(response to)
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.
I don't think it's off-topic at all, to be frank. Ideas circulate around different milieux, with changes and repurposings. And of course JP got his public breakthrough by objecting to Canadian rules on gender identity (or his interpretation thereof).
I do enjoy putting things in a pointed matter. So let's see what he did say.
"Sexual redistribution," sometimes conceived more or less as I described it - the state forcing single women to marry incels - is discussed on incel and MRA boards, with varying degrees of seriousness.
Peterson got into it when a NY Times reporter
asked him about it:
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.”
That got some attention! We can call this a case of him musing aloud, sympathetically, as he sees the incel argument and accepts the underlying premises about men and women.
He later defended himself by saying he was using "enforced monogamy" as an anthropological term for, you know, the social norms found in many or perhaps most societies: arranged marriage in which the females are a kind of good to be conferred on single men, enforced as necessary by varying degrees of shunning, casting-out, hounding, punishing, dunking or stoning women who fail to conform.
JP's premises are that extreme constant male violence, enough apparently to threaten humanity itself, is inevitable unless the entire world, and especially the women, are deployed so as to pacify the inextinguishable violence of men, who otherwise will explode. There's nothing they or anyone can do about that. It's nature.
Am I still being too pointed? Here is what he considers his defense or apologetic. You be the judge:
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/
JP: "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."
Or else! There is no alternative, or any alternatives will be far worse than this, etc.
.
