Categories
a woman is always to blame alt-lite antifeminism crackpottery Dunning–Kruger effect empathy deficit enforced monogamy entitled babies galaxy brain jordan "slappy" peterson men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA

The Majority Report chronicles Jordan Peterson’s increasingly bananas comments about women

Jordan Peterson: U mad, bro?

By David Futrelle

I ran across this Tweet this morning from an intrepid Jordan Peterson debunker on Twitter and, well, it’s pretty much spot on:

https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1083015376022224896

For evidence of this, we need look no further than some of the off-the-cuff comments about birth control and the allegedly scary consequences of women controlling their own sexuality that Peterson recently made to a small audience that included, among others, Charlie Kirk, “Bumble Jack” Posobiec, and weirdo MAGA couple Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle at Turning Point USA’s annual Student Action Summit.

As Sam Seder points out in this clip from his Majority Report show, Peterson seems to be pushing the idea that what he sees as feminists’ preoccupation with sexual consent is basically a left-wing “sexual taboo” roughly equivalent to the right-wing “taboo” against gay sex. (Peterson being Peterson, he doesn’t quite come out and say this outright.)

Sam has been taking on Peterson’s nonsense for some time. Here’s another video in which Sam discusses a Peterson appearance on the Joe Rogan show in which Rogan, an oddball in his own right but still pretty sharp, gobsmacks the Canadian beef-eater by pointing out a very basic issue with his promotion of “enforced monogamy.”

While Peterson’s  utterances do seem to be getting weirder by the day, he’s been saying awful crap about the often fraught relationship between women and men for years. And for a time, during a sort of pickup artist phase, he did so dressed like a 1930s gangster.

Sam’s got a video on that, too.

And this guy is seen as a leading light in the “intellectual dark web.” It’s really a testament to how fucked up this political moment is that a cornball weirdo like Peterson is taken seriously by anyone at all, much less the adoring throngs that attend his talks and watch his videos and buy his books.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

307 replies on “The Majority Report chronicles Jordan Peterson’s increasingly bananas comments about women”

@Hambeast, Gaebolga, Button:
One of my earlier exposures to the concept of ‘company town’ was actually from a comic book… there was an odd semi-horror comic book anthology back in the late 1980s called ‘Wasteland’. One of the regular features there involved a somewhat fictionalized set of tales from the childhood of one of the writers, and one of those involved him and the group of performers he was travelling with going into a company town to do a show.

They got paid in scrip that was only good at the company store in town, because that was the only money most of the people working there had.

When the mining company refused to take the scrip and give them actual money, the performers responded by taking the scrip they had, going to the company store, and basically buying out all the alcohol the company store had. Faced with a likely riot in town, the company relented and bought the booze back from them using actual money.

@Rhuu:
That, of course, is a perfect example of rape culture right there. Someone gets raped, and people are more concerned about the damage to the rapist’s career than about the person who was raped. And it’s not as if there’s a lack of publicly-known examples… on top of the really low chances that some of these got reported (because who’s going to report when the entire family of the last person who did got hounded out of town for tarnishing the reputation of the college quarterback?)

@ jenora

people are more concerned about the damage to the rapist’s career

There’s like a saying about such cases; “Women are judged on their pasts; men are judged on their futures.”

Eddi wrote:

If you’re a guy: tell me how i can be more successful, or how you feel. Maybe you don’t share my troubles in getting female attention.

Just in case you’re both a) still around and b) not a troll, I’ll answer this one.

I’ve never had any trouble getting “female attention” because I treat women like human beings and don’t just try and get them into bed.

…and just to be clear, by “female attention,” I mean social interaction, not sex.

If you’re asking about sex, well, that’s a whole different thing. The fact that you don’t seem to differentiate between the two is probably a big part of your problem. Casual sex is a very specific type of social interaction, and I’ve literally never been successful at it…although in fairness, there have only be a few very specific times in my life when the thought of it was at all appealing to me. That said, one thing I know for certain: there’s no magic formula for being successful at propositioning women, because they’re people, not a monolithic cohort of mysterious Other. Some women love sex regardless of who they’re fucking, some hate it, and most enjoy it just fine with the correct partner(s)…who will have a variety of different characteristics based on each individual woman’s aesthetic preferences, sexual orientation, life experiences, and current mood.

You know, just like men.

Having a relationship is a different type of social interaction, one that – in my case, at least – has almost always grown out of a fair amount of getting to know the other person as a friend first and blossoming after we discover that we have mutual interests, attraction, and a good interpersonal dynamic. The few relationships I’ve had that didn’t start that way were universally short and most ended with varying degrees of acrimony.

…given that you claim to be married, however, I’m guessing you’re just looking for advice on casual sex.

@Alan:
I hadn’t heard it phrased that way before, but, yeah, no kidding.

That certainly sums up the whole Jian Ghomeshi thing here in Canada, both as to why things were swept under the rug for so long and how the court case went.

On an unrelated note, I don’t know if you’ve heard, but I’m pretty sure I’d mentioned ‘Wolff and Byrd, Counsellors of the Macabre’ (a.k.a. ‘Supernatural Law’) to you before: a comedy/’horror’ comic based on a pair of lawyers who take various supernatural creatures on as clients. Unfortunately, the creator, Batton Lash, died a few days ago of brain cancer.

(I think my favourite one of their stories was still the one about the perfectionist judge who was rewriting his will when he died, and whose ghost was running his clerks ragged trying to finish the will. They laid him to rest by bringing him pieces of case law indicating that posthumous changes to a will are not valid, even if there exists evidence that the changes are based on the wishes of the deceased. He was such a stickler for the letter of the law that his ghost left on seeing that.)

@ jenora

I’m pretty sure I’d mentioned ‘Wolff and Byrd, Counsellors of the Macabre’

Ooh, thank you for reminding me. I had been meaning to check them out but I’ve got a memory like a sieve at times.

I like that snippet. Although (or maybe, because) it reminds me of a disasterous hearing last week. Trying to claim on a loan agreement. Unfortunately the judge spotted something in the contract:

“But this loan is only repayable on the sale of (property), or the death of one of the beneficiaries. Well, they’re both here, and stares intently…yep, seem to be alive.”

I was tempted to say “Are you a doctor?; but this definitely wasn’t the judge for that.

@Alan:
It’s just sad to know that the creator is no longer with us.

That said, given his somewhat dark sense of humour, celebrating the stories written would probably work out anyway.

Like the Amazing Heroes Swimsuit Special (to talk again of objectification and the like) where he had a three panel page involving a monster climbing up onto the beach, Wolff and Byrd approaching, the narrator going “Who are these lawyers? How do they approach this dark creature so unafraid? Was it…” followed by a scream.

Last panel: Alanna Wolff giving a death-glare to someone off-panel, while Jeff Byrd is commiserating with the monster and saying, “Sorry, but my partner always did say she’d scream if they ever told the one about ‘professional courtesy’ again.”

(The female of the duo was rather the more hard-nosed and dedicated of the two. Somewhat truth in advertising, I expect, from the old line about a woman having to be twice as good to be thought of half as well. I have little doubt that there’s still a fair bit of that in the legal field, like so many other professions.)

@ jenora

I have little doubt that there’s still a fair bit of that in the legal field

Every woman in my old chambers was a better lawyer than me. Mind you, so was every man.

On a more serious note though, had one of those enlightening learning experiences a while back; that is sort of related. It’s that oblivious to privilege thing.

I get away with a lot of stuff in court; levity, not complying with procedural rules, a certain casualness etc. But no-one minds because I have a reputation for being a bit ‘quirky’. And that’s not entirely uncommon at the Bar.

But in chatting with female friends in another space, and hearing about their work experiences and professional expectations, it’s clear that that sort of thing seems to be only acceptable, and forgivable, for men. Identical behaviour in a woman would be seen as ‘unprofessional’.

@Scildfreja Unnyðnes

It’s true that he doesn’t explicitly say this! It is, however, a natural and necessary outcome of what he’s saying. And since he’s such a smartie-smart, he very clearly understands this implication.

Question, when I say it is super good that cars have wheels, am I saying anything about the exhaust fumes?
From what I see, you guys assume ill intentions and then go look for them a then create these weird constructs. Isn’t that a strawman?
He was just talking about the idea of having sex after marriage. Nothing more.
Also is he really smart or really dumb? Cause I hear both and it depends on whether you (perhaps not you personally) want to portray him as sinister or stupid.

As for him “not saying anything about rape”, he says that left-types are “insisting that we live in a rape culture.” This sounds to me like it may perhaps be a statement having to do with rape, possibly?

Possibly. The word is there for sure. So when talking about rape culture one is necessarily talking about rape? Well, technically yes, you got me there. But you see there is this context of the 1st video, where Sam misinterprets JBP – JBP says ‘affirmative consent regulations and laws’, Sam says ‘rape’.

P.S.: your post is full of assertions and tells that you’re being insincere and more interested in attack than truth. If you’d like to deceive us into thinking you’re here for a serious discussion, perhaps consider cutting them out until you’re ready to flounce?

Would you care to explain? Especially the attack thing? Is this blog full of assertions, insincere and more interested in attack than truth?

@Rhuu – apparently an illiterati

Newsflash, genius: women are people. Money is something that the rich hoards at the expense of everyone else.

Why would you even equate the two?

Nobody equated money and women. If anything was put in comparison then it was redistribution/equality of outcome in sex and in wealth and it was done in the 2nd video by Sam Seder and his team.

The only way you would is because you think that women are the gatekeepers to sex that men should be getting

Yes, I do see women as gatekeepers to sex. I said nothing about what men should be getting. You don’t think women are gatekeepers to sex? If not how do you then explain the fact that you have (roughly) twice as many female ancestors as male?
I also see women as people.

@Makroth

Also, the fact that you compared women to money makes you a human-shaped pile of shit.

Did not happen.

@Gaebolga

Would you not call an economic system where the top 1 percent can buy legislation that makes it much easier to legally steal money from the other 99 percent deeply corrupt?

Do these stupid little fucks think the government doesn’t do anything? Or that everything it does, it does for free – and the people who work for the government are just volunteering?

Government bad – works only for the rich. Government good – works for the poor. I am confused … are you confused?

Key questions that did not get answered: What exactly do you call promotion? What do you understand when JBP says ‘enforced monogamy’?

criannon wrote:

Government bad – works only for the rich. Government good – works for the poor. I am confused … are you confused?

Wow, you’re really stupid.

…and no, I’m not confused. If you can’t understand how the US government can round up Japanese Americans and put them in concentration camps while simultaneously providing Social Security to keep the elderly from dying in poverty in the streets, that’s a problem with you and your ability to think, not with my arguments.

Given your obvious intellectual shortcomings, I need to ask for some clarification about this quote:

Would you not call taxation where ‘The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.0 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.4 percent)’ enforced redistribution of income?

Why do you think (and I use that term very loosely here) that qualifies as “enforced redistribution of income?

As for the other questions you asked of me, why do you think they’re at all relevant to my point?

Nobody equated money and women. If anything was put in comparison then it was redistribution/equality of outcome in sex and in wealth and it was done in the 2nd video by Sam Seder and his team.

You mean when you compared “enforced monogamy” to “enforced redistribution of wealth” you weren’t comparing human beings to money? Can you explain what exactly you were comparing, then?

If not how do you then explain the fact that you have (roughly) twice as many female ancestors as male?

Uh, what? I’m pretty sure that my ancestors have been a pretty even 50-50 split of male and female, since, y’know, that’s how reproduction works. (I mean, I certainly could have some trans and nonbinary ancestors too, but I doubt I have so many trans women ancestors that they outnumber the dudes 2:1.)

Or have women figured out parthenogenesis and no one told me?! I thought I was part of the female hivemind too! Why would you folks leave me out of the loop?

I had the same reaction to that bizarre claim, but I thought about it for a minute and I think he’s saying that the same men contributed genetic information to several branches of each of our family lines. E.g. Grandma A had a baby with Grandpa, and Grandma B had a baby also with Grandpa, and then those two half siblings had a baby of their own who would have 2 grandmas and 1 grandpa. Incredibly gross, but not impossible.

Definitely going to need some evidence to back up the assertion that that kind of thing happened frequently enough for there to be a 2:1 female to male ancestor ratio, though.

Viscaria wrote:

Definitely going to need some evidence to back up the assertion that that kind of thing happened frequently enough for there to be a 2:1 female to male ancestor ratio, though.

Unless he’s referring to some other study that I haven’t heard about, he’s not going to be able to back up the “(roughly) twice as many female ancestors as male,” because that’s not what the study says.

I’m guessing some manosphereian asshat saw this line from the abstract:

twofold deeper coalescence for mtDNA than for the NRY

and thought that meant “twice as many female ancestors as male ones.”

Also, the fact that you compared women to money makes you a human-shaped pile of shit.

Did not happen

UMMM

what exactly do you call promotion? What do you understand when JBP says ‘enforced monogamy’? Would you not call taxation where ‘The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.0 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.4 percent)’ enforced redistribution of income? Why is it OK to ‘promote’ that but not ‘promote’ ‘enforced monogamy’? Do you have to ‘promote’ all redistribution to be able to ‘promote’ the one you prefer or what exactly is the ‘very basic issue’? What do you think is JBPs opinion on wealth imbalance? Did you even check?

Is what you said. YOU equated the ‘redistribution of taxes’ with ‘enforced monogamy’, because that shit gets a lot of play and heads nodding in the right wing sphere, where women are not considered fully human.

(emphasis mine.)

Re –

Question, when I say it is super good that cars have wheels, am I saying anything about the exhaust fumes?

What are you even talking about, here? This term was offered as a solution after someone who declared themselves an incel *killed people*.

People. Are. Dead.

And the Great Smarty Pants Jordie P shat out that idea as a way to avoid this sort of situation in the future.

Here’s a question: Why do you think that violent people will stop being violent, if they are getting laid on the regular?

Have you not noticed that many of these so-called ‘lone wolf’ killers have had the police called out for domestic abuse?

Why would you think that giving someone who has the potential to DRIVE A VAN THROUGH A BUSY SIDEWALK someone who is tied to them (enforced) a good idea? Because then they’ll only hurt one person, instead of a bunch?

Yes, I do see women as gatekeepers to sex. I said nothing about what men should be getting. You don’t think women are gatekeepers to sex?

No? I see women as the gatekeepers of their bodies, much like men are. Sex isn’t something that some one has to protect, otherwise someone will come and take it all. Sex is an activity that you do by yourself or with others.

You’re putting consent only on the women, “She didn’t say ‘no’!” instead of going “she was very into what we were doing, and kept saying yes.” (Also checking in with *you* on if you are into what is happening, because you also have the ability to not be feeling it.)

If not how do you then explain the fact that you have (roughly) twice as many female ancestors as male?

TIL that I have a bunch of amazing lesbian trans ladies in my family tree, and I couldn’t be more here for that.

(Oh I see there is a paper, I will look at that later.)

I realized after I wrote my comment that I was insensitive to a couple of things.

1) Different cultures have different standards of what constitutes incest, and I should not universalize my own experience. I think half-siblings are considered out of bounds pretty much everywhere, but by using a value judgment like “gross” I’m turning it into a moral thing, and that could be generalized to other forms of what my culture considers incest, and blah blah blah. I’m not sure if that’s clear at all. I shouldn’t have said it was gross, is my point. Not helpful.

2) I definitely do not intend to say that children who are born of incest are themselves gross. No one can control their own parentage. I’m sorry for my wording.

Value judgments aside, it does not seem likely that men and only men contributed genetic material to various family lines to such an extent that for every male ancestor each of us has we have two female ones.

@Gaebolga
So this deeply corrupt government is doing the good job of providing social security?
What makes you think state provided social security is a good thing? Could the society save the poor old dying people in the streets in any other way? Could you maybe find a better solution that the deeply corrupt state?

Taxation is literally enforced redistribution of income. you know that if you don’t pay your taxes you end up in jail – that is where the enforced comes from. You pay a part of you income in taxes, right? And it gets redistributed by the deeply corrupt government that serves only the rich and is somehow still good.

@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
Please do elaborate. I really do not see the implication.

@kupo
Huh … you really have to point your question to the rape joking genius Sam Seder himself.
But, let’s play a devils advocate, why is my time and my hands earning my money, different from your time and your vagina making sex. You seem to be eager to redistribute my money, why should I not be eager to redistribute your sex. Why are you so prudish about sex? It just a casual thing, no? BTW when Peterson talks about enforced monogamy he’s not talking about this, certainly not to this degree.

@Catalpa
So there is your ancestral tree. It half of the branches are male, other half is female. Each branch end with a leaf. Some branches lead to the same leaf. Branches ending at the same leaf are much more common on the male side, so much so the male side only has half the number of leaves.

@criannon

Is Peterson also advocating that men go out and offer themselves to women who aren’t getting much sex?

Regardless if he is or not, what you’re saying is still quite… i’ll be very mild and call it “iffy”.

So far, my perception of you has not improved.

But, let’s play a devils advocate, why is my time and my hands earning my money, different from your time and your vagina making sex.

What do you think sex is? Is it a craft that vaginas make? Like some sort of vagina pottery? Do you think you can box it up and mail it to strangers?

Huh … you really have to point your question to the rape joking genius Sam Seder himself.

I quoted you, you fucking wannabe rapist.

But, let’s play a devils advocate, why is my time and my hands earning my money, different from your time and your vagina making sex.

You… you know that ‘sex’ isn’t made inside someone’s vagina… Right?

Like, if we need to explain what ‘sex’ is to you…

God I hate the shitty sex-ed, abstinence only programs. There is so much crap we need to deal with.

Rhuu explained it well. Sex is not a thing that women withhold or give to men. It’s a mutual activity and we all have the right to consent or not consent for any reason.

The gatekeeper theory also places the burden on women to control male desire. Cultures and subcultures that view women as the gatekeepers to sex tend to be highly patriarchal and tend to blame women for male on female rape because men supposedly can’t control their lust, therefore women must look and behave modestly. It is thin pretext to justify strict control of female bodies. For example the “stumbling block” rhetoric employed by the Christian right.

…time and my hands earning my money, different from your time and your vagina making sex. You seem to be eager to redistribute my money, why should I not be eager to redistribute your sex. Why are you so prudish about sex? It just a casual thing, no? BTW when Peterson talks about enforced monogamy he’s not talking about this, certainly not to this degree.

So he IS meaning it this way….just not to this extreme degree? So if i advocate for white supremacy, but not to a strong degree, that makes it ok?

Gaebolga wrote:

Would you not call an economic system where the top 1 percent can buy legislation that makes it much easier to legally steal money from the other 99 percent deeply corrupt?

[Emphasis mine; irony noted]

criannon wrote:

So this deeply corrupt government is doing the good job of providing social security?

You just earned an extra “really” in in my estimation of your stupidity.

criannon wrote:

Taxation is literally enforced redistribution of income.

If this is what you believe, they why does it matter what percentage of income tax any particular portion of the population being taxed (like, say, the top 1% compared to the bottom 90%) pays? Isn’t it all “enforced redistribution of income” full stop?

Dumbass.

criannon wrote:

And it gets redistributed by the deeply corrupt government that serves only the rich and is somehow still good.

So, by what you laughingly call “logic,” any financial transaction counts as “redistribution”? And any contract that involves money is an “enforced redistribution of income”?

Damn, dude, you don’t really understand how words work, do you?

…and your complete and intentional misreading of my words is duly noted, and dismissed as both trivial and irrelevant. Much like you.

I’m bored with you now; you’re way too ignorant and predictable.

Branches ending at the same leaf are much more common on the male side, so much so the male side only has half the number of leaves.

Citation needed, buddy.

And even if that was the case, how would that prove that women are the gatekeepers of sex?

I wrote:

Would you not call an economic system where the top 1 percent can buy legislation that makes it much easier to legally steal money from the other 99 percent deeply corrupt?

[Emphasis mine, irony noted]

criannon wrote:

So this deeply corrupt government is doing the good job of providing social security?

You just added another “very” to my assessment of your stupidity.

criannon wrote:

Taxation is literally enforced redistribution of income.

If you believe that taxation is “enforced redistribution of income,” then why does it matter whether some group (like, say, the top 1% of income earners) pays a higher percentage of the total tax revenue than some other group (like, say, the bottom 90%)? Isn’t it all “enforced redistribution of income,” full stop?

Dumbass.

criannon wrote:

And it gets redistributed by the deeply corrupt government that serves only the rich and is somehow still good.

So, according to what you laughably consider “logic,” any economic transaction counts as “redistribution of income,” and any contract that involves money is an “enforced redistribution of income”?

Words: they have meanings. You should probably try and figure that concept out at some point.

…and your blatant and intentional misrepresentation of my words are noted and dismissed as irrelevant. Much like you.

I’m bored with you now; you’ve got nothing new or even vaguely interesting.

Oh wowwwwww.

This one’s a lively one. Lemme get you some replies my duck.

Question, when I say it is super good that cars have wheels, am I saying anything about the exhaust fumes?
From what I see, you guys assume ill intentions and then go look for them a then create these weird constructs. Isn’t that a strawman?
He was just talking about the idea of having sex after marriage. Nothing more.

No, that’s not a strawman. A strawman argument is when you create a false or misleading position to argue against instead of arguing against the actual position. Turns out that the path one takes to get to a position doesn’t matter, it’s the strength of the position itself that matters.

It’s impossible to make statements about culture without casting a wide net and hitting a lot of other implications – you can’t talk narrowly about this stuff. He knows this, he’s a doctor of psychology.

Also is he really smart or really dumb? Cause I hear both and it depends on whether you (perhaps not you personally) want to portray him as sinister or stupid.

He’s both. He’s well educated and – dare I say – erudite. He’s also either willfully ignorant or cynically deceptive. Take your pick.

And yes, you can be a PhD in any field and still be a clueless idiot. I’ve worked with many.

Possibly. The word [rape] is there for sure. So when talking about rape culture one is necessarily talking about rape? Well, technically yes, you got me there. But you see there is this context of the 1st video, where Sam misinterprets JBP – JBP says ‘affirmative consent regulations and laws’, Sam says ‘rape’.

What are ‘affirmative consent regulations and laws’ legislating on? Take your time on this one.

(I’m gonna assume your reply here is “affirmative consent,” actually, because you’ve proven to be a stubborn mule who needs to be led directly to the trough by the nose.)

And what is ‘affirmative consent’ about?

Again, you can take your time on this one.

Let me help – it’s about how not to fucking rape people. And since it’s something that’s – you know – legislated, perhaps it’s something that’s prevalent in society. You know, across our culture.

Like it were some sorta rape culture or something.

Would you care to explain? Especially the attack thing? Is this blog full of assertions, insincere and more interested in attack than truth?

The things we are blind to, and the things we emphasize, are illustrative of how we think.

Oh, and then I read the thread fully.

It’s interesting that our friend @criannon makes the assumption that mans work is with time and hands, and womz work with time and vaginas.

Sorta puttin’ all the cards on the table there, my duck!

Go ahead, you can say it. It’s okay. Tell us what you think women’s greatest contributions to society are. Tell us what we’re here for. We all know what you’re thinking, you’ve told us already. Stop being cowardly, be direct. The English language has words for women who make sex their profession, after all.

You want to walk in here and make those cowardly, underhanded insinuations about my friends? Couch it in your erudition all you like, but you’re talking to people who read for comprehension and see right through you.

Go ahead, criannon. Say it directly. Stop hiding what you mean when you say “I work with my hands, you work with your vagina.” You wanna say it. Do it, coward. “You women are ________”. Fill in the fucking blank.

… how do you then explain the fact that you have (roughly) twice as many female ancestors as male?

We don’t need to explain it, because it’s complete nonsense. Even the Weekly World News wouldn’t publish a headline that preposterous.

I’m working on a family tree project right now. I’ve gone back 15 generations (in some cases, back even further). There are maybe 6 or 7 pairings that appear more than once on the entire tree, which is to be expected when ancestors originate from the same small area. What I don’t see is 256 chads servicing the same 128 women.

Branches ending at the same leaf are much more common on the male side, so much so the male side only has half the number of leaves.

That is…not how family trees work. There isn’t a “male side” and a “female” side.

You seem to be eager to redistribute my money, why should I not be eager to redistribute your sex.

Because sex is not a commodity. It’s an activity. You can’t physically redistribute it.

If we’re talking about forcing women to “give” sex to men who lack it, now we’re literally talking about human trafficking and slavery. That is not the same thing as taxation. People get something back from their taxes: paved roads, decent schools, fire and police protection, a more comfortable old age. These are all shared public benefits. What benefit will women get from forced sex redistribution? I can sure think of plenty of downsides: unwanted pregnancies, STDs, the trauma of being violated by someone not of your choosing.

Would YOU enjoy being forced to redistribute “your” sex to other incel men? If not, why are you so prudish about it? It’s just a casual thing.

If you yourself recoil from the idea, then why should women feel any differently?

What makes you think state provided social security is a good thing? Could the society save the poor old dying people in the streets in any other way? Could you maybe find a better solution that the deeply corrupt state?

Well, we tried Dickensian poorhouses and starving the elderly, and that didn’t really work out so well.

What makes you think privatizing the social safety net would work any better? Now you’re introducing a profit motive and shareholders. That’s an extra layer of people who need to get paid (and will always make sure they get their share first, before Granny). Talk about inefficient.

The Veteran’s Administration has become increasingly privatized under Trump and although the system was flawed before, it’s gotten worse.

The reasons for flaws weren’t due to government services being inherently flawed. There were several factors and fixes for them that didn’t involve privitization.

@WWTH

We already know that dumbass thinks the government is essentially a giant version of the Mafia; I just can’t decide if he’s more stupid than ignorant, or more ignorant than stupid.

Either way, erudite he ain’t…

Regarding enforced monogamy
Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

This is the degree he’s advocating. You know, parents telling their offspring not to fuck around and stay in the relationship, looking down on infidelity (slut-shaming, stud-shaming) and so on.

@Makroth

Is Peterson also advocating that men go out and offer themselves to women who aren’t getting much sex?

In a way, yes. Very simply put, slut-shaming would have that effect.

@Gaebolga
You could have emphasized ‘can buy legislation’ in your citation and you’d get to the government but then you’d need to think and not just name call.

There’s also this study (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract) and article about it (https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success). I’m not a geneticist, so yes it could be I’m repeating somebody’s wrong conclusions. But I tend to trust scientists. Do you have some other interpretation? Cause you just said it is wrong, but did not really explain why.

We already know that dumbass thinks the government is essentially a giant version of the Mafia

Wow, that is some uncompromising self-reflection.

@Scildfreja Unnyðnes

No, that’s not a strawman. A strawman argument is when you create a false or misleading position to argue against instead of arguing against the actual position. Turns out that the path one takes to get to a position doesn’t matter, it’s the strength of the position itself that matters

.
Kinda like one talking about encapsulation of sexual behavior in traditional marriage and you saying he wants to ban gay sex?

It’s impossible to make statements about culture without casting a wide net and hitting a lot of other implications – you can’t talk narrowly about this stuff. He knows this, he’s a doctor of psychology.

It’s possible and JBP just did it. You saying we can’t does not mean we can’t. But it gives you an excuse to misinterpret.

Let me help – it’s about how not to fucking rape people. And since it’s something that’s – you know – legislated, perhaps it’s something that’s prevalent in society. You know, across our culture.

It is not. And there is no rape culture (apart from Rotherham and some other places). People are fucking around the world without your ridiculous idea of affirmative consent and it is not rape. Why do you want to get into peoples bedroom and regulate their behavior? Why don’t you actually empower women, tell them tolearn to say no clearly and stand up for themselves, tell them they are not victims in need of ridiculous laws to be truly protected. Infantilizing women is a disgusting behavior for so called feminist. Real empowered women should slap this nonsense out of your head. And that was figurative speech before you accuse me of threatening violence. What a shame to waste your undoubtedly brilliant mind on such nonsense.

The things we are blind to, and the things we emphasize, are illustrative of how we think.

Was that a convoluted way of saying no? That is what I got from it.

It’s interesting that our friend @criannon makes the assumption that mans work is with time and hands, and womz work with time and vaginas.

Yeah, you know, there’s not that many female bricklayer, plumbers, carpenters, diggers, sewage workers, electricians. Interesting indeed.

You want to walk in here and make those cowardly, underhanded insinuations about my friends? Couch it in your erudition all you like, but you’re talking to people who read for comprehension and see right through you.

Erudition? You flatter me. Or .. are you hitting on me? Wanna go for a coffee?

Go ahead, you can say it. It’s okay. Tell us what you think women’s greatest contributions to society are. Tell us what we’re here for. We all know what you’re thinking, you’ve told us already. Stop being cowardly, be direct. The English language has words for women who make sex their profession, after all.

Mothers? But you go ahead call them whores.

Go ahead, criannon. Say it directly. Stop hiding what you mean when you say “I work with my hands, you work with your vagina.”

Well, you may not like it, but very bluntly put ‘sex for resources’ is how the sexual market works. that is how it worked throughout human evolution that shaped us and our behaviour. Perhaps it is going to change but I have yet this change in behaviour to occur and see the long-term results of this change.
Now the outrage … If I had called women whores and thought whoring is bad, would I not be at the same time saying something similarly bad about men? Do you apply your sharp logic and reading comprehension selectively? Also is there something wrong with whores? If I read your upset comprehensively it would sounds a lot like whore-shaming. Is that allowed here? Be careful girl. Better apologize before they jump on you.

@Rhuu – apparently an illiterati

Here’s a question: Why do you think that violent people will stop being violent, if they are getting laid on the regular?

It is not that I think it. It is what evidence shows happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2016.1216153

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants

Because sex is not a commodity. It’s an activity. You can’t physically redistribute it.

Services are redistributable, you should know that.

Well, we tried Dickensian poorhouses and starving the elderly, and that didn’t really work out so well.

So unless it is this deeply corrupt government we’re doomed? Could you maybe think of other solutions?

What makes you think privatizing the social safety net would work any better? Now you’re introducing a profit motive and shareholders. That’s an extra layer of people who need to get paid (and will always make sure they get their share first, before Granny). Talk about inefficient.

Yeah, those deeply corrupt government workers are so selfless and require no pay and work super efficiently for the greater good. You either work at a government agency or never had to work with one.

@all
I am sorry I don’t address all your points, there is just too many and I don’t have that much spare time.
Also why do you need to use so many insults and ad hominems, are you getting to emotional or something?
Sincerely, I have no doubt you guys are all very intelligent.

@ criannon

tell them tolearn to say no clearly and stand up for themselves

I can do a 10,000 word essay on what happens when women say ‘no’ to entitled men; and the potential consequences of that. Or you could just ask any woman for her own experience.

At best it’s going to be ‘nice guy tm’ insults; at worst it’s going to be violence.

I can cite numerous authorities on why the most dangerous time for a woman, in terms of risk of violence (including death), is when they “stand up for themselves”.

Happy to do that if it helps.

The existence of consensual sex does not mean rape doesn’t exist. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up that people around the world like to fuck. Did you think we didn’t know that?

I’m also not quite sure you’re advocating the shaming of pre-marital sex in one paragraph and then in the next implying that we’re anti-sex prudes for advocating consent in the next.

Also not sure why you think we’re trying to remove female agency because we want to socialize men and boys to care about obtaining consent. Part of rape culture is that women are made to feel like in some situations, they cannot or should not say no. Because saying no once you’ve already agreed to be alone with a man, or fool around with him, or whatever is more trouble than it’s worth. Because we know how aggrieved and how pushy men can be. Part of consent education is making it clear to women that they don’t have to agree to sexual activity they don’t want. And to make it clear to men that they can say no too, not being up for sex doesn’t mean you’re not a real man.

Perhaps you should listen to what feminists say about affirmative consent and rape culture rather than listening to what other men tell you we’re saying? Just a wacky thought.

Now, on the frustrated men committing violence thing.

What evidence to you have that discouraging sexual freedom will reduce male violence? Sure we have the incel movement, and they’re horrible. But overall, violent crime has been going down. Thanks to no fault divorce, services to help partner violence victims, and a shift in attitudes away from the idea that divorce is unacceptable, the man is king of his castle, and domestic violence is no one else’s business, rates of domestic violence have dropped. Although it’s still a huge problem. In fact men with patriarchal views on women are more likely to abuse or rape women.

Just saying that men can be dangerous when frustrated isn’t enough. You need to show why the best solution is regulating female behavior. As supposed to say, teaching men and boys that sometimes you don’t get what you want and giving them tools other than aggression to deal with that frustration. That would be my preferred solution.

Another solution would be heavily regulate male behavior. They’re the ones committing the vast majority of violence after all. So how about men have a curfew, no going out after 9 PM. Since alcohol is a big factor in make violence, they shouldn’t be allowed to drink. To protect them from online recruitment into hate groups, no unsupervised internet use. I mean, I’m not personally for this, but doesn’t it make more sense than regulating the gender that isn’t typically the perpetrator?

I’m also not clear on how enforced monogamy prevents men from being frustrated. Even in more patriarchal monogamous cultures, there are still men who lose out in the marriage market.

I just in general don’t think there’s a possible way to ensure that every man gets his way all the time.

HLM regression models indicate that men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.

From the abstract that you posted. Note the Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence.Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence..

That’s the exact opposite of what you claimed!

Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace

What the researchers are saying is that men who are not in constant competition over sexual gratification are less likely to be violent.
Your “enforced monogamy” would not take that competition away. It would escalate it, since every young man would desperately claw for the “high status” women.
That’s why people who believe in “the sexual market place” are making this problem worse: You add another layer of pressure for these men to be hyper-competitive.

Why do you want to get into peoples bedroom and regulate their behavior? Why don’t you actually empower women, tell them tolearn to say no clearly and stand up for themselves, tell them they are not victims in need of ridiculous laws to be truly protected. Infantilizing women is a disgusting behavior for so called feminist.

“Women are strong independent creatures who don’t need silly things like affirmative consent laws to be protected from rape! They can stand up for themselves!”

The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

“If we don’t regulate women’s behavior then they will cause men to become dangerous and destroy society! Women need to be told how to conduct themselves sexually to prevent disaster!”

So, um, are women rational independent people who can make their own decisions and don’t need regulation in the form of laws against sexual assault, or are they unruly, irrational sex-hoarders that need established social enforcement systems in order to maintain a civil society?

If you’re a guy: tell me how i can be more successful, or how you feel. Maybe you don’t share my troubles in getting female attention. Why not? Sometimes, to me the highlight in a month is a woman saying “hehe, you’re funny”.

Ok, Eddie, I’ll bite. I’m male, recently became single and I spent my whole life with a whole lot of female attention. Most of my friends are women and my BFF (and her husband) trusts me so much, she sleeps in the same bed as me, knowing that I’m not gonna try anything.
And that is the secret!
Sex is not my goal! I go out and I want to meet new people (when my anxiety allows it) and usually it leads to regular fun and two years ago, it led to a really happy relationship that ended because our life-plans were too different.
If you go out with flow-charts in your head and a whole plethora of “moves”, you’re gonna fail because women are not stupid. They feel that you’re just here for their body. And here is the kicker: Most of them don’t like that. I know, because they tell me when we talk.
If you want to get anywhere in the romance-sector, get that silly idea of “sexual market place” or 80/20 or whatever out of your head, take a breather and just try to make a friend.

Is Peterson also advocating that men go out and offer themselves to women who aren’t getting much sex?

In a way, yes. Very simply put, slut-shaming would have that effect.

Perfect. Then to solve your “problem” of “sexual inequality” we’ll just shame men who have sex. Problem solved!

I’m not a geneticist, so yes it could be I’m repeating somebody’s wrong conclusions. But I tend to trust scientists.

You need to understand scientists first before you can trust them, you soggy ketchup sandwich.

You need to understand scientists first before you can trust them, you soggy ketchup sandwich.

Why? Peterson doesn’t understand half the things he talks about and look where that got him!

@Criannon
Let me make this perfectly clear because you are an idiot it seems. I did say no clearly. I said no, I’m to young, I don’t feel ready, and losing my virginity is a big deal to me. Then I broke up with him when he kept pushing for it. You know how he responded because to him I was his property? (trigger warning assault)
He beat me. He held me down by hair and he took what he wanted anyways. Then afterwards I felt so worthless because slut shaming and rape culture says that I am, so he got to do that again and again. I wanted to survive it and have it be as less violent and painful as possible.
Also how uncreative are you that you can’t get affirmative consent from a person. Its called dirty talk. It’s fun and it takes the creativity that a mouse couple probably come up with

@criannon

Because sex is not a commodity. It’s an activity. You can’t physically redistribute it.

Services are redistributable, you should know that.

I’m sorry; what? How do we redistribute services? Are you talking about a third party such as a government paying service providers to perform their services with a population that otherwise could not afford them?

If so, an equivalent for sexual services would be a government or other organization paying sex workers their fees when sex workers worked with underserved populations. Sex workers would still have the right to refuse to work with a given client. They would probably have a right to refuse to work with the program at all, unless there was some sort of mandate that for every hour with a private client, you must do X hours with a government-assisted client. They would definitely still have the right to quit sex work.

This form of “redistribution” of services would absolutely not be equivalent to forcing everyone who has a vagina and that you consider to be a woman to have sex with whoever you feel is the most in need. There is no way to quit having a body, so you are not giving these people the choice of quitting. Even if it were an opt-in service, you’re not providing any compensation. You’re not allowing them to choose their own sex partners, but are assigning them with no right of refusal.

I think that if Peterson was really worried about young men getting sufficiently sexed up he would put his mouth where his philosophy is and start offering free blowjobs to incels.

Really, dude, if you’re so worried that the boys might get violent if they aren’t sexed up, why aren’t YOU doing something about it.

@Lainy
That’s awful! That person was horrible and no body should be made to feel bad for something that others do to them! Ugh, hatred in humanity rises! I hope you’ll never have to go through something like that again!
And you actually found a very good point:
Yeah, getting affirmative consent through dirty talk and gently testing the waters and paying attention to your partner is fun. Heck, I don’t like sex and even I can enjoy that for the bonding alone. But people who talk about sexual marketplaces don’t go into the “getting sex” business for fun. They consider it a commodity worth getting and hoarding. Enjoyment is secondary over the knowledge that you got more of something than others.
.
.
.
And that’s why capitalism infiltrates everything and makes it shit!

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.