Some background first: there are two different "redpill" groups in the manosphere: there's the game-derived redpill stuff, eg. TRP at Reddit, and the reactionary-type redpill stuff, eg. Jim (who needs no surname).
Anyway, the main difference between them is that, where they differ, the reactionary-type stuff i…
Some background first: there are two different "redpill" groups in the manosphere: there's the game-derived redpill stuff, eg. TRP at Reddit, and the reactionary-type redpill stuff, eg. Jim (who needs no surname).
Anyway, the main difference between them is that, where they differ, the reactionary-type stuff is correct, and the game-derived stuff is wrong.
The reason why I explain this is because "hormonal birth control as irreversible material condition explaning rampant female promiscuity" exegesis is one of the conventional wisdoms of the game-type redpill (and I assume this is why you're asking).
And it's wrong, of course. If it were true, you'd see the most rampant female promiscuity in the places where you can buy hormonal birth control OTC (eg. Latin America). You don't, though. You see the most rampant female promiscuity where women have the most sociocultural power - something predicted by the reactionary-type manosphere.
So to answer your question: no (people would just use other contraceptives instead, and it's hard to imagine that makes much difference).
Have been reading Jim's blog for the last several days, mostly in the reverse order - starting with the latest posts and going back in time. But also sampled by topic some of his writings on the social benefits of treating women as property. Some observations so far:
(1) I mostly agree with him directionally and generally in diagnosing the ills of modern American (and therefore all first-world) society.
(2) I love the "holiness spiral" idea. I've seen it at work myself and it affected my life. I know first-hand it is real and dangerous.
(3) I think he plays fast and loose with the facts to fit his preconceived notions (e.g. Jews being snobby about getting their hands dirty and therefore not contributing to technology. And, of course, most of his appeals to Evolutionary Psychology - which are just so so stories under the guise of science.) And he drinks his own cool-aid. Thus his predictions, while directionally sound, do not come to pass. E.g. all of his Trump predictions.
(4) His idea of Stalin stopping the slide into the left singularity is very intriguing. It does fit many of the facts well.
(5) Unfortunately I tend to agree with him about what the future holds, contra Moldbug. Just because of the historical precedents. Although seeing how his predictions come out wrong, 2026 is also probably the wrong date. We will know better in 2024, though.
The reason I am asking about the pill has nothing to do with the manosphere. Any time I come in contact with almost anything in that space I feel slightly nauseous. Not necessarily because I intellectually disagree. Like, I do not intellectually disagree with someone making sweet love to a dead goat. I exaggerate, of course. Slightly. And when you say "Jim who needs no surname" I immediately think The Doors. Although when I googled him I realized that I had read some of his stuff before (e.g. Reaction 101) in passing.
There is an approach that if something hurts you should do it more. At some point I decided, however, that outside of my professional and family life I would strive to avoid negative emotions. I avoid depressing or abusive friends. And I do not watch horror movies. All of the above is of course about me. No disrespect for manosphere denizens meant or implied.
The thesis that the pill was at the root of the Sexual Revolution, which in turn is probably the cause of most of the angsts and tragedy in the modern relationship world, does not appear in one single place. It's a very attractive idea and I implicitly took it for granted. Until I started thinking about it. Not deeply, mind you, and more from the side. Here are the red flags I found:
(1) It's reductionist - reducing complex cultural phenomena to simpler lower-level causes.
(2) It's thoroughly materialistic.
(2a) Moreover, it smells Marxist. According to Marx ideas are the product of material conditions, and only of the material conditions.
(3) It is supported by The Cathedral dons (Tyler Cowen comes to mind)
(4) A significant part of the Sexual Revolution happened more silently and gradually in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic which was used by the progressives to install sex education in schools. I do not know much about the latter (my kids are homeschooled), but my hunch is that it is not only about wearing condoms, it goes much deeper than that.
None of those red flags is a refutation or a strong direct argument against the thesis, though. As a matter of fact I am still not convinced that it's totally false.
The Latin America argument on its own does not refute it. The main point of the thesis is that the pill was at the root of women obtaining the Ring of sociocultural power, misuse of which is in turn "the cause of most of the angst and tragedy..." The pill just did not have enough force to tip over deeply conservative Latin American attitudes.
Will go read Jim. It is to be hoped that the pain is worth the gain.
This is a long one to answer.
Some background first: there are two different "redpill" groups in the manosphere: there's the game-derived redpill stuff, eg. TRP at Reddit, and the reactionary-type redpill stuff, eg. Jim (who needs no surname).
Anyway, the main difference between them is that, where they differ, the reactionary-type stuff is correct, and the game-derived stuff is wrong.
The reason why I explain this is because "hormonal birth control as irreversible material condition explaning rampant female promiscuity" exegesis is one of the conventional wisdoms of the game-type redpill (and I assume this is why you're asking).
And it's wrong, of course. If it were true, you'd see the most rampant female promiscuity in the places where you can buy hormonal birth control OTC (eg. Latin America). You don't, though. You see the most rampant female promiscuity where women have the most sociocultural power - something predicted by the reactionary-type manosphere.
So to answer your question: no (people would just use other contraceptives instead, and it's hard to imagine that makes much difference).
Have been reading Jim's blog for the last several days, mostly in the reverse order - starting with the latest posts and going back in time. But also sampled by topic some of his writings on the social benefits of treating women as property. Some observations so far:
(1) I mostly agree with him directionally and generally in diagnosing the ills of modern American (and therefore all first-world) society.
(2) I love the "holiness spiral" idea. I've seen it at work myself and it affected my life. I know first-hand it is real and dangerous.
(3) I think he plays fast and loose with the facts to fit his preconceived notions (e.g. Jews being snobby about getting their hands dirty and therefore not contributing to technology. And, of course, most of his appeals to Evolutionary Psychology - which are just so so stories under the guise of science.) And he drinks his own cool-aid. Thus his predictions, while directionally sound, do not come to pass. E.g. all of his Trump predictions.
(4) His idea of Stalin stopping the slide into the left singularity is very intriguing. It does fit many of the facts well.
(5) Unfortunately I tend to agree with him about what the future holds, contra Moldbug. Just because of the historical precedents. Although seeing how his predictions come out wrong, 2026 is also probably the wrong date. We will know better in 2024, though.
I appreciate your response, thank you.
The reason I am asking about the pill has nothing to do with the manosphere. Any time I come in contact with almost anything in that space I feel slightly nauseous. Not necessarily because I intellectually disagree. Like, I do not intellectually disagree with someone making sweet love to a dead goat. I exaggerate, of course. Slightly. And when you say "Jim who needs no surname" I immediately think The Doors. Although when I googled him I realized that I had read some of his stuff before (e.g. Reaction 101) in passing.
There is an approach that if something hurts you should do it more. At some point I decided, however, that outside of my professional and family life I would strive to avoid negative emotions. I avoid depressing or abusive friends. And I do not watch horror movies. All of the above is of course about me. No disrespect for manosphere denizens meant or implied.
The thesis that the pill was at the root of the Sexual Revolution, which in turn is probably the cause of most of the angsts and tragedy in the modern relationship world, does not appear in one single place. It's a very attractive idea and I implicitly took it for granted. Until I started thinking about it. Not deeply, mind you, and more from the side. Here are the red flags I found:
(1) It's reductionist - reducing complex cultural phenomena to simpler lower-level causes.
(2) It's thoroughly materialistic.
(2a) Moreover, it smells Marxist. According to Marx ideas are the product of material conditions, and only of the material conditions.
(3) It is supported by The Cathedral dons (Tyler Cowen comes to mind)
(4) A significant part of the Sexual Revolution happened more silently and gradually in the aftermath of the AIDS epidemic which was used by the progressives to install sex education in schools. I do not know much about the latter (my kids are homeschooled), but my hunch is that it is not only about wearing condoms, it goes much deeper than that.
None of those red flags is a refutation or a strong direct argument against the thesis, though. As a matter of fact I am still not convinced that it's totally false.
The Latin America argument on its own does not refute it. The main point of the thesis is that the pill was at the root of women obtaining the Ring of sociocultural power, misuse of which is in turn "the cause of most of the angst and tragedy..." The pill just did not have enough force to tip over deeply conservative Latin American attitudes.
Will go read Jim. It is to be hoped that the pain is worth the gain.
Thank you, again.