evil sex-rejecting ladies irony alert jordan "slappy" peterson men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny

Check out my piece in Broadly on how Jordan Peterson & Ross Douthat are mainstreaming manosphere misogyny

Jordan Peterson: Have you ever, like, really looked at your hands?

By David Futrelle

I‘ve got a piece up on Broadly today on how Jordan Peterson and Ross Douhat’s recent discussions of “enforced monogamy” and the “redistribution of sex” are helping to mainstream toxic ideas that have long been a staple of the manosphere.

Here’s a snippet:

You can’t solve the problem of aggrieved male entitlement by engineering some weird and at least semi-coercive program of “enforced monogamy” built on the assumption that men inherently deserve some sort of access to women’s bodies—regardless of what the women inhabiting these bodies want. You can’t rid the world of violence born of aggrieved male entitlement with a “solution” that reinforces that sense of entitlement.

 No, the only solution is to challenge that entitlement directly.

You can read the whole thing (and it’s a long one) here.

69 replies on “Check out my piece in Broadly on how Jordan Peterson & Ross Douthat are mainstreaming manosphere misogyny”

Oh, and Pie, I’m not saying there’s anything legitimate about “redistributing sex.” Exactly the opposite. I’m saying that redistributing anything else that belongs to someone else is equally reprehensible.

sex is not a possessions. it is not commodity. it is not some thing you have it is something you *do*. and something you *chose* to do with someone or some people who also chose to do with you. this idea that sex is something you possess like money or things is too much fucking bullshit and is 100% why entitled men exist. fuck this

I’m saying that redistributing anything else that belongs to someone else

Also, my body is not a thing that I possess. I am my body. You are your body. We our all our bodies. My bodily autonomy is not important to me because I feel my body is a thing I own that no one else has the right to own without my permission. It is important to me because my body is me. It’s not a thing that can be kept separate from my personhood. It is my personhood.

Imagine if after 9/11 someone suggested “We should just give Al Qaeda everything they want so they won’t blow up any more buildings”. They would rightfully be denounced by everyone as a coward and an idiot. So why is this any different?

@ RosieLa,

Very interesting article, thank you.

@ Weirwood,

It’s hotter than hell here too in Chi, it sounds like you were able to do some fun birthday things anyway 🙂

We here are drunk on cheap beer, listening to the oldies, our other Miss Z just did impromptu karaoke to Cinderella’s Nobody’s fool, and wow she’s a good singer! Belted it out at top volume 🙂

I’m sure the neighbors appreciated that 😀

I only have windows open to cope with the heat, the principles of procrastination dictate that such heat is not supposed to happen til August.

@Steven Dutch

Oh, and Pie, I’m not saying there’s anything legitimate about “redistributing sex.” Exactly the opposite. I’m saying that redistributing anything else that belongs to someone else is equally reprehensible.

Only that wasn’t what you were saying, was it?

Let me scroll up a few lines and refresh your memory.

But it’s on exactly the same plane as saying the way to cut down on other crime is to restructure the world so people no longer feel the need to commit crime.

By “restructure”, do you mean steal, oppress, enslave, something else? If you did, why not actually say so?

On the other you have social theorists who think the solution is to give every other kind of criminal a concierge.

Not seeing any reference to slavery or theft or redistribution there, either! Is “concierge” synonymous with “indentured servant” in your language?

Oh, and whilst you’re there, please also note Austin G Loomis’ request:

[citation desperately needed]

Button said

I want to believe that libertarians are principled.

Pie said

I don’t doubt that some libertarians are, but…

I say meh. The only principled libertarian I ever saw had to give up calling himself that because he’s principled. (Ed Brayton, who writes Dispatches from the Culture Wars over at Patheos)

A “principled” libertarian just got pwned on Usenet after claiming that it was perfectly fair that unskilled laborers now have to work an 80 hour work week just to get by, when unskilled laborers half a century ago got by on the wages from a 40 hour work week. Someone pointed out that since the actual per capita productivity has gone up, the unskilled laborer in the past may have had his work hours break down something like: 29 hours equivalent to the labor needed to provide for their own needs; 1 for the community’s (the part of their income taxed away); and 10 subsidizing the suit-and-tie set at whatever business they worked for; but now, only about 25 of the now 80 hours they have to work is enough to reach equivalency for the marginal labor costs of their own needs, add 1 for what taxes pay for, and that leaves 54 of their working hours subsidizing the extravagant lifestyles of the wealthy owners of the business. Which exceeds 40, a nominal “full time job”.

That person then dropped the bomb by pointing out that, for all intents and purposes, unskilled laborers are now being asked to work an extra entire full-time job for free to provide for their boss’s boss’s boss’s boss’s boss’s lifestyle. And then drew the obvious comparison and pointed out which side lost the resulting war 150 years ago.

(Indeed, they are working over 40 extra hours just to provide for the last half-century’s increase in the three-piece-suit set’s lifestyle-extravagance. Assuming the Usenet poster’s numbers are accurate, but they’re probably best guesses. How much labor would it actually take to exactly meet all of your own basic needs, assuming you had all the needed tools and skills and could magically benefit from the economies of scale that in reality require centralizing some manufacture? I’m guessing even 25 hours a week is probably erring high at this point.)

@Surplus: Depends on where you live for that ’25 hours’, I would say.

According to this study (don’t remember if it was linked here already) almost half of all toronto tenants are paying unaffordable rent.

When I was working 39,5 hours a week at a minimum wage job during the recession, I was working all those hours to try to afford food and housing. Sigh.

@ surplus

I don’t know if it adds anything to your point, but I find it fascinating that it’s estimated people in the Neolithic only had to spend an average of 8 hours a week on tasks vital to personal and group needs. Obviously that’s an average. Sometimes the work would cluster, say when building a house.

But is reckoned that’s why they had the time, and maybe the inclination, to work on monumentally labour intensive construction projects like Silbury Hill. Just something to do.

there is a lovely woman in Joplin. I dated her way back in the day of 1995-96.
she has two lovely children.
she has the most wonderful smile I’ve ever seen.
she kisses me and it’s just heaven.
her kids love me.
I’ve been alone and I’ve been lonely.
I never thought I’d ever see her again.
(thanks facespace)


almost half of all toronto tenants are paying unaffordable rent.

That’s rather a different problem to wages, and relates to property and investment tax laws. Although frankly, the average per-worker hourly productivity is around $68 of economic value in the U.S. ($50 in Canada) If I was paid those kinda rates, even at a 40% marginal tax rate* I could pay Portland rents** and still live well on ~20 hrs a week.

*an arbitrary figure chosen to ensure lavish funding for physical and social infrastructure

**As bad as Toronto, maybe worse

UNPOPULAR OPINION: I keep seeing the theme over and over in this article that sex is not a product or commodity and that suggesting it is makes someone an irredeemable shitlord (because it does).

…HOWEVER, how many “sex positive,” pro porn, pro prostitution “feminists” have also insisted that sex is just a commodity and prostitution/porn are “just work?”

I think it’s high time we call out misogyny disguised as “sex positive feminism” for what it is: GARBAGE.

…and that we hold these folks at least partially responsible for the commodification of women’s bodies and the acceptance that we can be bought and sold and traded and used and discarded and that’s all totally fine because “SECKS PAWZITIVVVVVZ!”

People want to say, “Nonono, you misunderstand, that’s only for women who WANT to be commodified…er…do ‘sex work.'”

Yeah…I’m sure women who “want” to be commodified exist in huge numbers and I’m sure they stay in their little bubble and the idea of buying and selling women’s bodies never leaks outside of their bubble……

Thank you Jesalin!

I was composing myself to reply but hopefully you swiffered the SWERF off of our turf.

*waves hi*

Long story for an open thread.

Thank you so much for making me feel welcome.

Hello Pirate Jenny! I don’t believe we’ve met but hi my name’s Oogly. Glad to see that more kind faces are back.

Hello Oogly! My apologies for the late reply (and the subsequent necro of this thread).

Thank you for the warm welcome, it’s always a treat to see the kind and generous commentariat here on WHTM.

Again, apologies. I popped my head back up then immediately received some distressing health care news from the psychiatrist I’ve been seeing. Depression and anxiety prevented me from continuing to contribute as I had intended.

Things aren’t really looking up but I promised myself I’d try to do what I can when I can.

Sorry again for the necro but I didn’t want to be rude to Oogly and this just seemed the easiest for continuity.

Hope to see you all on other threads. I still consider this community a lifeline and thank you from the bottom of my shriveled little heart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.