I just hope that in the future society will find a way to solve the Incel problem because honestly no one should feel rejected and unloved by the opposite sex.
That requires getting over sexism in general, which in itself requires getting over misogyny in particular.
You actually give us a fine example: It's true, nobody should feel utterly rejected and unloved, but that last part, "by the opposite sex", is all sorts of problematic
-ist derived from sexism in general and misogyny in particular.
I mean why would God make someone so ugly that they are considered unworthy to get any kind of affection from the opposite sex?
The mysteries of God are myriad. Or, as Diderot observed, over 270 years ago, whether God exists or not, It has become one of the most sublime and useless mysteries of the Universe.
This doesn't make much sense to me.
God, is ostensibly infinite; you are unquestionably finite. It seems problematic, at least, to presume God should ever actually make sense to us.
If God is good and loving then God knows that everyone wants to feel loved and appreciated (and especially by the opposite sex).
Three notes:
1) "If God is good and loving" — This presupposition is problematic.
2) "then God knows that everyone wants to feel loved and appreciated" — This statement is problematic, but which problem depends more on which God and theology you are attending.
3) "(and especially by the opposite sex)" — You wonder why "God make someone so ugly that they are considered unworthy", and in my quarter, the question of why God would create a homosexual is not exactly unheard of. In either case, Salieri nailed it in Amadeus, and whining about the infliction of God's will in our creation and birth is not only futile, but will always run like an infantile farce compared to F. Murray Abraham's iteration.
†
Futrelle,
this week↱, from his outpost at the edge of the hunting grounds:
Hey ladies, if you're so into EQUALITY why aren't you asking MEN out on DATES? CHECKMATE FEMINAZIS.
That's more or less the argument of one apparently lonely Men's Rights Redditor, who recently posted his plaintive (if also slightly belligerent) complaint on the Men's Rights subreddit today.
"Every girl knows that guys prefer to [be] asked out," wrote TC1827, "yet so few will do it cause they can't get that equality goes both ways."
"It's a straight up equality issue," he added in a comment, "with women being unwilling to give up their privilege."
Ah yes, the privilege of getting their DMs invaded by horny weirdos bearing dick pics! The privilege of being propositioned on the train while wearing headphones with their nose buried in a book! The privilege of, well, you get the point.
Happily, TC1827 has a solution to the problem, and it just happens to be the same as Jordan Peterson's.
Bring back socially enforced monogamy so that dating is less about sex and more about a life partnership. And socialize equality from a young age so that each gender has an equal chance of being asked out.
Funny story: I once deflected a bit of obvious political trolling, and this guy I know objected. The thing is, it was some drive-by vapidity about Jordan Peterson, and for whatever reason, in a period when the controversial professor's infamy was surging, the other, who shows sympathy to identity masculinism, showed a pretense of ignorance. And you know how it goes; they say they don't know much about this fellow but he says some reasonable things about this or that, and you're sitting there thinking,
He's not really that uninformed. To the other, after a while, if they insist, it becomes nearly easy to believe them when they say they claim ignorance about this or that prominent aspect of an issue they pretend to know, or, at least, care about. At some point, believing them becomes nearly obligatory, because they insist.
At any rate, his line aged poorly. Peterson did a
New York Times interview that ran awry when he proposed enforced monogamy. It's worth noting, aside, that while the Canadian professor would try to walk back his statement in a Quilette post, Ross Douthat, a columnist at NYT, wrote a whole article about redistributing sex as if women were a natural resource to be distributed among the commmunity. For his part, though, Peterson's rertreat was something between uncomfortable and stupid. And here I do a joke about Jim Belushi and John Candy, wearing only towels, discussing sex toys in a locker room. It's an actual scene from a romantic comedy, and what it skewered was the divine right of every married man to complain about how awful his wife was, including her sexual failures.
Doc Peterson, it seems, would like to go back to the future, when men constantly complained about how disappointing their wives were. And when we add into that the point that identifying incels count among their number men who are getting some contact, but not enough, or good enough, or from hot enough women, well, history suggests enforced monogamy won't abate the incel problem.
I should note, for incels: You will be disappointed. And, sure, sometimes she's just a lousy fuck, but even still, you will be disappointed because you expect too much°. And, sure, society taught you to expect too much, but don't blame women. Remember, puas cultivate unrealistic expectations, which is why the perpetually disappointed went mgtow, and then embittered onward into incel territory.
Seriously, like I said,
earlier↑:
• Nothing about the [pua] advice involves any sort of realistic expectations, so of course the boys and men who clamor for pua advice are pretty much doomed from the outset. No, really, they will never experience the moment in the picture, and, really, read the advice point. Those young men, a decade ago, never stood a chance.
Oh, hey, right, that wasn't all. Shortly after the Peterson article and Quilette post, my associate and I encountered someone who might as well have read the NYT article and decided to put on a show, complete with the overworked dog metaphor and something about humping on old women. My associate again pretended ignorance.
Somewhere in all that, NYT threw another rightist bone, featuring celebrities of the so-called intellectual dark web. You know, people who are silenced by having NYT articles giving them platforms, or investors paying for their web sites, or even the opportunity to write the introduction for a landmark anniversary of an important book about political history. I mean, poor Jordan, right?
After a self-identified incel deliberately ran down pedestrians with his van in a busy neighborhood in Toronto, killing ten, a number of prominent men—among them Canadian psychology-professor-cum-self-help-guru Jordan Peterson and New York Times columnist Ross Douthat—began to wonder aloud if the real problem underlying incel rage wasn't aggrieved male entitlement but the excessive pickiness of women who for some reason don't feel like dating the sort of maladjusted men who think mass murder is a reasonable response to sexual and romantic frustration.
In an interview with the New York Times, Peterson said the solution to this unjustified female pickiness was a system of "enforced monogamy" that would somehow—he was a bit vague on the details—compel women to date and marry men who currently have trouble finding partners. Douthat, drawing on a blog post by George Mason University economist Robin Hanson, suggested that "sexual inequality" was as serious a problem as economic inequality and that some sort of "redistribution of sex" might be in the offing. Both think the root of the problem lies in women's poor sexual choices.
This is part of the discussion about Nazis and sexual violence as a corrective measure; again, we're pulling from Futrelle, but this was
last year↱, during the period of my would-be funny story.
†
Honestly, human sympathy unto living danger is a lot harder than just saying the words. My associate, that other in the funny story, is an example: If he's not this or that, and finds suggestions that he might be so offensive, then perhaps, over the course of passing years, he could, now and then, fail to behave precisely to type.
Loneliness is as loneliness will, and can have enormous tragic power. But commiseration, living sympathy, and especially basic empathy, will hesitate at the grotesquerie of your attitude. Depression and isolation are problematic, and can mark people unfortunately. However, the incel attitude will settle the question, and drive people away.
The people promoting such terrible ideas—mras, puas, mgtows, incels—want you to destroy yourself. It's nihilistic surrender. To the other, at the very least you can take comfort in the idea that your name was writ or not before time began, and thus your loneliness serves God's purpose, and pleases Him.
Yeah, I know, that still sucks. Better advice would be to leave God out of it.
____________________
Notes:
° And, trust me, on such occasions when the answer does involve observing she is a lousy fuck, well, prevailing odds say so are you.
Futrelle, David. "Men are oppressed by women not asking them out, MRA argues." We Hunted The Mammoth. 4 November 2019. WeHuntedTheMammoth.com. 7 November 2019. http://bit.ly/33qfliN
—————. "The Daily Stormer calls for 'corrective rape' because women on Tinder are too picky". 9 December 2019. WeHuntedTheMammoth.com. 7 November 2019. http://bit.ly/2L3UV8B