His point is that the breakdown of family, decreased emphasis on male labor through tech growth, growing rates of isolation among young people, and lower rates of sex as well as any imbalances between the sexes on the matter is bad for social stability. Keep in mind this mixes badly with difficulty in entering the middle class, owning a home, and debt burdens.
Nobody is even attempting to dispute this point, just butthurt at the fact it suggests social conservatives were right about something and cultural change isn't a simple positive sum outcome. If we want to talk about growing issues in western societies, it's legitimately up for dispute.
as a libertarian, I believe the governments only function is to supply me with an obidient state issued gf
Nah I think people are still working out the whole dragons-witches thing.
Yes he puts forward ideas and then hides behind his tepid suggestion. But looking at the bigger picture it's important to pick apart what he's getting at. His role in a reactionary political movement and his own agenda. Incels are not the problem, but male reactions to globalization are important. See Donald Trump and the rise of populist white supremacist movements
isn't polygamy illegal anyways?
Breakdown of the family how? Because some men expect to be just swept off their feet by a gf? People are more interconnected, meaning even more fish in the sea. Even my uncle who's 49 found a new girlfriend/wife through the internet. Young people are dating online more often and having higher standards because of it. If johnny incel wants his dream GF, maybe he should improve his chances by cleaning up, finding a job, and not be a mopey fuckwit who rather blame girls for having too high of a standard.
Increased tech jobs is a changing economy and labor jobs fucking suck. I would happily sit in an air conditioned office all day long making 60K a year than have to carry 80LB bales of wire around, or work in the sun all day for 32K. Like its just using common sense.
Sex is at an all time low because young people just don't give that much of a shit about it or are too tired. More of them are working more hours than their previous generation, and I know if I work all day, I rather relax and chill than hook up or do anything down there. I mean shit, you shouldn't even have to fucking hook up to get into the middle class, that's the economy and corporations fucking everyone over. Like I cant believe you or Peterson is trying to say the barrier to being above the lower class line or owning a roof over your head is that you have to be married.
It's monogamy that's supported socially rather than a notion of genetic predisposition to monogamy.
Something like this would demolish the ""incel"" movement overnight.
Isnt monogamy already enforced socially? Its not as if polygamy or cheating on your significant other is socially acceptable or anything.
Yeah it definitely is. A lot of (older) people do that that conception of a soul-mate/eternal love thing though, which I think is his alternative. I'm not really sure though.
It's honestly not that hard. Peterson sees many, if not all mythological characters and creatures as archetypal truths as opposed to literal animals. So the dragon might be the archetypal predictor, something to be conquered by the archetypal hero. The witch might be the archetypal mysterious danger (or something else, I haven't looked into his specific idea on it).
While the literal creatures are mythical, the archetypes are real and applicable to the real world.
I have a solution.
Incels should be forced to marry other incels.
As much as i am a fan of fantasy, LOTR, and other similar things.
I think he's reading way too much into it...
If you hear this an automatically assume that he means that the government should mandate couples together, then you are missing the point entirely. He is saying that having monogamy be socially promoted is a good thing, not whatever incel fantasy you have imagined. The fact that people jump on it as if it is such is frankly both hilarious and sad.
Jordan Peterson | On the New York Times and “Enforced Monogamy”
So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
That’s all.
No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
I dunno about you but when someone asks me whether or not dragons exist I assume they mean literal, giant, flying, fire-breathing lizards, not some vague concept of an apex predator.
I mean if we're going to stretch these definitions that far then we might as well say that there isn't a damn thing that doesn't exist.
So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
Maybe the fuckers should realize that sex isn't everything...
And women shouldn't be pressured into being with them...
I agree with most of that but as a bit of a contrivience to strengthen your arguement, trade jobs(which are labor) pay just as well.
You should instead make the difference between trade labor and entry level labor which is where many Millennial are currently stuck at, or working in office factories with nothing to do with their major.
That's cool, but it's not how Peterson answered the question. He focuses on recurring concepts and creatures within mythos, like dragons and witches. So no, it wouldn't really apply to everything.
Yeah, cause the left NEVER tries to mess with language. Moreover, JP isn't far or alt-right.
Peterson is a dude with toxic opinions but this article really rails on him for all the wrong reasons and reads likt a hit piece.
Because that's totally the takeaway. JP wants women to be forced into particular relationships - exactly. You hit the head on the nail and did not misread that at all.
Jordon is getting more fucking crazy by the day jesus christ
hes literally saying that snap shooters are shooting bc they dont have girlfriends so we should cave and give them girlfriends, and that it's actually an ill of society that snap shooters dont have girlfriends.................
Knock it off with this whataboutism bullshit...
Listen, I'm no fan of the alt-right, far-right, or far-left attempts to rig the conversation from the start by changing the meaning of words. All I am pointing out is that if this annoys you then it should do so in all cases, not just when it is politically convenient for you.
The way that Peterson focuses so heavily on archetypes definitely annoys me, and gives him less legitimacy in my eyes.
Just like the "Neo-Marxists" or whatever the group of people he likes to critique is called, it looks at human behavior from such a restrictive angle.
To extreme left-wing academia your relationship with someone is almost entirely determined by how the groups that each of you belong to interact.
While to Peterson, your relationship with someone is almost entirely determined by the archetypes that each of you represent to each other.
If I understand each of the positions correctly, which I very well might not.
Both of these viewpoints should be considered when trying to understand human nature, but trying to understand humans by only looking at it from one perspective just seems short-sighted.
The alt-right is a bunch of neckbeards who believe in ethnic nationalism, the far-right are the same but even more belligerent. If you want to ignore the far-left then be my guest.
The thread is about alt-right/far-right/conservative mindsets and discussing how crazy they are. Im staying on topic instead of going "But da left"
Yeah, I'm just having a really hard time figuring out how that's an acceptable view of something that "exists". It's just such a weird way to look at things. And sorry, I'm a bit off today, on day one of no tobacco atm, I somehow managed to read your post as agreeing with him.
As for how it's difficult for some to understand, it's the bizarre way he words it, repeating things and making statements that kind of sound contradictory even if they aren't, while only somewhat explaining what the hell he's trying to say. It's a simple point but he stretches it out into this weird, stilted paragraph that keeps repeating itself, making it difficult to figure out what he's trying to say.
Or it could be about how Jordan Peterson said something and everyone assumes he is an incel and then extending the conversation to pidgeon hole jordan peterson as Alt-right or far-right. He is neither, but you don't seem convinced.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
