I’m thinking Shakespeare needs a re-write. How about “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the professors.”
Northeastern Illinois University philosophy professor Tyler Zimmer claims that “wealth redistribution” could boost “sexual fulfillment” in the U.S.
In an op-ed published by Slate last week, Zimmer argues that “a few conservative commentators” are starting to “warm up” to the idea of making a “full-throated case for [wealth] redistribution,” claiming they are motivated by “the rise of the violent ‘incel.’”
The single example of a ‘conservative commentator’ cited in the Slate piece writes for the New York Times, so this recipe might require a pinch or two of salt.
As the incel movement gains traction, some entrepreneurs have attempted to tackle the problem by inventing and manufacturing sex dolls designed for men. Zimmer, however, believes that the incel movement is the result of a “sexual fulfillment” problem in America, which he believes could be easily solved by redistributing wealth among citizens.
“If we think that promoting human flourishing is a worthy political goal, it’s not crazy to think that politics should concern itself with various obstacles to flourishing, among them obstacles to a healthy sex life,” argues Zimmer. “And this is precisely where the redistribution of wealth, not of sex, becomes even more attractive.”
And that first sentence in the first para is what attracted the attention of my funny bone. I came to mock the notion that ‘wealth redistribution’ will get you laid. I stayed to mock the notion of an “incel movement.” There’s a movement?
Okay: For those of you who have mercifully remained ignorant of it, “incel” means Involuntary Celibate. It was presumably coined by someone who thought it sounded better than “loser who can’t attract women because of the vile and repulsive nature of his very being” and is characterized by a sometimes violent hatred of women, whom the “incel” holds to be the clear and obvious source of all his problems. If they weren’t so stuck up they’d have sex with him, the fact that he has the personality of a tapeworm couldn’t possibly be relevant.
That such people exist, there can be no question. But a “movement?” Doesn’t a movement have to be something people would voluntarily join?
I mean – I’m a celibate. But that’s deliberate. I’m a (forgive me) volcel. Yes, it stems from my awkward and neurotic nature, but I don’t blame women for it. Some guys are natural bachelors, and I’m the very stereotype of that. I could have relationships with women, but they invariably ended badly. Finally decided that my path to a peaceful life involved voluntary celibacy. I’m much happier, and so in theory are at least a few women.
Worked for me, but I don’t proselytize. I can picture a “volcel” movement, though I’d predict it would remain rather small. But an “incel” movement? No.
What’s next? A “volleyball target” movement? A “wedgie magnet” movement? Sheesh.
According to Zimmer, “these social ills could be easily remedied” by “laying hold of a few days’ worth of Jeff Bezos’ ‘earnings.’”
I’ve never tried it, but I’m guessing a lonely loser with a pocketful of stolen money would find ways to remain a lonely loser. Could be wrong. But I doubt it.