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.
Now consider this recent news:
Shortly before the [recent Toronoto van] attack, a post appeared on the suspect’s Facebook profile, hailing the commencement of the “Incel Rebellion”. …There is a reluctance to ascribe to the “incel” movement anything so lofty as an “ideology” or credit it with any developed, connected thinking, partly because it is so bizarre in conception. … Standing for “involuntarily celibate”,… it [has] mutate[d] into a Reddit muster point for violent misogyny. …
It is quite distinctive in its hate figures: Stacys (attractive women); Chads (attractive men); and Normies (people who aren’t incels, i.e. can find partners but aren’t necessarily attractive). Basically, incels cannot get laid and they violently loathe anyone who can. Some of the fault, in their eyes, is with attractive men who have sex with too many women. …
Incels obsess over their own unattractiveness – dividing the world into alphas and betas, with betas just your average, frustrated idiot dude, and omegas, as the incels often call themselves, the lowest of the low, scorned by everyone – they then use that self-acceptance as an insulation.
Basically, their virginity is a discrimination or apartheid issue, and only a state-distributed girlfriend programme, outlawing multiple partners, can rectify this grand injustice. … Elliot Rodger, the Isla Vista killer, uploaded a video to YouTube about his “retribution” against attractive women who wouldn’t sleep with him (and the attractive men they would sleep with) before killing six people in 2014. (more)
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. Among our cultural elites, the first concern is high status, and the later concern low status. For example, the article above seems not at all sympathetic to sex inequality concerns.
Added 27Apr: Though the news article I cite focuses on male complaints, my comments here are about sex inequality in general, applied to both men and women. Not that I see anything particular wrong with focusing on men sometimes. Let me also clarify that personally I’m not very attracted to non-insurance-based redistribution policies of any sort, though I do like to study what causes others to be so attracted.
Added 10p: 27Apr: A tweet on this post induced a lot of discussion on twitter, much of which accuses me of advocating enslaving and raping women. Apparently many people can’t imagine any other way to reduce or moderate sex inequality. (“Redistribute” literally means “change the distribution.”) In the post I mentioned cash compensation; more cash can make people more attractive and better able to afford legalized prostitution. Others have mentioned promoting monogamy and discouraging promiscuity. Surely there are dozens of other possibilities; sex choices are influenced by a great many factors and each such factor offers a possible lever for influencing sex inequality. Rape and slavery are far from the only possible levers!
Many people are also under the impression that we redistribute income mainly because recipients would die without such redistribution. In rich nations this can account for only a tiny fraction of redistribution. Others say it is obvious that redistribution is only appropriate for commodities, and sex isn’t a commodity. But we take from the rich even when their wealth is in the form of far-from-commodity unique art works, buildings, etc.
Also, it should be obvious that “sex” here refers to a complex package that is desired, which in individual cases may or may not be satisfied by sexbots or prostitutes. But whatever it is the package that people want, we can and should ask how we might get more of it to them.
Finally, many people seem to be reacting primarily to some impression they’ve gained that self-identified “incels” are mostly stupid rude obnoxious arrogant clueless smelly people. I don’t know if that’s true and I don’t care; I’m focused on the issue that they help raise, not their personal or moral worth.
Added: On June 26, after a civility pause, I wrote a long clarifying post on Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution.
We've all certainly heard of women who feel like they are entitled to the attentions - sexual and otherwise - of *specific* men. That is called, 'jealousy', and of course men and women engage in it in proportions that can fairly be said to be roughly equal.
I've *never* heard of the phenomenon where certain women feel like they are entitled in general to the sexual services of men, and become bitterly angry over the lack of it... even to the point of seeing themselves as an oppressed minority, as well as having violent fantasies and homicidal rampages to 'settle the score'.
In fact, I would bet the 'incel' phenomenon doesn't exist among the LGBTQ population either. Incels think they have it rough? Imagine being a transsexual in Trump's America and trying to find love and companionship, or even just 'plain old' sex that isn't for pay or humiliating and degrading.
The 'incel' community is exclusively a hetero male phenomenon, and a testimony to the reality of toxic masculinity in our still-patriarchic culture.
The internet has already provided a way for incels to lose their incel status. The personals ads on Craigslist were the most notorious way of engaging in no-strings sex or even relationships of a sort based upon sex, until recently when they were shut down due to credible fears of ruinous legal liability due to unintended (or not) consequences of a new sex trafficking law signed by Trump.
There's still Tinder, there's all sorts of online dating sites - quite a few of which are free to join - that allow for the possibility of just hooking up. When people are just looking for a sex partner... standards can get pretty low and a lot of the personality issues that can be hurdles to having an actual relationship for the attractiveness-challenged are the first to go out the window, because who cares if you're loving and nurturing and a good listener if all you want to do is find someone to rub the naughty bits with you?
So if incels still can't get laid when it's so easy to do so in this brave new digital world... seems to me it's 100% on them and their sense of entitlement to not just vaginas, but to the best vaginas.
And, it can't be said often enough: only someone as hollow and superficial and misogynistic as the so-called president would think that the only thing that matters in order to be attractive to the ladies is a fat wallet.