By David Futrelle
Pity the poor incels, who are not only oppressed by snooty women who refuse to have sex with them just because they’re “pretty sure this guy would murder me and use my skin to make a fedora,” but also have to pay taxes.
Now, because of that first thing, incels think they shouldn’t have to do the second thing. Like many of their manosphere brothers, you see, incels are convinced that women live lives of ease, heavily subsidized with the money that Big Daddy Government extracts from hardworking male taxpayers like them (assuming they’re not living the incel dream, sitting pretty in mom’s basement without the bother of a job).
But at least non-incel men get to have sex with the women they supposedly subsidize with their tax dollars. Since these women (aka femoids, aka foids) are basically living off the government, their bodies are a “public good” that incels are unfairly being denied access to.
On Incels.me, the largest incel forum outside of Reddit, one unhappy taxcel recently demanded what he sees as justice:
The text:
Robo Sapien:
Since wagecuckcels are funding a public good that we don’t get access to, who else here thinks that verified incels shouldn’t be taxed? Or at least given prostitutes as fair compensation for state programs that go to foids? Let me know your thoughts gentleman.
Robtical:
We should either not be taxed at all or given weekly prostitutes.
Robo Sapien posted a little poll, and those who clicked on it overwhelmingly agreed:
Aggrieved entitlement in action!
The unfairness of taxes is a longtime obsession of incels. In a Incels.me thread last December, someone calling himself Dry Spell argued that women should have to pay higher taxes than men because
it’s too easy for them to make money. Women can literally flash (part of) their boobs on youtube and make easy money. They don’t even have to be super attractive.
Another commenter had a slightly more radical idea. “Women must not pay taxes,” wrote Incelman. “Thye must have sex with an incel instead.”
In another December thread, a regular commenter called wandercamp suggested that women should be forced to pay a “sex tax” — not a tax on having sex, but a tax in the form of sex — in order to prevent the sexual frustration that he thinks leads incels to seek “retribution” through mass killings.
“What would have saved the lives that ER ended?” he asked.
Sex. Thats it. 20 minutes and all of those young women would be alive.
But apparently thats too much to ask after a weekend long cock train that your average sorority sister rides each saturday.
So its simple, we make it mandatory for women to sleep with incels.
>b-but thats oppressiv…
Shut up. You wont put out for 20 minutes to save the lives of 7 people?
>we need to examine his mental state
>our culture led to thiswho cares? We want to save lives. Put out. Its that simple. You can spend 50 years researching sexual culture to solve the problem of homicidal virgins or you can put out.
>but sex is personal
Obviously not if you defend casual sex
>its enslavement
No its not. You work a certain amount of hours each week to pay taxes, and you dont call it enslavement. Requiring some of your sex to be with incels should be no problem
Stated this baldly, these various proposals to combat alleged “sexual inequality” by giving incels tax breaks and/or forcing women to have sex with them are obviously deeply offensive and completely absurd. But as I’ve said before these spurious solutions — and the perverse logic behind them — are not that far off in spirit from the more carefully worded “solutions” to so-called sexual inequality that have begun to seep into the popular discourse.
Like wandercamp here, George Mason University economist Robin Hanson thinks that “involuntary celibacy” fuels mass murders and that reducing the celibacy would reduce the murders. Like so many incels, he sees sexual inequality is fundamentally analogous to income inequality and his proposed, er, solutions seem to come straight from the incel playbook. “Sex could be directly redistributed,” he wrote in a now infamous blog post after the Toronto van attack, “or cash might be redistributed in compensation”
That’s pretty much exactly what Robo Sapien was suggesting. But Hanson isn’t an anonymous commenter on an incel forum; he’s a tenured professor whose blog post on the “redistribution of sex” inspired a New York Times column that reached millions.
Meanwhile, psych-professor-turned-self-help-guru Jordan Peterson — the most influential representative of the so-called “intellectual dark web” — also thinks that men turn violent when they can’t have sex, and wants us to essentially reorganize society in such a way that women are essentially forced to marry the guys who now call themselves incels (though he now insists that his vision of “enforced monogamy” will somehow managed not to involve force, which makes one wonder why he used the word “enforced” in the first place).
Though both would vehemently deny it, both Hanson and Peterson are de facto apologists for incel terrorism. Their ideas are as dangerous as those of incels like Robo Sapien and wandercamp; unfortunately they are much more influential.
Hi, I don’t normally post here but these stories reminded me of a few years ago when the girlfriend of the man who murdered 5 sex workers in the UK (she was not involved in any way with the crimes) was interviewed by Sky News. The interviewer asks her straight out if she thinks he wouldn’t have done it if they had had a better sex life.
It seems this logic is age old unfortunately.
The thing with incels and enforced monogamy is, is that they believe that we currently don’t have enforced monogamy. Basically they believe we have something called hypergamy.(I think that’s what it was called.)
Basically they think that all the hot women get with the hot guys, then all the average women use makeup to make themselves seem hot and also get with the hot guys. And then there are only the ugly women left for every man that isn’t hot.
That’s obviously badshit insane, but they truly do imagine that every Chad has his own harem and that’s the only reason that the incels aren’t getting any.
@wwth – Well, a lot of the time I DON’T understand Jordan Peterson, to be honest, despite my graduate degree and job involving reading scientific literature on a regular basis.
But that is because he doesn’t make his point clear and frequently redefines terms to suit himself (as an aside, people keep saying “oh but you don’t understand the term ‘forced monogamy’ because it is a technical term used by scientists.” I understand EXACTLY what forced monogamy is (at least in terms of research biology). It is an experimental technique used to examine particular behaviours, or when you want to make a particular genetic cross. IE if you have fruit flies with red eyes and fruit flies with white eyes, and you want to see what the resulting genotype would be when you breed those two types together, you might segregate a red-eyed female on her own with one white-eyed male (That way, you know for sure any eggs you get are a red-eyed/white-eyed cross, and if you are a good scientist you will also segregate a red-eyed male with a white-eyed female to see if the results are different) Or, for example, you might look at the effects segregation with a female has on the mating behaviour of a male which normally has to compete for females with other males. Etc).
If he is using a definition of “forced monogamy” from another source (it may be used in social science or some other field in a different way) then there are clearly multiple definitions and you would really think someone who is allegedly a senior academic would understand the importance of definitions and footnoting. Because as it is, all this term says to me is some kind of human genetic breeding programme. So he needs to clear that up.
It’s not our job to untangle someone’s load of woolly and ill-defined nonsense. It’s his job to make his point clear.
Jordan Peterson’s communication is either fundamentally dishonest or just plain sloppy. I can’t decide which it is. I suppose it could be sloppy in the service of dishonesty.
Bah. I’m going to knit a hat. My day will therefore be more productive than Peterson’s.
i know it’s silly to pick at grammatical weirdness from these chucklefucks, but sometimes i can’t help it:
how do you do a “weekend long” anything, “each saturday”? Clever foids, managing to do something that takes two days in a single day!
“Wagecuckcel,’ sounds doubleplus ungood to me.
Funny how progressives are supposed to be the social engineers and yet the right are the ones trying to coopt the language to manipulate people’s thoughts.
@wwth
I actually think this needs to be pointed out more and more whenever these bloviating chucklenuts like Peterson or Sam Harris have any kind of interview or profile. Ask for some concrete policy positions and if they start going out on hypotheticals or jargon-laden “thought experiments,” call that shit out on what it is.
Then remind them of the story of Rumpelstiltskin. Call something by its true name, and it dies.
Also, can we take the term “Judeo-Christian” out back and just empty a magazine into it? The fact that this stupid term has caught on is a testament (no pun intended) to the ability of the right to manipulate language. There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian,” particularly with the history of anti-Semitism being what it is and continues to be to this day.
Other Tessa:
That is not what he is saying at all. What you are saying is “exclusive.” Enforced is strict and ENFORCED or else it wouldn’t do anything to appease or “cure” incel terrorists.
From Jordan Peters:
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
See? Enforcement takes rejection off the table. Someone would HAVE to be with him. Of course the “or else” isn’t said. But we all know what it is.
Unless you can explain a way rejection could be taken off the table without removing every woman’s right to say no.
Also, why is the solution ALWAYS removing women’s freedoms when it comes to men’s actions against women?
Wouldn’t the better option be to keep these guys as far from society as possible? Since the believe any one of them will go on a killing spree at any minute?
@Parasol
I’m gonna go with dishonest, personally. Motherfucker knows exactly what he’s doing. I think that if it was just sloppy he’d have changed his habit after so many callouts, but he doesn’t. Hell it’s almost like he has a “misunderstanding” excuse up his sleeve before he even publishes his stuff.
It’s just a new form of dogwhistling, is all, relying on implications to get his point across. But because it isn’t concrete he can cry “no no you got it all wrong!” when the heat turns up.
Dangit… “Peterson” not Peters! Stupid phone. Sorry.
Another clue would be that this enforced monogamy talk tends to only come up when female supposedly immoral sexual and romantic choices are being discussed. You don’t hear talk of enforced monogamy curing unfaithful husbands or rapey PUAs. The people who like Peterson are the same types of people who like Trump, the guy who has had multiple marriages and even more extra-marital affairs. That’s not even counting whatever non-consensual assault he’s committed. If Peterson and his fans were using the concept of enforced monogamy in a dry academic way, and there’s no misogyny involved whatsoever, it would apply across the board to everyone.
Gen X’er here, am also totally confused by the Millennial panic coming from, well, everywhere it seems.
That’s something I don’t get about the alt-right in general. They lionize their cult leaders for being brave, forthright truth tellers, but then they’re constantly having to walk back their awful comments.
Trump supporters: “You liberals can’t handle TRUTH BOMBS! He tells it exactly like it is!”
Trump supporters, five minutes later: “No, no, he didn’t mean that.”
“No, he didn’t mean that either.”
“You just misunderstood what he meant.”
“You’re quoting him out of context.”
(None of them are ever able to explain what this mythical context is that makes dehumanizing rhetoric sound logical and reasonable.)
Side note – it’s also interesting that (assuming the Venn diagram of incels and libertarians is mostly circular) most of them will argue tooth and nail for letting society’s “makers” keep their wealth as a reward for their efforts, but when it comes to Chad, suddenly the pitchforks and Marxist slogans come out. Why doesn’t Chad get the same deference as the 1%? Doesn’t he put in the effort to use deodorant and talk to (not at) women and go on dates and put in the hard work of LTRs? Why is it fair to steal his hard-earned harem?
How can you demand to forcibly redistribute anything (let alone something as complex as a human relationship) and not sound like a monstrous 3 year old? “I will randomly murder people until everyone on earth has an equal amount of crayons.”
How can the media give this even one femtosecond of serious consideration?
As Violet pointed out, their plan has the virtue of being not only morally appalling, but full of ill-thought-out, unworkable contradictions. If women are a “public good”, but they become fatally used up after one encounter, then mathematically the pool of available sacrificial virgins (because, let’s be clear, these guys want to be angry volcano gods, because goodness knows we haven’t tried THAT, ever) will shrink to zero within months. Then what? They’ll have to keep raising the acceptable notch count, much like the Social Security retirement age.
@moon_custafer Thanks! Help yourself to a forehead cupcake 🙂
See also: Denying that they’re Nazis, from “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler!” to “Leftists are the real Nazis!” to both “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler!” and “Leftists are the real Nazis!” in the same bloody paragraph, despite having swastikas for usernames and Iron Crosses for avatars.
So brave. *sheds a tear*
Thanks to everyone who pointed out that a) it makes no sense in context that Peterson was suggesting we keep doing what we’re already doing and b) how any criticism of his work is dismissed as misunderstanding because his positions are slippery and either ill-defined or undefinable.
But let’s pretend for a minute that Peterson was just endorsing the existing system of social and tax incentives towards exactly one style of relationship – long-term committed romantic and sexual relationships between one man and one woman. Here’s the thing: that sucks too. Our current system of hurts queer people. It hurts people who do not thrive in monogamous relationships. It hurts people who are staying in relationships that have ceased to work for them. It hurts children of more than two parents. So yeah. I’m not into it, even if that was what Peterson was advocating (lol it was not.)
But what do I know? I’m just a chaotic bog witch.
I’ve been gingerly asking questions over at the subReddit. Three pertinent nuggets so far:
Success as a man is dependent on procreating and keeping your biokids alive long enough for them to procreate as well. Every other achievement is secondary.
Women wear makeup to accentuate sexual signalling; men cannot be around a woman wearing makeup, heels, and displaying cleavage without being aroused.
If a man can’t ask a colleague for a date, we might as well be living in Maoist China.
Regarding the first, I was told that my unemployed alcoholic brother is de facto more of a success as a man than I am because my sons are adopted, therefore I’m raising an ‘enemy’s’ offspring.
I hazard to guess Peterson honestly meant the solution would be kinda like our current “enforced monogamy”, just a little more so. You know, like the good old days of conservative Gilded Age, whatever that’d mean in practice. Whatever you personally imagine, if you’re any kind of social conservative.
Mind you, the Gilded Age would be a solution for his own agenda. He doesn’t care if it’d make incels happy, or even solve their purported problems. He’s just eager to pimp himself in the media and let all kinds of conservatives imagine he’s saying whatever they want hear, including incels and others who pine for the Republic of Gilead.
Well Peterson seems to be working straight from the ‘Demagogue Playbook.’ – Give the followers general platitudes that they think are what they want to hear, (possibly seeming to, or even genuinely, including a ‘hate bone’ or three for them to chew on) while ducking any genuine attempt to make policy.
@Kevin Sounds like Doug Ford and the CPC were following the same playbook. 😛
Pretending for a minute this is true, the reactionaries who love this rhetoric tend to forget the keeping kids alive long enough for them to procreate part. They only concentrate on the opportunities to spread sperm part. They gloss over how the infant mortality rate used to be much, much higher than it is now and if they got their wish of a collapse of the current “degenerate” west, infant mortality would go back up. Even if their libertarian wet dreams came true without an apocalypse, they would rise sharply. Government investment in infrastructure such as sewage treatment, regulations protecting water and keeping food safe, vaccination programs, access to affordable health care for children and for pregnant people and many more “socialist” things that they hate are crucial for keeping kids alive long enough to procreate. Not just poor kids. The wealthy still used to lose children during childbirth or during the first few years of life. Even if alt-right/manosphere types were the ubermenschen they believe themselves to be, they wouldn’t be able to bootstrap their way out of that.
Not to mention these dude’s hatred of being forced to pay child support to keep their children alive.
@Fishy Goat:
I think it’s because all the conservatism/kyriarchy/etc. shit got a “No Sell” from nearly all the Millennials. So they’re shitting themselves in terror that their day is nearly done.
The Boomers pretty much said the same sort of thing about us. We were the reason ‘underachiever’ entered common use, after all. But they were a bunch of dirty hippies… It’s like every generation thinks of its youth as freedom and innocence, but the next generation are aimless and unmotivated.
@Robert
‘Interesting’ criteria they have. I’m curious though, I had two kids before starting to transition, where does that put me? They really don’t think these things through, do they?
@pitshade
See also: music peaked back when I was young and at my most emotionally vulnerable, but ever since then it has been going down hill, and it’s all just noise these days.
It’s all the same old whine.
Please mind the comments policy. Thanks. ?