Jordan Peterson

[Hygro]

Yes, by quoting him saying things that he, in fact, said
The ultimate smear tactic

Have you ever been edited by a journalist? It's offensive.

 

[Bootstoots]

Actually, I changed my mind. Life's too short to waste more time defending Jordan Peterson on the internet. I don't even agree with him on much of what he's become controversial for - I align closer to the social justice left than to Peterson's mainstream conservatism on most issues.

I mean, I can see fairly obvious misrepresentations. For instance, with the "enforced monogamy" comment, I'm virtually certain he means that a social order where people are expected to have exactly one partner leads to fewer unpaired men and less of this sort of inchoate violence. He's definitely not suggesting that women be forced to marry men not of their choosing. On the flip side, it isn't as though we've changed to some sort of polygamous society, as he seems to suggest. That would indeed result in lots of unpaired men. But that's not the kind of society we live in - ours has more serial monogamy than the society of the 1950s but very little unofficial polygamy. So he's pretty clearly wrong to blame changing social mores for the existence of incels, even though he's definitely not suggesting women be assigned to men forcibly or something.

Ultimately, nothing I can say is going to sound like anything other than a bunch of repetitions of "no, he's clearly not saying [extreme position], he's saying [moderately conservative position]". That sounds unconvincing, makes it look like I support [moderately conservative position], and takes a lot of time. It's just not worth it.

 

[Synobun]

I mean, I can see fairly obvious misrepresentations. For instance, with the "enforced monogamy" comment, I'm virtually certain he means that a social order where people are expected to have exactly one partner leads to fewer unpaired men and less of this sort of inchoate violence. He's definitely not suggesting that women be forced to marry men not of their choosing.

Is there a functional difference with this distinction, though? If you restrict the stock of available men, then undesirable men will be selected. You're giving women an artificial choice; by enforcing a single partner throughout one's entire life, you're also enforcing a beggars-can't-be-choosers approach for those that remain. You are not with your partner because they are your choice, you are with them because you weren't given an alternative option. I don't quite understand how this would not only cure the Incel but somehow be a positive driving force for society.

"I'm not arguing that women should be forced to marry men not of their choosing, I'm arguing that women should have their options limited so that undesirable men can get a wife." does not strike me as two statements that are exceptionally different in scope and effect.

 

[Arwon]

It also elides the fairly obvious question of why men given to violence against women would be less violent having a woman sexual partner. "Enforced monogamy" to address misogynist violence would seem to be a rather spectacularly poor way of reducing misogynist violence. No matter how you're proposing to apply the force against women.

 

[Mouthwash]

I mean, I can see fairly obvious misrepresentations. For instance, with the "enforced monogamy" comment, I'm virtually certain he means that a social order where people are expected to have exactly one partner leads to fewer unpaired men and less of this sort of inchoate violence. He's definitely not suggesting that women be forced to marry men not of their choosing. On the flip side, it isn't as though we've changed to some sort of polygamous society, as he seems to suggest. That would indeed result in lots of unpaired men. But that's not the kind of society we live in - ours has more serial monogamy than the society of the 1950s but very little unofficial polygamy. So he's pretty clearly wrong to blame changing social mores for the existence of incels, even though he's definitely not suggesting women be assigned to men forcibly or something.

You mean less serial monogamy? Also, your claim of 'very little unofficial polygamy' doesn't sound like it includes casual sex/one-night stands, which it should.

Is there a functional difference with this distinction, though? If you restrict the stock of available men, then undesirable men will be selected. You're giving women an artificial choice; by enforcing a single partner throughout one's entire life, you're also enforcing a beggars-can't-be-choosers approach for those that remain. You are not with your partner because they are your choice, you are with them because you weren't given an alternative option. I don't quite understand how this would not only cure the Incel but somehow be a positive driving force for society.

I think you're assuming here that the quality of spouse someone can get is due to random chance. Even if we had five-year-long marriage contracts, lower-status women and men would always be scraping the bottom of the barrel. But allowing that freedom is corrosive for committed relationships.

"I'm not arguing that women should be forced to marry men not of their choosing, I'm arguing that women should have their options limited so that undesirable men can get a wife." does not strike me as two statements that are exceptionally different in scope and effect.

There's a huge difference between literally forcing someone to marry and leaving them no other options for marriage. It's not about improving their prospects, it's simply about not coercing them to do something that affects their lives that hugely.

As for improving their prospects, I'm not sure what other option exists besides leaving less attractive men out in the cold entirely. And while your belief that the quality of partners available for unattractive women is more important than the ability of unattractive men to get a partner at all is horrifically evil, it also nicely demonstrates how modern feminism is about female sexual status and power - so thank you for that.

 

[Synobun]

It is horrifically evil to not impose artificial limitations on mate choice for females? I'm cool with that.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

As for actually improving their prospects, I'm not sure what other option exists besides leaving less attractive men out in the cold entirely. And while your belief that the quality of partners available for unattractive women is more important than the ability of unattractive men to get a partner at all is horrifically evil, it also nicely demonstrates how modern feminism is about female sexual status and power - so thank you for that.

Polyandry provides an option.

 

[Mouthwash]

It also elides the fairly obvious question of why men given to violence against women would be less violent having a woman sexual partner. "Enforced monogamy" to address misogynist violence would seem to be a rather spectacularly poor way of reducing misogynist violence. No matter how you're proposing to apply the force against women.

What if, hold on to your hat, misogynist violence might be sometimes caused by not having a partner?

It is horrifically evil to not impose artificial limitations on mate choice for females? I'm cool with that.

So you're agreeing with me? Or you're accepting the merits of horrific evil? It's rather unclear.

Polyandry provides an option.

Polyandry doesn't work. It goes against the nature of all sexually-reproducing organisms (eusocial animals excepted), so we're fighting a billion-year-old impulse, one literally existential in terms of passing our genes on. What makes you assume it can be done?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Polyandry might be less common than polygyny, but it can and does work in at least 50 human societies. It has long been common in the Himalayas, especially when all of a woman's husbands were each other's brothers. There is historical and archeological evidence that such practices were common in many more societies in the past, before patriarchal monarchs and religious figures worked to outlaw such unions.


Polyandry is also quite common among many other animals, including primates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_nature

Polyandry seems to be most adaptive for species that require considerable amounts of parental care and which live in environments where resources are too scarce for high rates of population growth to be advantageous. This seems to describe modern humans rather well.

 

[metalhead]

If chaos is feminine, does that make Donald Trump the first woman president, apart from his porcelain dollbaby hands?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

If chaos is feminine, does that make Donald Trump the first woman president, apart from his porcelain dollbaby hands?

Chaos is actually neuter though, so maybe that means Trump is the first eunuch president? Maybe he paid off Stormy to prevent her from revealing that he doesn't really have genitals or that all his sexist talk is just overcompensation meant to hide the fact that he is really asexual?

 

[Mouthwash]

Polyandry might be less common than polygyny, but it can and does work in at least 50 human societies. It has long been common in the Himalayas, especially when all of a woman's husbands were each other's brothers. There is historical and archeological evidence that such practices were common in many more societies in the past, before patriarchal monarchs and religious figures worked to outlaw such unions.


Polyandry is also quite common among many other animals, including primates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_nature

Polyandry seems to be most adaptive for species that require considerable amounts of parental care and which live in environments where resources are too scarce for high rates of population growth to be advantageous. This seems to describe modern humans rather well.

Even if I was wrong, everything you say goes out the window when talking about large-scale human societies. Polygyny breeds resentment, jealousy and neglect. Why should polyandry be any different?

 

[Berzerker]

men who are violent toward women shouldn't procreate for the good of the species

hell, it dont matter who their victims are, violent people shouldn't procreate

 

[Traitorfish]

It's worth noting that Peterson has pointed to the liberalisation of divorce laws as one of the great ills of twenty-first century society.

He may not support forcing women to marry, but he seems comfortable forcing them to stay married.

 

[Senethro]

I was surprised to learn that the UK doesn't have no fault divorce.

Also wow this rabbit hole goes deep, and those digging themselves deeper blame women for it.

 

[Synobun]

So you're agreeing with me? Or you're accepting the merits of horrific evil? It's rather unclear.

Mostly I'm making fun of the idea that preventing men from forcing women to be with them is a horrific evil that exists only to benefit women and their 'power'. You are describing the prevention of removing an entire gender's freedom as a deliberate evil against men. It is hilarious.

If nobody wants you, the problem is you, not everyone else. You aren't being picked because you are not worth picking, not because there is some female conspiracy to embrace a harem lifestyle with Brad Pitt and Hugh Jackman. Peterson helps you believe that it's not your fault when it explicitly is your fault. He paints a picture signifying a divide between men and women, a divide that 'makes sense', and tells you that you need to be better so you can embrace your rightful masculinity while implying (or directly saying) that if you don't get a woman, be it by choice or by social enforcement, you are likely to devolve to the point of aimless mass murder. He is selling validation for a crowd that eagerly wants to believe there's a conspiracy against them and couching it between "life pro tips" like cleaning your room and instilling self-confidence.

It is extremely difficult to be desired by no one. If you have reached that point, give your head a shake and self-reflect. The cause is not an underlying conspiracy bought into by every woman you encounter. The cause is you.

 

[Lexicus]

Have you ever been edited by a journalist? It's offensive.

This would be a more persuasive argument if
1) Peterson hadn't invited the journalist into his house, and
2) if there was any omitted context that could make those things he said acceptable. Like if he had been saying "just kidding" after all of them but the reporter neglected to mention it. But somehow I doubt that's the case...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is extremely difficult to be desired by no one. If you have reached that point, give your head a shake and self-reflect. The cause is not an underlying conspiracy bought into by every woman you encounter. The cause is you.

Or, for example, the house fire that burnt 70% of your skin off.

 

[Synobun]

Or, for example, the house fire that burnt 70% of your skin off.

Deformed people are still capable of being desired and finding a partner in life.

 

[Kozmos]

Sure, but then you are talking lottery odds.