Ask Hadley on Jordan Peterson

I've never seen any evidence that enforced monogamy led to less violence towards women, inside or outside of marriages.

Quite but makes a convenient divide and conquer regime to entrap women. No one's arguing that monogamy is bad - it's just there's not nearly enough couth men to go around so it's no solution - just a convenient sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

A male friend said the other day JP makes a living form his work now (his aim when his Uni workplace became unpalatable - $80K a week from his Patreon alone. His observation of JP was he creates a lot of "heat" but doesn't use it for the wider good i.e. for anyone or anything else but himself and his promotion.

I swear I am so over the JP phenomenon as he's a relentless self promotor. Words are easy - actions are what count - what actual action has he taken to benefit the wider society rather than his pocket?

flowers
He does make you think, which I like, but his 'message' seems rather vague. I think he likes to stir up controversy and then back pedal - it's all good publicity after all...
Yes!

ReluctantCamper ah but the shield wall would hold regardless of one stepping away I'm more of a Berserker

So.... What's his attraction to these blokes then? I could speculate, but there seem to be a few fans on this thread who should be able to enlighten us.

I've read the book, and watched some of his stuff. He does make you think, which I like, but his 'message' seems rather vague. I think he likes to stir up controversy and then back pedal - it's all good publicity after all...

yes, and the methods of enforcement you list dance are horrible.

I wonder if they were the sort of thing Peterson had in mind.....

We've had socially enforced monogamy for a long time only they didn't call it that. Religious groups forbad divorce. Social convention made divorced women pariahs. The law made divorce so onerous people didn't divorce because it was too difficult. Divorced women lost any rights to their children.

The point of this wasn't to provide frustrated men with easy access to sex, but to regulate female reproduction and control access to properly, but the effect was the same.

I've never seen any evidence that enforced monogamy led to less violence towards women, inside or outside of marriages.

I love living in a society where women do not have to live with men and very many choose not to. It brings me great joy.

If there is an increased risk of public violence, it is absolutely worth it.

Aren't these violent males we're discussing high school age? Like 16-18 years old. These Peterson remarks are in response to high school shootings.

Very many teenage girls don't feel ready to have a relationship with anyone, so most teen boys will not find a sexual partner.

he argues for a living waddle, he'd certainly make mincemeat of me! I like to go away and have a think about my replies.

Of course I also try not to make bullshit blanket comments that leave people making this face so that could be another reason why I'm a bit slower.

Maybe people should ask MNHQ to ask for a webchat with JP - he seems to be doing every bit of press possible so might be up for it. I will get the popcorn

If you have didactic tendencies it could be expedient to pay attention when leveraging your verbiage so that those in proximity can comprehend your logos.

Or to translate from Petersonese:

If you'd like to explain things to people, why not try using language they can understand so they can follow your reasoning.

Enforced monogamy main mean something to an anthropologist, but most of us aren't one.

To translate into Camperese

Just say what you fucking mean man!

"Peterson has consistently said that if a man has problems attracting women and holding relationships it's not the women's fault and the man has to make changes to his behaviour ..."

What were the words he said that convinced you of this?

X post Sloth

Sorry, I worded my post poorly.
What I meant to say is that a system of choice by definition cannot be enforced, otherwise it ceases to be a choice. Either JP has a poor grasp of the English language, which I very much doubt, or enforced is exactly what he meant, and probably the reason why he didn’t elaborate.
I think the real question is, why didn’t Mr I say the unsayable have the balls to say it?

In forced means no choice and consequences for those who don’t comply.

Yes hot rocker. This is my understanding too. But he’s clearly back pedalled on that and various posters on this thread seem to have bought it. I’d love to know what this Peterson approach actually looks like, in tangible policy terms, if it doesn’t involve forcing.

In forced means no choice and consequences for those who don’t comply. What we have now is a choice. You can’t enforce a choice, you can only enforce something that has been imposed.

Thinking of getting some
Love Hadley
Hate Peterson

T-shirts printed.

Peterson has consistently said that if a man has problems attracting women and holding relationships it's not the women's fault and the man has to make changes to his behaviour

How magnanimous.

How is this squared with incels being better off if women are 'societally encouraged' to be in monogamous relationships with them?

However, the Peterson approach can benefit Incel types by moving them on from self-pity and towards taking more responsibility for their own actions.

How exactly do those of you supporting this Peterson approach actually perceive it as different from the system we have now? What actual POLICIES could be introduced to further promote monogamy without diminishing women’s right to freely choose, and leave, partners? It’s all very fuzzy at the moment.

Peterson has consistently said that if a man has problems attracting women and holding relationships it's not the women's fault and the man has to make changes to his behaviour ...

However, the Peterson approach can benefit Incel types by moving them on from self-pity and towards taking more responsibility for their own actions

How does having a society that rewards monogamy going to move them towards being responsible for their own actions? How is it not just going to move their anger towards their parents, or society for not providing them with a suitable wife?

This is just the grownup version of having schoolchildren sit boy/girl/boy/girl in an effort to make them more controllable.

As one of those girls, it didn't, it just meant that rather than having a group of boys the teacher had to control, I had 2 boys harassing me that I was expected to keep under control, or be told off for fighting with if I lost my cool.

yes, men working on themselves is fine.

but that's not what he said.

he didn't say 'this young man couldn't get laid, maybe he should have has a little think about why'

he said “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, the cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Note the cure. Not a cure.

for a man who makes a living bandying words around he is remarkably careless with them.

but what is the Peterson approach Freespeecher?

he seems to be big on (very strange) opinions, and low on actual practicalities.

Are you saying it isn't 'enforced monogamy' (whatever the heck that is)? In which case why did he say it?

If he means young men should polish their shoes and get their hair cut, well yippee - I don't think any one would argue.

but really it feels like arguing about the bible. It's all so bloody vague. Interpreting Peterson is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.