Undefined

I was reading NPR when I came across a review of a new book by Laura Bates, Men Who Hate Women. According to the review, Ms. Bates "spent a year immersed in what's called the 'manosphere,' a vast online world in which incels rub elbows with an assortment of other misogynists — from 'pickup artists' with little respect for the concept of consent, to the male separatists who call themselves Men Going Their Own Way (but who can't seem to stop talking about women)." I salute her for that; I don't have five minutes to spare for these guys, spending a year in their online hangouts is dedication.

In setting up the review, the author, David Futrelle, asks an interesting question: "Is it too much to call what [Alek] Minassian did 'terrorism'?" He then goes on to note that Ms. Bates thinks that it is not.

Part of the reason we as a society cannot seem to acknowledge incel mass murders as the terrorist acts they are, Bates notes in her new book, is that:

"...misogyny and violence against women are so widespread and so normalized, it is difficult for us to consider these things 'extreme' or 'radical,' because they are simply not out of the ordinary. We do not leap to tackle a terrorist threat to women, because the reality of women being terrorized, violated and murdered by men is already part of the wallpaper."

Because of this fundamental failure of understanding, the government and non-governmental organizations that define "terror" for us don't even bother to track the murder sprees of men like Minassian and Elliot Rodger, the California man whose murderous rampage in 2014 brought the first widespread media coverage of the incel movement — and earned him the adoration of incels around the world.

I was disappointed, though, that Mr. Futrelle doesn't actually define "terrorism" in the review. Nor does he relate Ms. Bates' definition of the word. The passage that he quotes would seem to indicate that terrorism can be defined as violence that is "extreme" or "radical." But is that a common definition of "terrorism" among the government and civil organizations that track terrorism and terrorist activities? I found the formulation "organizations that define 'terror' for us" to be interesting. Who is "us" in this formulation? The public at large? How does "us" abdicate the defining of "terror?" And if the organizations in question do own the definition of terror, is the problem that they ignore their own definition when it comes to killings by misogynists or that their definition is somehow wrong?

Terrorism, like many emotionally loaded words, can be difficult to define in a way that garners broad consensus. The fact that American society, among others, has a heightened response to and increased fear of terrorism, and therefore, greater sympathy for the targets of same, creates an incentive for people to seek to define what happens to them as terrorism. The greater punishments for terrorism, including a willingness to suspend due process and other rights due to the accused, also make the accusation of terrorism into a potent weapon. This leads to what I perceive as a bifurcation of the definition. While the academic definition of the term appears to have stabilized in the vicinity of "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change" or "a violent attempt to produce political or other forms of change," there is also a "folk definition" (also encouraged by politicians and politically-minded prosecutors) that might be articulated as violent action that makes some group of people afraid that it might happen to them, and/or is perpetrated by Moslems or other people with Middle-Eastern sounding names.

My point with my folk definition of terrorism isn't be cynical (although, I admit to being quite good at being cynical) but to note that people's definitions of words tend to line up with their worldviews and interests. And so it's useful to state definitions (and acknowledge the differences between different ones) when invoking them.

The question of whether or not "involuntary celibates" turning to violence should count as terrorism is both legitimate and interesting. If there is a organized group of men out there who seek to ensure satisfying sex lives for themselves through acts of violence against society, authorities ignoring that is something of a scandal; even if, it's also somewhat par for the course. But if there is also a consensus that the formal definitions of terrorism are too narrow, that's also worth discussing. Of course, it's a somewhat fraught debate, for many people, calling something terrorism means that it's taken more seriously than it would be otherwise. (Although in this case, the label of hate crime may also be able to do the heavy lifting.)

Personally, I'm a bit dubious of labeling incidents such as Alex Minassian's and Elliot Rodger's as terrorism. Based on what I understand of their motives, it seemed more like violent acting out to me. But I understand that for many people, that dangerously understates things. Which, I suspect, points to a bigger problem that American society has, and that often pops up elsewhere; the idea that violence is a solution to problems. Seeing violence as a useful tool tends to result in a lot of violence, and the inability to manage all of it can leave people looking for ways to push the violence that most concerns them to the head of the line. And that often means seeking to attach certain labels to it. It becomes a contest that shouldn't need to happen.