Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy " The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships. Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end. “Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.” I laugh, because it is absurd. “You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”" How the flip is this guy so popular? He's calling for enforced monogamy, and that violent men, are violent, because women won't sleep with them. How can anybody defend views like this?
If this is going to be a thread about people's reactions viewing this article without having listened to this guy or know what his general message actually is, then I'm definitely not going to try to inform or stop anyone. I find the willingness to read an article filled with not so veiled personal attacks and clear disdain for somebody from the start as a legitimate piece of journalism because it aligns with your political agenda to be absolutely fascinating. Unbeknownst (or maybe he knows?) to philosoraptor, this is one of the reasons I really like the guy.
So your saying he's misquoted? or does enforced monogamy and blaming women for not sleeping with violent boys (they're not men let's face it) means something else?
Source: On the New York Times and "Enforced Monogamy" The "enforced" bit literally just means enforced by a social convention most societies tend toward. It means enforced in the same way handshakes are enforced as a social convention in the western world.
Ok so how do we make that manifest? See here is the fundamental problem...its great to say "it decreases violence in males" (though the domestic violence stats may speak against that) but there is ZERO ability to make that a practical step to deal with worthless scum like incels "Oh if they were in a relationship they would be OK" Then they shouldnt be in a relationship because if the only thing stopping them being violent is being in a relationship then they should not be anywhete near one because it will inevitably boil over into violence against the partner I would not want any female i know associated with one of these crap bags
No the solution is to make sure these people get help for their mental condition not inflict their neurosis on another human being This isnt out of context - it is a direct quote
I am pretty sure that in a society where it's not societally acceptable for a woman to leave an abusive man, domestic violence is actually more common, not less common. Maybe barfights are less common among married men than single men, but given a choice between a society with more domestic abuse and fewer barfights, and a society with more barfights and less domestic abuse, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat. Also, "enforced monogamy," even after his hand-waving explanation blog post in response to the NY Times article, sounds to me a lot like societal acceptance of marital rape.
I'm not sure that you can. I think in the era where we've moved beyond conservative religiously guided societies it's not feasible. I think it would probably be easier to deal with what is socially isolating people like increased internet contact vs. real contact and pornography. I think there's a difference between looking at something and saying "this does this" and being able to functionally or morally reproduce it in a practical context. Sometimes you can glean a bit of applicable wisdom from that analysis, sometimes not. For example the correlation between the ease of terrorist recruitment and the lack of women in certain regions (notably due to polygamy) doesn't mean we should be air-dropping women. You don't know that, and neither do I. I think equally important is the fact that the social skills and contacts which would likely allow them to be successful would also give them things like confidence, social support, etc. People are not tabula rasa and their lack of success with women doesn't exist in isolation to their other personal capacities. Peterson's point, and one that he's made before is that monogamy has social utility, in this case vis-a-vis the availability of women and lowered competition mates, and in addition that sexually frustrated males are more violent, which I think is well supported. I take Peterson's point ot be more analysis than proscription, that one of the factors regulating male aggression has been culturally enforced monogamy. In an era of increasingly self-regulated behaviour, as opposed to culturally regulated behaviour I think monogamy is largely no longer viable and hasn't been for a long time. I think the more important bit is that we need to find a way to deal with the increasing social isolation and degradation of social skills for a large part of the populous, because short of killing any man who can't get a woman I can't see any other way to deal with what I think is likely going to be an increasing problem.
In the context of an academic analyzing human sexual interaction and its impact, to me it reads more as maintaining only one partner at a time than confining people to a specific partner especially because his point is specifically about sexual availability and mating success rather than enforced long-term pair-bonding.
Societally Arranged Marriages lend far more stability with a much lower divorce rate - why are we not advocating for this? Peterson isn't theorizing - he is literally suggesting it an option....and he is utterly wrong for doing so.
Lets go even more natural - If you don't get a partner then nature is saying you are not worth seeding as your genetic material is not offering anything that another wishes to procreate with The whole incel movement sickens me and the only thing I draw solace from is the fact that if they remain celebate then their gene pool evaporates
I think one of the problems with Peterson-esque language is referring to women more like a natural resource to be gathered and distributed, and less like equal members of society. I have huge problems with that sort of language or worldview. If women still have agency over their own lives and bodies in Peterson's utopia, and this isn't baby steps toward "confining people to a specific partner" or a Handmaid's Tale hellscape, how exactly does monogamy lead to "lowered competition mates"? People who aren't attracting relationship partners currently...still won't. It's not like American or UK society is currently polygamous to any significant degree. Instead, you have some people who are in long-term monogamous relationships, and some people who bounce from partner to partner (typically one partner at a time, even if it's for a short time), and some people of both genders who are not in relationships. This is one reason why I find Peterson's covering-his-butt blog posts where he denies wanting to trap women with abusive or bad men, or he tries to explain away all his horrifying quotes, somewhat disingenuous.
Because we've largely given up on the idea of society regulating people's behaviour. Nothing in his post reads as a recommendation to actively bend our culture toward forcibly making people monogamous. In fact he expressly says the opposite at the end in what I think is explicitly clear language. It's a mental health/social problem as far as I'm concerned and we have the tools to potentially deal with it. I suppose it depends on how much you want natural Darwinism versus enhanced Darwinism. Do you want to toss everyone in the pit to fight it out just as they are or do you want to bring everyone to the peak of their competitive capability and give it a go? I suppose we could equally let everyone with depression have access to pre-made nooses. How much like the Nietzscheans from Andromeda do you want to become with throwing people into the grinder versus helping them? Personally I think treating failure as anything but a challenge is foolish. Their defeatist attitude is worthless, their ideology of violent tantrums is sickening.
If we were analyzing female mating we'd be referring to men in what would be equally unpalatable terms. Men compete and women try to choose the most successful and compatible mate. In that respect men are equally a commodity. The hard truth is that sexual selection doesn't care about your very human idea of self or your feelings. Pretend you're dealing with chimps. I'm not exactly certain what your question is here. A little help? This is why I wouldn't say his analysis is wrong, just incomplete. And I would say that they're more polygamous than in previous decades, and you combine that with the social isolation and social voyeurism of the internet. I would put it to you that with women it is more voluntary than with men, hence the "involuntary" part of "incel." If I took three of my males friends and three of my female friends to a bar, all else being equal, who do you think would have a harder time getting laid?
The part where the entire transcript of the interview isn't available to the reader to see if there was any nuance, whether he even knew they were addressing incel culture and if he's even aware of it (it is a recent thing in the news) . . . . those would help to provide context. I can't provide you context beyond the "he isn't talking about government enforcing monogamy" (although it generally already does) because the author decided to leave context out. He's certainly not saying the extreme interpretation everyone is going with. I'm sure along with what the author quoted he babbled on for 20 minutes about the topic, and he probably said some things that provide a bit of nuance to what he is quoted as saying. That's generally how it goes. A month or so ago he was "the noble savage" in a scathing profiling, a couple weeks ago he was anti-semetic, this week he hates all women and thinks they should all be sex slaves to incels. I wonder what he's gonna' be after rebounding from this one? Probably anti-mexican or something.
I'm willing to bet money that you pulled this off a message board or a comment section for a quick hip fire response.
I think the incel movement is potentially a product of how the relationship dynamic has changed (mainly between men and women) and the lack of ability to adapt on the incel's part. A contingency of how our culture has developed. I also think things like school shootings in the U.S. are a contingency to how our culture has developed (and not just the availability of firearms), among other things. Bad stuff, as well as good stuff result from new things in culture changes we are enforcing in society or by law. This isn't a defense of incels, or school shootings. They just happen. "You suck and need to die you scum" is only a viable way to think about it if we're going to go kill them all. Hate is a hard thing to come out of, especially when it festers in your ideological bubble (which the incels have online). Good thing I was intelligent enough to get around my own hate towards Muslims on my own, and was jarred into reconsidering how I felt when a Muslim woman in a burka at the grocery store clung her child close to her and started backing away from me because I didn't realize I was scowling at her like I was going to kill her. Hate is the same all around, it just grabs people in different ways. Sometimes society sees it as righteous, sometimes as deplorable, but to the person who experiences it whether it's born from a personal failure or thrust upon them from society, it is definitely empowering to the individual embracing it. You can't shame people out of real, tangible hate from my experiences. But sure, let's drive a group of people who have serious issues and social failures further into the ground by shaming and insulting them with no other real solution to get them help. I'm sure that's going to work out well.
