somebody get this man a mountain dew immediately.
I don't know if dlew is following Jordan Peterson's rule of being honest or if Jordan Peterson has just proved inscrutable again.
Peterson's writing/speaking style is to say something very incendiary and provocative but also obtuse and then claim that he is just saying something completely mundane and uninteresting like "monogamy is good" when challenged. But he is actually says "enforced monogamy" and provides lots of context and reasoning like women having birth control is bad and that not enough men are getting female attention and that over 50% of men will never procreate. I mean all the context he provides on this and all of the other weirdos that he is associated with pretty clearly establish the premise of sex as a commodity that needs government intervention. But then when pressed on any of this, he doesn't actually offer up anything or claims that men are being victimized and "something must be done!" but without specifying anything.
If all he was claiming to be was Oprah for upper middle class fail sons, then I wouldn't be so bothered by it. But the amount of attention given to him is galling, especially considering his academic writing/lectures don't seem to have any sort of rigor to them. To take one example that I've seen (there are several others I could mention) he has a lecture where he proposes that the DNA double helix is featured in ancient societies around the world because there are lots of symbols that look kind of similar to that. It is pyramids are grain silos Ben Carson level insanity.
I don't think Peterson has ever said that the pill is "bad." He recognized that it was an incredibly important social and biological revolution. He linked it to a declining birthrate in the west (which he called a "catastrophe" from a multigenerational perspective), cited a study that said women on birth control tend to not find typically "masculine" features as attractive as women who are not on the pill and said that there is good evidence to suggest that women's general level of unhappiness has increased since the early 60s but is unsure of whether there's a causal link between the two. I don't know whether any of that's true, but i think they're interesting issues.
He doesn't say that "over 50% of men will never procreate." I've heard him talk about this particular thing before and he stated that people generally have twice as many female ancestors and male ancestors because
throughout millennia 50% of men didn't procreate. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it certainly didn't imply that this remained the case today. Again, much of what he says isn't advocacy for anything at all.
to say that he thinks sex requires government intervention is absolutely, 100% absurd if you have any clue about what he actually advocates for.
i've never heard him talk about the double helix thing but i assume he was waxing about jung and adam and eve/snakes with that. Without any context, whatever he was talking about there sounds like bullshit. i think the jung/archetype stuff is fascinating - even if he goes overboard with it sometimes (like the double helix stuff).
