Enforced monogamy; was Peterson right?

[Liriena]

He's the poster child for the men's rights movement and for the manosphere in general

Your poster child is a religious traditionalist who lowkey thinks traditional gender roles are biologically determined and inherently good, and that legalizing divorce was bad?

Not a very good look if you're aiming for an empancipatory movement.

It sure ain't gonna get you a lot of friends who also support left-wing economic policies, at least.

[Darussalam]

Sexual inequality is favorable in a way that wealth inequality is favorable: long-term positive-sum goals through selection, provided the correct underlying institutional mechanism that ensures sexual marketplace to self-regulate and self-select inherited behaviors and traits.

It is unfavorable in the same way that wealth inequality is unfavorable, but it is a little amusing to observe how opinions tend to converge/diverge in this regard within a single individual/worldview.

[Liriena]

sexual marketplace

Get your filthy capitalism out of my sex, goddammit!

[Uxupox]

Even if wolves did behave in that manner, it wouldn't be an argument for how humans do/should act. You might as well say we should be matriarchal because hyenas are.

why not. my life is already led by one.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Your poster child is a religious traditionalist who lowkey thinks traditional gender roles are biologically determined and inherently good, and that legalizing divorce was bad?

Not a very good look if you're aiming for an empancipatory movement.

It sure ain't gonna get you a lot of friends who also support left-wing economic policies, at least.

Enforced monogamy has one drawback, among many, that I'd like to point out in that not every person is monogamous by nature. Some are polyamorous. And sure, that may be a minority and some may think not a good enough reason to take into consideration but any time you have a state enforce how people are going to love, bad juju happens.

[New Emeline]

Even if wolves did behave in that manner, it wouldn't be an argument for how humans do/should act. You might as well say we should be matriarchal because hyenas are.

why not. my life is already led by one.

A hyena controls your life?
I mean, it's plausible. Who could say no to this face?

[Liriena]

It sure ain't gonna get you a lot of friends who also support left-wing economic policies, at least.

Enforced monogamy has one drawback, among many, that I'd like to point out in that not every person is monogamous by nature. Some are polyamorous. And sure, that may be a minority and some may think not a good enough reason to take into consideration but any time you have a state enforce how people are going to love, bad juju happens.

Why do I love the phrase "bad juju" so much?

[Uxupox]

why not. my life is already led by one.

A hyena controls your life?
I mean, it's plausible. Who could say no to this face?

[img]"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/2667_Spotted_Hyena_Cubs.JPG/200px-2667_Spotted_Hyena_Cubs.JPG"[/img]

a hyena like woman sure.

[Galloism]

He's the poster child for the men's rights movement and for the manosphere in general

Your poster child is a religious traditionalist who lowkey thinks traditional gender roles are biologically determined and inherently good, and that legalizing divorce was bad?

Look, I don't like Peterson for lots of reasons, but I don't know that he said "gender roles... are inherently good". His speechmaking has always been that men and women might make different choices on average, and this is ok. But that both should also be allowed to make different choices, both different from each other (as gender) and different from each other (within gender).

He's argued in favor of equality of opportunity and against equality of outcome.

[Liriena]

why not. my life is already led by one.

A hyena controls your life?

Women be shrill and nagging am I right? Eh? Eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*

[Cedoria]

If the question on any subject is "Was Jordan Peterson right?" you can make a safe bet the answer is usually 'No',

Does that give my view clearly enough?

[Costa Fierro]

He's the poster child for the men's rights movement and for the manosphere in general

Your poster child is a religious traditionalist who lowkey thinks traditional gender roles are biologically determined and inherently good, and that legalizing divorce was bad?

Not a very good look if you're aiming for an empancipatory movement.

The men's rights movement is negatively perceived by the wider public with or without Jordan Peterson. This is what happens when you have a social movement in its nascent stages being targeted by one that had deliberately placed itself in opposition to the rights of men while simultaneously pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of the general public by claiming they're about equality.

It sure ain't gonna get you a lot of friends who also support left-wing economic policies, at least.

One can be left wing economically and still be socially conservative. Such views are not mutually exclusive.

[New Emeline]

A hyena controls your life?

Women be shrill and nagging am I right? Eh? Eh? *wink wink nudge nudge*

I don't get why hyenas are demonized so much. They're so cute! And they actually score higher on group intelligence tests than chimpanzees.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Enforced monogamy has one drawback, among many, that I'd like to point out in that not every person is monogamous by nature. Some are polyamorous. And sure, that may be a minority and some may think not a good enough reason to take into consideration but any time you have a state enforce how people are going to love, bad juju happens.

Why do I love the phrase "bad juju" so much?

Sounds nice and you know it.

[Galloism]

It sure ain't gonna get you a lot of friends who also support left-wing economic policies, at least.

One can be left wing economically and still be socially conservative. Such views are not mutually exclusive.

It's also worth noting that Peterson isn't right wing - he's pretty centrist, a classical liberal even. In favor of universal healthcare, against compelled speech.

[Cedoria]

Not the full transcript (at least, not that I can see on my phone) but Peterson's response is on his site:

https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategoriz ... -monogamy/

“enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”

Welp, figured there was something missing.

Alright, /thread, let's move on folks.

Nobody's missing anybody.

This is what Peterson does, he says something insane/stupid, when people get annoyed or point out he's wrong, he weasal's out by saying he didn't really mean what everybody heard him say.

It means he can talk at length and sound really smart about subjects which he knows nothing, while simultaneously never getting pinned down on any subject that would prove him wrong.

Guy's an intellectual fraud of the worst kind, one who uses a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.


It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

[Costa Fierro]

It is unfavorable in the same way that wealth inequality is unfavorable, but it is a little amusing to observe how opinions tend to converge/diverge in this regard within a single individual/worldview.

What I find interesting is that people call out entitlement when someone does not have much or any sex and doesn't like it, but bend over backwards to accommodate people who complain about the lack of money. Not that I am implying anything, it's a simple observation.

[New Emeline]

It is unfavorable in the same way that wealth inequality is unfavorable, but it is a little amusing to observe how opinions tend to converge/diverge in this regard within a single individual/worldview.

What I find interesting is that people call out entitlement when someone does not have much or any sex and doesn't like it, but bend over backwards to accommodate people who complain about the lack of money. Not that I am implying anything, it's a simple observation.

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

[Galloism]

What I find interesting is that people call out entitlement when someone does not have much or any sex and doesn't like it, but bend over backwards to accommodate people who complain about the lack of money. Not that I am implying anything, it's a simple observation.

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

Depends what you did with the money first.

.... I'll show myself out.

[Uxupox]

What I find interesting is that people call out entitlement when someone does not have much or any sex and doesn't like it, but bend over backwards to accommodate people who complain about the lack of money. Not that I am implying anything, it's a simple observation.

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

A matter of opinion.

[Dogmeat]

sexual marketplace

Get your filthy capitalism out of my sex, goddammit!

Sex must be divided equally among the proletariat.

[New Emeline]

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

A matter of opinion.

Would you rather give a random stranger 50 dollars or have sex with them?

[Costa Fierro]

It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

It isn't, because generally people who don't like what other people are saying don't pay attention to what they're saying, but get focused on one or two words and lose sight of the bigger picture. Especially if you have a narrative to maintain.

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

You can survive without money. There are societies that exist that do not possess a form of hard currency such as coins or paper notes. In the West, this is much more difficult because we're used to our quality of living and purchasing things, but to suggest that you can't survive without money is in ignorance of those societies and communities that do so.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

sexual marketplace

Get your filthy capitalism out of my sex, goddammit!

But the parallels are undeniable.

The real question is, among those who want to actively guide one but not the other, whose contradiction is more hypocritical.

I ask this as an otherwise leftist person who sees a kernel of truth to the right's narratives on this one.

It's not an accident he's now 'clarified' his remarks.

It isn't, because generally people who don't like what other people are saying don't pay attention to what they're saying, but get focused on one or two words and lose sight of the bigger picture. Especially if you have a narrative to maintain.

Er, you can survive without sex. You can't survive without money. Besides, giving someone money is much less personal than sex is.

You can survive without money. There are societies that exist that do not possess a form of hard currency such as coins or paper notes. In the West, this is much more difficult because we're used to our quality of living and purchasing things, but to suggest that you can't survive without money is in ignorance of those societies and communities that do so.

What about medical care, then? You can't hunt for medical care.

Sure, you don't have to pay for it in Europe... but someone else does.

[Liriena]

Your poster child is a religious traditionalist who lowkey thinks traditional gender roles are biologically determined and inherently good, and that legalizing divorce was bad?

Look, I don't like Peterson for lots of reasons, but I don't know that he said "gender roles... are inherently good".

Peterson seldom outright says anything about what he actually believes, but sticks to implying it through innuendo and context. If you take a good sampling of various comments he's made through the years, it becomes clear where he stands when it comes to traditional gender roles: he doesn't think efforts to challenge them are much good because he seems to think we are naturally predisposed towards them (and he doesn't try particularly hard to keep it a secret that he thinks these traditional gender roles are more conducive to the sort of society he'd find preferable). Throw in his generalizations about career women over thirty and maternity, his passive-aggressive comments about feminists and sexual domination, his views on divorce and his rare comments about gay men...

Honestly, if you didn't know him, or that he was a professor and a psychologist, and you saw him speaking wearing a Catholic priest's clothes, would you have any doubts as to what his ideal society would look like?