Incel: The Weaponization of Misogyny by Katherine Denkinson
Many thanks to
River Light Press and NetGalley for providing me with an advanced copy of Katherine
Denkinson’s urgent and necessary new book Incel: The Weaponization of Misogyny. While I found the subject matter really difficult to read at times, I
also feel that it is important to learn more about the Incel community,
especially since I’ve learned that a lot of the slang terms and lingo my kids
use has been derived from incel forums thanks to Adam Aleksic’s Algospeak. I was actually really surprised to learn that words like sigma and
their interest in jawlines were attributable to incels’ infatuation with male
hierarchies and appearances. Aleksic’s chapter was revealing in helping me
understand the origin, but also somewhat disturbing to think that these terms
my kids regularly use come from such places of loathing and hatred. However, as
Aleksic notes, the movement of these terms from the hate-filled and desperate
forums of incels to more popular forums and into the mouths of children who consume
content without thinking much about it has done much to reduce its meaning and
bite. This is also something that Denkinson’s book aims to tackle in trying to
understand and humanize incels. What I appreciated most about Denkinson’s book
was her educative approach in shifting out common misperceptions and
misunderstandings about incels, and how other groups of males are often lumped into
this subdivision of young men for issues of convenience, sensationalism, and
laziness. First, as Denkinson points out, the term incel was initiated by a
woman who wanted to form an online community of other involuntary celibates. Denkinson
actually contacted one of the original members of this online community, and
his story about finding not only community, but also love and companionship,
demonstrates how the current iteration of incel is one based more on nihilism
and hatred and does not really reflect the initial attempts of involuntary
celibates to find companionship.
Citing the popularity
of the recent series Adolescence, Denkinson explores how the media will often
latch onto a specific definition of misogyny, like the kind perpetrated by the
Tate brothers, but actually lump it in with incels. Although she notes that the
popularity of the show has brought these instances of misogyny out of the
darkest corners of the internet and provided parents with some important
information about their children, she also questions whether these kinds of
shows are sensationalizing or mischaracterizing incels and possibly doing more
damage to building bridges of understanding between parents and their sons. In
another instance of mischaracterizing incels, Denkinson also explains that
Eliot Rogers, whose manifesto and violent, misogynistic rampage have been
attributed to incels, never actually identified as an incel. Rather, others in
online spaces like reddit and 4chan eventually took Rogers’s words and actions and
used them as a way to support their ideas about masculinity, feminism, and how
relationships work. However, what I found most striking about Denkinson’s book
is how she explains that “Incels did not emerge from a social media chrysalis
raging against the world. They are real people, not digital boogeymen, and
while the responsibility for incel attacks lies solely with the men who commit
them, prevention requires a radical rethink of our societal approach.” Thus, her
book has several important takeaways. For one, Denkinson works to humanize
incels, helping to recognize the various factors that radicalize or incite
young men to take these kinds of nihilistic and misogynistic perspectives.
Furthermore, Denkinson’s research, experience and interviews with others helps
to dispel many myths about incels, specifically how frequently the media and
the public misconstrue misogyny and incels. Denkinson cites several cases, as
well as her own experience working with men with disabilities, to identify how
frequently their actions or behaviors can be lumped into the incel rubric
without closely examining their backgrounds and motives to better understand
the consequences of their crimes. She cites an example of a van rampage that
happened in Toronto as one instance where the media sought to identify the
crime as an incel attack, but upon closer investigation, the perpetrator wanted
the attention and infamy that come from these kinds of attacks, not necessarily
for ideological purposes. Denkinson’s research takes readers into dark spaces
and recalls many tragic and horrific crimes, including those in Norway, New
Zealand, and Pittsburgh, PA to further illustrate how online spaces can often
lead to a kind of radicalization that is sometimes conflated with incels, but
more often has to do with ideas of racism and white supremacy. Another important
element in Denkinson’s research is exploring how “black pilling” works, and how
right-wing approaches to consensus building and questioning ideas through “red pilling,”
whose origins were from The Matrix. The idea of black pilling takes this kind
of questioning of the nature of the world to the darkest and most desperate
places, and I found it rather hard to read. Black pilling includes some of the
most nihilistic thinking online, and I just wondered whether any of these guys
would benefit from some kind of therapy or medication. Furthermore, their
thinking about relationships and understanding women is so warped and
misconstrued that I also wondered how they grew to think like this. Denkinson
seems to argue that the original intent of online spaces offered a sense of
community and support, but that these incel spaces and forums offer little in
the way of community, but more like a commiserative space where men can release
their grievances and resentments towards the world. While relationships are
hard, Denkinson points to various media portrayals of romance and relationships
and the simplicity of falling in love for sending the wrong ideas to young men.
I agree to an extent, but I think that Denkinson’s other points that note that
there are numerous variables involved in black pilling young men, and that the rise
of content and media has definitely produced more misconceptions about women,
feminism, and relationships.
Although incredibly
dark, Denkinson’s book ends on a more positive note, detailing instances of
positive masculinity and identifying some resources in the UK that provide young
men with more positive approaches to masculinity. I really appreciated this
information, as I appreciated the entirety of this book. The book was
incredibly informative, and a reminder as a parent that connecting with one’s
children is essential. Denkinson’s last chapter provides some sense of hope and
ideas that parents, teachers, and others working with boys and young men can
implement to steer them down a more caring path. This is a really important and
necessary book for those who are working with young people, whether as a parent
or an educator. Although the book is hard to read at some points, like the
recent series Adolescence, it is an important insight into an often overlooked
issue that is continuing to grow and metastasize in society. Denkinson provides
practical scholarship and shares her experiences working with marginalized boys
and men to better understand some of the risks and issues they experience. The
book’s content is sometimes difficult, but she makes the ideas, examples, and
practices accessible and easy to understand. Recommended and important reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment