The Rage of Incels

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnz123

Guest
The recent Toronto van attack was fueled by incel ideology. These are men that are “involuntarily celibate” who are extremely angry about their lack of intimacy with women.
If you’ve never heard of incels before, here is a good article:


This ideology also drove Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer to murder 6 people.
From a Catholic perspective I see envy, wrath, and lust as the main issues with these people.
The scariest part is this could have been me if God hadn’t rescued me and shown me what true love is. (Although I’ve never seriously considered killing people).
What do you think about these people? They definitely need some sort of help.
 
Last edited:
There’s no such thing as “incel ideology”. Being involuntarily celibate isn’t an ideology, nor is being pissed off at women, the world, or anything else an ideology. The New Yorker is a left wing propaganda outlet, and they are misusing the word “ideology” here because they want to create an association in people’s minds between ideologies they dislike (e.g. the alt-right) and these losers.

The basic reason for the incel phenomenon (by which I’m referring to the case of otherwise normal men who can’t find women, not weird cases like the author brought up where people can’t find sexual partners because of disability or psychological issues) is the abandonment by society of sexual morals.

Men are biologically inclined to be attracted to women who are fertile and chaste. Women are biologically inclined to be attracted to men who are competent and successful. The result is that, in the absence of (at least socially) enforced monogamy, the most attractive men will get multiple women, thereby making less attractive men incels. Monogamy makes less attractive women settle for less attractive men, but the sexual marketplace among young people today is effectively hypergamous.

The insanity of the author is, in my opinion, best demonstrated by the following quote:

“We can redistribute the value we apportion to one another”

The answer to which, is that we can’t change biological inclinations. We can only manage them.
 
What I see is a society filled with sexual brokenness and dysfunction, and incel-ism is one of the many forms this takes.
 
The incels aren’t satisfied by just finding a partner. There is fury against beautiful women who don’t want them, against attractive men who are thought to have an unfair share of beautiful women, and against regular people who just find a partner for themselves.

There are so many wrongs in their reasoning that it’s hard to know where to begin. But maybe by asking why any woman would want to be with a man with these attitudes of rage and entitlement? That they need to work on themselves first.
 
The incels aren’t satisfied by just finding a partner.
That seems to be what most of them are after. In any case, being able to find a partner in the first place would prevent the adoption of an “incel attitude”.

These people are losers, but they’re losers created, inevitably, by the current state of our society. When a columnist writes a piece denouncing a group of losers for being losers, it’s a good sign that the columnist is trying to avoid the real issue.
 
Last edited:
Are they losers because they are unwanted? Or are they unwanted because they are losers?

I’d say men have suddenly realised that just being male doesn’t make them marriable, the way it used to be. Which is a good thing, and not a day too soon.
If they can’t make an effort to try to be good men, why would good women bother with them? It may be a sweet little wife is their desire, but it’s not a right.
 
Are they losers because they are unwanted? Or are they unwanted because they are losers?
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Having an attitude of resentment is unattractive, but being unwanted can also create that attitude. Bad outlooks on the world aren’t created in a vacuum.
I’d say men have suddenly realised that just being male doesn’t make them marriable, the way it used to be. Which is a good thing, and not a day too soon.
I don’t see how any Christian could look at the state of sexual relationships today and conclude that we’re better off than before.
If they can’t make an effort to try to be good men, why would good women bother with them?
They wouldn’t. But less attractive (for whatever reason) women would in a monogamous system.
 
I don’t see how any Christian could look at the state of sexual relationships today and conclude that we’re better off than before.
I don’t see how any Christian could look at marrying for material gain, social acceptance and a roof over your head is better than the current world. A situation that in essence auctiones off (voluntarily, definitely) women to the highest bidder, and some women got stuck with the guys that now are incels. Yes, social capital, not money, but the principle remains the same.
If that is Christian, you get to keep your definition of the term and live with it.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. The problem is one of some men feeling entitled to access a woman as an object of self-gratification. Such a man wants a wife for the self-oriented benefits of being spouses, not a specific, compatible partner for their mutual growth and well-being. They don’t like the natural result of being emotionally immature, entitled, and disrespectful—celibacy.

Instead of engaging in honest self reflection and making concerted efforts to be their best selves, these men are instead projecting their personal failings on society (specifically, the women who reject them). It’s a canard to suggest the women they’d otherwise have had access to are now with other men. Bull! If you’re a Catholic man, the Catholic woman for you wouldn’t shop around sexually.

The solution to this is to raise godly men who are simultaneously strong and humble, hard-working, generous, and believe in women as equals. This is what the most attractive women want, and men (and their parents) avoid inculcating these beliefs at their own risk.

Unfortunately, we live in an androcentric culture, broadly speaking, and the Catholic Church is no exception. The Church administrative still openly emphasizes masculine supremacy, from the appointment of all-male ecclesiastical leadership, a marital code that over-emphasizes reproduction at the expense of spousal union, to pithy encyclicals on gender complementarity that rely on a pseudo-scientific biological determinism lens for internal consistency. The attitude of culturally-sanctioned male entitlement is a major impediment to fostering masculinity—the kind that is responsible, altruistic, wise, and generous (think: Jesus, St Joseph, King Solomon).

And, as a result, many of our boys—and boys of other faiths— are socialized from an early age to expect near-servitude from their mothers and female relatives. Fast forward 20 years, and that attitude morphs from “my mom is responsible for doing my laundry/cooking/cleaning” to “my wife is responsible for fulfilling my sexual appetite/my wife needs to bring in a 6-figure salary/my wife needs to make X children”. (There are obviously female equivalents—I shudder to think of what the obsession with princesses is doing for female agency and entitlement! Equally unattractive!)

In the intervening time, where is the inculcation of self-sufficiency, effectiveness, gratitude, and mutual giving? It’s been long trained out of the boy who, as a chronological man, has not developed adult maturity. That is NOT sexy.

My advice for incels? Work on yourself first. Invest in your career development, volunteer for a meaningful cause, grow your mind through continuous reading and study, give generously to charity, and invest in your health through good exercise and nutrition. A man with a sense of purpose, who is actively pursuing the best life for him through consistent and responsible action—very appealing.
 
Last edited:
I don’t concern myself with whiny, entitled man-brats that comprise the incel movement. They were never on my radar to begin with, and the same is true for almost all women.

For the first time in history, it is personally costly in marriage markets for a man to be a useless, directionless individual. Good. Let all individuals be personally responsible for being attractive partners. It’s called “being an adult”. (I hope all the good men here, who in no way resemble the incels, are laughing at that line!)
 
Last edited:
Three cheers for putting it so succinctly. (I feel like printing your words and pinning them to my fridge).
For the first time in history, it is personally costly in marriage markets for a man to be a useless, directionless individual. Good. Let all individuals be personally responsible for being attractive partners.
Darwin awards?
 
Last edited:
My first thought is, what the heck does this have to do with family life? Secondarily, what does this have to do with Catholic Living? This article belongs on a mental health page! And in accordance with the horseshoe theory, the author’s proposed solutions to these nutcase’s perceived injustices are just as bizarre and oppressive to women as theirs are!
 
I agree…this is the wrong forum. How about we move this discussion to social justice, perhaps?
 
I don’t see how any Christian could look at the state of sexual relationships today and conclude that we’re better off than before.
I’m actually not convinced that cultures were more sexually righteous in ages past than they are today. We’re more open about promiscuity and infidelity, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t widespread in the past.
 
40.png
Arkansan:
I don’t see how any Christian could look at the state of sexual relationships today and conclude that we’re better off than before.
I don’t see how any Christian could look at marrying for material gain, social acceptance and a roof over your head is better than the current world.
That is much better than having normalized fornication.
A situation that in essence auctiones off (voluntarily, definitely) women to the highest bidder, and some women got stuck with the guys that now are incels. Yes, social capital, not money, but the principle remains the same.
That is much better, morally, than effectively being part of a harem.
For the first time in history, it is personally costly in marriage markets for a man to be a useless, directionless individual.
It’s always been costly. The cost, historically, was having to settle for a second rate wife. We’ve just increased the cost to celibacy.

And it may be the first time in western history, but it’s not the first time period. There have been other non-monogamous societies.
40.png
Arkansan:
I don’t see how any Christian could look at the state of sexual relationships today and conclude that we’re better off than before.
I’m actually not convinced that cultures were more sexually righteous in ages past than they are today. We’re more open about promiscuity and infidelity, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t widespread in the past.
Let’s suppose that fornication was actually just as common 60 years ago as it is today. There’s no reason to believe that, but lets stipulate it anyway.

They were still better off for having a society where everyone at least knew the moral rules. And in all probability that meant less people broke the rules.
 
Last edited:
Let’s suppose that fornication was actually just as common 60 years ago as it is today. There’s no reason to believe that, but lets stipulate it anyway.

They were still better off for having a society where everyone at least knew the moral rules. And in all probability that meant less people broke the rules.
Yes, I’ve read about such a society of “moral rules.” Young pregnant girls would - poof! - mysteriously disappear for nine months and then come back unpregnant. Or they’d stick around and endure relentless shaming. Or they’d “go shopping for a day,” code for going to the abortionist. Or they’re currently in Iran and getting stoned to death. Or they’d be sexually abused and/or raped and have to keep a secret for fear of shame and stigma.

The good 'ol days of “morals” and “values” can be quite overrated.
 
Are you seriously arguing that it’s better for society to openly accept immorality because not accepting it could lead to people being shamed and/or trying to cover it up?
 
I think it’s important when raising boys to instill in them that their worth is not linked to their success with women.
 
The New Yorker is a left wing propaganda outlet
Let’s differentiate between I don’'t agree and propaganda. I’ll give you hint this is a case of the first one.
Men are biologically inclined to be attracted to women who are fertile and chaste. Women are biologically inclined to be attracted to men who are competent and successful. The result is that, in the absence of (at least socially) enforced monogamy, the most attractive men will get multiple women, thereby making less attractive men incels. Monogamy makes less attractive women settle for less attractive men, but the sexual marketplace among young people today is effectively hypergamous.
So polygamy is the natural state of man? Why are you posting or espousing this on a Catholic board?

As to the article, the sexual attitudes these guys are experiencing is pretty much the same as rapists. Yes, men like this are often used as recruits for white supremacy. If you don’t believe me learn some history about how the elite used poor whites to keep black people in check for centuries.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top