A terrible idea

I listened to the pro-natalist podcast Based Camp so you don't have to

Last month, word spread that the Trump Administration was consulting with the famous pro-natalists Malcolm and Simone Collins for advice on how to encourage people to have more kids. I’d read about the couple before, and wondered what they were preaching to the world.

Their Based Camp YouTube channel (which doubles as a podcast) has 37 thousand subscribers, and they have nearly 10 thousand followers on Twitter. So, not a massive following. But after I reviewed some of their content, even ten followers sounds a little terrifying. Here’s a glimpse:

What’s wrong with lifting? What’s wrong with masturbation? Why are they flinging around baseless claims based on suspicions they have about if it were studied? I picked this tweet because it’s a great example of the kind of “education” they provide across the board. Baseless.

My “terrible idea” was to listen to their podcast and report back. I wanted to save you the trouble of listening to nonsense. And it is mostly nonsense, but if these people are aiming for a pro-natal empire, I thought it was important to know their game. I fully support policies that help people have the kids they want (which the Collins’ claim is their aim) and to raise them healthy and safe. I am not for any policy that forces women to have kids they don’t want, like restrictions to abortion and contraception, and social dynamics that encourage or allow abusive misogynistic relationships.

The first time I listened, I had my earphones in while I pulled weeds in the backyard. There were several outbursts during the 41 minute episode. Here are the highlights.

Women need to be converted

The episode in question is from April 23, and is called Dating for Marriage: Why Red Pill Strategies Backfire. This one caught my eye because the Collins’ espouse a mixed bag of political ideas, and I wondered what helpful things they might have to say about “red pill strategies.” For those not in the know on the lingo (and oh, lucky you): Red-pilled is a slang term meaning “having taken the red pill,” with red pill referring to something that causes someone to recognize a reality previously concealed from them. It is widely used as a disparagement of people associated with far-right or reactionary ideologies (from Webster). People on the right might say they’ve had a red pill moment in a positive way, as in now they see why vaccines are bad. On the left we might say it’s when someone goes down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole, never to return.

The main point of this episode is to explain to men how to “secure and convert” “high value” women for the purposes of a cis hetero marriage that produces many children. Simone did not want to marry or have kids, but Malcolm converted her. The problem, according to the pair, is that men are failing to attract and convert “urban monoculture” women — these are women who are career-oriented and never want kids, like Simone used to be. They argue that men who try to be tough and masculine (redpilled into pursuing a trad or 1950s-style relationship) are not attractive to these women, who instead want to marry men who are passionate and committed, with a particular goal to which the woman can be a part.

I can’t say I disagree with this conception of what makes some men unattractive. When I was online dating, I immediately rejected anyone who had a photo showing off a car, a gym selfie, or some kind of hunting expedition. In retrospect, I suppose I saw these images as a cover for some kind of insecurity. The men were trying too hard to look tough, and I didn’t want someone tough. I wanted someone kind, and I don’t believe kind people are generally worried about looking strong, or appearances in general.

Who cares what women want

But the Collins’ argument breaks down in two ways.

1. Malcolm dominates the discussion, often telling his listeners what women are looking for, while Simone nods along and says nothing. She does chime in eventually, but Malcolm takes the lead, perhaps because their listeners are primarily men (something they note at the end of the episode). I’d also guess that if they are men who buy into Malcolm’s message to “convert” women, they’re more likely to want advice from a man even when a woman is RIGHT THERE. Example:

   Simone: Women are also looking for someone dependable and consistent and a safe person to invest in.

   Malcolm: I disagree, actually. Listen to this and then you’ll be like, oh yeah you’re right.

   Simone: Ok.
   [this is when my brain exploded]

2. Their entire discussion is based on the premise that women need to be tricked into committing to a goal the man already possesses, and then integrated into the pursuit of that goal so much that it would be unwise to leave. Malcolm spends considerable time explaining how men can avoid being victims of hypergamy, which he seems to define as a woman leaving her husband for a man of marginally more wealth.

Malcolm argues that a woman can leave her husband and receive a “stipend” for the rest of her life, so men need to work harder to integrate them, rather than allow them to simply fill the interchangable role of someone who does the laundry, cooks dinner and births children. Gee, thanks. I appreciate the argument against a trad-wife dynamic, but this is hardly a call for viewing women as independently interesting and goal-oriented individuals.

High-value women are chaste and greedy

Malcolm says that “really high quality women…want to be support for a guy doing something big and interesting enough to be worth dedicating your life to a supporting role in that.” WOW.

Even more offensive than stating the patently obvious — that women are good for more than just being a housewife, even if that is the labor they contribute — is the implication that any “high value” woman would simply leave for a few more dollars, so men need to create a fail-safe. He also notes that women mistakenly believe that they can leave a marriage and find a new partner who is just as good, but they can’t (I guess because she’s no longer as young and hot as she once was?), and wind up making “dumb decisions.”

Oh, and if you’re wondering what a “high value” woman is, it is apparently the opposite of someone who will go home with you for a one-night-stand. High value women are chaste, and you’d never marry a promiscuous woman (who is also, apparently, less interesting than a chaste woman, according to Malcolm).

Can you tell how much I hate this guy?

Men try to accommodate women in the urban monoculture rather than shock them out of it for something more and bigger. — Malcolm Collins

So, how do you convert a high-value woman?

The supposed point of the episode was to explain how to convert women from wanting their own lives to wanting to marry a man with his own goals you can help him achieve. And the answer, for men, is to have big goals, be passionate, and bring your wife in as a partner in that goal. If that’s what men take away from this episode, I think that’s actually great (if your wife wants to be a partner)! But acting in a particular way in order to “convert” a woman into something she isn’t is…not ideal. Neither is the framing of married women as money-grubbing, uncommitted leeches.

I can’t think of a scenario in which I would give up what I wanted for my life to “hitch my wagon” (Simone’s terminology) to someone else’s dreams. To be fair, in other interviews Simone has explained that Malcolm told her she wouldn’t have to give anything up, and apparently, she hasn’t. She works all the time, taking off only the day of her C-section because of the drugs, and she likes it that way.

But if she never planned to have kids, was it Malcolm’s passion and commitment to his goals that converted her into someone who wants to have seven? I’m not convinced.