By David Futrelle
Yesterday, Washington Post writer and putative progressive Liz Bruenig tweeted out a few thoughts about the Joker movie and “the lonely, disaffected” men and boys who identify the most with the movie’s antihero.
And she offered these sad men — that is, incels and others of their ilk — far more sympathy than they deserve. While critics (of the film and of incels) “assume he issue is aggrieved fury resulting from frustrated entitlement — e.g., “tfw no gf,” no automatic status or power,” she argues instead that these boys and men suffer instead from a society that thwarts their desire to be heroes.
I responded to Bruenig on Twitter, but in retrospect I was too kind to an argument that is both fanciful and pernicious. To begin with the simplest and most obvious flaw in her argument: the notion that there are no opportunities for heroism in the world today is absurd. In this highly fraught moment in history — with the US and other democracies at risk of sliding headlong into outright fascism — there are more opportunities for heroism than there are people.
Consider those who risk their own lives taking on fascists in person or online; think of those who confront the horrors of ICE and the plague of police violence; remember those women who’ve stood up to report their assaults at the hands of powerful men. I could go on, and on, and on. Even those who lack the ability or the courage to put their bodies or their lives on the line to fight the backlash can offer support to those who do; that in itself is a small act of heroism.
The reason incels and so many other “lonely, isolated, downwardly-mobile male[s]” don’t become heroes isn’t because they lack opportunities; it’s because they don’t want to be heroes, except on their own twisted terms, taking “revenge” on the so-called normies they believe oppress them — if not through mass shootings than in acts of everyday terrorism.
Incels idolize misogynistic mass murderers Elliot Rodger and Marc Lepine; they also cheer on more modest terrorizers of women like this man:
I wrote about this remarkable Incels.is post when it first appeared; it’s been making the rounds on Twitter over the past few days. When I went back to check on the original thread, it had been deleted, but commenters on the site remember it (and its author) well, with one recent commenter declaring Classic_Jarvis a “low inhib” — that is, low-inhibition — “God.”
To any of those seduced by Bruenig’s argument: how many times do incels have to show you what they are before you believe them? Sites like Incels.co — and the recently banned Braincels subreddit — are as hateful and vicious as The Daily Stormer forums. In many ways they’re worse, at least in their open glorification of violence.
I understand that, in the abstract, it’s hard not to feel a little natural sympathy for the “lonely [and] disaffected” of whatever gender. But incels and others with similarly hateful ideologies have disqualified themselves from this sort of blanket sympathy with their hatred of women and “normies” in general, just as neo-Nazis have with their hatred of Jews and indeed most of humanity. Hate groups are hate groups.
Bruenig does acknowledge, in a later tweet, that “all kinds of horrible things arise from frustrated attempts at heroism” — which is putting it mildly — but then she goes on to say this is “a problem for society to solve, not the individual. i.e., the answer isn’t ‘get over it, loser’.”
And how exactly would society “solve” the problem of incels other than making mental health available to all who need it without cost? The path of actual heroism is as open to incels as it is to the rest of us; the incels have refused it. In her tweets, Bruenig offers no solutions herself, only a few vague (and not exactly inspiring) hints. Should we drive women from the workforce so that men can feel the heroism of “supporting a family?” Should we enter into some new war so that young men can fight in a “meaningful conflict?” Somehow I doubt that even Bruenig thinks either of these things would be a step in the right direction.
Meanwhile, the solutions that incels themselves demand for their supposed problems range from “enforced monogamy” and government-supplied girlfriends to the literal destruction of the entire human race, or at least the “normie” portion of it.
“Get over it” — we can drop the “loser” part — is in fact the only viable solution to the problems of the incels. They need to reject an ideology that destroys their own self-esteem even as it increases their hatred of others and encourages suspicion of mental health professionals who could offer them the only help that might make a difference.
Only those incels who’ve reached a place where they want to be helped can be helped. Committing to real self-transformation is difficult; rejecting the ideology of a community you’ve been a part of, and the community itself, can be wrenching. But it is also — dare I say it — an act of heroism.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Another skidmarxist, I presume? I’m getting really fed up with the incel sympathizers.
@Naglfar: Yeah, Liz Bruening is both a socialist and a trad Catholic, and is very, very quiet in any situation where those two views come into conflict.
Liz is anti-abortion and believes birth control access is mainly bourgie feminists doing eugenics so you can guess what her solutions for these disaffected young men might entail. Rhymes with borced firth.
@Donna G.
I’m guessing she’s a fan of Jordan Peterson’s “enforced monogamy” plan as well.
It’s maybe not so much that they don’t want to be heroes, but more that they want to be treated as heroes without actually doing anything heroic.
Captain Hero was a low-inhibition, egomaniacal rapist, so I’m assuming the header image is knowingly arch.
some people really don’t grow out of the “Disney princess waiting for someone to save them” phase do they?
I keep thinking of an exchange in an early episode of L&O: Criminal Intent:
Except they both expect someone to save them….and then expect to be treated as the savior.
I know so many heroic people, although admittedly most of them (not all) are women. I work in a non-profit law firm that focuses on immigration issues, serving victims of violence, and foreclosure defense. I know people.who staff homeless shelters, advocate for the disabled, and rescue animals. I know ER nurses and teachers and social workers and activists.
All of these people have found ways to be heroes. No one os forced to spew haye on the internet. They can easily spend.that time volunteering instead. Not that society deserves hateful volunteers, but that kind of hate is a choice.
I’m not diminishing the fear and trauma he’s causing women and girls by following i.e stalking them. But it’s also behavior that smacks of escalation. What happens when the sick little hit of power that Classic _Jarvis and the people he influences gets isn’t enough?
Being a hero means helping others in need. Hard to do that when you have nothing but contempt for vulnerable people.
hey incels ,If you can’t be the Hero can you at least try not to be the villain?
Well, to summarize the Canadian leaders’ debate …
Trudeau: If you’ll just trust me for another four years things’re gonna be great! Meanwhile, Scheer’s platform isn’t fully costed and everyone else here is a wingnut from one end or the other.
May: But what about the climate?
BQ guy: Muh
stateprovince’s rights!Scheer: I’m a man of the people! (Just please don’t notice I’m in a really expensive suit!) I’ll wave my wand and somehow lower the cost of living without deficits or raising taxes! (Or what I blurted out about how little I care about a woman’s right to choose!)
Bernier: <keeps talking over other candidates> Deficits! I’m the real fiscal conservative unlike that pinko Scheer guy. Also, brown people bad!
Singh: <an actual, costed, left-leaning platform with higher taxes on the wealthy> Oh, and Trudeau, why did you buy that pipeline? <gets into a green-off with May over who will lower carbon emissions more>
I’m voting NDP, by which is meant I’ll say I’m voting NDP right up until the voting booth, where I’ll almost certainly end up holding my nose and voting Liberal to minimize the chances of the Tory here winning.
(And did anyone raise the topic of ending first-past-the-post? Only one: May.)
Both Bernier and BQ Guy supported the racist law stirring controversy right now in Quebec. That insta-disqualifies both of them in my view, the pro-life comments, brazen claim to be able to magically please everyone all the time, and being a friggin’ Tory disqualify Scheer, and May will be lucky if she has a single other member of her party in Parliament to caucus with, so it better be a Grit or NDP victory…
The hardcore incels are probably pretty unreachable until they take some serious personal initiative. The ones on the edge and the ones just starting down that path are probably pretty reachable. Liz’s approach seems clueless, but Contrapoints’ model of sympathizing while still acknowledging the awfulness is probably helpful.
There are definitely ways that society could be changed that would at least prevent more incels, and would benefit everyone. Creating more social cohesion and challenging hyper-individuality. Dismantling toxic masculinity, especially the ideas that true men aren’t empathetic and that men’s worth is based on how much sex they have or how much money they make. Improving the economic system to leave fewer people behind. Obviously people need to take personal responsibility, but the conversation shouldn’t end there.
I wouldn’t say Bruening is sympathetic towards them so much as she’s a colossal fool. The idea that some people have neither the desire more the inclination to be “heroic” obviously eludes her, and her sheer ignorance about how the average incel behaves makes me wonder if she’s even encountered one before now.
Maybe for a very narrow and toxic definition of “hero” that has more to do with movies and video games than real life, and even then usually misses the point. They watch Scarface and think that the Tony who kills is better off than the Tony who smiles because he has a high Kill-Death ratio and Call of Duty multiplayer is explicit on the importance of a good Kill-Death ratio. Mild exaggeration but the story writers try to be as clear as possible as to what happens to the protagonist who gets involved with violence but there are still people worshiping the power and violence portrayed. Admittedly way too many video games, movies and such rely on conflict in the form of literal, physical, violent combat. Usually there is a deeper theme that actually relates to healthy real world behavior but seeing it requires a slight amount of critical thinking.
With Incels it is more about sex than violence but it is a version of sex that is believed to be nearly synonymous with power the same way violence is. They don’t imagine Chad being intimate with anyone, rather Chad desires a woman, makes an effort and gets that woman. Ultimately they are angry at women because they don’t work that way. I guess you could say they claim they are angry because women only sleep with Chad, but in reality they are angry because women DO NOT sleep with Chad. The rules they know don’t really work but they could never admit it because they are incapable of learning another set of rules.
Sorry for the rant, but it is clear that there are serious problems in the culture around gender and sexuality and Incels are so emblematic of it.
One of my biggest problems with the approach of people like Bruenig is that it isn’t sympathy, it’s patronizing. It is possible to recognize why people do crappy things while also recognizing that those things are crappy. Doing the latter is actual sympathy: instead of euphemism, we acknowledge how ugly the idea is and pity the person who got that angry. Acting like a cornered animal isn’t going to bite because it is sad that it is cornered is silly.
To my ears, the word ‘hero’ has death cult overtones. Like, a hero is someone who sacrifices, or even annihilates themselves for a “nobler cause.”
There seems to be also an implication that me and not-me are enemies, that you can only serve one at the expense of the other. Either you renounce, surrender, sacrifice yourself and your wishes, or you’re a bad person.
Of course fighting unjustice or helping others or having any kind of positive impact on the world is very valuable, but I’m not sure where the word ‘hero’ comes in.
I think inceldom is more a result of lack of compassion for others and extreme objectification of others.
They treat people as things and if a person is not a sex object they are just a NPC in the game of their life.
This lack of compassion is the result of entitlement. And most incels have been raised with an extreme sense of entitlement.
This is a societal problem. Men are bombarded with the message that getting whatever they want is their due and easy.
It’s easy when you’re born rich.
Whereas AFAB people are taught from the beginning to delete their self and be subservient to men.
Lack of opportunities for heroism isn’t the problem. There are plenty of meaningful things you can do if so inclined. I knit clothes for preemies and stillborn babies.
The problem is that, as a society, men are raised as spoiled, entitled brats.
And this is one part of what we mean by toxic masculinity.
@Itsabeast
There are definitely problems with our society that relate to this. However, the problem with incel sympathizers is that when they suggest societal change, this isn’t what they’re taking about. They’re talking about appeasing the incels, and trying to avoid having them take any sort of personal responsibility. Bruenig isn’t saying to fix toxic masculinity, but to give incels what they say they want.
@Anonymous
I’d say she’s both sympathetic and a fool. She reminds me a bit of Cassie Jaye, in that she seems to have a very skewed view of it all.
The MRA types in my family who tried to destroy me lived desperately unhappy lives. I could go down the rabbit hole of feeling very, very sorry for them. But I have to look after myself instead. It’s them or me. I choose me.
Giving sympathy is like being a lifeguard. In the lifeguard training I had years ago, the first rule hammered into our heads was “Don’t go out unless you’re sure YOU can come back.” One funeral is bad enough; don’t make it two.
This whiffling about heroism reminds me of a recent piece on Sententiae Antiquae about how the simplification and democratization of the concept of “hero” in modern culture has a lot of unfortunate consequences:
If that isn’t the incel mentality, I don’t know what is.
I’m having a lot of trouble with the idea that incels should receive any sympathy, at all. Compare the amount of sympathy incels get, with the amount of genuine, unconditional sympathy sexual assault victims get. Maybe I’m comparing apples and oranges here, but I don’t think so.