Jordan Peterson-Rational Wiki

[billvon]

So you disagree with the historically proven dangers of state socialism (Nazism, National Socialist German Workers' Party) and communism?

Capitalism, socialism, communism - they all have their dangers. They all have their benefits. Wise people choose which parts of each to use.

Did we have incels when monogamy was a culturally enforced norm?

Yes. We just called them committed bachelors or some such. Keep in mind that violent crime (murder, rape etc) has gone _down_ with time. So incels are indeed a problem, but the worst of them (the murderers/rapists) are becoming less of a problem.

[Syne]

So you disagree with the historically proven dangers of state socialism (Nazism, National Socialist German Workers' Party) and communism?

Capitalism, socialism, communism - they all have their dangers.  They all have their benefits.  Wise people choose which parts of each to use.

Someone needs to brush up on their history. Capitalism is wholly voluntary, while socialism and communism have directly led to the death of millions.

Did we have incels when monogamy was a culturally enforced norm?

Yes.  We just called them committed bachelors or some such.  Keep in mind that violent crime (murder, rape etc) has gone _down_ with time.  So incels are indeed a problem, but the worst of them (the murderers/rapists) are becoming less of a problem.

No, committed bachelors just aren't looking to get married. We've never had people self-identifying as "can't get laid" and commiserating so openly.

It does not follow that since the crime rate has been dropping that every demographic of criminal must also be dropping. The is the fallacy of division, where you assume something that is true of the whole (crime) is also true of some part (criminal incels). You'd need actual statistics to make your claim valid reasoning.

[billvon]

So you disagree with the historically proven dangers of state socialism (Nazism, National Socialist German Workers' Party) and communism?

Capitalism, socialism, communism - they all have their dangers.  They all have their benefits.  Wise people choose which parts of each to use.

Someone needs to brush up on their history. Capitalism is wholly voluntary, while socialism and communism have directly led to the death of millions.

Did we have incels when monogamy was a culturally enforced norm?

Yes.  We just called them committed bachelors or some such.  Keep in mind that violent crime (murder, rape etc) has gone _down_ with time.  So incels are indeed a problem, but the worst of them (the murderers/rapists) are becoming less of a problem.

No, committed bachelors just aren't looking to get married. We've never had people self-identifying as "can't get laid" and commiserating so openly.

It does not follow that since the crime rate has been dropping that every demographic of criminal must also be dropping. The is the fallacy of division, where you assume something that is true of the whole (crime) is also true of some part (criminal incels). You'd need actual statistics to make your claim valid reasoning.

[Syne]

Thanks for memorializing my post, Billvon.

[Secular Sanity]

Only if it leads to children or marriages without prenups.

Prenups that protect who, the ones who leave the workforce for a considerable amount of time to stay home and raise children? 

It depends on the state.

Unless you want to cite something, that just sounds like your own bias run amok.

Does it? 

Well, your request shows your lack of understanding. 

I didn't see him make excuses for them anywhere in there. Your fertile and biased imagination once again putting words in his mouth.

Really?

Incels also believe that single people seeking a partner participate in a cruel, mercenary, and Darwinian sexual selection, wherein incels are genetically unfit and where women hold an advantage for reasons ranging from feminism to the use of cosmetics.

Peterson on the use of cosmetics…

Peterson: Here’s a question. Can men and women work together in the workplace?

Yes.

Peterson: How do you know?

Because I work with a lot of women.

Peterson: Well, it’s been happening for what, 40 years? And things are deteriorating very rapidly at the moment in terms of the relationship between men and women. Is there sexual harassment in the workplace? Yes. Should it stop? That would be good. Will it? Well, not at the moment it won’t because we don’t know what the rules are.

Do you think men and women can work in the workplace together?

Peterson: I don’t know.

Without sexual harassment?

Peterson: We’ll see.

How many years will it take for men and women working in the workplace together?

Peterson: More than forty. We don’t know what the rules are. Like here’s a rule. How about no makeup in the workplace?

Laughter* Why would that be a rule?

Peterson: Why should you wear makeup in the workplace? Isn’t that sexually provocative?

No.

Peterson: It’s not?

No. *laughter

Peterson: What is it then? What’s the purpose of makeup?

Some people would like to just put on makeup.

Peterson: Why?

I don’t know why.

Peterson: Why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal, that’s why. Why do you put rouge on your cheeks? Same reason. How about high heels? What about them? They’re there to exaggerate sexual attractiveness. That’s what high heels do. Now, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t use sexual displays in the workplace. I’m not saying that but I am saying that, that is what they’re doing and that is what they’re doing.

Do you feel like a serious woman that does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace that she is somewhat being hypocritical?

Peterson: Yeah, I do think that. source

Peterson has mentioned female choice in sexual selection several times throughout his career.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/N7LN14IpVy0

The general consensus is that human dimorphism has diminished over time. Compared to closely-related polygynous species, there’s only a slight difference in body size between human males and females.

One unanswered and hotly debated issue revolving around sexual selection is female choice, which Darwin believed barely operated in humans. Another is the limitations that monogamy might have placed on sexual selection in human populations. Marriage itself revolved around property and reproduction, often limited through societal pressures, e.g. parental choice, strategic alliances, money, land, lineages, spoils of war, etc.

When exactly did the evolution of female choice enter into the picture, Syne?

Did we have incels when monogamy was a culturally enforced norm? No. Did he make any excuses for their rape and murder fantasies? No. Did he give a reason why they exist? Yes. There must be a reason. So if you disagree, why do you think incels are suddenly a thing? Does it have anything to do with cultural changes? Does it have anything to do with young men not learning how to be men? O_o

While the "Yang Gang" that's manipulating the web for underdog Andrew Yang's campaign isn't up to anything nefarious -- just the typical electioneering motives (and he's certainly not an invisible force in the background)... It's a tame example of how magnates, charismatic figures, crime-lords, philosopher kings/queens, well-connected pulpiteers, etc can play an exploit the cyberworld just as they historically did the old one.

C C nailed it. The internet allows for all sorts of groups to gather momentum.

"The first online community to use the term "incel" was started in 1993 when a Canadian university student known only by her first name, Alana, created a website in order to discuss her sexual inactivity with others.

She stopped participating in her online project around 2000 and gave the site to a stranger. When speaking about the website in 2018, Alana said, "It definitely wasn't a bunch of guys blaming women for their problems. That's a pretty sad version of this phenomenon that's happening today. Things have changed in the last 20 years.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#History

Does it have anything to do with culture? Who knows? Maybe technology, i.e., video games, iPhones, etc. What's the ratio between male and female gamers?

What if female sexual selection is just now starting to rear its head with them having a key and a great chain in their hands. Bwahaha! 

Are you guys getting prettier or is it just me? 

[Syne]

Only if it leads to children or marriages without prenups.

Prenups that protect who, the ones who leave the workforce for a considerable amount of time to stay home and raise children? 

It depends on the state.

Prenups that protect both parties who voluntarily agree to them. Or are you, again, arguing to infantilize women, who your questions presumes are not responsible enough adults to enter into a voluntary contract? O_o

Unless you want to cite something, that just sounds like your own bias run amok.

Does it? 

Well, your request shows your lack of understanding. 

Well, if you can't back up your own claims, you're conceding the point yourself.

I didn't see him make excuses for them anywhere in there. Your fertile and biased imagination once again putting words in his mouth.

Really?

Incels also believe that single people seeking a partner participate in a cruel, mercenary, and Darwinian sexual selection, wherein incels are genetically unfit and where women hold an advantage for reasons ranging from feminism to the use of cosmetics.

Peterson on the use of cosmetics…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqn6YoMFiI0

Peterson has mentioned female choice in sexual selection several times throughout his career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...7LN14IpVy0

Where, in any of that, does he even mention incels? Nowhere, because you're simply fabricating any excuses for incels, and, like I said, obviously putting words in his mouth. Just because incels may twist the same biological, evolutionary, and evolutionary psychology he mentions doesn't mean he's making excuses for them...unless you're intellectually dishonest and even anti-science, in the furthering of your own bias.

The general consensus is that human dimorphism has diminished over time. Compared to closely-related polygynous species, there’s only a slight difference in body size between human males and females.

If it's a "general consensus", then you should have no problem citing some sources, right? You know, instead of just making an unsupported consensus fallacy.
But socially:

The gender-equality paradox most commonly refers to the findings of a study by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary that, counter-intuitively, suggests that countries with a higher level of gender equality tend to have less gender balance in fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), than less equal countries. This research found that while, on average, girls perform better than or equal to boys on STEM measures, the relative gap between the two increases as the gender equality of the country increases. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox

IOW, the more social/societal gender equality, the more traditional the expressed gender roles.

But all this seems like another one of your typical, non sequitur red herrings. What does human dimorphism have to do with Peterson and incels? O_o

One unanswered and hotly debated issue revolving around sexual selection is female choice, which Darwin believed barely operated in humans. Another is the limitations that monogamy might have placed on sexual selection in human populations. Marriage itself revolved around property and reproduction, often limited through societal pressures, e.g. parental choice, strategic alliances, money, land, lineages, spoils of war, etc.

When exactly did the evolution of female choice enter into the picture, Syne?

Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, deary.
Female sexual selection is everywhere in the animal kingdom. It's hypocritical of you to compare humans to "closely-related polygynous species" to then pretend you didn't when it suits you.

And in humans, hidden estrus means that women have always been able to have some measure of control over who impregnates them, regardless of societal pressures, and often completely unbeknownst to their legitimate spouse.

Did we have incels when monogamy was a culturally enforced norm? No. Did he make any excuses for their rape and murder fantasies? No. Did he give a reason why they exist? Yes. There must be a reason. So if you disagree, why do you think incels are suddenly a thing? Does it have anything to do with cultural changes? Does it have anything to do with young men not learning how to be men? O_o

The internet allows for all sorts of groups to gather momentum.

"The first online community to use the term "incel" was started in 1993 when a Canadian university student known only by her first name, Alana, created a website in order to discuss her sexual inactivity with others.

She stopped participating in her online project around 2000 and gave the site to a stranger. When speaking about the website in 2018, Alana said, "It definitely wasn't a bunch of guys blaming women for their problems. That's a pretty sad version of this phenomenon that's happening today. Things have changed in the last 20 years.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#History

Does it have anything to do with culture? Who knows? Maybe technology, i.e., video games, iPhones, etc. What's the ratio between male and female gamers?

What if female sexual selection is just now starting to rear its head with them having a key and a great chain in their hands. Bwahaha! 

Are you guys getting prettier or is it just me? 

Monogamy hasn't been a very strong, culturally enforced norm since shortly after the sexual revolution. The 90s are still relatively recent, and incel prominence in societal awareness is a sudden thing. So, not sure what you think that rebuts. Gamers and incels would be a spurious correlation without establishing an actual connection.

Human female sexual selection is only really a thing for guys who don't understand female psychology. Luckily for you gals, most guys are pretty clueless.

[Secular Sanity]

Prenups that protect both parties who voluntarily agree to them. Or are you, again, arguing to infantilize women, who your questions presumes are not responsible enough adults to enter into a voluntary contract? O_o

Family courts expect you to support yourself. They do not favor lifetime support. In fact, if the provision is unconscionable, it’s not enforced and getting back into the workforce isn’t an easy task, deary.

The number of stay at home dads are rising and will continue to rise with the gender gap in education. According to Peterson, it’s because you don’t know how to compete with us. I’m not sure, though…is he saying that you don’t know how to compete with us because you can’t hit us?

Why Men are Bailing Out

Well, if you can't back up your own claims, you're conceding the point yourself.

Maybe I'll use Peterson's tactics and just suggest that you read his books. 

Or you could read tidbits on the transvaluation of values.

I didn't see him make excuses for them anywhere in there. Your fertile and biased imagination once again putting words in his mouth.

Where, in any of that, does he even mention incels? Nowhere, because you're simply fabricating any excuses for incels, and, like I said, obviously putting words in his mouth. Just because incels may twist the same biological, evolutionary, and evolutionary psychology he mentions doesn't mean he's making excuses for them...unless you're intellectually dishonest and even anti-science, in the furthering of your own bias.

Let's just assume that he meant culturally enforced, shall we? It still doesn't sound any better.

"Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is culturally enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges."

"Half the men fail," he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. "And no one cares about the men who fail."

I laugh, because it is absurd.

"You’re laughing about them," he says, giving me a disappointed look. "That’s because you’re female."

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style...-life.html

If it's a "general consensus", then you should have no problem citing some sources, right? You know, instead of just making an unsupported consensus fallacy.

There’s lots evidence cited by Plavcan showing that sexual dimorphism has waxed and waned. Google it.

But socially:

Stem jobs? Maybe but not for long. I mean, if you guys are staying home and holding down the fort, we'll have more time to focus.

But all this seems like another one of your typical, non sequitur red herrings. What does human dimorphism have to do with Peterson and incels? O_o

What did he say in that video that I just posted? Oh, yeah, that our primary role is to make you self-conscious and nothing will make a man more self-conscious than being rejected. He makes hypergamy sound cruel, doesn't he? BTW, do you agree with him in regards to hypergamy being the cause of the divergence between us and our common ancestor? 

Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, deary.

Female sexual selection is everywhere in the animal kingdom. It's hypocritical of you to compare humans to "closely-related polygynous species" to then pretend you didn't when it suits you.

What have we learned since then? Here's your chance to school me.

I'll ask you again, when? When did we gain sexual autonomy? And how has female choice impacted human evolution?

Monogamy hasn't been a very strong, culturally enforced norm since shortly after the sexual revolution. The 90s are still relatively recent, and incel prominence in societal awareness is a sudden thing. So, not sure what you think that rebuts.

But socially enforcing monogamy will solve the problem with incels, right?

Gamers and incels would be a spurious correlation without establishing an actual connection.

I'm not saying there's a known correlation but smartphones and gaming are replacing face-to-face interactions, are they not? It's one of theories for the rise in herbivores, why not incels? 

Human female sexual selection is only really a thing for guys who don't understand female psychology. Luckily for you gals, most guys are pretty clueless.

Yeah, we love clueless men. Lucky us.

[Syne]

Prenups that protect both parties who voluntarily agree to them. Or are you, again, arguing to infantilize women, who your questions presumes are not responsible enough adults to enter into a voluntary contract? O_o

Family courts expect you to support yourself. They do not favor lifetime support. In fact, if the provision is unconscionable, it’s not enforced and Getting back into the workforce isn’t an easy task, deary.

The number of stay at home dads are rising and will continue to rise with the gender gap in education. According to Peterson, it’s because you don’t know how to compete with us. I’m not sure, though…is he saying you don’t know how to compete with us because you can’t hit us?

Why Men are Bailing Out

Getting back to work is hard, and it infantilizes women to presume that they either cannot foresee or overcome that possibility. And ruling legally valid provisions "unconscionable" is likewise infantilizing, as it presumes a woman cannot make legally binding decisions, as if she were a literal child.

Apparently you can't be bothered to listen to, or comprehend, what Peterson says. Explains a lot. Since many of the workplace protections revolve around the perceptions of the "victim", men simply cannot treat women as they would men, as women are much more sensitive and prone to take offense. That means men necessarily have to treat them with kid gloves. And it has nothing to do with force or violence, as a man will be fired just as readily for hitting another man at work.

He says it quite clearly. If a man wins against a woman, he's a bully, and if he loses, he's pathetic. It's a no win scenario. And now, with #MeToo, if a man even just tries to mentor a woman, it can blow up in his face. Everything is a potential, career killing landmine.

Well, if you can't back up your own claims, you're conceding the point yourself.

Maybe I'll use Peterson's tactics and just suggest that you read his books. 

Or you could read tidbits on the transvaluation of values.

You claimed:

For Christians, this world is bad and pitiable because of the original sin and can only be redeemed by Christ and an after-life. The only good lies in denying this world for a fictitious world. Christianity is nihilistic!

If you can't support your own claim, you can't. Meh.

I didn't see him make excuses for them anywhere in there. Your fertile and biased imagination once again putting words in his mouth.

Where, in any of that, does he even mention incels? Nowhere, because you're simply fabricating any excuses for incels, and, like I said, obviously putting words in his mouth. Just because incels may twist the same biological, evolutionary, and evolutionary psychology he mentions doesn't mean he's making excuses for them...unless you're intellectually dishonest and even anti-science, in the furthering of your own bias.

Let's just assume that he meant culturally enforced, shall we? It still doesn't sound any better.

He does mean culturally enforced. Hell, you even quoted Joe Rogan literally saying exactly that:

Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson

Joe Rogan: When all of these incels (involuntary celibates) stuff went down you said that one of the cures for this is enforced monogamy—enforced by culture that it is a good value.

But as usual, you like to forget things you've quoted yourself when it suits your biased and intellectually dishonest purposes. And I've even quoted Peterson, himself, saying this...as a direct reply to you: https://www.scivillage.com/thread-6182-p...l#pid23540

Why do cultural norms sound bad to you? Do all such norms sound bad, or just monogamy? Again, whatever "arrangement" you have with your husband is strictly between the two of you. TMI, IMO.

"Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him," Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. "The cure for that is culturally enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges."

"Half the men fail," he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. "And no one cares about the men who fail."

I laugh, because it is absurd.

"You’re laughing about them," he says, giving me a disappointed look. "That’s because you’re female."

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style...-life.html

Monogamy does not "redistribute sex". It simply allows more men to feel they have value, if not as the most studly alpha male then as a good and honorable provider for his family...which used to be more valued by society. And like you, you'll notice where this article leaves off quoting him and starts paraphrasing him, putting words in his mouth.

If it's a "general consensus", then you should have no problem citing some sources, right? You know, instead of just making an unsupported consensus fallacy.

There’s lots evidence cited by Plavcan showing that sexual dimorphism has waxed and waned. Google it.

Citing one academic for a supposed "consensus", huh?
I guess all the voices in your head agree?

But socially:

Stem jobs? Maybe but not for long. I mean, if you guys are staying home and holding down the fort, we'll have more time to focus.

Your snark doesn't rebut the fact that more traditional gender roles are expressed in more gender-equal societies.

But all this seems like another one of your typical, non sequitur red herrings. What does human dimorphism have to do with Peterson and incels? O_o

What did he say in that video that I just posted? Oh, yeah, that our primary role is to make you self-conscious and nothing will make a man more self-conscious than being rejected. He makes hypergamy sound cruel, doesn't he? BTW, do you agree with him in regards to hypergamy being the cause of the divergence between us and our common ancestor? 

Again, what does that have to do with him "making excuses for" incels? O_o
You're obvious talking about this video, and nowhere in it does he talk about incels.

Cruel? He actually says that hypergamy in female sexual selection drove human brain evolution by favoring the most competent males.

Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin, deary.

Female sexual selection is everywhere in the animal kingdom. It's hypocritical of you to compare humans to "closely-related polygynous species" to then pretend you didn't when it suits you.

What have we learned since then? Here's your chance to school me.

I'll ask you again, when? When did we gain sexual autonomy? And how has female choice impacted human evolution?

No, I'm not here to appease your red herrings.
And your questions have been asked and answered...whether you have the intellectual honesty to quote them or not.

Monogamy hasn't been a very strong, culturally enforced norm since shortly after the sexual revolution. The 90s are still relatively recent, and incel prominence in societal awareness is a sudden thing. So, not sure what you think that rebuts.

But socially enforcing monogamy will solve the problem with incels, right?

It gives less than ideal mates a means to reproductive societal value, as providers. After all, if it were only about sex, they could simply pay for that.

Human female sexual selection is only really a thing for guys who don't understand female psychology. Luckily for you gals, most guys are pretty clueless.

Yeah, we love clueless men. Lucky us.

Depends. Do you enjoy guys who can get you in bed without any commitment whatsoever? Considering the plethora of regret "rape" accusations, I'd hazard most women don't. Or at least they're too self-conscious of their social value to admit to it.

[Secular Sanity]

Getting back to work is hard, and it infantilizes women to presume that they either cannot foresee or overcome that possibility. And ruling legally valid provisions "unconscionable" is likewise infantilizing, as it presumes a woman cannot make legally binding decisions, as if she were a literal child. 

Well, nowadays, women are asking for prenups, too. People are getting married later in life and both men and women have accumulated assets. My advice was intended for the "many men who would love to stay home."

Apparently you can't be bothered to listen to, or comprehend, what Peterson says. Explains a lot. Since many of the workplace protections revolve around the perceptions of the "victim", men simply cannot treat women as they would men, as women are much more sensitive and prone to take offense. That means men necessarily have to treat them with kid gloves. And it has nothing to do with force or violence, as a man will be fired just as readily for hitting another man at work.

He says it quite clearly. If a man wins against a woman, he's a bully, and if he loses, he's pathetic. It's a no win scenario. And now, with #MeToo, if a man even just tries to mentor a woman, it can blow up in his face. Everything is a potential, career killing landmine.

No, I heard what he said and therein lies the rub. We’ve always had to tip toe around your little egos, but nevertheless, he said more than just that.

"I know how to stand up to a man that has trespassed against me and the reason I know that is that the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined. Which is we talk, we argue, and then it becomes physical. Right? Like if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. Okay-that’s forbidden in the discourse with women. And so, I don’t think that men can control crazy women."—Peterson 

So, which is it, Syne? Is male-male interaction at work brutal, civil, or is it the constant threat of physical violence that's keeps it civil?

We’ve all seen the "political punches" and "lawmakers behaving badly" videos.

You claimed:

For Christians, this world is bad and pitiable because of the original sin and can only be redeemed by Christ and an after-life. The only good lies in denying this world for a fictitious world. Christianity is nihilistic!

If you can't support your own claim, you can't. Meh.

Oh, I see. You want me to prove Nietzsche’s point. Well, that would be another topic altogether, deary.

He does mean culturally enforced. Hell, you even quoted Joe Rogan literally saying exactly that:

But as usual, you like to forget things you've quoted yourself when it suits your biased and intellectually dishonest purposes.

Nope. I said let's just assume that he meant socially enforced because I think it's safe to assume that he did.

Why do cultural norms sound bad to you? Do all such norms sound bad, or just monogamy?

Who's putting words in whose mouth here? 

Monogamy does not "redistribute sex". It simply allows more men to feel they have value, if not as the most studly alpha male then as a good and honorable provider for his family...which used to be more valued by society. And like you, you'll notice where this article leaves off quoting him and starts paraphrasing him, putting words in his mouth.

Ah, so…men need a level playing field, eh? And we’re supposed to provide that for you? What if we don't want to get married? Oh, right, then we're clueless, disagreeable, crazy, masculine, etc. What if we want to be valued as a provider? Oh, right, we need to stay home and tend to the children because men can't compete with us in the workforce. What if we don't want children? Oh, right, then something is terribly wrong with us. 

Citing one academic for a supposed "consensus", huh? 
I guess all the voices in your head agree?

It's just one academic that several academics have referenced. Do you need one for each voice in your head, deary. How many do you need?

Your snark doesn't rebut the fact that more traditional gender roles are expressed in more gender-equal societies.

The Aka tribes seems to manage okay. The men even use their nipples to pacify their children while the women are off hunting. They don't view themselves as being pathetic. They're some of the best father's in world and many believe that this is what creates the strong bonds between the Aka men and women.

He actually says that hypergamy in female sexual selection drove brain evolution by favoring the most competent males.

Yeah, he did, didn't he? Do you agree with that?

No, I'm not here to appease your red herrings.
And your questions have been asked and answered...whether you have the intellectual honesty to quote them or not.

Wait a minute. You answered it? So, we gained our sexual autonomy during the sexual revolution, is that it?

It gives less than ideal mates a means to reproductive societal value, as providers. After all, if it were only about sex, they could simply pay for that.

They’re incels (involuntary celibates), not involuntary singles. The group includes people who are in sexless marriages. If it were about marriage, they could simply order that through the mail. 

Are you trying to say that it's not about sex, it's about men who want children?

Depends. Do you enjoy guys who can get you in bed without any commitment whatsoever? Considering the plethora of regret "rape" accusations, I'd hazard most women don't. Or at least they're too self-conscious of their social value to admit to it.

Are you trying to say that most women don't enjoy casual sex?

[Syne]

Getting back to work is hard, and it infantilizes women to presume that they either cannot foresee or overcome that possibility. And ruling legally valid provisions "unconscionable" is likewise infantilizing, as it presumes a woman cannot make legally binding decisions, as if she were a literal child. 

Well, nowadays, women are asking for prenups, too. People are getting married later in life and both men and women have accumulated assets. My advice was intended for the "many men who would love to stay home."

Yeah, I'm not buying that backpedaling. Or do you have evidence of men being favored when legally valid prenup provisions are deemed "unconscionable" and go unenforced? Otherwise, it's a red herring and the infantilizing only applies to women.

Apparently you can't be bothered to listen to, or comprehend, what Peterson says. Explains a lot. Since many of the workplace protections revolve around the perceptions of the "victim", men simply cannot treat women as they would men, as women are much more sensitive and prone to take offense. That means men necessarily have to treat them with kid gloves. And it has nothing to do with force or violence, as a man will be fired just as readily for hitting another man at work.

He says it quite clearly. If a man wins against a woman, he's a bully, and if he loses, he's pathetic. It's a no win scenario. And now, with #MeToo, if a man even just tries to mentor a woman, it can blow up in his face. Everything is a potential, career killing landmine.

No, I heard what he said and therein lies the rub. We’ve always had to tip toe around your little egos, but nevertheless, he said more than just that.

Women don't get fired for hurting the feelings/ego of a coworker (unless they're the male or female boss's favorite), but men do for inadvertently offending a female coworker. Now, women can get fired for hurting the ego of a superior, but that's true whether the superior is male or female. There's no need to tip toe around an equal coworker, so either you've "always" projected your own insecurities on others or you've erroneously thought you could get away with insulting a superior.

"I know how to stand up to a man that has trespassed against me and the reason I know that is that the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined. Which is we talk, we argue, and then it becomes physical. Right? Like if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. Okay-that’s forbidden in the discourse with women. And so, I don’t think that men can control crazy women."—Peterson 

So, which is it, Syne? Is male-male interaction at work brutal, civil, or is it the constant threat of physical violence that's keeps it civil?

We’ve all seen the "political punches" and "lawmakers behaving badly" videos.

That quote is Peterson talking about "crazy women", who "cannot distinguish between male authority and competence and male tyrannical power" and "who have terrible personality disorders and who are unable to have healthy relationships with men". He's no longer talking about coworkers there, but I wouldn't expect your confirmation bias to notice that. But maybe you were watching a deceptively edited video. Here's the whole context: https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM?t=36m31s

There are consequences to men fighting other men at work, and you'd know that if you weren't so interested in confirming your bias.

I've seen the foreign politicians behaving badly, often in countries with less culturally enforced monogamy. We've also all seen the "when men hit back" videos, where "crazy women" think they can physically attack men with impunity. Is it the constant threat of physical violence that keeps these women civil? What, they just needed to be reminded?

You claimed:

For Christians, this world is bad and pitiable because of the original sin and can only be redeemed by Christ and an after-life. The only good lies in denying this world for a fictitious world. Christianity is nihilistic!

If you can't support your own claim, you can't. Meh.

Oh, I see. You want me to prove Nietzsche’s point. Well, that would be another topic altogether, deary.

No, you made the claim. I don't know, off hand, if it's a reliable interpretation of Nietzsche or not (considering how often you misrepresent other things you paraphrase). The least you could do is simply quote Nietzsche. But if you're too lazy, you're too lazy. Meh.

He does mean culturally enforced. Hell, you even quoted Joe Rogan literally saying exactly that:

But as usual, you like to forget things you've quoted yourself when it suits your biased and intellectually dishonest purposes.

Nope. I said let's just assume that he meant socially enforced because I think it's safe to assume that he did.

No, you asked that we assume it, as if it may not be the case. It's an intellectually dishonest ploy, but if you're backpedaling now, so be it.

Why do cultural norms sound bad to you? Do all such norms sound bad, or just monogamy?

Who's putting words in whose mouth here? 

You literally said:

Let's just assume that he meant culturally enforced, shall we? It still doesn't sound any better.

"Culturally enforced" is simply a cultural norm. So I ask again, is it only monogamy that "still doesn't sound any better", or are there other such norms that also don't "sound any better"? O_o




And when ever you project, like claiming someone is putting words in your mouth, it's usually because that's exactly what you're about to do (telegraphing your own intent):

Monogamy does not "redistribute sex". It simply allows more men to feel they have value, if not as the most studly alpha male then as a good and honorable provider for his family...which used to be more valued by society. And like you, you'll notice where this article leaves off quoting him and starts paraphrasing him, putting words in his mouth.

Ah, so…men need a level playing field, eh? And we’re supposed to provide that for you? What if we don't want to get married? Oh, right, then we're clueless, disagreeable, crazy, masculine, etc. What if we want to be valued as a provider? Oh, right, we need to stay home and tend to the children because men can't compete with us in the workforce. What if we don't want children? Oh, right, then something is terribly wrong with us. 

No one said anything about women providing anything. Actually quite the opposite. It's about women not getting support from the government/taxpayers in lieu if a provider. If you don't want to get married, don't. But then don't expect your own decision to be consequence free. If you want to provide for you and yours, that's great. You wouldn't be sapping the resources of an unappreciated provider nor being a burden on the taxpayers.

No one said women should stay at home, as the economy has long since moved beyond single-income families. So you're just full of straw men and projection.

Citing one academic for a supposed "consensus", huh? 
I guess all the voices in your head agree?

It's just one academic that several academics have referenced. Do you need one for each voice in your head, deary. How many do you need?

What would you accept as a "consensus"? Certainly not the 80% of the world that believes a god exists. So don't pretend you're not a hypocrite when you play coy about supporting your own claim while holding others to a higher standard.

Academics referencing each other, without new supporting studies/facts, is only an appeal to authority...in this case confirming their bias.

Your snark doesn't rebut the fact that more traditional gender roles are expressed in more gender-equal societies.

The Aka tribes seems to manage okay. The men even use their nipples to pacify their children while the women are off hunting. They don't view themselves as being pathetic. They're some of the best father's in world and many believe that this is what creates the strong bonds between the Aka men and women.

Cherry-picking a single, hunter-gatherer culture, compared to modern, cross-cultural studies.

He actually says that hypergamy in female sexual selection drove brain evolution by favoring the most competent males.

Yeah, he did, didn't he? Do you agree with that?

Sounds like a plausible, possible explanation, considering we really don't know.

No, I'm not here to appease your red herrings.
And your questions have been asked and answered...whether you have the intellectual honesty to quote them or not.

Wait a minute. You answered it? So, we gained our sexual autonomy during the sexual revolution, is that it?

Nope, search the term "hidden estrus" in this thread.

It gives less than ideal mates a means to reproductive societal value, as providers. After all, if it were only about sex, they could simply pay for that.

They’re incels (involuntary celibates), not involuntary singles. The group includes people who are in sexless marriages. If it were about marriage, they could simply order that through the mail. 

Are you trying to say that it's not about sex, it's about men who want children?

Again, you're cherry-picking, as many "married incels" are not rejected so much as their spouses lack libido. They're only involuntarily celibate to the extent they won't cheat on their spouse. Not really the typical, resentful incel demographic.

It's not about men wanting children either. It's about men, and in some cases women, who cannot find a socially valued role. Like I said, if it were only sex, there's always prostitution. It's about feeling valued.

Depends. Do you enjoy guys who can get you in bed without any commitment whatsoever? Considering the plethora of regret "rape" accusations, I'd hazard most women don't. Or at least they're too self-conscious of their social value to admit to it.

Are you trying to say that most women don't enjoy casual sex?

No, I'm saying they don't like to admit to enjoying casual one-night stands, as they obviously do enjoy them (since they still happen regularly). It's largely the clueless men who commit to relationships. So between casual sex, which many women find socially devaluating, and a committed, emotional relationship, I'd hazard women largely prefer the latter.


ETA: Granted, what women really fantasize about is the alpha one-nighter settling down and providing for them.