A quick look at a fairly distasteful subject today, my friends. A lot of people who, if not part of the “manosphere,” seem sympathetic to it, are claiming Elliot’s rampage wouldn’t have happened if the “sexual marketplace” wasn’t so horribly “oppressive” for guys like him. Roosh V made this very argument; you can read a summary of it here. If only one woman had “taken one for the team,” as another guy on twitter said, Elliot would have become a happy and productive member of society rather than a murderer. And so on, and so forth…really, just browse manosphere blogs for a little while and you’ll see a lot of this silliness.
It’s a drum manospambots have been beating for a long, long time. Matt Forney, writing under the alias of Ferdinand Bardamu, said pretty much the same thing in the wake of the 2009 Collier Township shootings. Check out “George Sodini and the Contract Between the Sexes.”
“If George Sodini had been alive as late as the 1950’s, he would likely have been able to get married in his 20’s to a reasonably attractive woman (6 or 7, possibly an 8) and have children. He would not have spent twenty years in an involuntarily celibate torture, allowing his mind to warp in all sorts of perverted ways. He would have been normal, because the situation that led to his mental abnormality— his inability to get laid— would never have happened. So, according to the sexual contract, A.J. is correct: Sodini deserved to get laid.”
Now, I know most of y’all reading this are probably gonna be outraged and offended, and that’s understandable. But let’s go farther than that: Let’s try and prove these guys *wrong.* ‘Cause I think that when you take a closer look at the situation, “a chicken in every pot—er, I mean, a hot chick on every incel’s dick” won’t necessarily keep things like this from happening. As proof, I encourage you to re-read Elliot’s manifesto:
Remember what I mentioned about Elliot’s racism in my previous entry? He talks constantly about how worthless other races are. On page 83, he calls an African-American non-virgin “ugly black filth” that was “descended from slaves,” far inferior to Elliot, “descended from British aristocracy.” Four pages later, he excoriates “an inferior Mexican guy.” In another paragraph, he’s dismayed to find out some acquaintances were Hispanic. He also seems to have a complex about being half-Asian. While his hatred of men in general may have been rooted in his misogyny, I suspect his racism wouldn’t have been cured even if he got himself the blonde gf he always wanted.
And his brand of racist, KKK-style shit can lead to violence as well. Look at Frazier Glenn Cross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_Glenn_Cross), who shot up a Jewish community last April. His rage was directed against non-whites, not generated from celibacy. Elliot seemed to share at least the beginnings of that rage. It’s entirely possible, likely, even, that if he’d found a blonde girl who could tolerate him enough to make him happy, he would have gone on a shooting spree in a black neighborhood rather than Isla Vista in order to “protect the beauty of white women” or some nonsense like that. Blaming women for “driving” him to violence doesn’t make much sense if it’s likely he would have just as easily been “driven” to violence against another group.
And just how much was he “driven” to it, anyways? It’s not as if “celibacy” is an incurable condition. Have these guys never heard of prostitutes? Manospambots often complain that prostitution is illegal in the U.S and that causes violent incel rage, but it’s not as if the laws are difficult to skirt. A few minutes on backpage.com or something will net you plenty of escorts, and if you’re REALLY paranoid about the law, you can take a trip to Pahrump County in Nevada, where it’s legal. Elliot had more than enough money to book a flight to the Silver State and lose his virginity to a hot blonde hooker. Same for Sodini, by the way (he made a decent amount of money as an IT guy). So why didn’t those guys?
Elliot’s manifesto offers a bit of insight. One page 120, he mentions his experience with a blonde, attractive female therapist, who more-or-less pretended to be his girlfriend, or at least friend, for a brief time. Here’s what he said:
“Even though it was all fake, I really enjoyed it…But then, I thought about how unfair it was that I could only get a fake little taste of such an experience, while other men get to do such a thing every day with their girlfriends…It has the same effect as hiring a prostitute, I imagine. It temporarily feels good for the moment, but afterward it makes one feel like a pathetic loser for having to hire a girl when other men could get the experience for free.”
Well, there you have it: A glimpse into the incel’s psychology. Even safe, legal, and common prostitution would *still* infuriate these guys. It’s not celibacy they hate, it’s the idea that anyone, anywhere, might possibly have things slightly better off than they do.
This is also, by the way, why I don’t believe VR porn and sexbots (another manospambot fetish) will do much for incels. Even if Elliot had access to a super technologically advanced, lifelike sexbot or near-perfect sex simulator, he’d probably just whine and complain about it being “fake” and how it made him “feel like a pathetic loser for having to pay for a RealDoll 2000/Oculus Rift when other men could get the real thing for free.”
Now, it’s possible my analysis of Elliot is too harsh, and that a nice blonde girl might have solved most if not all of his problems. You might be able to prove that if you could show me an “angry incel” who calmed down after somehow managing to get a girlfriend. And, unsurprisingly enough, that’s what a recent post on justfourguys.com attempts to do. In “What Happens When You Date an Angry Incel”, the blogger “Emma the Emo” essentially argues for the benefits of women “taking one for the team” and shacking up with angry incels to keep them from turning violent. She wandered into a relationship with a man named Eivind Berge (also called “Arpagus”) who argued that rape isn’t wrong, praised killers like Anders Breivik, and contemplated violence himself, all because he was “involuntarily celibate.” However, when he met Emma and had sex with her, his desire to do violence disappeared—or so he said.
There are a few reasons this, er, “lovely” story isn’t a slam-dunk case for more pity fucking, though. First is the fact that Elliot and Eivind differ in significant ways. Glancing at his blog, Eivind seems to have just been desperate to get laid, anyone would do. Elliot, on the other hand, was obsessed with blonde girls specifically. Even if he managed to find someone like Emma (an unhealthy-looking redhead), he would have gotten frustrated and likely violent over her inability to meet his “standards.” Secondly, Eivind seems to be “just” a misogynist and doesn’t seem to care much about racial issues. So while getting a girlfriend may have stilled Eivind’s rage, a girlfriend for Elliot would yet have left him with simmering racial resentment. All in all, it seems Emma and Eivind are an outlier, and their experience can’t really be generalized to Elliot or other violent incels. It’s also questionable whether or not Eivind is actually all that peaceful; in his latest entry he praises Elliot and he still seems to be pretty angry. It’s hard to tell for sure, but it’s reasonable to suspect Emma has merely delayed his violent outburst, not stopped it before it began. He may well snap in the future and make her his first victim.
There’s also the fact that “maleness” is a much more salient characteristic of spree killers than “incel” status, even if a disproportionate amount of them are incels. While famous ones like Elliot and Cho Seung Hui of the V-Tech massacres may have been celibate, there are plenty of rampage killers with wives or girlfriends. Let me introduce you to a few found on Wikipedia’s list of American rampage killers:
James Oliver Huberty: Had a wife.
James Edward Pough: Same.
Carl Robert Brown: 2 marriages.
Jiverly Wong: Married and divorced.
Robert Stewart: 3 marriages.
And that’s just a small sample, mind you. If plenty of guys who’ve gotten laid have *still* gone crazy, it’s uncertain whether getting these incels laid will make them much less crazy. And when guys like Roosh claim “feminism” or “American sexual culture” are responsible for these outbursts, what about all the spree killers from other regions, particularly (supposedly) non-feminist ones? Wikipedia has another list of rampages in Africa and the Middle East. Some of them are severe indeed–a guy named Omar killed 15 people in a shootout in Egypt, and Yemen’s suffered from a dozen rampages in the years Wikipedia recorded. Yemen, at least, is as anti-feminist a country you can get (ranking dead last in the Global Gender Gap report). Many of these African and Middle Eastern societies are as “traditionalist” as the manospammers could want. Yet they still suffer from the predations of these disgruntled men.
Needless to say, misogynists and manospambots will find some way to blame it all on women and/or feminism anyways. So here’s the thing, ladies—and gentlemen. There’s no real point in trying to appease misogynists, or the manosphere, or whoever. They’ll hate you no matter what you do. If women don’t have sex with an incel and he snaps, it’s because they’re amoral hypergamous animals who signed their own death warrants by ignoring him. If women do have sex with a guy and he snaps, it’s because they’re…amoral hypergamous animals who are attracted to violent men and “encouraged” him by giving him sex.
You can’t possibly win with those guys–and this is just one example of the no-win schemas they often create, I might make another post on the rest later. Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t really like dealing with catch 22s and no-win situations. If anyone—male or female—wants to try and parse that foolishness, well, they can be my guest. Me, I’ve got better things to do.