Categories
alt-right andrew anglin daily stormer empathy deficit enforced monogamy entitled babies evil sex-having women incels intellectual dork web jordan "slappy" peterson literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patriarchy redistribution of sex

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

Andrew Anglin thinks his version of enforced monogamy will lead to bumper crops of babies

By David Futrelle

Jordan “Women are Chaos” Peterson got into a bit of hot water a couple of months back when he told a reporter for the New York Times that some sort of “enforced monogamy” might be necessary to make sure the supply of women is properly distributed amongst the male population.

When people asked him what the holy fuck he was talking about, the Canadian fussbudget and Intellectual Dark Web icon insisted that he wasn’t advocating the “arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels” or anything like that; no, he was just advocating the “social enforcement of monogamy” so that the sort of men who might turn to violence if they can’t get their hands on women would be able to get their hands (and wedding rings) on women.

He didn’t specify exactly HOW one might “socially enforce” such an outcome, though traditionally this sort of thing tends to involve considerable “socially enforced” (and legally enforced) restrictions on female sexuality.

Conveniently, some less-inhibited thinkers have been more willing to step forward with specific suggestions. One of those solution-providers is the energetically misogynistic neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin. In a recent post on his Daily Stormer site, Anglin offers a detailed plan designed to enforce monogamy by putting the “stupid whores” of today back in their place.

While Anglin is less concerned with redistributing sex than he is with increasing baby production, his plan would do both things at once. In a post with the lovely title “Stupid Whores Want to Spend Time Guzzling Cock Rather Than Producing Children,” Anglin explains what he sees as the central problem with women today:

Over a 25 year period, women in America have decided as a group that they are going to put off pregnancy in order to suck dicks, parade around like sluts, and get money through affirmative action hoax jobs to buy shitty, pointless consumer goods. … a huge percentage of women are waiting til their wombs dry-up on their eternal cock-quest and not even having kids at all.

It’s true that women are, on average, having children later than they used to, and having fewer of them. As the New York Times has recently noted, “the average age of first-time mothers is 26, up from 21 in 1972, and for fathers it’s 31, up from 27.”

This is actually, as Vox explained not long ago, the result of some rather progressive trends: a dramatic drop in teen pregnancies and a larger percentage of women in the work force, which has led more women in the 30-44 year age range to have kids. (It’s not clear to what extent dick-sucking and slut-parading have affected these larger trends. I should also note that Anglin is himself a 34-year-old man with no children, though he clearly doesn’t see his own bachelor lifestyle as part of the problem.)

Anglin’s “solution” is to promote marriage and motherhood — and to basically launch an all-out cultural attack on female autonomy. “The only thing we can do is get women back in their place,” he writes, “and we have to do that by disincentivizing whoring around.”

Along with restrictions on divorce and financial incentives for young married couples with children, Anglin recommends a few things that sound more than a little like something you might find in a GOP platform:

  • Changing public school sex-ed courses to inform women that whoring is gross …
  • Offering motherhood classes in public schools, informing girls that “mother” is a valid career choice
  • Further restricting access to abortion and other birth control

But Anglin has some slightly more radical ideas as well:

  • 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
  • Divorced women need to be shunned by everyone in society
  • We need more “no hymen, no diamond” memes (I don’t really think this is a valid position for most men to take, but they are great memes which make women go insane – they HATE it when it is pointed out to them that they are filthy whores)

He ends with this, er, miniature manifesto, which he puts in bolded type for emphasis:

These wombs belong to us, not the idiot creatures that they are attached to. They were given to us by God to reproduce ourselves within. The dumb animals they are attached to were supposed to serve us, but they have gotten out of control. We always need to be looking for new ways to get these stupid animals to give us back the wombs they have stolen from us.

“Enforced monogamy” would be ugly. Jordan Peterson’s version of it might not be quite as drastic as Anglin’s, but it would also, of necessity, require stigmatizing female sexual autonomy and independence. It would require, to some degree, putting “women back in their place,” as Anglin bluntly puts it. It would also require what Anglin calls “disincentivizing whoring around.”

No, it wouldn’t require secret police kidnapping women and forcing them to marry the men who are currently declaring themselves “involuntarily celibate.” But it would require social pressure strong enough to send some women into the arms of these potentially quite dangerous men.

Peterson thinks that “enforced monogamy” would somehow reduce violence by reducing the frustrations of sexless men, forgetting that the sort of guy who threatens violence when he can’t get laid is likely to turn to violence if he deems his wife insufficiently obedient — or if he gets jealous of her talking, however innocently, with another man. “Enforced monogamy” won’t protect women from violence; it may put them more at risk. And the revival of “traditional” social restrictions on women would do damage of another sort.

Peterson often resorts to denials and obfuscation when people start asking about the implications of some of his more dire pronouncements — as he did, fairly successfully, when his “enforced monogamy” comments first stirred up controversy. And so Anglin may have done us all a favor of sorts by making a bit clearer what a nightmare “enforced monogamy” would be for women and for men who care about the rights of women and sexual freedom in general.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

100 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
Weird (and tired of trumplings) Eddie
2 years ago

Cool piece on Ada Lovelace, the first computer programmer

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

I’d really like to see a commentary on Jordan Peterson by Barry Shitpeas or Philomena Cunk.

“There’s this bloke see, and he reckons we’ll all be taken over by lobsters, unless we start using reinforced mahogany…”

Freemage
Freemage
2 years ago

wwth: On the race angle, pretty sure Little Himmler here would also be fine with forcibly sterilizing any non-Aryan woman, and just offing the non-Aryan men. (There’s a reason for the difference, and it’s not any less disgusting than any of the rest of this scumbag’s philosophy.)

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

don’t understand why it’s so hard to adjust. Can any men give some insight on that? Why can’t a man learn to just be proud of his accomplished wife’s or girlfriend’s or gal-pal’s achievements, as he would be proud of male close friend or relative, instead of feeling insecure and jealous of her success, as if it reflects badly on him as a man to be associated with someone more successful than he? Why the sense of must-win competition against women, instead of being on their team cheering them on? Why do men in our society seem to be determined to measure their success as men by keeping women below them as much as possible, instead of beside them so that we can spur each other on to ever greater success?

I’ve always wondered this too.

I get that it’s not easy to fight back against gender roles. But women do it all the time. We do it even though there’s a lot of negative consequences. We do it while still feeling the insecurity and isolation that goes along with it.

Women aren’t allowed to get away with saying “society expects women to act a certain way” to explain reluctance to ask for a raise or promotion. Or to explain abandoning a STEM field after finding the harassment too much. These things make the wage gap all our own fault, we’re told. Anytime sexism stops us from anything, it’s seen as a hollow excuse by most.

So why is it that men, despite having the privilege and being allowed to get away with so many more flaws or mistakes can just say it’s hard to cease mansplaining or hard to accept being beaten by or outearned by women or learn to flirt without being creepy because that’s just male socialization.

Just another male privilege, I guess. Women are the only ones who have to adapt to female gender roles. We’re also the only ones who have to adapt to male gender roles.

Podkayne Lives
Podkayne Lives
2 years ago

Speaking of Ada Lovelace, there is a wonderful steampunk graphic novel called “The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage”, WITH FOOTNOTES, and it’s excellent.

Ariblester
Ariblester
2 years ago

@Susan, @Raven, Nudger of Dead Things and Loremaster of Dark Ugly Places:

Fair points. I guess I’ve conflated the meaning of the word “career” with “calling” and “job” in my mind. Will do better next time.

@Raven, Nudger of Dead Things and Loremaster of Dark Ugly Places:

So sorry to hear about your husband’s attitudes towards you. That sounds terrible.

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

Once again, I’m so proud of myself for having only one child, and making that child with a brown dude. Doing my part in the white genocide! Anglin, both my “boys” are better men than you’ll ever be, times one thousand.

Li’l list of posts; apologies in advance:

@Raven, Nudger of Dead Things and Loremaster of Dark Ugly Places
100% agree with you re the importance of parenting, and unfortunately, yes, stay at home parents get none of the recognition or status that they deserve.
That’s a really hard situation you’re in, by the sound of it. I hope your counselor is helping? Lots of supportive thoughts from me (they’re not much use, but I’m offering them anyway).

@Malitia,
I’ve saved that video to watch at leisure, but previewed the first few minutes, and it’s an absolute treasure. Thank you!

@GrumpyOldSocialJusticeMangina
It’s really nice to see you 🙂

Nym
Nym
2 years ago

Ideologically, Anglin is a shell of a person.
It’s no surprise to me that he’s hopped from atheism to this weird mysoginistic religiosity, from performative anti-racism to hardcore racial hatred and so on.
I wonder what his followers would think if they knew that he used to jump on the bandwagon of any group that he desperately wanted to be part of or that he used to piss people off until they would beat him to a pulp and that he would lay there and take it to prove that he “didn’t feel pain”?
This guy is gutted of any sense of genuine worth. He’s just a screaming hole of need for something meaningful.

otrame
otrame
2 years ago

@Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

I’m with you. I did marry a white dude, and had two white sons, but ALL of my grandchildren are racially mixed and all my step-grandchildren are black. I’ve happily done my part.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

@Raven, Nudger of Dead Things and Loremaster of Dark Ugly Places

Can any men give some insight on that? Why can’t a man learn to just be proud of his accomplished wife’s or girlfriend’s or gal-pal’s achievements, as he would be proud of male close friend or relative, instead of feeling insecure and jealous of her success, as if it reflects badly on him as a man to be associated with someone more successful than he? Why the sense of must-win competition against women, instead of being on their team cheering them on? Why do men in our society seem to be determined to measure their success as men by keeping women below them as much as possible, instead of beside them so that we can spur each other on to ever greater success?

I don’t know how useful my insight (as a man) will be, given that I am proud of the achievements of the women in my life, but if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that these men wouldn’t be proud of a male close friend doing better at something than they can. The must-win competitiveness is also present in their relationships with men, because that’s what they believe/have been socialized to assume is how the world works, in a social Darwinism sort of way.

BUT, to a certain extent, it’s all right and natural to be bested at doing manly things by another Manly Man Who is Male and Has Manly Testicles and Does Manly Things, because you’re competing among yourselves. So being beaten by a MMWMHMTDMT is survivable. But being beaten by a woman… Well, you may not be very good at doing Manly Things, but at least you’re better at them than a woman would be, and while she may be better at Womanly Things than you would be, it doesn’t matter because Womanly Things are dumb.

It’s not unlike how one reason for the prevalence of racism among poor white people in the American South (as I understand it) is that once upon a time, however miserable their lives might be, at least white people could look down on black ones, and so retain at least a little pride, even if from an outside perspective, both whites and blacks were living in equal misery.

Another part of the difference, I think, is that male-male competitiveness is seen as just how things are (“I hunted more mammoths than you, nyah nyah!”), while male-female competitiveness is “Ebil wimmins invading my male safe space! You’re getting cooties all over my mammoth-hunting spear! Go away! I’m scared!”

Unacknowledged is the fact that women succeeding in stereotypically male spaces means there’s even more competition, so the men will have to try harder, or even try in the first place. So part of it is also just laziness.

But, as I say, this is me guessing from the outside, because I don’t quite understand it either.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
2 years ago

@Rabbit

I’d say that these men wouldn’t be proud of a male close friend doing better at something than they can. The must-win competitiveness is also present in their relationships with men

comment image

Tovius
Tovius
2 years ago

I don’t understand it either. My dad was the one who stayed home to take care of me and my sister, so I wasn’t exposed to that sort of male jealousy at home.

epitome of incomprehensibility
epitome of incomprehensibility
2 years ago

Dear Andrew Anglin,

a huge percentage of women are waiting til their wombs dry-up

My “affirmative action hoax job” involves teaching people how to use punctuation marks, and phrasal verbs like “dry up” don’t take hyphens. You DO use a hyphen if the phrasal verb becomes a noun phrase. For example:

Anglin thinks we should set up a white ethnostate. (no hyphen)
The set-up of a white ethnostate is a fucking ridiculous idea. (hyphen)

Forget “no hymen, no diamond.” I’m all “no hyphen, no wifin’.” (This means I won’t ask you to become my bride, which I’m sure you’ll be very sad about.)

More about hyphens: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/hyphen

the real cie
2 years ago

Talking about women in this gross way and treating women like shit is supposed to ENCOURAGE women to want to have kids?
Especially if it means having sex with these critters, I’d say that their rhetoric is a good selling point for voluntary sterilization. If I knew that I was going to a) bring a child into a world populated by these douchenozzles and b) have to have sex with one of these douchenozzles to produce said child, I would have had my uterus removed long ago, rather than waiting until I was an infertile old bat with a uterus full of fibroids and polyps.
It’s incredible (but not surprising) that these shitbrains don’t take into account the women whose reasons for putting off pregnancy don’t include riding the infamous cock carousel. Some women might have had an interaction with one of these crap stains, which put them off of relationships. Well, I know I did. When I was younger, I was very insecure and found no shortage of awful men that I thought I could “fix.”

Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
Violet the Vile, Moonbat Screech Junky
2 years ago

@Raven, Nudger of Dead Things (I absolutely love your username, btw)

I’m sorry to hear you’re having problems in your relationship.

Have you considered divorcing him and taking all his money? (a good suggestion I picked up from MRA posts showcased here)

….but seriously….

sometimes it does come down to “would your life be better without this person” and hard as that decision is to make sometimes the answer is yes. I don’t know your full story, but what you have posted here sounds like abuse tbh. I hope you are taking care of yourself and please know that you have a right to be treated as an equal and have your contributions to the marriage recognised.

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

@otrame
*white genocide fistbump*

@Tovius
I hope this isn’t too familiar of me, but your parenting experience is probably one of the reasons why you’re such a lovely person 🙂

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

@epitome of incomprehensibility:

Forget “no hymen, no diamond.” I’m all “no hyphen, no wifin’.”

Your entire comment was brilliant, but this made me LOL.

Also “no comma, no momma”, since these guys can never seem to break up their interminable, appalling sentences in a way that makes them more readable (and it comes across as deliberate and contemptuous, almost as if they can’t abuse women, so they’ll abuse language instead). Just one of many reasons not to reproduce with them.

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

@Buttercup,

@epitome’s posts have always been good, but lately they’ve been spectacular, imho

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Ellipsis of two, no nookie for you.

Call me a female, you get no tail.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

@Mish – oh yes, seconded!

Use an intransitive verb as a transitive verb, your notch count I will curb.

Suffix of -oid, your sex life is void.

lujlp
lujlp
2 years ago

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

Laugher at Bigots
2 years ago

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

Andrew Anglin is not “truly” misogynistic? If he’s not, who is?

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

So what?

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

I repeat: so what? You would do well to remember that pornography and prostitution both chiefly benefit men, inasmuch as they benefit anyone. Men are the foremost producers, profiters, and customers of those two things, and in those two things is much abuse of women.

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

What the fuck, man? How pusillanimous are you, that other people’s existence threatens your own?

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

Let’s see those polls. What conclusion are we to draw from them anyway?

lujlp
lujlp
2 years ago

Andrew Anglin is not “truly” misogynistic?

No Peterson is not

So what?

The author pretended that the term was coined by a mild mannered Canadian who probably wants to dole out women like chattel slaves, thats what

Where was the objection to this term anytime in the last several decades?

And given that violent sexual assaults against women drop with access to pornography I think it is dirty pool to assume that because a few men benefit financial that women as a whole have no benefit at all, as for prostitution the majority of crimes against women in that realm stem from the fact it is illegal. In locals with legal sex trades crimes against sex workers drop to level commensurate with the public at large.

What the fuck, man? How pusillanimous are you, that other people’s existence threatens your own?

Learn to read, I never said their existence threatens my existence. I said that their stepping forth to compete with me (for job resources, pay raises, career advancement) was a threat to the long term benefit I could accrue for me and my family. How is it cowardly or timid to acknowledge that as an equal and a competitor they are deserving of being treated as such?

Let’s see those polls.

Ever hear of Google?
https://www.google.com/search?q=polls+on+legalization+of+portitution+mlae+v+female&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS798US798&oq=polls+on+legalization+of+portitution+mlae+v+female&aqs=chrome..69i57.16071j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Shorter lujlp,

Jordan Peterson and/or Andrew Anglin isn’t misogynistic! Cherrypicking!

Also, here’s why they are right and you ladies totally deserve sexual harassment.

Nope, no misogyny there.

And I’m not sure where luljp is, but where I am, sexual harassment is actually illegal. The fact that he thinks it’s a great means of beating out the competition women represent does say one thing. He knows he’s not actually skilled or hardworking, just coasting on privilege. He knows he can’t compete and win on a level playing field. Very telling, his post is.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Nobody actually claimed Peterson made up the term “enforced monogamy.” The issue is that he used it to imply that if women were compelled to date or marry incels, incels wouldn’t murder people.

It’s a cheap deflection to point out that it’s an academic term. Not least because it’s so unoriginal and those of you in the cult of Peterson trot this tired ass shit out every time someone criticizes him.

lujlp
lujlp
2 years ago

Again reading comprehension

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

Nor at any point did I defend either man’s statements, nor comment on any criticism of Anglin at all.

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

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

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

But Im sure you will deliberately misconstrue that as well

Laugher at Bigots
2 years ago

@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.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

lujlp wrote:

Learn to read…

Learn to spell.

And conjugate correctly.

It really helps with that “I’m a serious intellectual” persona you’re trying so desperately to sell.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

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?

comment image

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?

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

weirwoodtreehugger wrote:

1) Do you harass your male colleagues?

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

3) What country do you live in?

[Numbered listing mine]

Oo! Oo! I’ve got predictions on these!

1) Eww! Of course not! No homo!

2) Because I know I can’t compete with any of my colleagues – men or women – based on intellect or hard work because deep down I know I’m petty, stupid, and small. That’s why I try so hard to sound intellectual, because I think it will fool others and maybe even myself.

…of course, I won’t actually admit this, so instead I’ll say something about how it’s actually women who can’t compete with me, so they have to make up all of the harassment that I just admitted that I do to them.

3) Murikah! …uh, I mean, these most noble and United States of America, land of freedom and equality!

Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
Nikki the Bluth Wannabe
2 years ago

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.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@Lujlp

No Peterson isnt particularly misogynistic, if he was you could quote him directly

All right, I think I will.

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 enforced monogamy.”

Peterson says that a murderer was motivated by not having a wife/girlfriend. Peterson says that the cure for angry violent assholes not having women they can lay claim to is to have “enforced monogamy”.

Therefore, Peterson’s use of the term “enforced monogamy”, regardless of any previously established anthropological definitions of the term, involves coercing women into relationships with angry violent assholes in order to redirect curb that violence.

This proposal is misogynistic, therefore Peterson is misogynistic. QED.

Bina
2 years ago

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
2 years ago

PS: Seconding Nikki. Boring troll is boring.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
2 years ago

@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.

ellesar
ellesar
2 years ago

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

The thing constrained about men’s violence towards women in the era to which you refer is that it was kept behind closed doors, women were even more ashamed of what was happening to them, and had little legal recourse.

AND that little matter of men legally OWNING their wives and children until 1882 (in England, different dates elsewhere).

Triex
Triex
2 years ago

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?

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

@Rapid Rabbit

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

omg you’re right, and I think I started it (this time, anyway)
sorry, everyone!

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

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.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I do love how the troll wanted us to back up the claim that Peterson is misogynistic and then when people did, he ran away.

Kind of at odds with the ruthlessly competitive take no prisoners persona he was trying to sell with his boasting about how he’s totally within his rights to harass his female coworkers because it’s his duty as a manly alpha provider.

As soon as he’s off his own turf and not in a position to harm any of his female opponents in any real way, he’s not so tough anymore, is he?

In other words,

comment image

Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
2 years ago

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.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
2 years ago

@Lion
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
Malyefah! Ha… Hoo… Malyefah! Ha… Hoo…

Furreal tho, he’s not worried about violence. They always invoke that imagery, cos it’s easy and visceral, but what they’re actually scared of is those kids learning. White folk ain’t changed. 1818: Don’t let em read. 2018: OK, but on’t let em read history

Gerald Fnord
Gerald Fnord
2 years ago

@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.

Valkyrine
Valkyrine
2 years ago

The thing about “motherhood being a valid career choice” is that it’s a lie. What they really want are women going back to being housewives, as then they won’t be able to have enough financial independence to leave their husbands. Seriously, aren’t these the same guys who are always crying about the sin of being a single mother and how they shouldn’t be given any help ’cause it’s all their own fault and need to suffer for it?

Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
2 years ago

@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. 🙂

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
2 years ago

@Lion

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

See, SAHMs have very little in the way of legal and social standing is the difference. 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. I’m also unionized, so that’s an added layer of junk. The theory don’t always come into practice (and will less often now the nazis are in charge), but it’s there

I’m entitled to unemployment benefits if I’m laid off. Big gubmint will come by from time to time, as a matter of course, to make sure the company is following safety guidelines (there are social worker home visits, but they ain’t gonna check in on no prior evidence). I can just up and quit, relinquish any connection or responsibility, anytime I like. Stay at home parents don’t have those same protections. And, so we’re clear, you really shouldn’t be able to just up an leave your kid on a whim, but that’s even more reason to consider the SAHM arrangement in need of more rules and regulations

The point being, I have rights as a retail worker that that kinda house worker doesn’t (and my job isn’t generally seen as a career either). It’s not about the work. It’s about how society and the law treat that work. We don’t treat ‘voluntary’ home labor the way we treat a career, and that puts women (folks of all genders can and do perform that work, but it’s mostly women) at a serious disadvantage. So, no, I don’t think stay at home parenting is actually the career it should be, and I think that is a perfectly feminist stance to take

IMO

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

Eh… not the same usage of the word progress there, but I’ll take that as a rhetorical flourish 🙂 The more important things are that
1)That’s the kinda talk that’s often used to keep workers from getting their due. For a modern example look at unpaid internships or ‘work for exposure’ schemes. You’ll get lesser treatment, but think of what you’ll learn to use later! It’s totes worth it, furrealsies….
2)I’ll take your word that parenting is among the most fulfilling vocations to which one can be called. Fair nuff. But that needn’t necessarily be a stay at home sitch. Nor a working parent one. Just don’t feel making either choice should decide your rights to just compensation for your labor

See where I’m coming from?

(Also, side note: not speaking for anyone else who concluded that SAHMing isn’t a career. They have their own reasons for their ideas, this is just why I don’t)

Edit: minor grammatical stuff and formatting

Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
2 years ago

@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” 🙂

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
2 years ago

@Lion

There are some legal protections available to SAHMs…

True, but there’s more hoops than should be (eg, palimony is, from my research, real tricky and not often recognized), and that, I’d suggest at least in part, is as a result of society not seeing them as doing a ‘real job’. To which I’m sure you’d agree, so whatever 🙂

SAHMs are basically the same as contractors…

Do not even get me started on how independent contractors get fucked over 😛 The difference here being the justifications for that overfucking. ‘His freedom’ vs ‘her rightful place’, etc. Which is why contractors are seen as career doers, and why, I think, we’d be easier pressed to unfuck the former than the latter. IME (small sample, grain of salt, etc), people are more open to ‘contractors deserve better conditions’ than ‘stay at home work is valid’. Messed up, but that’s where we are unfortunately *shrugs*

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”

I mean, maybe? Jobs are often seen as more valid and valued based on how much they pay (the shit that gets thrown at minimum wage work and workers because it’s low paying…). But basically agreed that the raising up from simply paying em more has a hard ceiling. My point tho wasn’t that it’s not a career, cos they don’t get paid enough. Rather that they don’t get paid enough, cos it’s not seen as a career

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

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?

MutantJedi
MutantJedi
2 years ago

I wonder what they’d think of me, a virgin who takes birth control. They’d probably say I was lying about being a virgin cause obviously all women who take birth control are trying to ride the cock carousel and commit white genocide instead of having legitimate health reasons. Ugh, I just want to meet one in real life who believes women are inferior. I’d like to see him try to beat me either intellectually or physically. I grew up with 5 older brothers. He wouldn’t stand a chance.