Image created by Elliot Rodger and reproduced by Mail Online.
Today I decided to explore #YesAllWomen. Nothing in the tweets themselves was anything I hadn’t already heard dozens of times (I’m already aware that as a man I’ll never know what it’s like to dress in such a way as to attract as much attention as possible only to find that doing so attracts unwanted attention), but what struck me was the sheer volume of tweets. Women have definitely noticed what happened in Santa Barbara.
By any objective measure, Sandy Hook was a far greater tragedy than what happened in Santa Barbara, yet Santa Barbara seems to have inspired a much more intense reaction. It’s not as useful for gun-grabbers because lots of the deaths were stabbings (and there’s considerable overlap between gun-grabbers and feminists), the deaths of innocent children tug at our heartstrings more than the deaths of innocent young adults, and the body count was far lower.
Yet Santa Barbara inspires emotions that strike me as every bit as intense, and probably more so.
And there’s good reason for it.
As a capitalist, I’m accustomed to fending off countless accusations of heartlessness. I believe that any public assistance should be the responsibility of the states instead of the federal government, but even when we get the feds out of it, I believe that private charities, communities, and churches will do far more good for the receivers of aid while doing far less harm to the economy as a whole.
Theoretically, under my system we could be overwhelmed with abject poverty, millions of lost souls with nothing to do, nowhere to go, and no hope of any life other than starvation unless the government (and only the government) does something about it.
Because of this possibility, most lefties advocate “spreading the [financial] wealth around” to ensure that “everybody gets their piece of the pie”. Yet simultaneously these caring lefties advocate a ruthless dog-eat-dog sexual marketplace in which it’s perfectly acceptable for 10-20% of men to virtually monopolize sexual access to all of society’s fertile females.
Okay, not quite monopolize: it’s perfectly acceptable for a reliable, unexciting guy to marry a 31 year-old after she’s “found herself” for a decade or so. If he can’t get laid in his twenties, sucks to be him. If he wants to get married when he’s young, he’s probably a misogynist pig who just wants to tie some poor girl down with babies.
Tell a king of the financial markets that he should
consent to having stolen share his assets for the good of society, lefties applaud and nod in agreement. Tell a queen of the sexual markets (a young woman) that she should share her assets for the good of society, and you deserve ostracism and/or death.
I’m of the sincere opinion that no unmarried person of either gender is entitled to sex from anyone else. Were I to have told this to Elliot Rodger, feminists worldwide would have nodded in approval. Were I to tell this to Louis CK’s chunky friend, they’d want my head on a stick.
We’ve every right to confiscate as much wealth as possible from the rich guy, no matter the years of his life spent training for and performing his job. We’ve no right whatsoever to expect that a woman spend so much as fifteen minutes with a guy she doesn’t think is cute.
His valuable assets: everybody’s. Her valuable assets: hers and hers alone.
Do I think that we should in any way force women to “spread the wealth around” in order to satiate the needs of incels among us? Hell no, even though quoting portions of this post out of context might lead lefties to think I do. I’m merely pointing out the inconsistency of lefties who believe that good fortune should be shared, unless that good fortune happens to be theirs.
Socialistic economic philosophies operate under the assumption that the economy is like a pie from which everybody is rewarded a slice. One of the many reasons their philosophies are flawed is that the economy is not like a pie. If I have a big piece, it doesn’t mean you’re stuck with a really small piece because of my greed; we can make the whole pie bigger and both have more. Wealth isn’t stagnant. We can create more of it, so that even if my piece is a whole lot bigger than yours, your piece can increase in size too, so long as we increase the size of the pie. My economic benefit is not necessary to your detriment.
In the sexual and marriage marketplaces, this isn’t the case. In fact, in these markets the pie analogy is actually quite apt. We can create wealth at a faster rate than we create people, but unless we engage in some serious social engineering, for every new woman we create, we’ll probably be creating a new man. Whereas if I have more money it doesn’t necessarily mean somebody else will be stuck with less, if I have a harem of five hot babes, by necessity four guys will be deprived of sexual affection.
Economic imbalance bugs the hell out of the left, even though wealth disparities in no way cause outright deprivation. Yet they explicitly favor sexual imbalances that do cause men to be literally deprived.
Young modern females implicitly equate their vaginae with our penises: something they can use to “score” and “have fun”.
That may be how she sees it, but regardless of how casually she might give it away to whomever turns her on, to us it’s far more than that. Feminine sexual affection is the force that inspires great poetry, that gets men to get up for work each day to contribute to the economy, that pushes us to achieve greatness, or maybe just do what has to be done.
For with a woman and children at our side, there’s more to life than just me. A man with a family has a stake in his community, an interest in creating a better world, incentive to be productive and responsible, and the sense that he’s part of something that’s going to last far longer than his very own life.
The traditional family structure provided this for most men. Yes, there was always sexual imbalance, but when one man/one woman was the norm, damn near all of us had some sort of stake in tomorrow. An awkward beta still had value, even if it was just to his wife and child. He might be at the bottom of the economic totem pole, but he had incentive to strive regardless, for his wife and child depended on it.
So it’s not just that they “can’t get laid”, it’s that we’re writing omegas off entirely. The leftist structure of economic equality (in theory, never quite in practice) with sexual haves and have-nots is far more damaging to our national soul than a world of economic dog-eat-dog in which most guys get a woman anyway could ever be.
Hence, the emotional reaction to Rodger’s massacre. As I’ve made clear before, Rodger is a villain, a man who failed.
Nevertheless, subconsciously I suspect that this might be the moment in which millions of young women are getting there first sense that something might be wrong. The infinite cries of “rape culture” notwithstanding, young women today have it exceptionally good. They’re showered with attention from the men they don’t want, can have as much or little sex as they want with no apparent (or at least immediate) consequence, and they’re free to value only those traits in men that turn them on. They’ve no need to even consider his character.
Thus far, the men who inspire no tingle have seemed perfectly safe to ignore. Now, they’re beginning to suspect that this system of infinite pleasure for me might inspire some sort of blowback. I doubt they’re particularly inclined to sympathize with awkward guys (and the second Rodger pulled the trigger he forsook any claims to sympathy), but it’s just a bit harder to see them as entirely irrelevant.
For although it still doesn’t occur to them that nobody’s going to pay for their birth control if everyone’s given up on life and just delivers pizzas for a living, the notion that the dorky guy in math class is of no consequence just might have been threatened. If he’s completely ignored forever there’s no telling if he’ll blow a gasket or just drop out of society, but what happens to him might mean something for the rest of us.
A fellow human being? Not quite yet. Potential cause for concern? Maybe. Is this the first hint that the Red Death might somehow find its way into the ball, that the wallflowers might crash the party, that her orbiters might not help her move next Thursday?
I can’t say for certain, but I know it’s caused a stir.
The first two columns of Rodger’s diagram are accurate, the third not so much. Rarely will men of any status have the incentive to kill masses of women. This is a good thing.
What’s far more likely is for the male column to wind up shorter than the female one. They won’t turn into crosses like Rodger, they’ll move to the Philippines, find a cabin somewhere in the Rockies, stop developing new social media networks, and somehow not have any wealth to tax. Women will assert their freedom to bang whomsoever they choose, and the men they don’t choose will just stop showing up.
Which might be fine were the men they choose not so frequently objectively useless.
For all the feminist talk of Rodger’s sense of entitlement, it’s women who feel entitled to the fruits of male labor: clean streets, indoor plumbing, televisions, and iPhones.
All men wanted in exchange was sex.
But if men aren’t entitled to sex, if a young and virtuous bride is an unreasonable demand, that’s fine. They’ll just stop giving women all the goodies to which they feel entitled.
And that’s when civilization collapses. I suspect on some level, young women are beginning to suspect that.