Jordan Peterson Explains The "Enforced Monogamy" Thing
I thought this was pretty obviously what he meant.
Peterson: "My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings."
Peterson: "My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings."
posted by Winston Smith at
9:59 AM
13 Comments:
When so-called Evo Psyc is cited, MEGO. My Eyes Glaze Over.
Most of his ideas stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender. “The masculine spirit is under assault,” he told me. “It’s obvious.”
The masculine spirit called, it said that Jordan Peterson is a scam artist.
“Put not thy trust in Pseudointellectuals.”
I disagree, but not entirely. I always go to at least yellow alert when people speak largely in metaphors.
But I do think that "the masculine spirit is under assault" gets at an important thought.
It's undeniable that masculinity is the target of a lot of criticism (in academia, among other places). And that bears thinking about. And a lot of that criticism is silly or crazy or unfair.
I'm not a big fan of all aspects of masculinity--but there's good stuff in it. Important stuff. And the good stuff is worth at least thinking about, and probably worth defending against the current lefty criticisms, including the mindless repetition of the "toxic masculinity" mantra.
I think anyone who dismisses Peterson completely is just being silly.
Which is not to say that he isn't wrong about things--everybody's wrong about things. He's some kind of Jungian, for one thing...so that doesn't sit well with me.
The trouble with his rather vague pronouncements is they can be used in crap like this
https://mobile.twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/997670189729746945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F2018%2F05%2F20%2Fthe-invisible-hand-in-the-sexual-marketplace%2F
Classic blame the victim--in this case literally, as the first girl shot refused to be the shooters boyfriend. (And obviously was correct to do so.)
Nope.
You're just making stuff up, Pete. That's not what Peterson says. It's a pretty terrible thing to say about someone, too.
It's not clear that what Peterson *does* say is true; but he does *not* say what you are accusing him of saying.
One could turn it around on you; as soon as someone starts talking about men's problems, they are accused of "misogyny"...
I don’t know how any remotely serious male human being can feign to be aghast at this fairly obvious assertion on behalf of Peterson.
Do you not remember being a teenager? Maybe you just got to have all the sex you wanted and were utterly oblivious to what life would be as an ostracized loner? Or maybe you had extremely low levels of testosterone and were saved from its effects?
If that’s the case, then let me be the sad soul to admit of his pathetic past so as to inform you of the obvious: yes, it does breed homicidal rage within you. Yes, it does make you salivate at the thought of slowly murdering the heinous assholes (and somehow, that’s usually an objective assessment in my experience) who women choose over you for reasons (legitimate, even) which completely escape your pitiable, tattered, depressed soul.
If the hookup culture, as it were, were to be terminated, it would preclude this reaction. Being cutesy boyfriend/girlfriend couples, holding hands and hugging does not cause the same effect, I can guarantee you. It is entirely, obsessively sexual in nature, and I have no doubt at all that this sort of rage is embedded in the DNA of every human male. If the love of your life is dating another guy, well then, you buck up and try to win her over. But when you know he’s fucking her (term used intentionally; if you’re male, I expect you know why), it makes you want to hang him with his own entrails.
Is there something morally wrong with premarital sex? I don’t know. I’ve wrestled a looooong time with my repugnance for such behavior. I’ve blamed the very evolutionary causes being discussed here, in fact, and thought less of myself as a result.
But one thing’s for sure in my mind: remove this element of human behavior and you save mankind from a whole hell of a lot of violence. Even if only by keeping teenagers from murdering each other (or getting started down a terrible path).
Yeah, I re-read it, and I’ll commit to saying it, if somehow anyone needs to hear it (which is apparently the case here).
Being a lonely misfit sucks. I did my time in that hellish prison. Something happened when I moved from high school to college, and more-or-less suddenly, girls liked me! Praise Jebus! I shudder to think how crazy I would be today if my whole life had been like high school.
It's *in no way* blaming the victim to note that men go insane without women.
The trouble with your argument is: the vast majority of men--including men who don't get paid in HS--don't commit mass murder in response. So something else is going on that doesn't have to do with 'hookup culture, which is in any case, a vastly overstated phenomenon.
So cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer?
You are making an assumption here: that the jerks who shoot up schools would actually get a girlfriend if not for hookup culture. But I see no evidence that this is true.
Good point
Actually, my point was not that “getting girlfriends” would help, but that the most intense driver of rage is specifically sex-oriented. That is: being excluded therefrom or bearing witness thereto. That, specifically, drives guys (and I’m talking about teenagers here; guys seem to wrangle their testosterone under control by their mid 20s) crazy, and I’d wager that it is that factor whose elimination would result in a reduction in such violence.
Of course, I’m not arguing that this makes it right to work as a society to enforce this sort of traditional behavior. “Many young people can’t control themselves, so we must control them all,” ain’t exactly my cup of tea. If it’s not actually immoral to have extramarital sexual relations of the kind whose social prohibition we’re discussing, then I find it pretty hard to swallow any argument that we ought to apply social pressure to its exclusion purely for practical matters.
Anyway, those are roughly my thoughts on the subject.
High school was hellish when I was there--though I'm told it's a bit more civilized now...even if it's, allegedly, begun to tilt in different crazy directions...
I was just accepted (and tough) enough to hold my own and GTFO. The poor kids at the bottom of the totem pole...for them it was a soul-crushing experience. They were routinely slapped around by the psychotic males, treated with the utmost contempt. But the worst part might have been the contempt of the popular / attractive girls, who were regarded as a kind of royalty. The contempt of women is a soul-crushing thing. Being an object of contempt and ridicule by *both* males and females...Jesus Christ...there's *just no way* those kids got out unscathed.
It honestly doesn't surprise me that such kids shoot up schools. The surprising thing, to me, is that they seem to shoot people randomly instead of shooting their tormentors. What's up with that? My hypothesis: it's a testament to how broken they are. They're actually too afraid of their tormentors to even try to kill them. But that's the merest speculation.
I don't have much to add to this, but can confirm: lack of sex and watching the girl you love choose someone else is the easiest way to make an otherwise sane 20-something year old man lose it. I used to blame hookup culture, but then I got decent at that. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue at this point. A healthy, monogamous relationship does seem to be the most stable option, however.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home