Family in 2050 guardian article

[hoorayforharoldlloyd]

amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/dec/31/family-2050-artificial-wombs-robot-carers-single-fathers

Predictions for family changes by 2050 - blase about artificial wombs freeing up women rather than capitalism crushing women's ability to have children and work etc. Depressing stuff.

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.

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 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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

But obviously his views are not compatible with feminism, because the reformed manchild will, being a good prospective husband himself, probably expect his wife to fulfil her gendered role expectations, and raise the children, do all the housework etc.

Which is fine, if a woman wants that role - some do- but not if it's categorically expected of her by society/her husband, or if she's left trying to hold down a career and do all the childcare/wifework as well.

Maybe because he speaks against feminism, fraggling ?

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

I don't know if that is true. My son and a younger male colleague like him- they are absolutely not incels.

If incels do like him I suspect they aren't fully understanding him. His position as I understand it is "man up if you want to have a chance at having a proper relationship" but there's still no guarantee one will happen. He's keen on obligations and responsibilities but not a sense of entitlement.

But obviously his views are not compatible with feminism, because the reformed manchild will, being a good prospective husband himself, probably expect his wife to fulfil her gendered role expectations, and raise the children, do all the housework etc

Is that Peterson's position? That women should not have a career?

I think it's slightly more complex than that, Ariadne - I don't think he's straight out said that.

But he says stuff like "women tend to be more agreeable than men" "less career focussed" "gravitate towards caring roles" - that sort of thing.

The best thing to watch on this is his C4 interview with Cathy N.

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?

This.

Children grown in artificial wombs is horrifying. Capitalism seems intent on severing the mother-baby bond in myriad ways IMO. This is the most extreme - do.away with mothers entirely.

But he has countless academic lectures online too - which are on politics, the dangers of totalitarianism etc.

But he says stuff like "women tend to be more agreeable than men" "less career focussed" "gravitate towards caring roles" - that sort of thing

But that's not untrue. You can have the debate about why but I've currently got 3 senior female employees on maternity leave who were marked out for promotion who have made it quite clear they want to return 3 days a week and are no longer looking to step up.

Children grown in artificial wombs is horrifying. Capitalism seems intent on severing the mother-baby bond in myriad ways IMO. This is the most extreme - do.away with mothers entirely.

Yes.

Unless, perhaps, they're obediently performing their gender role.

Ariadne, yeah - women bear the children - so maternity leave is a cornerstone of women's rights.

Plus you have to look at the pressure for the woman to take on the child-caring role - societal pressure. And the reluctance of the man to say, go down to 3 days a week.

Um I do get that. The point I was making is these 3 women have abandoned their careers. They don't have to but they are choosing to do so.

x-posted I think.

There are considerable reasons why the women are pressured to take on the child care role - unless you have the sort of pay scale that can afford a live in nanny - and among them is that men are reluctant to take a career cut to care for children. Until divorce, that is, then the father's rights lot are all over 50-50 childcare!

Choosing in a society that exerts various pressures.

In a totally equal society, who knows what things would look like. Impossible to guess, tbh.

Which kind of ties in with

'Capitalism seems intent on severing the mother-baby bond in myriad ways IMO.'

But according to plenty of political philosophy type people, capitalism depends on a class who have to work + unpaid labour of women growing rearing etc next generation for free, ++ all the shit work that keeps everything going.

Agree mother baby thing is something wanted gone, but is that capitalism, or just men? They resent being dependent on us for this and are v insecure about it, paternity etc, hence the desire to control us.

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

Yeah, he's said some things they seem to identify as talking about them, though i'm not convinced they really are. The thing is if you ever read on their forums, a lot of them are very messed up people, deeply self-hating and often especially around their physical appearance. And not really capable of understanding other peoples reactions or motives. I don't know how well they really understand what someone like Peterson is really saying.

But he does say that in some ways young people have been put in a position where society doesn't really support or reward young people for getting into solid long term relationships. And I think he says that at a certain point this can hit young men particularly hard, especially since society also no longer teaches them what they need to know to be appealing as partners.

I think he says that for women it tends to hit them later on when they are getting toward the end of their fertility and would like kids but can't find a partner.

He has made some comparisons to radicalisation which often targets young men who have little or no hope of marriage or good jobs, and that if there are a lot of these people it can become a dangerous population. What he suggested which got a lot of press and outrage was that in order to minimise that societies had developed "enforced monogamy" which people though meant forced marriage. It actually just means a norm where there is only two people in a marriage, so that most people have a good chance of finding a spouse as opposed to systems where some people have many wives or for some other reason a lot of people never marry. But that wasn't reported much and I'm not sure hw many incel types would have caught on to that.

The idea of agreeableness comes from psychological testing. I think there is a set of five or maybe seven characteristics they consider quite basic to personality. Agreeableness is interesting because it has a significant difference in men and women across cultures, whereas the others don't have such a marked difference.