase “Not even if you were the last man on earth”, or his version of enforced monogamy entails forbidding people from remaining single. Probably the latter, let’s be honest.
The idea that 20% of men just magically end up with 80% of women is just laughable even on the face of it. It makes out like individual preferences and differences are trivial matters when it comes to sexual selection. They’re not.
In other words: Chad don’t real.
I’m a sixty year old man who stopped dating around 15 years ago, because I was bad at it. I don’t know what in my early life was supposed to prepare me for a mature sexual relationship with a human woman, but I must have missed it. I was clueless and needy. So, at 45, I stepped back. I stopped trying to get what i needed out of women. I masturbated to a lot of internet porn, and I developed a close platonic relationship with an older woman who was just an unforgettable character. She had a disability and needed help with household chores and later with bathing. She had a car and could help me get around. We took care of each other,. Over the years we raised god only knows how many cats, plus TWO GREAT DANES. We also took care of her brother during his last years. That was one of the best things I ever did. Like I always told her, you can put “ass wiper” on my tombstone.
My friend died six months ago, in November, after a fall on her steps. I’m alone in my apartment except for all those cats, and sometimes I get pretty sad, and so now I have to make some decisions. Maybe It’s time to delete all my porn, and join a dating site for old people who are fairly good looking. or maybe something else. The main thing is to make yourself useful to someone
Here’s the point, though. I haven’t had sex in 15 years, but that 15years WAS A LIFE. Not the life I’d always dreamed of, not a life without dissapointment and failure, but a life to be shared and enjoyed and grateful for.
I almost feel kind of sorry for incels. Theyve been taught that sex is everything, but nothing in the mass-marketed video game culture is teaching them anything about real women… or at least, that’s what happened to me. Incels are losers, not because they’re not getting laid, but because not getting laid is their identity. Deciding that women are going to have to fuck you for the good of society… Wow, that sounds so hot! 50 Shades of the Handmaid’s Tale! You gonna get SO MUCH PUSSY!
I’m just going to post this here.
https://incels.me/threads/beta-looking-dude-sacrifices-self-for-roasties-santa-fe-shooting.45625/
Now I wouldn’t recommend anyone reads that thread, unless they want to be filled with rage. It’s basically the most vile stuff imaginable about the lad who got killed trying to protect his classmates.
But I think it’s a handy resource for any time anyone expresses any form of sympathy for incels or suggests people should try to understand or rehabilitate them. Just show them this.
Thank you, Alan, that is the worst thing ever.
Seems obvious to me that the JEEP fans are more worried about incels being radioactive than actually disagreeing with their horrific misogyny. One thing about Peterson is that he’s very deliberate with his language. If he’s being vague, it’s because he wants to be vague and if he’s offering sympathy to a mass murderer, it’s because he sees the misogyny that motivated the rampage in enough of his fanbase. Peterson could have simply said “Minassian was pure evil” and dressed it up in his witches and dragons pronouncements, but he very deliberately opted for the sympathetic approach.
We saw Carl of Benjamin do the same thing with Elliott Rodger after Isla Vista (where he yelled “fucking feminist system!”). He knew his fanbase shared the same misogyny with a similar mass murderer and thus could not bring himself to simply denounce Rodger as a malevolent person, he had to blame women (coded as “feminists”) the way the rest of his fanbase does with the various aggrievements they’ve collected over the years.
Any future callouts of Peterson really need to hammer him on his vagueries and demand the clarity he’s clearly too terrified to espouse.
@FelixRay
I’m really sorry to hear about your friend. I hope whatever decisions you make re: dating and such work out well for you!
Yay, dehumanization is fun! It solves terrorism problems every time, too.
@ numerobis
Oh I’m not trying to dehumanise them, quite the opposite. If incels were just a natural disaster, or a virus, or even a starving cougar, I wouldn’t feel this level of animosity towards them. It’s the fact they are human, with rational decision making capabilities, yet have chosen this vile lifestyle that, in my view, makes them a legitimate target for condemnation.
I totally get what you mean about deradicalisation of non incel terrorists, but I think there’s a fundamental difference.
Let’s take the obvious example of some young lad caught up in Islamic extremism. First of all there’s the fact that his disillusionment and disenfranchisement may have a perfectly legitimate foundation; be that the prejudices faced by young Muslim men, or western foreign policy in the Middle East. But the incel ‘grievances’ are not legitimate or well founded.
Secondly, there’s something to work with. There are non violent ways of seeking to improve the prospects of Muslim youth, and for influencing foreign policy. Those are worthy aims that many will share.
But there’s no compromise to be had with incels. They seek, and will accept nothing less than, the total sexual subjugation of women. In once sense incels are nihilists, yet for all their self loathing faux complaints that they don’t have access to euthanasia, it’s the deaths of others they cheer and laugh about.
That’s why I don’t think they’re worth, or deserving, of the effort.
It’s not about dehumanizing incels. Nobody is saying they’re not people, or that they should lose any actual human rights. It’s about making it clear that their issue isn’t loneliness, it’s entitlement and coddling that entitlement will not help them. It’s the messaging in our culture that women’s bodies are commodities that men should get access to that got us to the point where “incel” is even a thing.
It’s also about not demanding that their targets (women)prioritize mommying them and sympathizing with them over looking out for our own well being. Because ultimately, it’s misogynistic to tell women that we have to be nice to men (or fuck them) so that they won’t kill us.
You’re talking like you don’t even go here. We’ve been through this so many times before with incel trolls and well meaning but clueless people. I really hope we don’t have to go through this conversation yet again with a fairly regular commenter.
TIL not feeling sympathy for, not trying to understand, and not trying to rehabilitate people who want me dead because I exist as someone they deem too ugly to fuck means I’m the one dehumanizing them.
Otrame said
OMG, I have this!
I’ve pretty much gotten used to it. That, and having a warm, furry rock in my bed that’s pretty darned difficult to shift. At least when the felid is on my chest, I get to move my legs! The only real remaining problem is when he steps on my throat.
@Hambeast
My rock has an alarm that sounds when I tug on the blankets even a little.
The last time I had sleep paralysis, many years ago, what was on top of me were a number of (imaginary) young cats. Least frightening “nightmare” ever. I’ve had some bad episodes, but dream kitties are always welcome.
Luckily, Dracarys is teeny tiny and while her lying on my chest is immobilizing, the weight isn’t bothersome. I’m sure she weighs less than my boobs do anyway. All my sleeping shirts do have little punctures all over them from her kneading though.
Pitshade,
Like this?
I would very much prefer cats to the incubus visit I had tyvm.
It’s not always sympathy, though. I hate those bastards. They can wallow in their self-inflicted misery until hell freezes over for all I care.
But how to deal with them is also about self-defense. Yes, we shouldn’t have to do anything for people like them not to try and kill us or harm us. But they’re entitled assholes. They don’t give a shit about “should” or what is fair and just. And I’m not going to trust my own safety or that of others on them starting to do so.
Sometimes the calls for “understanding what the fuck is wrong with them” and “how the hell to reverse that fucked-up world-view” are about that self-defense. But not on an individual level as emotional work expected from their potential victims (kupo, wwth and Alan are absolutely right there) but as a job for society as a whole. I think that’s why it keeps coming up even from people who aren’t trolls.
Because this has everyone worried and sometimes in dealing with that worry you look for and try to articulate ways to do that societal job of self-protection against these terrorists – which requires “understanding” and “rehabilitation” on at least some level from at least some people (I’m thinking professionals who hopefully get paid really well for having to put up with that shit, not normal people who are their potential victims). But by doing that you can forget that you might come across to vulnerable people in this patriarchal society as asking for the former, the emotional work of individuals on an individual level for their potential abusers. Which is not okay.
My personal problem with regards to the former (how society can deal with them) is this (and ever since reading the link from Alan, this has been going through my mind):
When killing them is obviously not an option either for prevention or punishment and locking them up forever with no hope of rehabilitation is not an option for me, either (which has nothing to do with feeling sorry for the whiners, it’s a principle thing. I’m opposed to that for anyone.) I’m kind of left with the option of needing at least some experts “understanding” them enough to predict who is a likely threat (so if necessary they can be temporarily…watched or locked up) and of fixing whatever is wrong with their fucked-up view of people that causes them to kill.
And if that wrong is “they’re entitled assholes” then I need a way for someone to learn to “fix'” “entitled assholes”. Not because society should be sorry for them but because their continuing to be “unmodified” entitled assholes of that sort can get me killed. Wanting “research” and “understanding” and “re-education” for all those dangerous people is not about them. It’s not to help them because they’re poor babies or something. It’s to identify and neutralize threats to our lives. It’s for us. I just – honestly – can’t see another way to counter this threat, which is why this point keeps coming up for me, even though I’m not a troll and I agree with what you guys say re: emotional labour by the (potential) victims. I’m really having a hard time getting these two together: Our need to take action to defend ourselves and our right not to have to do emotional labour for our potential murderers. Which is how I ended with the societal vs. individual job thing. Which is still kind of problematic in practice, cause it tends to cause so many misunderstandings.
Does anyone have another idea how we can stop them?
Guessing that that came from a horror movie, but its OMG KITTIES to me.
Pitshade,
Yes. It’s from Ju-on: The Grudge. I just rewatched that last night, so of course it popped right in my head.
Alaniel,
I’m not even sure there is something that can be done to rehabilitate them unless they want to rehabilitate themselves. We can’t make someone change. What we can do is marginalize their views. Incel forums can be shut down by service providers so that they aren’t able to congregate with other. Media outlets can stop providing platforms to men who want to play devil’s advocate about how redistributing women’s bodies might be not such a bad idea. They can also stop writing headlines that focus on how murderers were pushed into it by rejection from a woman. Law enforcement can take it more seriously when misogynists threaten violence online. Schools can take it more seriously when boys are harassing girls. Media outlets and law enforcement can start calling politically misogynistic acts of violence terrorism. Doing this might make it less likely that young men are attracted to incel ideology (whether or not that’s what they call themselves) in the first place.
There’s a lot we can do. Sympathizing with entitled rage is just going to feed that entitlement. I’ve seen people express sympathy to incels and other sad boner whiners. It never changes them. Ever.
kupo – Lol, my rock doesn’t so much as lift his head. This is new for me since all my other rocks got up and ran off when I moved around.
wwth – The cat on the lower left side of the bed looks just like my rock! I know that’s not him because he’d be the one on the legs and that one has teddy-bear ears. (My Stoffy has a classic Siamese body/head) I think the little one next to the bed might be a statue.
Alaniel – All I can come up with is: Enough people need to push back against their nonsense (and now we need prominent/famous people because of the Jordan Peterson thing more than ever to do this.)
Also, a little anger management wouldn’t go awry in a lot of cases.
@FelixRay:
“Fifty Shades of the Handmaid’s Tale” is the funniest thing I have heard all day. Thank you for that.
Wait. This is the same guy who thinks social hierarchies are necessary because lobsters have them.
There’s no way lobsters are monogamous (Checks on google… yep, not monogamous)
This is the (well, one really) problem with evo-psych right there; you can’t just pick and choose which animal behaviors are evolutionary functional, while ignoring the rest.
So… oppression is good because lobsters, monogamy is bad because…?
I have been seriously trying for days to figure out why people think this guy is brilliant. I just don’t get it.
I’m not being hyperbolic, I can’t wrap my brain around how anyone could think this guy is smart. As a generally empathetic person, it’s driving me a little bit crazy