Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Sounder wrote:
...
“Perhaps I live in a dream world, but the poison may be the cure, -what else is there to wake people up to the infinite money PR galaxy generated, collective oil-lighting designed to compromise reality attribution machine. (COLDCRAM for you wonks out there).
Thereby driving people into the arms of authority because they are too damn insecure to think for themselves.”
Joao » Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:30 am wrote:Is there really a concern of somehow being forced to fuck trans-women? Smells strongly of redpillism. The acrimony over being called a TERF only reinforces this impression.
"Contra naturam! Pretty soon we'll all be fucking dogs."
Side note: This thread title is an absolute masterpiece. So loaded yet so succinct.
Joao » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:50 am wrote:Disagreement with contingents and concerns over specific issues are not unreasonable.
Yet there is often an underlying sense of wholesale trans repudiation to this thread. Terms like SJW and defensive postures against a purported ungodly cultural agenda seem very revealing in this regard.
Joao » Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:30 am wrote:Is there really a concern of somehow being forced to fuck trans-women? Smells strongly of redpillism.
Heaven Swan » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:19 am wrote:that you examine how and why you’ve been conditioned to react to buzzwords like SJW, then imply unfounded characterizations, instead of thinking things through.
JackRiddler » 18 Nov 2018 01:12 wrote:
It's also bizarrely parallel to Jordan Peterson's idea that the state should forcibly distribute unmarried women among unfuckable men.
.
That identity necessarily involves relation all becomes painfully, politically obvious in how this whole thing is playing out in practice. Someone can claim that trans people have an absolute right to determine their identity, but were that actually a simple ontological truth, then we wouldn’t be in an endless, fraught spiral about pronouns and misgendering and the world’s recalcitrant refusal to offer up the correct ‘validation.’ Being what you are is not merely a matter of a feeling, or of a ‘feeling of some fundamental essence.’ It’s a matter of being recognised by other human beings as the thing that you think you are.[2] It’s a matter of social relations. And this is why we’re in this whole fucking nightmare mess. Because we have a political movement claiming, on the one hand, that this is just a matter of identity, and it doesn’t affect anyone else, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a nasty evil bigot, while, at the same time, because identity is all about social relations, they’re throwing a ton of their political weight into trying to control people’s speech, and behaviours, to enforce the validation of those identities.
Joe Hillshoist wrote:JackRiddler » 18 Nov 2018 01:12 wrote:
It's also bizarrely parallel to Jordan Peterson's idea that the state should forcibly distribute unmarried women among unfuckable men.
.
I know this is off topic but
He what???
Really??? Are you sure that's not a mis translation or something?
I'd love to see a link to that.
Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. 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.”
But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.
He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.
In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that.”
JP wrote:On the New York Times and “Enforced Monogamy”
My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).
Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “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.”
As antiquark2 points out, “for decades.” My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings. I might also add: anyone serious about decreasing violence against women (or violence in general) might think twice about dismissing the utility of monogamy (and social support for the monogamous tendency) as a means to attain that end.
Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.
The Competition–Violence Hypothesis: Sex, Marriage, and Male Aggression
“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”
Here’s another paper, with a long list of relevant references:
Why Men Commit Crimes (and why they Desist)
Here’s some relevant sections of the latter paper (pp. 439-440).
[QUOTES ARE BY SCREEN SHOT SO CONTINUE HERE]
https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-th ... -monogamy/
liminalOyster » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:57 pm wrote:FWIW the gendertrender piece in question was posted and enthusiastically commented upon on Reddit's The Donald sub. Havent read the piece in its entirety myself so not commenting on its content so much as the fact of its apparent appeal to MAGA filth one way or another.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests