Family in 2050 guardian article

There must be a reason the incels like him so much though?

He is, basically, saying the same thing that regulars on the Relationships board here say, day in, day out. "Leave the manchild".

He's from a different political stance - social conservatism rather than feminism - and from a different direction - ie - men, sort your act out and be a good prospect for your future wife, or she won't want you. Whereas the Relationships board here proves his point, by saying leave the abusive manchild, sister!

He is still doing the idea that women are the reward for doing things a certain way, rather than people who make decisions, or maybe that's how the incels read it?

I don't think his position is that women are the reward but more that why the hell would any woman bother getting involved with a pathetic man child?

If men want a grown up relationship with women then actually behaving like proper grownups who bring something to a relationship instead of simply expecting to take is essential.

If he's into gender roles though, and saying to men you should do xyz then you will 'get' a woman

If they do xyz and don't, that's when the incel thing kicks in, isn't it?

He is still doing the idea that women are the reward for doing things a certain way, rather than people who make decisions, or maybe that's how the incels read it?

Like I say, not familiar with his stuff.

I honestly don't know - I do know that an awful lot of incels hate women, really despise them, in a way that I don't think Peterson does. Peterson has some v conservative values when it comes to women's roles i society, but he doesn't hate women. Incels seem to.

I've listened to a lot of Peterson's stuff, and a lot of it is v academic - and anti-totalitarianist. He hates the extreme right, and the extreme left. I really do have a problem with his views on women and gender roles though.

He's got a bad name on the left, because he is v conservative, and he stood up against C16 in Canada. So he's basically Hitler to the left now.

He must be saying something they like?

As I say, not seen his stuff personally just read some threads on here.

Is it that if you do xyz then you will get a woman? Because a lot of incels see themselves as 'good guys' who are hard done by, from what I can gather. Only if course lots of them aren't at all, not really seeing women as people...

He's v anti-porn though, which I do like about him. And I think respectful to his wife and daughter? V caring towards his daughter.

He is, weirdly, beloved by incels Fraggling - but I'm not sure why.

He really does promote conservative gender roles - so is not so beloved by feminists - but he tells boys to get their act together, take responsibility, and sort their lives out (tidy your rooms! Stand up straight with your shoulders back! Take responsibility! etc) so they can attract a good woman. A far as I'm aware, incels are not taking his advice.

Won't be pretty that should be!

I've not heard his stuff but judging by things I've read he's v well regarded by 'incels' I think?

Like I say, if women opt out / they can get babies without is us, I don't think the result will be pretty for us in the end.

Unless, weirdly, men start listening to Jordan Peterson. But then we're back to conservative gender roles.

The idea that men should sort their shit out so women want to be with them seems to be less popular ..

Well sure, the net result being, women opting out.

I don't think men will stand for that in the long run, tbh, and how it gets 'corrected' is unlikely to be pretty.

This is the case in the Far East. It is very noticeable in Japan and Korea and beginning in China

Lack of marriageable men, actually. Most women of a certain age I met living in East Asia wanted a family, but no suitable partners. Also, single motherhood is extremely stigmatised; I would guess most would end up having an abortion in those cases, esp in China where getting babies born out of wedlock registered is far from straightforward

emotion was erased, men were the focus, and women were for sex, 'pneumatic' being a word I particularly remember!

Yes you're right! The word "pneumatic" - I remember my nglish teacher trying to explain that one to us - and too many couplings with the same partner was frowned upon. Lots of no-strings sex, a typical male fantasy I suppose.

It was the emotionless human beings that really freaked me out though. And the "conditioning". - where they made the low-status babies hate flowers and books. Sometimes wish I could go on a soma holiday though

'The sex robots however, probably will happen. I am currently speculating if it will decrease rape and DV or normalize it further.'

They are happening but fail to satisfy, as they don't react naturally (human). EG one has a setting for a woman who is 'reluctant', but doubt it gives the full experience of an actual woman. Child sex dolls seemed to have effect of normalising (sorry don't have link, read ages ago). Bottom line is if a man is abusive/ wants to dominate etc will a doll satisfy those urges?

'Aldous Huxley assumed almost complete sex equality - but I'm not sure.'

From what I remember, and it's been years since I read it, emotion was erased, men were the focus, and women were for sex, 'pneumatic' being a word I particularly remember!

'most women who choose to become mothers do so because they want to best a baby'

Around the world this is not true, lack of access to contraception, societal norms etc mean women are still in 'reproductive role'. In societies where there is access to contraception, and work and food etc, women choose less children, in some countries they are turning away from men and babies altogether (Japan, South Korea).

'Frankly, if we get to the point where you are pushed to use an artificial egg than to take time off work, I suspect a lot more females will be going on a fertility strike.'

Female babies are born with all their eggs I believe, unlike males who generate sperm as they go. If we're thinking the technology for artificial wombs is there, then no need for adult women to get eggs from.

I can't see artificial wombs taking off in a big way. It's a dodgy enough process after a millennium of natural development and most women who choose to become mothers do so because they want to best a baby. Frankly, if we get to the point where you are pushed to use an artificial egg than to take time off work, I suspect a lot more females will be going on a fertility strike.

The sex robots however, probably will happen. I am currently speculating if it will decrease rape and DV or normalize it further.

Personally, my DH seems to like having a thinking, opinionated human female as his life partner - and wouldn't want a Stepford Wives robot. But how common is that in men? I'm beginning to wonder. How many men will still want that after a couple of generations of sex robots?

Nope, not buying that scenario either. Sorry I mean not buying the majority of men just want a Stepford sex robot scenario. I'm sure your husband is lovely.

Artificial wombs sounds very Brave New World to me - a book I did at school, and frankly, terrified me - for the lack of human emotion in the Brave New Worldians, not because of technophobia.

If men can find a way of getting babies without women, I can't imagine the future for women like anything other than extremely bleak. It's the one thing they really need us for

I agree this is an interesting point actually - if they don't us to bear their children, and they have, say, sex robots for sex - how will women fare in that future?

Aldous Huxley assumed almost complete sex equality - but I'm not sure.

Personally, my DH seems to like having a thinking, opinionated human female as his life partner - and wouldn't want a Stepford Wives robot. But how common is that in men? I'm beginning to wonder. How many men will still want that after a couple of generations of sex robots?

If men can find a way of getting babies without women, I can't imagine the future for women like anything other than extremely bleak. It's the one thing they really need us for

I don't buy that nor the premise of that article.

If men can find a way of getting babies without women, I can't imagine the future for women like anything other than extremely bleak. It's the one thing they really need us for.

Agree with pp that idea around artificial wombs uses a mechanical, vessel view around gestation. As for the anti abortion crew, the foetus exists in a sac, the human female body around it ignored. The impact of removing all of the complex interactions of growing inside a woman, hearing her heartbeat voice, sharing all sorts of physiological processes past providing nutrition, is not considered. The fact it is not considered, the vessel view, is inherently totally misogynist. The idea that a sac designed by men can easily replace the entire complex interactions involved when an actual woman grows a baby in get body.

Artificial wombs sound better than surrogates

Yes agreed. Solutions where women and their bodies are not exploited are preferable

I'm against all forms of assisted conception. From the point of view of the child both seem equally objectionable- see DreadPirateLuna's post.

And both are turning children into commodities.

DreadPirate thank you - to you probably obvious to make that leap, but I needed the nudge. Great point.

Does anyone consider the effect that artificial wombs would have on the babies that come out of them? We already know that lack of human interaction and body contact has profound psychological effects on infants. How can we be sure that pre-natal attachment is not equally important if not more so?