Donate

The Week In Garbage Men: Incels Sympathizers Make Case For Redistribution Of Vaginas

Featured

This week, as we have noted, a self-identified incel in Toronto murdered a bunch of people. Not only did this mean that all of you here probably got to be in the position of explaining "incels" to your friends and relatives, but also that a lot of misogynists who are perhaps not incels themselves have a pretty gross amount of sympathy for what Alek Minassian did.


Economist Robin Hanson, rather than reacting to this news like a normal human, decided that this was actually just like Les Miserables, and that the lesson to really be learned here is that there must be a "redistribution of sex." You know, because if you can understand poor people rioting against the rich because they are starving, you should totally be able to empathize with a man driving a truck into a crowd of people because no one would fuck him. While he says he cannot, for the life of him, understand why people are concerned with what he refers to as "income inequality between the families of a nation at a time (IIBFNAT)", he is very concerned with the lack of vaginas being provided to deserving men.

I’ve long puzzled over the fact that most of the concern I hear expressed on inequality is about the smallest of (at least) seven kinds: income inequality between the families of a nation at a time (IIBFNAT). Expressed concern has greatly increased over the last half decade. While most people don’t actually know that much about their income ranking, many seem to be trying hard to inform those who rank low of their low status. Their purpose seems to be to induce envy, to induce political action to increase redistribution. They hope to induce these people to identify more with this low income status, and to organize politically around this shared identity.

Many concerned about IIBFNAT are also eager to remind everyone of and to celebrate historical examples of violent revolution aimed at redistribution (e.g., Les Misérables). The purpose here seems to be to encourage support for redistribution by reminding everyone of the possibility of violent revolution. They remind the poor that they could consider revolting, and remind everyone else that a revolt might happen. This strengthens an implicit threat of violence should redistribution be insufficient.

Do you hear the people sing, singing the songs of horny men? Robin Hanson does!

One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met. As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Strikingly, there seems to be little overlap between those who express concern about income and sex inequality.

Yeah, I don't think that is a thing that "one might plausibly argue?" At all, for any reason. You know, because there is such a thing as starving to death and not such a thing as dying from lack of access to women. Also it should not be very "striking" that there is little overlap between people who think people deserve to eat food and people who think men are entitled to sex -- largely because a loaf of bread is not a sentient being with the right to decide who eats it and when. It may surprise him to know that women are not inanimate objects.

I would also just like to point out how weird it is that people keep trying to Jean Val Jean the incels when obviously Eponine makes more sense here. "On My Own" feels a lot more relevant to their cause.

Hanson later doubled down on Twitter, trying to explain that there totally could be a redistribution of sex without rape or slavery. He did not explain what that would be.

What WOULD that be? And should the idea for this really come from a dude who once explained that "cuckolding" a man was worse than a nice, "gentle, silent rape."

It occurred to me recently that we can more clearly compare cuckoldry to gentle silent rape. Imagine a woman was drugged into unconsciousness and then gently raped, so that she suffered no noticeable physical harm nor any memory of the event, and the rapist tried to keep the event secret. Now drugging someone against their will is a crime, but the added rape would add greatly to the crime in the eyes of today’s law, and the added punishment for this addition would be far more than for cuckoldry.

And then lamented that most societies punish rape more harshly than "cuckoldry," unlike the wise farmers of olden times.

Even after all these attempts to make the cases comparable, however, I suspect most people will still say the law should punish rape far more than the cuckoldry. This even though most farming societies had the opposite attitude (I’m not sure on foragers). A colleague of mine suggests this is gender bias, pure and simple; women seem feminist, and men chivalrous, by railing against rape, but no one looks good complaining about cuckoldry. What other explanations you got?

Or because raping someone is a whole lot different than cheating? Maybe that is it? Given that men can also be raped, and can also be cheaters, perhaps he should ask himself which he would prefer. Or ask other men what they would prefer! I'm pretty sure that pretty much everyone out there would collectively agree that they would rather be cheated on than raped.

Although Hansen didn't explain his plan for the redistribution of vaginas, a meme going around Reddit shows that at least one incel sympathizer thinks he has it all figured out (h/t to the wonderful Talia Lavin for this one, and to David Futrelle at We Hunted The Mammoth for the transcript).

This plan would involve banning women from wearing makeup and telling everyone who they are allowed to have sex with, and also forcing women to have sex with men they don't want to have sex with. Who could possibly object!

People make is sound as if the “Incel Rebellion” is a laughing matter and that people don’t understand problem.

The incels are not the problem, but rather they are a symptom that something is very wrong in our society — and unless their legitimate grievances are addressed this could very soon spiral out of control just like what happened in Iraq, Libya and Syria when their respective governments refused to address and deal with the legitimate grievances a portion of their popolation had.

Calling the Incels a bunch of virgins and “frustrated losers with communication skills equal to that of an autistic potato” is oversimplifying the problem yes they are all that but why are they frustrated virgins?

The real issue is that with the advancement of makeup, healthy at any size bullshit, feminism and through social engineering a lot of women have become detached from reality. The reason these Incels arn’t getting laid is because women with a sexual market value equal to theirs use makeup to go from a 3/10 – 7/10 (false marketing in my opinion and should be a punishable offense) to fuck with men above their league.

So I propose that rather than making Incels look bad we look at the reasons they’ve become this way and what steps we can take to deconflict and reverse things because, let’s be real calling them names, labeling them a terrorist organization etc isn’t going to make the problem go away.

There are several ways I propose we do this:

1) Women are no longer allowed to wear makeup, ie falsely advertise their beauty and hence stop them from banging guys above their league.

2) Women are only allowed to date men with equal sexual market value to them. State-mandated tests should be made and everyone get a sexual-market value card ranging from 1/10 to 10/10, like an ID card.

3) Every time a woman sleeps with a new man she lose one 1 rank on her sexual-market value card until she reach the lowest rank 1/10.

4) There’s no way to rise through the ranks other than through excercise

5) Women with more than 9 sexual partners and single moms should be forced by the state to date and have sex with incels that can’t get any women despite the above changes.

This would deal with the problem not the symptom and is the way we deal with everything from counter-piracy to counter- terrorism. The incel threat is real and should be treated the same way.

Truly, this would be a paradise for all involved. And now, this is your open thread! Enjoy!

[Overcoming Bias]

Wonkette is women-owned and fully funded by readers like you. Click here to tip us!

Robyn Pennacchia

Robyn Pennacchia is a brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning angel of a human being, who shrugged off what she is pretty sure would have been a Tony Award-winning career in musical theater in order to write about stuff on the internet. Previously, she was a Senior Staff Writer at Death & Taxes, and Assistant Editor at The Frisky (RIP). Currently, she writes for Wonkette, Friendly Atheist, Quartz and other sites. Follow her on Twitter at @RobynElyse

$
Donate with CC

Deleted Comments: We Gave God The Banhammer

The Commentczar's In Town

popular

Yr Wonkette has been getting quite a few visits from trolls lately, although most of the infestations have been incredibly tiresome and not at all worth discussing here. We're talking, like, not even as good as ol' Turgid Love Muscle Guy. Come to think of it, we haven't seen him in a while; hope he's OK. At least health-wise.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC

In 2006, Bob Casey Jr., then the Pennsylvania state treasurer, defeated Rick Santorum and took his seat in the US Senate; presumably only after having it steam cleaned. Not that Casey wanted anything much to do with Dan Savage, the columnist who had helpfully made the alternative definition of "Santorum" one of the best demonstrations of the power of trolling for the prior three years. But in '06, Casey's campaign actually declined a donation from Savage; Casey's finance director thanked him, but suggested maybe Savage could give the money to a group working against Santorum so Casey wouldn't get flak for taking the donation. That was back when Dems were happy to talk about civil unions but frightened of gay marriage, and Casey just plain wussed out on the chance to bring a "weeks-long debate about feces, lube, and assfucking" to the Senate race, as then-Wonket Dave Weigel put it. But Bob Casey has come rather a long way since then, and he now supports marriage equality. He might still be a bit shy about a full-on embrace of buttsechs talk, however.

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
Donate

SINGLE & MONTHLY DONATIONS

SUPPORT THE CAUSE - PAYPAL DONATION

PAYPAL RECURRING DONATIONS

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc