See Part 1 of ‘The Danger of the Incel Is the Danger of Polygamy‘
Africa serves as a stark warning to the West because polygamy is still a common practice across the African continent, and is deeply ingrained in many African countries, and has incredibly harmful effects.
For example, in Sudan:
Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth—often measured in cattle—will allow. Perhaps 40% of marriages are polygamous. “In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you,” says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife (his name, like some others in this article, has been changed). Having studied in America and come back to his home village, he finds that he is wealthy by local standards. So why be content with just one bride?[1]
In Sudan, if you can afford more than one wife, then you will take more than one wife. But look at the effect this has on such societies like Sudan:
Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10% of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30% of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state.[2]
The result of this is not hard to imagine, because we just saw the result of it in the Viking lands of Scandinavia. If you cannot find a wife in your community, or if you cannot find one the honest way you have to find one the good old-fashioned Viking way. So in Sudan, and similar countries, young men will form bands to raid other communities to steal their cattle, to get the riches they need to find a wife.[3] Or they will go to even greater lengths as well:
This is one of the reasons why the Arab Spring erupted, why the jihadists of Boko Haram and Islamic State were able to conquer swathes of Nigeria, Iraq and Syria, and why the polygamous parts of Indonesia and Haiti are so turbulent. Polygamous societies are bloodier, more likely to invade their neighbours and more prone to collapse than others are. The taking of multiple wives is a feature of life in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index compiled by the Fund for Peace, an NGO.[4]
How many men have been spurred on to terrorism just to get the notoriety and wealth they needed to start a family? This may seem foreign to us, but this is a reality in many parts of our world, both present, and past. Precisely because they do not adequately regulate the sexual marketplace, and caused too many young men to turn to wicked means to get what their fathers and wealthier neighbours already have.
So, while for many men the idea of polygamy might sound good, hey if it was ok for King David, why not for a modern business executive right? The truth is that it undermines the ability of your society to function in a healthy way. It creates vast quantities of young men, with nothing to lose, and lots to gain from illicit and dangerous behaviour. It is not hard to see that the West has a ticking time bomb sitting right within its borders, and this is a direct result of the sexual revolution.
So as I said women, your new-found sexual power might seem liberating, but your daughters or your granddaughters might suffer terribly from your loose feminist sexual mores because as we see in history, there is a massive snapback that comes as a result of any social inequity that grows to large.
Just as the lavish wealth of the French nobility made the French revolution inevitable, so does the hoarding of women by fewer and fewer men, make societal unrest inevitable. The evidence is there, all around in the world today, and all through history. Polygamous societies are dangerous, and the West is now effectively a polygamous society in all but name.
If you read some of the articles on Incels that I have mentioned above or referenced below you will see that there are some dangerous currents in the Incel movement, and the people who wrote those articles are rightly concerned. But I could not help but note that some of the feminists behind those articles were forgetting that some early feminists could be just as dangerous as some Incels are appearing to be today. Unbeknownst to many people is that the early suffragettes were given to acts of terrorism as well:
In the years leading up to the First World War, the suffragettes conducted a ferocious and prolonged bombing campaign across the whole of the United Kingdom; planting improvised explosive devices (or IEDs) in places as varied as Westminster Abbey, St Paul’s Cathedral, the Bank of England, the National Gallery, railway stations and many other locations.[5]
Indeed, the first terrorist bomb that exploded in Ireland in the 20th century was Planted by suffragettes, not the IRA.[6] “They also invented the letter-bomb.”[7] Who says women cannot be pioneers hey? These were not just lone-wolf attacks either, they were being directed and supported by the feminist suffragette leadership.[8]
The picture of suffragettes being only peaceful protestors and concerned citizens is quite incomplete. There were deep connections between the feminist movement and radical socialist movements, indeed, the feminist movement was a wing of the radical socialists of the era.[9]
It still is today. Indeed most equalitarian movements are. And so if modern Incels tend towards extreme right-wing ideology today, it is important to remember that many feminists tended towards extreme left-wing ideology in the past, as well.
None of this is to excuse the excesses of these young men who are tending towards radicalism. It is just to highlight that when people are desperate and become radicalized they will be much more likely to engage in very dangerous behaviour and take out their grievances on those whom they consider to be the cause of their woes. This is what we don’t want to happen. What we want to see is young men get married, get a wife, and build their societies for future generations.
However, if our society continues to practice this highly deregulated sexual market, with very few men monopolizing most of the women, then we are in a very high danger of social instability reaching war like levels. One needs only need look across the Indian Ocean to Africa, or even north to India and China to see the size of the potential dangers:
India and China both have an extremely ‘burdensom community’ of spare males. The normal ratio of newborn boys to girls is around 105:100. But as Mara Hvistendahl documents in Unnatural Selection, thanks to prenatal ultrasound and sex-selective abortion the ratio in China is around 118:100, and 108:100 in India. In some regions of India, the ratio rises as high as 150 males to 100 females. Though sex-selective technology is now banned in India, it’s still widespread, and the country now has some 37 million more men than women. Studies estimate that China has around 30 million excess men.[10]
Historically, in China, these men have been referred to as ‘bare branches’,[11] and China, as well as other nations have redirected the energy of their bare branches exactly as you would expect:
Historically a common solution to the problem of ‘bare branches’ has been to divert them from domestic trouble-making to foreign expansionist warfare. The Viking raids on Britain were one result of this; so was the conquest of Ceuta. Joao I of Portugal, the illegitimate son of King Peter I, came to power with the help of their own variety of ‘bare branches’ in 1385. But when he realised that their piracy and robbery posed risks to his own rule, he sent them off to seek status and resources by invading North Africa instead, kicking off a long and ugly history of European colonialism on that continent, the repercussions of which still echo today.[12]
If the effects of there not being enough wives in a small, poor and remote country like Sudan are dangerous for that society, and those surrounding it, what is the potential danger when two of the fastest rising powers find that they need to deal with this issue? Add to this, the growing number of young men in the West who are tending towards extreme views because of their involuntary celibacy, and you can see that we have a real problem on our hands. I don’t even think it is potential, I think it is guaranteed, something is going to give, if we don’t find a way to solve it now.
Thankfully, as with so many other issues, the Bible gives us the solution to our Incel issue:
…But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband…8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:2, 8-9)
In other words, we need to regulate the sexual marketplace, so as to give every young man and young woman a reasonable chance of finding a spouse. Some level of competition is inevitable, but there is productive competition and destructive competition.
A free-for-all, causes most people to lose out in the long term. This regulation should ensure that the competition for sexual partners is competition for who can get the best bride or husband, not who can get the most women. It is clear to see that the Bible’s morality is not theoretical, it is foundational to a healthy and stable society. God knows best.
Right now, I hear people saying: wait for a second, God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament, surely then it is ok? But he commanded people not to take too many wives (Deuternomy 17:17), also the Old Testament gives us many examples of the pain that polygamy causes (see the account of Jacob and his wives for example), and in Genesis 2 it shows us God’s intention for the perfect creation was one man, and one wife: “24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:24-25). God clearly intended the marriage relationship to be a union between one man and one woman, and he himself reiterated this when he walked the earth:
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. (Matthew 19:3-6)
This teaching was then continued by Paul, in his household codes:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ (Ephesians 5:25-31)
This has been the consistent teaching in the Church since its inception. “Marriage was regarded in the Church from the beginning as a sacred union of body and soul for the propagation of civil society, and the kingdom of God, for the existence of virtue and the promotion of happiness” (emphasis mine).[13] Is this, frankly, not obvious? The early church saw one man and one woman as the basis for a civil and virtuous society and they, as we have seen, were absolutely right.
Some, like Tertullian, were so against polygamy that they condemned both successive and simultaneous polygamy.[14] That is he condemned remarrying after divorce or after a wife dies, and having more than one wife at once.
I think condemning remarriage after a spouse passes goes too far, and is beyond scripture which supports marrying after your spouse has passed on, but it does highlight how dangerous polygamy has been viewed in Church history, and therefore we should take note of this. The early Church was at pains to make sure that sexual behaviour had a healthy outlet, and was regulated. Sex is like a tiger, you let it roam free in a civilized area and it will create much death and destruction. This is not theoretical at all.
Indeed, the early Church was at pains to see that Christians who committed adultery were punished, precisely because they took seriously the warnings about how destructive sexually unregulated societies were:
[Marriage] was in its nature indissoluble except in the case of adultery, and this crime was charged not only to the woman, but to the man as even the more guilty party, and to every extra-connubial carnal connection. Thus the wife was equally protected against the wrongs of the husband, and chastity was made the general law of family life.[15]
This was a big step ahead of Roman, and other pagan societies which allowed men to commit adultery, but punished the women. The Church was determined that this “sacred union of body and soul for the propagation of civil society, and the kingdom of God, for the existence of virtue and the promotion of happiness” was the basis of any society in which it had influence and power. Because it is the best structure for a stable society, and it honours how God created humans to be.
Sex is an ever-pervasive force in our society, and therefore as Paul says above “…because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”
We should again start to frown on things like wanton divorce and remarriage, in fact, adultery is so destabilizing for a culture, we should seriously consider ways to legally disincentivize it. Sexual promiscuity should be seen as the civilisation destroying force that it is, not just as a lifestyle choice.
You might find it abhorrent to even think of legally regulating such behaviours, but look at Sudan, large swaths of North Africa and the Middle East, the Vikings and more. The results of allowing our sexual culture to progress, as it is progressing will be much more abhorrent to those who face the consequences of our inaction.
Not so long-ago marriage was more prevalent in the community, more men had a reason to get up in the morning to provide for their families, and Incels were a much rarer phenomenon. But now it is a growing one:
The number of American men under 30 who have never had sex tripled between 2008 and 2018 — but hasn’t risen nearly as rapidly for women. The only plausible explanation is that women are still having sex, but they’re competing for a smaller pool of desirable men and leaving the rest on the shelf. So even with normal sex ratios, our culture is creating a sort of flotsam of sexual no-hopers, composed of those males who simply aren’t impressive enough to attract anyone even for a fling, let alone a committed relationship. In case anyone is tempted to dismiss this as harmless losers posting misogynistic memes, remember incels go on actual killing sprees.[21]
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know what is going to happen if this problem grows and escalates. You don’t even need to be a Christian. You just need to open your eyes, observe many countries in the world today, and many in history, and see what the effects of large numbers of dissatisfied, frustrated men can do to society.
But this problem can be mitigated by working towards the advice Paul the Apostle gives us: “…but because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” I know I am repeating myself here, but I think it is necessary, and what is cool is you don’t even have to look to Christian countries to see this advice being taken. A “Saudi Arabian deradicalisation programme essentially involved getting extremists married, and has proved very effective.”[22] Of course, it did, a married man has every reason to work for a stable society, not an unstable one.
Put a load on a ute and it drives straighter and better. Put a loving load on a young man’s back, and it has the same effect. The occasional young man who doesn’t have a wife is sad, a growing number of such men is a tragedy, if it grows to large it is a danger to our whole way of life. It is time for the modern West to stop playing with fire.
The problem with modern society is really that it has the collective wisdom of a 21-year-old. It thinks it knows everything, but basically knows nothing. There is a solution to this growing issue, it’s time to reject the modern sexular culture, and revive the morality of our ancestors, the morality of the teachings of Jesus and Paul, and the morality, that helped make the West great: each man with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
[1] Lahore and Wau, 2017. “The perils of polygamy: The link between polygamy and war.” The Economist: https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2017/12/19/the-link-between-polygamy-and-war, accessed 18/09/2020.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid
[5] Sky News Opinion, 2018. “Letter bombs and IEDs: Were the suffragettes terrorists?” Sky News: https://news.sky.com/story/women-would-have-got-the-vote-earlier-if-not-for-suffragette-terrorists-11227772, accessed 19/09/2020.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Faxneld, Per. 2017. “Romantic and Socialist Satanism” in Satanic Femisnism: Lucifer as Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Oxford University Press, New York: pp74-108.
[10] Harrington, Mary, 2020. “Incels could become the new Vikings: Our culture is creating a flotsam of sexual no-hopers — with disastrous consequences.” Unherd: https://unherd.com/2020/06/incels-could-become-the-new-vikings/, accessed 19/09/2020.
[11] Ibid
[12] Ibid
[13] Schaff, Philip, 1987. A History of the Christian Church. William B. Eerdmans: Michigan. P363.
[14] Ibid, p367.
[15] Ibid,
[16] Harrington, Mary, 2020. “Incels could become the new Vikings: Our culture is creating a flotsam of sexual no-hopers — with disastrous consequences.” Unherd: https://unherd.com/2020/06/incels-could-become-the-new-vikings/, accessed 19/09/2020.
[17] Ibid.
You must be logged in to post a comment.