huh. you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously?? do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?
if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.
I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.
The NYT article is a mess because it doesn't contextualize anything he's saying. It presents these quotes of his like they're just random non-sequitors. If you listen to one of his longer format lectures (which I don't expect you to do if you're not into him), you'll recognize that the picture these isolated quotes paint are not the same as the impression you'd get if you actually listened to one of his lectures (which are available on the apple podcast app if you're genuinely curious). It would be a complete radical about-face if he was preaching forced redistribution of sex.
And absolving violent men of responsibility is not his MO either. Again, his whole self-help message is taking responsibility for your spot in life. But recognizing that it's human nature for men to get frustrated when they don't have a partner isn't absolution, it's an explanation.
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”
I mean, he does go into other arenas outside of the societal norms of "enforced monogamy." I think the time he devotes to recognizing and explaining the phenomenon of social hierarchies (not just sexual, mind you) speaks to this. But that (understandably) doesn't garner the clicks for Jezebel.
And he doesn't say the sexual revolution was bad for women. He points out that maybe it wasn't a great thing for all women. Of course that's waffling, but it's crazy that he can't even raise the conversation without you labeling him a misogynist.