I disagree. I was actually just discussing this in person with a couple of incel sympathizers. Yes, they were both socially awkward and one on the spectrum, and neither very handsome. But they were not, per Douthat "surfacing issues". 1/
-
-
They were expressing a social awkwardness that had been weaponized (in 4chan, etc.) into a grotesquery of misogynist ideology. Their basic assumption - that they had a right to sex - grew from a fascist impulse to objectify and destroy humanity for one's own ends. 2/
-
I replied that life is simply not fair, and the solution is not to attack the object of desire; it would be as silly for me to be unable to reach a delicious, high-hanging fruit, and lash out at the fruit. 3/
-
The difference is clear: there is nothing like a systemic, millenium-long historical framework of misogyny when it comes to fruit. Doubthat's error is in looking at the fruit. It has nothing to do with fruit. 4/
-
Sure, awkward men exist, but the real conversation is how they come to embrace fascism. The awkwardness - the fruit - is a minor footnote to the vastly larger ideological interrogation of the nature of misogyny and how certain sub-groups wind up radicalized. 5/
-
I think the answer is far nearer to Doubthat's own conservative, patriarchal, Catholic tradition than sex robots. Now THAT would be an interesting column.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.