Thread by @N7IRL

Peterson's defenders are so quick to rush to defend his "enforced monogamy" nonsense that they have managed to complete elide that it was brought up in the context of incels.

He's not JUST suggesting we encourage monogamy in society (WHICH WE ALREADY HEAVILY FUCKING DO).

He's embracing the inane framing of sex as a resource existing in a marketplace, something with some portions of the population are denied, which the coterie of the pseudo-intellegentsia on the right frames within their usual alpha/beta, eugenicist framework.

This needs to be understood for what it is: The claim is that some men are naturally alphas and that as alphas they will tend, in societies where women are free to choose their own partners, to do as the wealthy have done with money. That some men will get ALL the sex.

The embrace of (using whatever method of enforcement they want to justify) enforcing a system of monogamy centers around this notion that sex is only accessible for ALL men if each man is limited regardless of his natural assets.

Women's wishes are in this framework, irrelevant.

There's no benign interpretation of Peterson's intent.

It's inherently dependent on a worldview in which the wishes of individual women do not matter, because these men cannot see women as serving purpose other than the advancement of men's genes.

The dismissiveness towards women's work and advancement is a feature, not a bug.

They are, at their core, inimical to the idea that women fundamentally deserve to have the same opportunities as men, because their view sees that as interfering with a natural order.

The notion that monogamy should be enforced, whether by force of law or simply by "encouraging" it with social mores, ignores entirely that in modernity more women are choosing to not have sex with shitty men, because it's a notion based around women not deserving that right.

And let's remember, incel anger is not formed around a lack of sex.

It's formed around a lack of having the specific sexual framework they desire, in which other men are not getting more sex simply for being more attractive to women, in which women are to exist for sex alone.

Look at the shitty "art" these fuckers create.

Attractive men are "Chads", attractive women are "Staceys", and Staceys fuck Chads because they're "sluts".

The pathetic fuckers want that to end, because they see Staceys as their own, and Chads as despoiling them.

There's no "enforced monogamy" that works to solve that anger that isn't shitty men getting to feel like they have their pick of attractive women regardless of what those women want.

You might note that this is the polar opposite of sexual revolution.

Attempting to walk back what Peterson was saying is sourced from a) not wanting to believe that people could really think this way or b) realizing that saying this shit aloud is maybe starting to give the game away.

I don't have any solutions for how to deal with incels, because mainly there's a part of my brain that thinks about how these fuckers see the world and thinks, "Euthanasia would be nice and gentle..."

But it sure as fucking hell isn't about giving them what they want, which is being mainstreamed because even non-incel men love the idea that they don't have to put any effort into being decent to have guaranteed sex and a feeling of superiority.