
By David Futrelle
Jordan “Women are Chaos” Peterson got into a bit of hot water a couple of months back when he told a reporter for the New York Times that some sort of “enforced monogamy” might be necessary to make sure the supply of women is properly distributed amongst the male population.
When people asked him what the holy fuck he was talking about, the Canadian fussbudget and Intellectual Dark Web icon insisted that he wasn’t advocating the “arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels” or anything like that; no, he was just advocating the “social enforcement of monogamy” so that the sort of men who might turn to violence if they can’t get their hands on women would be able to get their hands (and wedding rings) on women.
He didn’t specify exactly HOW one might “socially enforce” such an outcome, though traditionally this sort of thing tends to involve considerable “socially enforced” (and legally enforced) restrictions on female sexuality.
Conveniently, some less-inhibited thinkers have been more willing to step forward with specific suggestions. One of those solution-providers is the energetically misogynistic neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin. In a recent post on his Daily Stormer site, Anglin offers a detailed plan designed to enforce monogamy by putting the “stupid whores” of today back in their place.
While Anglin is less concerned with redistributing sex than he is with increasing baby production, his plan would do both things at once. In a post with the lovely title “Stupid Whores Want to Spend Time Guzzling Cock Rather Than Producing Children,” Anglin explains what he sees as the central problem with women today:
Over a 25 year period, women in America have decided as a group that they are going to put off pregnancy in order to suck dicks, parade around like sluts, and get money through affirmative action hoax jobs to buy shitty, pointless consumer goods. … a huge percentage of women are waiting til their wombs dry-up on their eternal cock-quest and not even having kids at all.
It’s true that women are, on average, having children later than they used to, and having fewer of them. As the New York Times has recently noted, “the average age of first-time mothers is 26, up from 21 in 1972, and for fathers it’s 31, up from 27.”
This is actually, as Vox explained not long ago, the result of some rather progressive trends: a dramatic drop in teen pregnancies and a larger percentage of women in the work force, which has led more women in the 30-44 year age range to have kids. (It’s not clear to what extent dick-sucking and slut-parading have affected these larger trends. I should also note that Anglin is himself a 34-year-old man with no children, though he clearly doesn’t see his own bachelor lifestyle as part of the problem.)
Anglin’s “solution” is to promote marriage and motherhood — and to basically launch an all-out cultural attack on female autonomy. “The only thing we can do is get women back in their place,” he writes, “and we have to do that by disincentivizing whoring around.”
Along with restrictions on divorce and financial incentives for young married couples with children, Anglin recommends a few things that sound more than a little like something you might find in a GOP platform:
- Changing public school sex-ed courses to inform women that whoring is gross …
- Offering motherhood classes in public schools, informing girls that “mother” is a valid career choice
- Further restricting access to abortion and other birth control
But Anglin has some slightly more radical ideas as well:
- Men need to start publicly calling women whores
- Men need to STOP thinking women are above them, and start generally treating them like shit
- Men need to start telling women they have no purpose but to create children
- Divorced women need to be shunned by everyone in society
- We need more “no hymen, no diamond” memes (I don’t really think this is a valid position for most men to take, but they are great memes which make women go insane – they HATE it when it is pointed out to them that they are filthy whores)
He ends with this, er, miniature manifesto, which he puts in bolded type for emphasis:
These wombs belong to us, not the idiot creatures that they are attached to. They were given to us by God to reproduce ourselves within. The dumb animals they are attached to were supposed to serve us, but they have gotten out of control. We always need to be looking for new ways to get these stupid animals to give us back the wombs they have stolen from us.
“Enforced monogamy” would be ugly. Jordan Peterson’s version of it might not be quite as drastic as Anglin’s, but it would also, of necessity, require stigmatizing female sexual autonomy and independence. It would require, to some degree, putting “women back in their place,” as Anglin bluntly puts it. It would also require what Anglin calls “disincentivizing whoring around.”
No, it wouldn’t require secret police kidnapping women and forcing them to marry the men who are currently declaring themselves “involuntarily celibate.” But it would require social pressure strong enough to send some women into the arms of these potentially quite dangerous men.
Peterson thinks that “enforced monogamy” would somehow reduce violence by reducing the frustrations of sexless men, forgetting that the sort of guy who threatens violence when he can’t get laid is likely to turn to violence if he deems his wife insufficiently obedient — or if he gets jealous of her talking, however innocently, with another man. “Enforced monogamy” won’t protect women from violence; it may put them more at risk. And the revival of “traditional” social restrictions on women would do damage of another sort.
Peterson often resorts to denials and obfuscation when people start asking about the implications of some of his more dire pronouncements — as he did, fairly successfully, when his “enforced monogamy” comments first stirred up controversy. And so Anglin may have done us all a favor of sorts by making a bit clearer what a nightmare “enforced monogamy” would be for women and for men who care about the rights of women and sexual freedom in general.


“No hymen, no diamond”?
Well, my engagement ring has opals and garnets but no diamond. Guess it worked okay, since Mr. Parasol and I are celebrating 22 years of married bliss this month.
There’s been a number of articles recently saying right wing extremists are having trouble getting women to date them.
Can’t imagine why that could be.
Those wombs belong to us.
And there you have it, one of the taproots of misogyny: women’s bodies don’t belong to them. I knew this already, but it is still profoundly frightening and depressing.
Back in logic land, don’t we already have almost 7.5 billion people on the planet? Aren’t we already failing to care for all of those people? I don’t understand this panic about not enough babies. Seems to me we have plenty.
I’d love to hear these guys cry (not really) if women did pull some sort of fiftiesesque Lysistrata and stopped providing sex on a large scale. Can you imagine the wails from this batch of bitch babies?
And people say romance is dead!!
Re: the field of babies … Anglin does know that the reason the thermodynamics of the humans-as-batteries plot in The Matrix doesn’t work is because the whole thing is an allegory for consumerist capitalism, doesn’t he? Also that the side growing babies in fields were the villains, right?
It’s not really a career choice if your plan is to leave them no other choices and not pay em for the work anyway…
So the womb of a woman actually belongs to a man and it was stolen from said man… how exactly? By the womb being born inside her but it was really suppose to go to the man? No, the womb is not man’s. And doesn’t that just eat this woman-haters up.
Well, if anyone ever starts a movement to put hypocritical, ignorant assholes in their place I can hardly think of more suitable test candidate than Andrew Anglin.
Interestingly, last night I read a long profile on lovely Andy. Most of his acquaintances swear that he was a pretty normal kid until his sophomore year in high school when he began chanting his never-ending mantra of hatred for Jews, feminists and pretty much anyone who disagreed with his loathsome philosophy. One of his former teachers who is Jewish admitted she was gobsmacked that the rather shy boy she knew is now going around advocating her destruction for belonging to an “evil” race.
What put the burr under his saddle? I’m not sure. The only thing I am sure of is that I mightily hope that someday he expires of his own bile.
Apparently penis envy has nothing on womb envy … with both affecting the male of the species.
I think maybe you overlooked where this shit is coming from, or more accurately, WHO this is coming from.
see, these manbabies that moan about women not having enough babies… are all white.
these are the kind of people that look at a white progressive who only wants one or two kids (or fuck forbid, NO kids), and think to themselves “That’s white genocide!”
no, really.
to them, it’s all about outbreeding the “darkies”.
A little glitch in this plan as far as promoting the white race goes. When these things are restricted, wealthier women still find a way to access them. It’s poorer women who end up with the unwanted pregnancies because they don’t have contraception or abortion access. You know who is disproportionately wealthy? White people. Who is disproportionately poor? People of color. Wouldn’t making abortion and birth control hard to get just increase the POC to white people ratio? You’d think a white supremacist would not want that.
But people claim male entitlement doesn’t exist and is just a thing mean, hysterical feminists made up.
Also, it’s pretty ironic that Anglin is calling women idiots when he doesn’t seem to even understand that children have the DNA of both parents, not just the father. The theory that children are the products of their father alone and the mother is just a vessel was debunked a very long time ago.
To be fair to Peterson, I don’t think it’s so much forgetting as being unaware of it in the first place. After all, I’m sure he’s never beaten his wife, and therefore no reasonable person who listens to him ever would. Therefore, the problem doesn’t exist. Some might argue that in saying such things, Peterson isn’t taking the full context into account, but context only applies to his words, not to facts. Especially since sociology is a weak humanities discipline, so statistics into this sort of thing are tinged with feminine cooties and are thus not to be trusted. /s
Bittershitters like Andrew Anglin never fail to make me glad my tubes are tied, and my menopause won’t be much longer in coming. I just pity the poor woman out of whose womb HE came.
Men who were born with wombs have the right to 100% complete control over that particular womb.
Any other men who think they deserve any amount of control over another person’s womb can fuck right off, and once they get to wherever they fucked off to, they can fuck off even further.
Of course, the only wombs and babies of which Anglin is speaking are those of the white variety. He doesn’t want non-white women or non-white men to be producing vast amounts of babies, no sir.
That’s why you’ve gotta implement forced sterilization of the undesirables (well, that or just straight up extermination). It’s step number two after stripping the rights of bodily autonomy away from women. Since non-white women are obviously irredeemably slutty, they won’t abide by enforced monogamy like good white women and thus have to be prevented from having babies for Their Own Good. (Eugh, typing this feels so ducking gross.)
Apparently penis envy has nothing on womb envy … with both affecting the male of the species.
@Surplus
That is hysterical (pun intended). I was thinking a bit of the same thing – as in – wait, aren’t women supposed to be all twisted because of penis envy? I have yet to know a woman who was, but hey, details details.
@Ichthyic
After I pushed the post button it occurred to me that the whole panic was over white babies and I just had to sigh. But these assholes don’t even want all white women reproducing. Class is a big thing here too. There is really a very narrow set of circumstances where women are “allowed” to reproduce with “their” wombs or be sexual with “their” bodies. A woman has to be white, middle class and married or at the very least have a man give his okey dokey to the pregnancy.
Anything outside that very narrow range and women are sluts and welfare queens and destroying the fabric of society and don’t deserve jobs or education because they can’t wait to mess capitalism up by getting pregnant. And God forbid that we actually make life easier for women and children with any kind of social program, that would be bad, bad, bad for those evil sluts. But sexism is all in our overwrought imaginations.
I’ve been researching the attitudes toward single mothers and I ran into the MGTOWs in my first search. The hatred, and not just from the groups we know is so vitriolic that I have to prepare myself before researching.
@Vicky
Congratulations! Also, your engagement ring sounds beautiful!
@Everyone
Yes, I’m still here. I’ve just been in lurker mode as of late.
All Anglin’s points sound pretty GOP to me . . .
Given that
A- “guzzling” is something you normally do with liquids
and
B- a cock is not a liquid
How exactly does one go about “guzzzling cocks”?
Asking for a friend . . .
Well, I assume it would involve the use of a blender…
@Lunetta
“guzzle” can also be used for non-liquids. Oxford Dictionaries defines it as “eat or drink (something) greedily”, but most of their example sentences do concern liquids.
At this point, I’m convinced most of these guys are clueless about how any sexual acts work. They’ve either never researched them, never done them, or never fucking paid attention during their own sex acts or in high school health class. I think they’ve read reddit and Urban Dictionary and that’s it.
@Catalpa
Actually, I like your answer better.
If we’re just lowly animals wouldn’t men having sex with us make them guilty of bestiality?
I don’t think they care about that. Most likely they’re really only worried about the other men who get killed by incel violence.
This is what ‘enforced monogamy’ means. There’s some variance in how brutal the enforcement is, or how crude the language used is, but this is what it means. All the stammering and yammering about how it’s just about validating committed relationships or some tripe is exactly that.
It’s about teaching women from childhood that they are inferior to men.
It’s about taking away economic and social autonomy.
It’s about taking away reproductive freedom.
It’s about permitting physical violence against women, either overtly or by discreetly not interfering in a ‘family matter’.
It’s about fucking women over.
That’s all ‘enforced monogamy’ will ever mean. And anyone who gives it a nicer gloss is lying, either to you or to himself.