Remember “Enforced Monogamy?” Nazi misogynist Andrew Anglin shows us just how ugly it could be

@lujlp:

Where did David say that Jordan Peterson coined the term “enforced monogamy”? Not in this article. I am astounded that you chide me for being illiterate. I could pick apart your grammar, but I don’t want to.

I did not assume that because a few men benefit from pornography and prostitution, no women do. I said men benefit, and women suffer from those two things.

You call working women a “threat” to you. Is not a threat to your benefit a threat to your existence, should it get too far? Thanks to WWTH for marking something I missed: you said that you would harass your female coworkers to get ahead of them. Again I must ask you: how pusillanimous are you, that you see the need to practise workplace harassment?

“Ever hear of Google?” is such bullshit. It’s not my job to back up your argument; it’s yours. Also, your Google search query is grievously misspelled.

I think I engaged you more-or-less politely, but I see that that is more than you deserve.

I merely pointed out that the term has been in use for decades and that up until the nanosecond it came out of that man’s mouth it was considered a ‘good thing’ for societal stability in general and women in particular as it did more to constrain the violence of men against women than it did to curb the number of sexual partners a woman could claim

You should probably look up statistics on violent crime, and in particular rape and domestic violence before you start going down this road. Because although it’s very fashionable in the aggrieved white dude set to blame violence on women being too slutty these days. But actually, violence against women, and violence in general is going down, not up.

But why let facts get in the way of your righteous anger, right?

You think I’m angry?

It’s adorable that you’re interpreting my bemusement at your weak, tired trolling effort as righteous anger. So, so cute.

And given theses days any hardship a woman faces is considered sexual harassment by dint of her gender and not the intent of the offender, yes some harassment is warranted as it means you are being treated as an equal

Isnt that what you want? Men compete against each other for advantages in the workplace, women volunteered to be treated the same, as competitors

What’s your definition of harassment?

Do you harass your male colleagues?

Why are you afraid to compete with female colleagues based on skill and work ethic?

What country do you live in?

This lujlp guy is wrong and boring-not the kind of troll we can put up with. I move for the banhammer to come out.

Im always amazed at how far the author has to go to twist things around to deliberately misunderstand a position, especially when there are plenty of truly misogynistic assholes to cherry pick from

To be clear enforced monogamy is an anthropological term that has been around sine the start of the field

Secondly its women who tend to enforce it, as evidenced by opinion polls of the questions of laws regarding pornography and prostitution

As for workplace harassment – well ladies two points,

One, you stood up to be counted as competitors, and that makes you a threat to my long term well being and that of my family.

As a threat I am inclined to use whatever legal means necessary to disadvantage you in relation to me

Secondly, the majority (again according to polls) of the harassment women receive is from other women

Yo, lying misogynist troll who pulls statistics out his ass? I’m only gonna say this once, so listen well, and do as I say:

Go. Fuck. Your. SELF.

Also, “portitution” is not a word.

@Bina

PS: Seconding Nikki. Boring troll is boring.

It’s our own fault. We were just wondering why the Peterson brigade didn’t seem to show up here.

Men need to start publicly calling women whores
Men need to STOP thinking women are above them, and start generally treating them like shit
Men need to start telling women they have no purpose but to create children

Wait, when did they stop?

cracks knuckles

@lujlp

I have to do a stupid amount of driving today, so let’s make this quick.

To be clear enforced monogamy is an anthropological term that has been around sine the start of the field

No, it’s from behavioural biology. And Peterson misuses the term, in two ways. 1) Almost all of the work on exploring long term mating behaviours is on how animals behave. Enforced monogamy is about animal mating strategies. It’s not a societal level thing. 2) According to those few behaviour biologists who have exported the term to examine human societies, our society has enforced monogamy.

When Peterson uses the word, he uses it to mean reduce the freedom of girls and women. Until he’s called out on it, at which point he does a backstep into the meaning poached from behavioural biology. That’s the deflection David mentioned in the original post. It’s also what you’re doing now.

You’re wrong. Do better.

One, you stood up to be counted as competitors, and that makes you a threat to my long term well being and that of my family.

As a threat I am inclined to use whatever legal means necessary to disadvantage you in relation to me

This argument is stupid.

It assumes that all human activity is equivalent, that all activities compete for the same pool of resources, and that this competition is entirely zero sum. It is a mighty column of ignorance, piled high with the fruit of long hours scouring wikipedia for any evidence that might support its pinnacle assumptions. Standing free of all support, it invites disaster from all directions, trembling fearfully at the faintest wind of truth.

There are a hundred ways I could pull this stupid statement down. I could talk about how your personal welfare or the safety of your family isn’t threatened by women’s equality in the workplace; I could point out how painfully stupid it is to think of the world in such zero-sum calculations. I could point out how absent reality is from your economic evaluation. I could point out the fact that you seem to compete against men without feeling the need to use every legal recourse against them, despite them being an even larger threat given their greater social mobility and power.

I really have to congratulate you on this one. I’ve rarely seen such a small, simple statement with so many vulnerabilities. You’re really wearing your heart on your sleeve here. I won’t use any of them, but I will ask you this: What does your statement here say about your sense of morality, that you would consider someone trying to help her family survive such a threat that you would do whatever was in your power to stop her?

I know your answer here already, I’m just interested in reading the words.

You’re wrong. Do better.

No Peterson isnt particularly misogynistic, if he was you could quote him directly without writing a paragraph on how an out of context fraction of a quote is super secretly code for something else entirely

I’ll sadly agree that Peterson isn’t particularly misogynistic. His misogyny is completely pedestrian. Stand up in the middle of an average bar and read one of his ideas out and you’ll get a good number of men nodding along with you.

That’s why it can take more than a couple words to dig deep into what’s misogynistic in his bilge – it takes work to activate peoples brains. I agree that short and punchy is the best way to do it, though. We often aren’t really good at pursuing our goals.

Not that he’s any better. It’s interesting that you complain about this! Any time I’ve seen his ideas critiqued, a small legion of his fanboys shows up to say “you’re reading him out of context! You have to read the whole book to understand!” or similar.

Interesting that you seem fine tolerating long-winded, rambling arguments from him, but we have to be short and punchy or we’re wrong by default.

I merely pointed out that the term has been in use for decades and that up until the nanosecond it came out of that man’s mouth it was considered a ‘good thing’ for societal stability in general and women in particular as it did more to constrain the violence of men against women than it did to curb the number of sexual partners a woman could claim

No, that’s not what enforced monogamy has been about for our society.

“Enforced monogamy” doesn’t reduce violence against women. It sequesters violence against women. It isolates it behind the social barriers of domestic violence.

Men who are violent against women don’t lose that when they get married. It just gives them a convenient target. But our society is really bad at considering domestic violence at all, so that’s generally underplayed when it is recorded at all.

You’re wrong. Do better.

And given theses days any hardship a woman faces is considered sexual harassment by dint of her gender and not the intent of the offender, yes some harassment is warranted as it means you are being treated as an equal

First part,

ding ding ding

There’s our “women aren’t really being harassed/raped/underpaid/etc, they’re just complaining to gain advantage” square on your bingo cards, ladies.

Please, give me a citation to back up your claim. Otherwise, this is just a feeling you have. You feel like all women are claiming sexual harassment even when it’s not sexual in nature. Otherwise you just feel like women are “playing the gender card”. And your feels don’t do anything but show the sort of person you are.

Second part,

What miserly, miserable world you must live in, my duck. I feel sorry for you, and I mean that sincerely. To think harassment is just plain old warranted as the price of existing! This isn’t true.

I’m sure you have developed this belief in repsonse to people telling you to stop harassing, though, so my empathy has its limits.

You’re wrong. Do better.

But Im sure you will deliberately misconstrue that as well

Poisoning the well fallacy. You’re wrong. Do better.

That’s all I have time for – no editing this time my ducks! You’re gettin it uncensored. Have a lovely weekend all! Even you, lujlp.

Man, batting around this troll is like when you go to play with your cat, but instead of playing your cat lays down and will only bat at the toy when it’s bouncing off it’s head.

To wake everyone up, I will post one of the best things in a NPR interview I have ever read;

[Loewen, along with colleagues and students, co-wrote a new high school state history textbook called Mississippi: Conflict and Change. Despite high ratings from reviewers, the Mississippi State Textbook Purchasing Board rejected the book on the grounds that it was racially inflammatory. Loewen and his co-authors sued the board.]

The lawsuit had a “Perry Mason” moment — only your older listeners will understand what that is. Let’s say it had a dramatic moment, and that came when John Turnipseed [of the Mississippi State Textbook Purchasing Board] was on the stand.

The assistant attorney general for the state of Mississippi asked why he had voted against our book. And he had us turn to [a] page where there’s a photo of a lynching. Now, our textbook at that time was the only textbook in America that included a photo of a lynching. And ironically almost none do to this day.

Turnipseed is on the stand and he says: “Now, you know, some ninth-graders, especially black male ninth-graders, are pretty big, and I worried that teachers, especially white lady teachers, would have trouble controlling their classes with material like this in the book.”

Wow.

The judge — who was an [older] white Mississippian, but a man of honor — took over the questioning, and he said, “But that happened, didn’t it? Didn’t Mississippi have more lynchings than any other state?” And Turnipseed said, and again I quote, “Well, yes, but that all happened so long ago. Why dwell on it now?” And the judge said, “Well, it is a history book.”

????

Lies my teacher told me and how American history can be used as a weapon.

@Heirloom Roses:
The reason God put men’s wombs in women is not certain, but likely it were much the same as the reason He put mist of America!’s oil in other countries, or for that matter why He put so much White European Men’ s land in America!.

Those last two, more definitely, are so White European Men can grow and show their Manhood—which is the essence of fealty to God—by taking what is theirs.

@Raven:
I’m so sorry your husband is like that. As has been stated by others here, I put it down to intense competitiveness among men (I, too, am a sinner: I got a frisson of I’m better than that guy dopamine from his description) intensely coupled with belief in female inferiority, as in I’ll be sh-te-low in the male hierarchy if I’m beaten by a woman and the other parallels to racial hierachy that were brought-up. (Patriarchy is only really good for the big patriarchs, but offers us little fiefdoms equuipped with inferiors to salve the wounds it constantly makes.) I’m not a counselor, but as a man with more traditional brainwashing in my head than I like, all I can think to recommend would be to find examples of men he already admires who don’t agree with him…I think Bob Dole made much less money than Elizabeth, and I seem to recall was very vocally fine with it—or at least with her working at all. Good luck.

@Axe

“I like the idea that people think the big scary *checks notes* 14 year olds in a Mississippi high school would, upon seeing a historical photograph in a textbook, jump outta their chairs, flip their desks, whip out their gorilla masks, give glory to Hanuman, and challenge Mrs Lafayette to mortal combat for dominion over the class.”

But remember, Mrs. Lafayette is a white lady teacher. So as long as we don’t tell any scary 14 year olds that white people are racist, they’ll never figure it out, and will continue to look upon Mrs. Lafayette with doe eyes and devotion. Because why would black people ever think of fine white people such as Mr. Turnipseed as racist without a historybook telling them to do so? Clearly libtards need to stop doing irrational things such as reading books for history, and start getting their history from statutes (which are always the most complete, nuanced history ever).

(Also, may I formerally request that all white bigots from now on be referred to as Mr. Turnipseed?)

Axe, did you read the rest of the interview? At the start he described how he began teaching at a black college, and his students talked about Reconstruction as the time that black people took over the government of the Southern States, messed everything up, and white people had to come in and fix it. Talk about history being used as a weapon. 🙁

RE: SAHM v. Career mom

I know I’m late to this party, but l’m still going to give my 4 cents.

1. The line between career moms and stay at home moms is artificial. Most mothers that are SAHMs end up in paid work at some point of their motherhood. Furthermore, many mothers go in and out of the “workforce” as life demands change. There are many factors OUTSIDE of a mother’s desires that prompt career mom’s to become SAHMs- the cost of daycare, a sick child, a sick parent, the mother herself getting sick. And of course vice-versa.

2. SAHMs are paid for their work and time. They receive “in kind” payments in the form of food, shelter, entertainment, access to the family’s slush fund, etc. This is important because if SAHMs are not rightfully “earning” a pay, then their partners are doing them a favor every time they give them a cent, and this is not a very feminist stance to have.

3. Being a Stay At Home Parent is a career. A Career is a job where you can progress, and I can think of few jobs where you learn and progress more than being a parent. ?

@Axe

Yes, I think I do see where you’re coming from. ? I don’t want to argue with you too much, because we largely agree that the compensation that SAH(M)s recieve is not what it should be, but I do want to make some points.

“1st of all, I have a contract with my employer. Lays out the particulars of that relationship. There’s also hella laws and whatnot governing times and conditions and compensation and such.”

There are some legal protections available to SAHMs-alimony/palimony, SAHMs are entitled to “displaced workers” benefits through the US government, but this is all neither here nor there. SAHMs are basically the same as contractors; and no-one would argue that any contractor that was pulling in, for example, 5 million a year is not working a career just because big government is not doing safety checks. The only difference between the contractor earning 5 million a year and their spouse is that the spouse is paid “in kind” and not “in cash”.

Speaking generally now, we are not going to raise caretakers up by viewing them through the same capitalist lies that people are defined by the amount of cash that they “earn” 🙂

SAHMs are paid for their work and time. They receive “in kind” payments in the form of food, shelter, entertainment, access to the family’s slush fund, etc. This is important because if SAHMs are not rightfully “earning” a pay, then their partners are doing them a favor every time they give them a cent, and this is not a very feminist stance to have.

So acknowledging that stay at home parents (it’s not just for moms!) aren’t in a career is saying that their partners are doing them a favor? Care to elaborate how these are mutually exclusive concepts? I think it’s possible to not be in a career and not feel that a partner is doing you favors by supporting you.

You seem to be conflating earning money with a career. I can assure you, when I was a Customer Service Representative, that was *not* a career. It was a job.

You also seem to be conflating performing work with being a valued member of a family. What if the stay at home parent is injured or disabled and can’t perform any labor, do they not “earn” money anymore in your model? Is it no longer a career?