Incel Elegy

Here we go. Despite my protestations against my parents’ suggestions not to write anything overtly political that I might regret, I have tried my best to steer clear of actual hot topics. As my father suggests, posterity is unkind to those who align themselves with one political view, loud and proud. Even then, I tend to write as I see fit, particularly on weeks when I feel I lack content. This week, I present my middle-of-the-road view on the disaffected men in society that are called ‘incels’. I can’t wait to be lauded by both sides of the political spectrum and then make a successful run for office. Or to be canceled by both, take your pick.

For those who don’t know, an incel is a loose term that refers to an increasingly applied broadly to large group of men in society, formerly referred to as the “manosphere”, but I see that term used with diminishing frequency. The word is a portmanteau of “involuntary” and “celibate”, co-opted from the trans community, and now points to men which society and they themselves deem as involuntarily celibate. Take a moment to appreciate that both society and these men refer to themselves by a term which means they are unable to find a romantic partner. However, for many, the pity party stops there. Thanks in a large part to the internet, these men have coalesced around a few figures who promote misogyny, capitalism, as well as intolerance, both general and violent.

Without delving deeply into the various subgroups of incels, the basic overlapping ideology stems from a belief that modern society is fundamentally unfair or at least indifferent towards men, pitting them against each other for the scarce attention of women, as well as other tangible resources. There’s a coherent-sounding pseudo-anthropological argument I’ve seen cited a lot that women have inherent value to societies because (and only because) of their ability to bear children, whereas men are only valuable for what they can create. There is also a less sound application of the Pareto principle: because of the male ability to have multiple romantic partners, only the top twenty percent of men are eligible as partners for the top eighty percent of the women, leaving the majority of men left without a refined jawline to fight for the remaining minority of women.

Certainly, there are other reasons than a conspiracy of women for which these men cannot find romantic partners, most of which take the onus of responsibility from an unjust society and places it right back into the hands of men. Sharp-witted internet commentators will cite basic hygiene, fitness, and dress. Of course, human decency and positive life outlook count for a lot as well. Though incel, or “pilled” theory is idiotic at best and harmful at worst, there is a glimmer of truth to it, one that speaks to its adherents: the fundamental unfairness of society.

Classic incel idols are Travis Bickle, The Joker (either of the two most recent non-Leto iterations), Walter White, and any Al Pacino character, antiheroes in man versus society narratives. Regardless of the reason, they believe that society has failed them, and in a certain way, it has. Some of this stems from Millennial and Gen-Z childhoods which preach that everyone is special, that anyone can have anything they want in life. These boys watch the hero getting the girl at the end of every movie and see it as an inherent right. The challenge in this explanation is why the same affliction isn’t present in women, who are encouraged to have the same selfish view of the world.

To blame society for this ailment seems to be a return the same thinking that is consistent within the ideology, but there are other structural reasons that our sociology and gender studies friends have noticed for a while: how boys are socialized compared with girls, taught to repress their feelings, hide weakness with aggression, and thus have a hard time opening up about their issues to anyone who cares about them, peers or otherwise. The underlying sexism in media and male figures doesn’t help. As with the differences in socialization, though sexism is widely understood to be to the benefit of men, existing gender roles only serve to expand the crack between boys and their feelings, causing their relationship with anyone else to be a widening chasm. That an increasing number of men are turning to this ideology, but remain seriously sad and frustrated, points to a worsening problem within society, not that the true nature of men has revealed itself, emboldened by right-wing talking heads.

It seems paternalistic to pity these men, but criticism should be rightly level against the opinion leaders who exploit their alienation for personal gain. Some of these are amoral, excommunicated shepherds like Jordan Peterson who found his flock that no one was speaking to. Others, like Andrew Tate, are running a pyramid scheme to directly profit off these men. In fairness, there is a lot of motivation and self-help mixed into the misongynic messaging — get out of your parents’ basement and get to work — but the issues with the overall message can spur the wrong sort of action. These vulnerable young men are listening not just because these men are directly targeting them, but because no one else is speaking to them at all, creating a feedback loop.

Though it’s a designator they’ve picked themselves, I would like to point out that society refers to this group of alienated men as involuntarily celibate in a derogatory way, not only to indicate that they have malicious beliefs, but also quite literally. Further to that, there are many slang terms denigrating men that have risen to popularity amongst the mainstream, used by both men and women. Expressions such as simp, Chad, whipped, and short king, amongst others, are often held as examples of female empowerment, but are eventually hurtful to both genders. These terms communicate to men that they must be dominant, both physically and psychologically, to be able to find a romantic partner, whereas in a true relationship, acknowledging a partner’s wants and needs is vital. Though a woman calling a man an incel appears to be a slap in the face of the patriarchy, the implication that he’s any less of a person because he fails to find a romantic partner or is marginalized only hurts society as a whole. Of course, if he identifies with being an incel, then he’d take it as a point of pride.

I acknowledge that it’s a bit of a circular argument to say that alienated young men turn to incels because they are treated as social pariahs, and the only role models they have are those who exploit them, and then society treats them badly in turn, so they become more alienated. However, it really is a matter of degrees: the margins of society have always existed, and the advent of extreme wealth inequality as well death of social mobility has only exacerbated that. Somewhere along the way, someone writes a manifesto or spouts a few violent misogynistic ideas, and they start getting attention. Once this community has reached a critical mass, as it has now, it’s a challenge to dismantle it without engaging with it and hence legitimizing it.

What to do then, now that this point has been reached, where frighteningly convincing radical ideas are available to anyone with an internet connection? I am a strong proponent of addressing the root cause of the issue, which is the alienation of young men in our society. Historically, they turn to organized religion or organized crime, and more recently they turn to video games. I think all of these are better than the violent self-pitying ideologies. Of course, within our capitalistic society, or any society really, there will always be those who don’t fit into the pigeonholes assigned to them. But the important thing is to make more of an effort to catch them before they fall through the cracks.

I can feel the criticism for a middle-of-the-road approach already, so to clarify, I’m not legitimizing incel beliefs, or discounting the trauma that their victims have suffered, but I believe that incels are as much victims of society as any other alienated group. The violently misogynistic ideas espoused by other incels in a vacuum of support can turn any rational, sensitive person into a radical. There are many people that are out of reach, but some might be on the cusp of this sort of ideology. Engaging with them in a safe way and showing compassion might be just what they need to avoid falling into the abyss.

I wrote this post because I had a discussion with a friend where I shared these half-baked ideas, and he vehemently disagreed. I had wanted to organize my ideas a little more and then share them again, both to him as well as my other friends who read my blog. Curious to know what your thoughts are. Am I too much of an enlightened centrist? Do I fundamentally misunderstand incel ideology? Or perhaps is empathy for incels the right approach?