Jordan Peterson and the myth of monogamy

I disagreed with “objectifying females” in gaming a decade ago and more recently too. My views on sexism didn’t change, the World went crazy over a decade, so while I was considered somewhat feminist back then, now I’m alt-right for the exact same views.

Exactly because of that, I strongly disagree with alt-right sweetheart Jordan Peterson and his idea of “forced monogamy”, even when I understood it as he meant instead of as what liberals heard.

Not like most of his pieces of advise aren’t sound (he just says common sense things which aren’t so common recently). His statements about males and females being more competent in stuff can be supported with the condition of it’s being descriptive instead of prescriptive (aka “merit-based hiring will lead to more male miners and female nurses” vs “we must hire men as miners and women as nurses”).

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.” “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” “Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will all only go for the most high-status men” “preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.”

Bullshit! You know what prevents hordes of single men from violence? Armed police and prisons. The idea that the society should pay tribute to these losers is bizarre even if you completely ignore women’s rights and consider them a mere property. Our response to impoverished looting rioters is not communist redistribution of wealth but machine guns. I see no reason why should we respond differently to the demands of the “sexually impoverished”.

He is also dead wrong in the enforced monogamy nonsense. He buys into the completely unscientific idea that a few high-status males monopolize the women and that makes them inaccessible to low-status males. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of the existence of such harems. The truth is that the women are “inaccessible” because they live alone, rather than with a moron and slacker. 72% of the black American kids are with single mothers. Do you think they are secret lovers of some high-status males? If that would be the case, the kids would be from these few fathers, but no such study appeared. No, they were in a relationship with an ordinary black guy and then he became a deadbeat father. For white Americans it’s 30% and growing. I seriously doubt that those fat mamas in the trailer parks are inaccessible because they are monopolized by George Clooney and Elon Musk.

The truth is that a moron or slacker is of no use to anyone, including another moron or slacker. So they live alone, often as a literal virgin basement dweller. They are not happy and feel entitled to companionship but they wouldn’t accept their opposite-sex version, and rightfully so. Forcing people to live a strictly monogamous life wouldn’t change a thing for them. It might destroy the fun of some singles who sleep around, but it wouldn’t change them from being singles. They are singles for a reason: they cannot bring enough into a relationship to be attractive to their opposite-sex version. Bizarrely it would even backfire, because it would take their only access to sex: drunken hookups. The idea that a woman who doesn’t even want you for a drunken hookup will marry you if we take away her right to hookups is pure insanity.

However the best counterargument is that it was kind of tested in Japan, where the traditional culture is still strong. The result? 43% of millennials are virgins. It seems that monogamy did exactly what I believe it would.

Funnily, I believe the “incel movement” is a product of liberalism. Incels use liberal terms to describe themselves. The liberals didn’t just create their crazy ideas, they also created a meta-idea that “failure is because of oppression”. The incels use this on themselves, creating their own worldview where they are oppressed by the “Chads and Stacys”. The oppressive rule of sexually attractive people is of course madness, but not bigger madness than the “patriarchy”, “white supremacy” or “cishet privilege”. No. If you fail in anything (getting job, wealth, sex), that’s because you’re a failure. A moron or a slacker. The society has no responsibility, you should just fix your attitude.

.

PS: no, this post doesn’t count as politics, as it endorses no candidate or aligns with no political platform. Incels are shunned by everyone for a reason.