Incels:

[Jace, Extat]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

 

 

Reading that left me with a slimy, unpalatable, taste in my mouth that had nothing to do with the okra I am still eating.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Reading that left me with a slimy, unpalatable, taste in my mouth that had nothing to do with the okra I am still eating.

That’s a totally reasonable reaction to anything Peterson says ever imo.

Incel-sympathizers like him take any abuse targeting women as reason for why their brand of social-conservatism is the answer.

Which does threaten women’s rights than incels could by themselves.

[Heartofice]

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh Peterson  and his horrible followers are an example of course. Though there are plenty others who look at misogynistic murderer killings as reason we’ve gone too far with this whole “let’s not make women subservient to men.” Thing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

Yep. These people posit without a wife, we should expect men to be savage, uncontrollable, beasts. 

 

Wow, I  didn't expect the NY Times to completely misrepresent and not understand Jordan Peterson and paint him as some Incel supporter. *Insert sarcasm*

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.

Again, NY Times like a lot of these rags tend to think Peterson is justifying Incel violence, that is such a load of bull**** (like most of that and most NY Times articles). Peterson is simply pointing out that since as a society we have moved away from socially enforced monogamy we have created a dating marketplace that leaves winners and losers and the number of male winners is small and the number male losers is pretty high, and it is dangerous to have a high number of sexually frustrated men running around. 

 

[broken one]

I'd split their nostrils open with a boat hook, I think.

[Toth]

52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Again, NY Times like a lot of these rags tend to think Peterson is justifying Incel violence, that is such a load of bull**** (like most of that and most NY Times articles). Peterson is simply pointing out that since as a society we have moved away from socially enforced monogamy we have created a dating marketplace that leaves winners and losers and the number of male winners is small and the number male losers is pretty high, and it is dangerous to have a high number of sexually frustrated men running around. 

Even if you interpret it like this, what exactly would the solution look like then? Arranged marriages like we had 100 years ago where young girls got sold off to old geezers before they could complete their education and be able to stand on their own if things go sour? Making divorce unlawful so that women get trapped with their husbands no matter how horrifically abusive their husbands are?

The guy sounds to me like a con-artist dog-whistling to not just incels and MRAs, but all kinds of conspiracy theorists to make them hear what they want about evil leftists censoring them to make themselves feel better about their bogged down views and leech money off them in the process.

It has to be reiterated that these angry guys are angry about a lot of things and just chose whining about women having agency to be the hill to die on. Magically making them have sex by throwing gender roles back into the 50s (for real, how would that even work?!?) isn't going to make them any less angry. You have to pick them up where they are and have people they trust present a different outlook on how life works and how they can improve themselves instead of blaming everyone but themselves. But of course, telling that to his supports isn't paying his bills...

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Wow, I  didn't expect the NY Times to completely misrepresent and not understand Jordan Peterson and paint him as some Incel supporter. *Insert sarcasm*

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

 

 

Again, NY Times like a lot of these rags tend to think Peterson is justifying Incel violence, that is such a load of bull**** (like most of that and most NY Times articles). Peterson is simply pointing out that since as a society we have moved away from socially enforced monogamy we have created a dating marketplace that leaves winners and losers and the number of male winners is small and the number male losers is pretty high, and it is dangerous to have a high number of sexually frustrated men running around. 

 

I don’t even know where to begin with the above. Throwing women at violently inclined men doesn’t lessen the violence, it would just (largely) limit them to one victim.

If society wants to deal with violence towards women, ‘rewarding’ violently inclined men is not the way. The notion that it can be solved by just sacrificing women to every guy is sickening and indefensible.

[broken one]

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Peterson is simply pointing out that since as a society we have moved away from socially enforced monogamy we have created a dating marketplace that leaves winners and losers and the number of male winners is small and the number male losers is pretty high, and it is dangerous to have a high number of sexually frustrated men running around. 

 

I do not see what is the point of the Petersons pointing out... I mean -  so what? Has everyone gone to the dating marketplace already? I do not think so. I do not think there were not many sexually frustrated men in the golden age of monogamy either.

In my experience, xept for rather small margin, anyone (the ugly and the poor) may find sb and so the thing like involuntary celibate (or celibate for an objective reason) is rare. The margin is cowardice, utter lack of social skills expectations too high. I cannot feel for this sort of people just like I cannot feel for people too lazy to look for a job.

[Knight Of Winter]

29 minutes ago, Toth said:

Even if you interpret it like this, what exactly would the solution look like then? Arranged marriages like we had 100 years ago where young girls got sold off to old geezers before they could complete their education and be able to stand on their own if things go sour? Making divorce unlawful so that women get trapped with their husbands no matter how horrifically abusive their husbands are?

I mean, you can "win" any argument by presenting opposing view as endorsing arranged marriages and encouraging domestic violence. But in the interest of truth and honest discussion it should ne noted that literally nobody here is arguing for that. Peterson doesn't (in fact, he explicitly says the opposite three sentences before the part you quoted). Heartofice doesn't. Neither does anybody else in this thread. So I don't see any value in presenting this as point of contention.

Any serious discussion of "incelship" would, however, do well if it diagnoses the problem (specifically, that large number of sexually frustrated young men is a issue of both individual and societal level) and analyze the cause of it. That should be raw data upon which to build a discussion, and I see very little controversy in it.

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with  your idea of " You have to pick them up where they are and have people they trust present a different outlook on how life works and how they can improve themselves instead of blaming everyone but themselves" - and have written similar point myself a few pages ago. This would be a good direction to move this thread towards.
 

7 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The notion that it can be solved by just sacrificing women to every guy is sickening and indefensible.

Good thing nobody is defending it, then.
 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Wow, I  didn't expect the NY Times to completely misrepresent and not understand Jordan Peterson and paint him as some Incel supporter. *Insert sarcasm*

Wow I really didn't expect someone to cry that ”you’re misinterpreting him” when Peterson is criticized for saying something stupid.

Insert sarcasm.

I don't think Peterson goes home and laugh pictures at the people Incels kill.

His solutions to stop the violence just 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Again, NY Times like a lot of these rags tend to think Peterson is justifying Incel violence,

And this is misinterpreting the main actual criticisms being lobbied to Peterson’s way.

It's that in response to misogynistic assholes— like him and his followers—going off the deep end his response is wax on how we need go back to a time where women were treated as inferior to men.

Again he may not get off to the violence.

His solution to how to decrease it is bad.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Peterson is simply pointing out that since as a society we have moved away from socially enforced monogamy we have created a dating marketplace that leaves winners and losers

I think the ”losers” when we stuck to enforced monogamy we're the people doomed to be stuck with someone that made them miserable because they(mostly women), were expected to get married and stay that way.

And how high does this number have to be?

Over half of Candaians have been married, and whole lot more have had long term romantic relationships where they’d have sex.

Fuck the idea of the nice guy always losing to the chad.

Actual nice guys(not misogynistic assholes that follow Peterson), do just fine

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

and it is dangerous to have a high number of sexually frustrated men running around. 

Oh here's a number of things can do to relieve sexual frustration;

Get a prostitute.

Jack off. 

Jack each other.

Get a prostitute and jack them off.

At no point is what Peterson pontificating for needed or justified. 

55 minutes ago, Toth said:

Even if you interpret it like this, what exactly would the solution look like then? Arranged marriages like we had 100 years ago where young girls got sold off to old geezers before they could complete their education and be able to stand on their own if things go sour? Making divorce unlawful so that women get trapped with their husbands no matter how horrifically abusive their husbands are?

Oh you don't need to go back that far yet.

We can just stop at 60 or so years ago where women were slut-shamed far more for not being lily-white virgins, shamed for not getting married out of high school, and passed up for employment opportunities because they were seen as unqualified for their sex, and passed up on further advancement on any career prospects they’d have.

So no, a lot of  incels don't need a government issued girlfriend.

They just need a lot of that other horrible shit.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with  your idea of " You have to pick them up where they are and have people they trust present a different outlook on how life works and how they can improve themselves instead of blaming everyone but themselves" - and have written similar point myself a few pages ago. This would be a good direction to move this thread towards.
 

I also think this is in fact Peterson's solution to the problem. He advocates working with these people to help them improve themselves. I mean he wrote a (not very good) self help book aimed mostly at trying to help young men sort their lives out, and helping young men has been one of his primary concerns. 

Peterson's point around 'forced monogamy' (a really poor choice of phrase due to its implications if you take it literally) is simply that society has always struggled with how to deal with the problem of aggressive, sexually frustrated young men, and the more you lean towards a polygamous society the worse the problem gets. Many societies enforce monogamy as a social norm as one way of providing that stability. We actually do live in a society like that right now, as in, if you married someone and cheated on them tomorrow it was been viewed with horror and disapproval. If you start moving away from that, you will see more young men getting left out, and so then the question becomes how you deal with that issue. 

He isn't suggesting forcing women to mate with men.
 

[Varysblackfyre321]

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I also think this is in fact Peterson's solution to the problem. He advocates working with these people to help them improve themselves. I mean he wrote a (not very good) self help book aimed mostly at trying to help young men sort their lives out, and helping young men has been one of his primary concerns. 

I think his solution is enforced monogamy. He's a misogynistic asshole(are his fans), and this is a solution misogynistic assholes would like.

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Peterson's point around 'forced monogamy' (a really poor choice of phrase due to its implications if you take it literally) is simply that society has always struggled with how to deal with the problem of aggressive, sexually frustrated young men, and the more you lean towards a polygamous society the worse the problem gets.

Or not.

Look at the most gender egalitarian places in the world, their marriage rates, and see their level of violence.

Men can be taught to not feel inadequate for not getting a wife as if women are another to be won.

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

We actually do live in a society like that right now, as in, if you married someone and cheated on them tomorrow it was been viewed with horror and disapproval. If you start moving away from that, you will see more young men getting left out, and so then the question becomes how you deal with that issue. 

Ah to the bolded you’re right. People often do get shamed for cheating—especially women. 

I'm sure this is exactly what he referring to.

Instead of making women more economically and socially dependant on their ability to marry a man.

Oh to the second bolded; try not to stigmatize anyone for the amount of sexual partners they’d have.

31 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

He isn't suggesting forcing women to mate with men.

He is not insisting government issue incels girlfriends.

Or Literal arranged marriage.

Agreed.

I'm not misinterpreting him. I'm reading what he said and finding it to be dangerous and dumb.

[Heartofice]

What do you actually think he is suggesting, because your posts suggest you are just ranting at something that nobody is arguing for.

[Toth]

8 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I mean, you can "win" any argument by presenting opposing view as endorsing arranged marriages and encouraging domestic violence. (...) Peterson doesn't (in fact, he explicitly says the opposite three sentences before the part you quoted).

Well, he did say that in his correction, sure, but I wanted to express that he's just vaguely implying things without making it clear what it means and how it solve the issue. And how it can solve the issue in the first place. If I am absolutely charitable then I interpret it as saying that we should all shame women for changing their partners. And then what? How does that solve anything? At all? It is just a sophisticated way of saying "Dating sucks, we should abolish dating. Then women have no choice but to appreciate me." Once again: And then what? The only thing I can think of is arranged marriages, having your parents decide your partner so that you don't have to get off your ass. With all the drawbacks that comes with it.

17 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Any serious discussion of "incelship" would, however, do well if it diagnoses the problem (specifically, that large number of sexually frustrated young men is a issue of both individual and societal level) and analyze the cause of it.

Okay, then let me take a shot at it: I do agree that society and media has quite a factor in it, but only in terms of raising false expectations of how life works. And I think it has a lot to do with the mindset of people being stuck in the 60s till 80 and that's important. Just look at this chart: https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/young-adults-moving-from-parents-age-data-2-5d948d0906396__700.jpg

After WW2 the world had entered an unprecedented era of economic growth, of countries erecting welfare programs and generally the standard of living skyrocketing. I just have to look at the baby boomers in my family to see how that drastically affected their mindset in regards to how life works for young men. You finished school, got a job, moved out, founded a family and that's it. In this particular order. After all, it has been historically usually the case that young men were only establishing their own households once they could afford it, the only novelty is that now they were doing it as young as never before. And young men were able to do so because housing was massively subsided and even low-education jobs were enough to keep you above the water. But... the economic realities have shifted. You will decry this as leftist propaganda, but decades of Laissez-faire gospel has countries stop subsidizing housing, cut back welfare programs and the net income of specific jobs has either stagnated or gone down. Massively. In a way that young men nowadays can't be expected to move out and found their family upon entering legal adulthood. And yet media and their parents seem utterly unable to acknowledge this shift, raising these false expectations.

Let's just talk about my own experiences here. Nobody in my family has even a high school degree, but they were able to afford a reasonable middle class lifestyle anyway. My father specifically somehow got through sheer dumb luck a middle management position at a major car company. Despite no high school degree he earned 60% more money per month than I do today and I have a Master's Degree. Let that sink in. In fact, his employer noticed that and continuously tried to bully him into early retirement because they figured they can pay any new guys taking that position a fraction of the money they are paying him. And yet my father, with his infinite wisdom, never figured out that life for my generation works differently than it worked for his back when he was young. He wanted me to get a job and out of the house asap and got super angry about me wanting to get a high school degree and go studying, unable to see that I would have been forever financially fucked if I did what he said.

Similarly when I grew up all the shows on TV about young men growing up always had moving out and becoming independent as a major stepping stone in one's life, one that usually coincides with making romantic experiences. Gee, I wonder whether this is because the writers have all been boomers... Add to that the idea that in fictional stories the hero and his love interest usually randomly meet each other over the course of the journey and she naturally grows love him. You end up having a lot of young men like me sitting there and waiting to start their journey and just randomly meet their designated love interest and then grow concerned when neither of these things happen in real life.

This is why I said a few pages back that I could have easily become an incel myself. I'm disturbingly aware that if I had taken my and my father's expectations to heart and decided to scream bloody murder at society for not conforming to it, I may have ended up caught by the same rhetoric of internet echo chambers. Which are also a new thing that throw in an unprecedented danger of dissatisfied individuals radicalizing themselves by affirming their believes with like-minded folks from all over the world they would have never interacted with otherwise.

That's the thing I think people should get more aware of.

[Heartofice]

Peterson is just pointing out the reality of the situation. Yeah the dating world does suck and I think online dating in particular accentuates it massively. If you want to talk about how a polygamous society would work, where a very small number of men have successful sexual relationships and a huge proportion of men fall by the wayside, getting angry and frustrated.. then go on Tinder.

Tinder and a lot of dating apps pretty much recreate that aspect perfectly. There are plenty of stats showing that only a tiny minority of men get responses from women and those men are getting all of the attention from most of the women. 

Peterson is really just identifying why something is happening, why are men getting frustrated and violent. His solution isn't forcing women to marry men, or even enforced monogamy. He wants to help men sort themselves out so they don't become such narcissistic balls of self hatred. 

@Toth I do agree with you and I think I wrote something similar to you in another thread. I also spent my 20s being poor and living at home, angry at society for expecting me to be rich and independent in a world where pay was low and rent was high. I also wrongly assumed that nobody would be interested in me because of it. But what was unattractive was the lack of confidence and self loathing, and the moaning. Helping young men develop and become more attractive should be something that should be encouraged, I think we tend to just leave them to their own devices and expect them to figure it out.

[Varysblackfyre321]

55 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

What do you actually think he is suggesting, because your posts suggest you are just ranting at something that nobody is arguing for.

Enforced monogamy as an adequate way to appease/calm down rowdy males to spare society more outbursts of violence.

Am I saying he wants government issue every man a bride?

No.

Am I saying he literally wants arranged marriage brought back?

Not especially.

Am I saying he thinks men should murder others if they can't get a wife?

No.

I am saying his suggestion on how to prevent violent outbursts from men(like the incel mass murder), is stupid and would only succeed in hurting women.

Slut-shaming, legally permitted, institutionalized sexism in a workplace, coucing that a woman who doesn't get hitched young is pitiable, making it extremely hard for a woman to leave a marriage that makes her miserable these are things to which have used in ”enforcing monogamy.”

I am maintaining he and his fans are misogynistic assholes.

Do you think society needs to enforce monogamy?

If so how exactly. I already know you think shaming people who cheat is a part of that.

Great. What else? 

And how many need get a partner before it's a enough?

Over half of adults in the have either been married or are in a romantic relationship.

Should it be 80? 90?

If you see enforcing monogamy as not a good thing by itself, what is your exact position.

Please be specific. But you won't.

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If you want to talk about how a polygamous society would work, where a very small number of men have successful sexual relationships and a huge proportion of men fall by the wayside, getting angry and frustrated.. then go on Tinder.

Ah yes.

A hook up app where most of the men go on to have free sex.

The majority of men not scoring there truly is enlightening.

16 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Peterson is really just identifying why something is happening, why are men getting frustrated and violent. His solution isn't forcing women to marry men, or even enforced monogamy.

No it clearly is, and this is an actual willful disregard for his stated position.

 

 

[Heartofice]

Honestly thats why I don't bother to reply to your posts. There really is just nothing there to actually discuss. It's just a rant without content.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

1 hour ago, Toth said:

Well, he did say that in his correction, sure, but I wanted to express that he's just vaguely implying things without making it clear what it means and how it solve the issue.

Classic Peterson there.

Just vague enough to where he or his fans could cry “you’ve taken me/him out of context!” When he eventually gets blowback for x bigoted thing he said.

Though it should be noted screaming “CoteText” doesn’t actually make the content of what someone said better.

1 hour ago, Toth said:

If I am absolutely charitable then I interpret it as saying that we should all shame women for changing their partners.

I think it’s more shame women for not electing to have a singular make partner in a fashion he and his misogynistic followers would find timely if at all.

And the addition of businesses not hiring women and treating them as equal to men.

He has “questioned” this idea of women and men being able to work together in the workplace while positing since we’ve tried this gender relations had been rapidly deteriorating.

1 hour ago, Toth said:

The only thing I can think of is arranged marriages, having your parents decide your partner so that you don't have to get off your ass. With all the drawbacks that comes with it.

Again arranged marriages least ones where the men of women’s family are the ones to legally decide her husband probably aren’t the expressed goal.

Plenty women in the 50s, or 60s, got married not out of love, but because not doing such was still a taboo for them in addition to being economically detrimental.

1 hour ago, Toth said:

Similarly when I grew up all the shows on TV about young men growing up always had moving out and becoming independent as a major stepping stone in one's life, one that usually coincides with making romantic experiences. Gee, I wonder whether this is because the writers have all been boomers... Add to that the idea that in fictional stories the hero and his love interest usually randomly meet each other over the course of the journey and she naturally grows love him. You end up having a lot of young men like me sitting there and waiting to start their journey and just randomly meet their designated love interest and then grow concerned when neither of these things happen in real life.

I do think society could have more empathesis on the idea that you’re not less than if you don’t have romantic partner. It doesn’t mean your bad, or worthless. If you never find someone to spend your life with in such a way, and that’s okay.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

@Heartofice

Thank you for you acknowledging your ignorance my genuinely concerned friend with a confused emoji. This is the most honest and rational thing you’ve done on this thread nay forum and I appreciate it. 
Now please give a laughing emoji to show me praise. 

[Heartofice]

Ugh, I shouldn't really bother, but there is such garbage in the above posts it's hard to know where to begin?

First question, do you understand what is meant by enforced monogamy in Petersons context? It doesn't appear you understand it any more than someone talking about arranged marriages?

Really pretty much everything you have written, as usual is a bizarre meaningless tangent that doesn't really have any relation to what Peterson has said or what is being discussed. It's just some strange strawman world.  Thats why I constantly find your posts so confusing. I could go through sentence by sentence everything you've said that is largely irrelevant but it would be utterly time consuming.

Quote

I do think society could have more empathesis on the idea that you’re not less than if you don’t have romantic partner. It doesn’t mean your bad, or worthless. If you never find someone to spend your life with in such a way, and that’s okay.

This is probably the only thing you've said in 2 pages worth responding to. I do agree that as a society we shouldn't try to punish those who are alone.

However, at the same time I don't think that is really what is happening. Young frustrated men aren't frustrated because society tells them they should be getting laid... they are frustrated because they are young males with young male hormones and they really really want to get laid and be loved by women. That isn't going to just go away because society tries to banish "Toxic Masculinity". It's part of being a young male.

Or as you suggested up thread, maybe they should just be happy wanking into a sock or spending all their money on prostitutes? Does anyone seriously believe anyone who does that is happy? They will still see other women in real life, and see that other men don't have to resort to wanking themselves dry, and are able to pretty much sleep with any woman they want, and it drives some men crazy. That doesn't really appear to be a solution either.

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ugh, I shouldn't really bother, but there is such garbage in the above posts it's hard to know where to begin?

First question, do you understand what is meant by enforced monogamy in Petersons context? It doesn't appear you understand it any more than someone talking about arranged marriages?

Really pretty much everything you have written, as usual is a bizarre meaningless tangent that doesn't really have any relation to what Peterson has said or what is being discussed. It's just some strange strawman world.  Thats why I constantly find your posts so confusing. I could go through sentence by sentence everything you've said that is largely irrelevant but it would be utterly time consuming.

This is probably the only thing you've said in 2 pages worth responding to. I do agree that as a society we shouldn't try to punish those who are alone.

However, at the same time I don't think that is really what is happening. Young frustrated men aren't frustrated because society tells them they should be getting laid... they are frustrated because they are young males with young male hormones and they really really want to get laid and be loved by women. That isn't going to just go away because society tries to banish "Toxic Masculinity". It's part of being a young male.

Or as you suggested up thread, maybe they should just be happy wanking into a sock or spending all their money on prostitutes? Does anyone seriously believe anyone who does that is happy? They will still see other women in real life, and see that other men don't have to resort to wanking themselves dry, and are able to pretty much sleep with any woman they want, and it drives some men crazy. That doesn't really appear to be a solution either.

 

And your solution? How is monogamy going to make women suddenly go out with men they’re not interested in.

His article is garbage