By Mike of the Ornery Young Gunz
A recent tragic attack in Toronto has left many feminists online bemoaning misogyny and the animus of incels (a vernacular term for involuntary celibates) against women. And naturally, any attempt to understand and discuss this mindset or explain where it might have come from and where it might lead to has led to open hostility from the Left, who continue to set an exceedingly low bar of virtue for themselves by blasting misogyny and anti-Semitism (in this day and age it takes very little effort and costs very little socially to condemn sexism or racism, yet the Left continues to applaud themselves like a toddler who’s recently learned not to soil the bed) as the only possible explanation as to why such violence occurs, or why incels even exist (“It’s not me, it’s you!”).
But I suspect the anti-incel handwringing of the Left might also serve another subconscious purpose beyond rank virtue signaling: hiding the fact that if violent incels exist in rising numbers, it is in part thanks to feminism (cue autistic feminist screeching…now).
Feminism has for a number of decades pushed forward the narrative that sex is more than just, a biological urge intended to spread one’s genes, more than something fun that we enjoy doing because it feels great, more than a physical coupling between two humans who love each other very deeply and have already coupled emotionally and financially; for the last 20+ years feminism and the Left have pushed the idea that sex is the “summum bonum…the human condition has to offer…”, that sex -especially consequence-free sex, is something everyone deserves, something everyone is entitled to, something that is a right. Whether it’s fetishizing abortion or pushing for “free” birth control, the sentiment that sex is something willing participants (read: anyone who isn’t a eunuch) are entitled to is regularly proclaimed in politics and pop culture, while simultaneously glorified and obsessed over. Sex is so amazing and life-fulfilling it’s something you should never be denied or pushed away from, not even the natural consequences of promiscuous sex.
So naturally it angers feminists when unattractive male wallflowers adopt the same perspective of sex that they hold. Which is ironic; after all, if sex is so important, and if sex is something you are entitled to, why shouldn’t they get some, too?
I suspect the reason this upset feminists is for the same reason it upsets them any time you point out how wildly inconsistent their ideas are once applied consistently across both genders: feminism isn’t about equality between the sexes by elevating women, but by denigrating men (and often women, too). If men can have consequence-free sex (which they can, but only if women don’t hold them accountable), rather than demand that men first act better and be willing to commit to women in a loving relationship in order to mitigate the consequences of sex, feminists demand that women be allowed to have sex like men can: without having to worry about what happens if a child is conceived as a result of the occasional romp in the hay.
By adopting this view, incels demonstrate how incredibly selfish and petulant it is, while simultaneously exposing the hypocritical envy of feminism for exactly what it is: gender-based Marxism that seeks to redistribute sexual power dynamics from one gender to another. And if there is one thing feminism cannot tolerate, it’s being exposed as a hypocrite by men (you’d think they’d be used to it by now).
It’s interesting to note that violent incels are not a new thing, and that they too seemed to crop up at a time of peak feminist sexual revolution. I’m referring to the notorious serial killers of the 60’s and 70’s. I’ve long held the theory there’s a correlation between how sexually libertine a society is and what percentage of the population indulges in gruesome violence -in particular against women. Could violent incels be a part of that pattern?
In a recent episode about art and culture, my co-host and I discussed with our guest how strange it is that feminism seems to fluctuate between being gratuitously libertine and nigh-Victorian prudish. Feminism seems to be moving in the direction of DENYING sex to undesirable classes (much in the same way socialists regimes deny food their political enemies) like angry pearl-clutching Puritans, while also mocking their harshly enforced virginity. This isn’t to say that feminists should stoop to having sex with men they find undesirable. But the observations here suggest that maybe they should rethink from the ground-up how they portray sex and sexual dynamics between the men and women -sex should never be used as a social or political cudgel against people, male or female. Traditional religious views on sex seem far less archaic and obsolete when you see the outcomes of the contrary.
In Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein creates an abomination out of a handful of carcasses. His stated objective seems virtuous enough: create life from death (a more cynical reader might suspect he had some sort of God-complex and merely pursued his project because it gave him power). But whatever his morals and motives, one thing remains clear: as he stubbornly defies conventional wisdom regarding the natural boundaries of life and death, the monster he created, once given a life and will of its own, was no longer under his control and resulted in the death and misery of everyone it came into contact with.
Kind of like feminism does and will continue to do, if left unabated. If feminism continues to treat sex as something that everyone is entitled to, then expect more incels to come forward to say, “Oh yeah? What about me?!”
And like Frankenstein’s monster, the results, while perhaps well-intended, will not be pretty.