Debunking the tradcon narrative about incels

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.

Obviously there is an element of truth to this, 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. And this is the living paupers, not everyone else who died young or were non-pauper incels. His response:

don’t worry we will handle it right next time

And you know what? I don’t trust him. 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.

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 benefited from that intial surge of economic prosperity. 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.

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 monogamy”, necessarily “encourages”, marriage and thus sex.

So then the tradcons start advocating for some Marxist revolution of the incelgeouis, 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
1 Like

To varying degrees there have always been chronically single men barred from sexual relationships, marriage, reproduction, and so on throughout human history.

The only difference back then is that those numbers were quite significantly lower, something like 25-35% in contrast to the 65-70% we have today.

I’ll take 25-30% any day over the week compared to the 65-70% we have today.

Concerning numbers or percentages in this particular case, lesser numbers are more optimal and better as an alternative to our current predicament. Nothing will entirely ever be perfect but I will definitely settle for a better outcome than the one we have now.

65%-70% of men barred from the sexual market is extreme and not sustainable, if we reduced that number right back to 25-30% again I would consider that a win.

@tables

1 Like

another thing tradconcels forget is even if you get a wife, you’re not going to enjoy her very long because of being cannon fodder for high status men. Also, its so insanely delusional to think that modern technology and traditionalism can co-exist. Technology exists to break humans away from nature and ‘‘tradition’’. So unless we get rid of all technology, and pull the plug on electricity, traditionalism is never going back.

Its ALWAYS going to suck for the majority of men, we are so disposable as a sex, that pretty much one male can repopulate the world, all you need is one male. Women are going to stop (physical) prostitution/escorting world wide and move online, and only the elite of the elite will be able to fuck escorts. Its just going to get a whole lot worse from here, because nature is either not benevolent at all, or its just shittly designed, not sure on which one really matters more.

2 Likes

Perhaps I need to stop reading your posts. You make me so sad sometimes.

3 Likes

Holy fuck that’s suicidefuel.

But what you’re talking about is in the future.

Don’t forget to consider that technology has the potential to make females themselves obsolete. It could backfire horrendously for them (e.g. Sexbots and Artifical Womb).

1 Like

The problem with sex robots or artificial wombs is that we’re still two hundred years away from achieving such technology in mass production, which means a majority of us are screwed during this historical period of exponential technological expansion. None of us currently alive would live long enough to see any of that transpire, if it even transpires at all.

Of course as I keep reiterating, world war III, global economic collapse, international civil wars, and a global viral pandemic might be our salvation for those of us held in a state of alienating captivity. The destruction alone from any of those events would be enough to destroy and collapse the entire current social world order resetting everything back to zero. [A constantly favorite and desired reality of mine, I would like nothing more.]

Also, there is a silver lining for us concerning this perverse decadent period of technological expansion that has rendered a majority of men existentially obsolete as well, and that being global peak oil or EROEI. Technological expansion can only exist if you have the natural resources to transform into energy, without infinite energy there can be no technological expansion where as natural resources peak through depletion overtime it would mean the collapse of technological society itself. No infinite energy or power grid, no future state for technological society.

@Restart80
@ThatsLife
@maidana

Doesn’t really matter. The human race will find a way to exterminate itself much sooner.

how was there only 25% inceldom in the 19th century when marriage was enforced and when about 2/3rds were unmarried before age 25? And as far as medieval times, there’s no way to measure a top measure on inceldom, only a bottom, so I’m going to ignore that. Also i’ve been crunching inceldom numbers with others for almost a year and there is only a third of the millennial population incel at the most. See the demographics page on the wiki. There were probably vastly more incels back when monogamy was ‘enforced’, although many probably thought they were volcel or just died young.

You also need to source your claims.