Debunking the blackpill

There is a general narrative about incels that goes like this:

Monogamous marriage is sexual socialism, everyone gets a wife, this is how it was before 1960. After the sexual revolution, women chose to get into harems with high-status men and thus incels were born. We can best return to near 0% inceldom by reinstituting traditional patriarchy and traditional gender roles.

This is the underlying philosophy to the blackpill in 2020. Obviously there is an element of truth to this philosophy, in that women were given a choice to have sex with incels, and by 2020 they have not chosen that. It does not logically follow that high-status men deciding who women mate with would benefit incels. Tradcons don’t usually bring up pre-1900 stats about inceldom with regards to their, “utopias”. After asking for a lengthy period of patriarchy in which there were 0 to few incels, one tradcon incel I argued with recently insisted monogamy in medieval times was his perfect patriarchal monogamous utopia. I pointed out to him that 20% of men during that time were barred from monogamous contracts (which Lords made) due to being homeless and destitute because of the male Lords themselves. His response:

don’t worry we will handle it right next time

And you know what? I don’t trust him. Modern (mostly Muslim), classical patriarchies today don’t “have it right” either. These types of tradcon incels do not have “helping incels” as a first goal, but rather defending 4chan culture and tradcon values, masculinism and Gavin Mcciness-tier arguments about politics. Men have an outgroup preference to women in general, assuming that men in general would help incels is ridiculous, same as arguing that women in general would.

The 1950s baby boom was not an expression of patriarchy or traditional monogamy

Maybe advocates of patriarchy don’t actually mean classic patriarchy but are just talking about the 1940s-1950s? That period was the baby boom, not an expression of patriarchy. Of course incels briefly benefited from women wanting to catch up on childbirth from having limited opportunity during WWII. It was not however anything inherent to patriarchy, and the 1940s and 1950s hardly even qualify as a patriarchy, as marriages weren’t arranged, divorces were legal and easy, and it was just one 20 year blip in time.

There was a mass incel problem in revered, traditional, Western societies

How about we examine the 19th century then? As it has possibly the most recent stats on monogamy enforcement. It turns out that during 1850 for example, when only about 3 per 1000 couples were divorced, 77% of men below age 25 in 1850 were unmarried in the United States in 1850, and about 68% in 1870. So probably a lot of incels back when monogamy was “enforced”. source This debunks the claim that “enforced monogmy”, (ie reducing divorces, mate guarding, slut-shaming etc), necessarily “encourages”, marriage and thus sex to any satisfactory extent during the years men are harmed by inceldom.

Now I’m not claiming that divorces lessen the rate of incels. To make that claim, I’d have to see if more divorces increase or decrease the rate at which people have sex within marriage, so that is not my claim as I do not have the statistics on that. I have only proven that the traditional societies tradcons revere, and the tactics they used, did not solve inceldom, as they had tons of incels. They did not prevent inceldom. And the sexual revolution did not cause a mass incel problem, as there already was a mass incel problem in the West. This is clear.

Tradcons then usually respond that, “well everyone eventually always gets a wife in traditional Western monogamous societies”. This is true, but only in some Western monogamous societies, if you stood around for 30-40 years, eventually some woman would marry you out of desperation and hated every minute of (probably infrequent) sex with you. Thing is, the male sex drive is highest at 18. The damages inceldom does to you occur at 18. Tradcons and blackpillers revere societies where people didn’t give a shit about men pairing up before their middle-adulthood.

But things were better for incels in traditional societies! More people were married at a young age!

Tradcons proclaim.

Only 10-20% more people married at a young age at most in the 19th century for example. This is entirely explained by decreased average lifespan, as divorce rates have nothing to do with first age of marriage. I would rather not trade a 30-year shorter lifespan for tradconism if better alternatives exist or can be built.

So then the tradcons start advocating for some Marxist dictatorship of the inceletariat, with that being their perfect patriarchy. Well I still don’t trust that patriarchy would help incels. Most self-described incels are extremely selfish and do not adopt the male virtue of generosity.

If tradcons want a patriarchal order that will work for incels outside of a baby boom:
1. it would look nothing like the past, except some small religious cults
2. monogamy alone, as well as harems do not get rid of inceldom, and harems exacerbate it,thus Randian incels would not make effective leaders

Markets in general may not be the answer.

The same people who peddle the tradcon narrative, often not out of malice, but ignorance, also sell the idea of a well-regulated market as the solution to inceldom. The general narrative is basically Houellebecq’s narrative and is close to the general tradcon narrative:

Sexual liberalism creates incels just as economic liberalism creates poverty.

Something that this fails to take into account is that our current “sexual liberalism” takes the form of a market. Just as today’s economic system takes the form of a market. Now is any market actually free? No. There exist high barriers to access in almost any market. Markets are not needs-based, they reward based on effective advertising. Houellebecq proposed first world exchange of money for third world sexual favors as the market solution. Don’t the third world men lose out in that case? Tradcons propose monogamy as a regulated market or sometimes as an anti-market. As monogamy is currently a market, it obviously would have rampant inequality of access.

Mass legal rape is impossible in advanced countries and undesirable

Today’s only true tradcons: Marauding bands of Indian gang rapists

When tradcons hear that their fabled Western patriarchies of yore had high rates of inceldom, they may turn to advocating the anti-market, Indian-style arranged marriages out of desperation. In India, marital rape is legal, and is only illegal if the girl is under 15. Here tradcons start to show their true colors.

As it turns out, the guy who founded the ‘blackpill’ strain of incel boards with r/Truecels: Bargh9, was rumored to be a currycel. source1 source2 The rules section of r/Truecels, which in user-activity came before r/incels, more or less argued for legal rape. This is the first time an incel forum did this to my knowledge.

Enough complaining, what about solutions?

Sexual liberalism in an androgynous gift or communal economy may be a good starting point for brainstorming.

I honestly had never articulated any as the idea of a hippie ‘free love’ thing seemed to me to be also impossible. But there exists someone trying to articulate such a past and future, namely the surging Alex Undersky, a Russian leftist and free-love advocate. Another reason I never articulated the free love position is it seems a bit like sexual obesity if it were ever allowed, but other species to do just fine with free-love. Alex firmly believes the sexual revolution did and would have brought about free-love. He sees the main barriers to incel-reduction as abstinence education, traditionalism, conservatism, and market economies. While this isn’t a fully articulated position, and Alex himself is often inconsistent, this is a good starting off point for coming up with a leftist vision of combatting inceldom. The idea of a high-trust communal or gift society leading to free-sex. I would add to Alexs’ position that such a world might have to have low sexual dimorphism, and that may require some illiberalism in enforcing.

One thought on “Debunking the blackpill”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *