By David Futrelle
I ran across this Tweet this morning from an intrepid Jordan Peterson debunker on Twitter and, well, it’s pretty much spot on:
https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1083015376022224896
For evidence of this, we need look no further than some of the off-the-cuff comments about birth control and the allegedly scary consequences of women controlling their own sexuality that Peterson recently made to a small audience that included, among others, Charlie Kirk, “Bumble Jack” Posobiec, and weirdo MAGA couple Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle at Turning Point USA’s annual Student Action Summit.
As Sam Seder points out in this clip from his Majority Report show, Peterson seems to be pushing the idea that what he sees as feminists’ preoccupation with sexual consent is basically a left-wing “sexual taboo” roughly equivalent to the right-wing “taboo” against gay sex. (Peterson being Peterson, he doesn’t quite come out and say this outright.)
Sam has been taking on Peterson’s nonsense for some time. Here’s another video in which Sam discusses a Peterson appearance on the Joe Rogan show in which Rogan, an oddball in his own right but still pretty sharp, gobsmacks the Canadian beef-eater by pointing out a very basic issue with his promotion of “enforced monogamy.”
While Peterson’s utterances do seem to be getting weirder by the day, he’s been saying awful crap about the often fraught relationship between women and men for years. And for a time, during a sort of pickup artist phase, he did so dressed like a 1930s gangster.
Sam’s got a video on that, too.
And this guy is seen as a leading light in the “intellectual dark web.” It’s really a testament to how fucked up this political moment is that a cornball weirdo like Peterson is taken seriously by anyone at all, much less the adoring throngs that attend his talks and watch his videos and buy his books.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
P.S. I probably earn more than you, you quivering blob of frankfurter aspic.
So he IS meaning it this way….just not to this extreme degree? So if i advocate for white supremacy, but not to a strong degree, that makes it ok?
[Emphasis mine; irony noted]
You just earned an extra “really” in in my estimation of your stupidity.
If this is what you believe, they why does it matter what percentage of income tax any particular portion of the population being taxed (like, say, the top 1% compared to the bottom 90%) pays? Isn’t it all “enforced redistribution of income” full stop?
Dumbass.
So, by what you laughingly call “logic,” any financial transaction counts as “redistribution”? And any contract that involves money is an “enforced redistribution of income”?
Damn, dude, you don’t really understand how words work, do you?
…and your complete and intentional misreading of my words is duly noted, and dismissed as both trivial and irrelevant. Much like you.
I’m bored with you now; you’re way too ignorant and predictable.
Citation needed, buddy.
And even if that was the case, how would that prove that women are the gatekeepers of sex?
[Emphasis mine, irony noted]
You just added another “very” to my assessment of your stupidity.
If you believe that taxation is “enforced redistribution of income,” then why does it matter whether some group (like, say, the top 1% of income earners) pays a higher percentage of the total tax revenue than some other group (like, say, the bottom 90%)? Isn’t it all “enforced redistribution of income,” full stop?
Dumbass.
So, according to what you laughably consider “logic,” any economic transaction counts as “redistribution of income,” and any contract that involves money is an “enforced redistribution of income”?
Words: they have meanings. You should probably try and figure that concept out at some point.
…and your blatant and intentional misrepresentation of my words are noted and dismissed as irrelevant. Much like you.
I’m bored with you now; you’ve got nothing new or even vaguely interesting.
Oh wowwwwww.
This one’s a lively one. Lemme get you some replies my duck.
No, that’s not a strawman. A strawman argument is when you create a false or misleading position to argue against instead of arguing against the actual position. Turns out that the path one takes to get to a position doesn’t matter, it’s the strength of the position itself that matters.
It’s impossible to make statements about culture without casting a wide net and hitting a lot of other implications – you can’t talk narrowly about this stuff. He knows this, he’s a doctor of psychology.
He’s both. He’s well educated and – dare I say – erudite. He’s also either willfully ignorant or cynically deceptive. Take your pick.
And yes, you can be a PhD in any field and still be a clueless idiot. I’ve worked with many.
What are ‘affirmative consent regulations and laws’ legislating on? Take your time on this one.
(I’m gonna assume your reply here is “affirmative consent,” actually, because you’ve proven to be a stubborn mule who needs to be led directly to the trough by the nose.)
And what is ‘affirmative consent’ about?
Again, you can take your time on this one.
Let me help – it’s about how not to fucking rape people. And since it’s something that’s – you know – legislated, perhaps it’s something that’s prevalent in society. You know, across our culture.
Like it were some sorta rape culture or something.
The things we are blind to, and the things we emphasize, are illustrative of how we think.
Oh, and then I read the thread fully.
It’s interesting that our friend @criannon makes the assumption that mans work is with time and hands, and womz work with time and vaginas.
Sorta puttin’ all the cards on the table there, my duck!
Go ahead, you can say it. It’s okay. Tell us what you think women’s greatest contributions to society are. Tell us what we’re here for. We all know what you’re thinking, you’ve told us already. Stop being cowardly, be direct. The English language has words for women who make sex their profession, after all.
You want to walk in here and make those cowardly, underhanded insinuations about my friends? Couch it in your erudition all you like, but you’re talking to people who read for comprehension and see right through you.
Go ahead, criannon. Say it directly. Stop hiding what you mean when you say “I work with my hands, you work with your vagina.” You wanna say it. Do it, coward. “You women are ________”. Fill in the fucking blank.
We don’t need to explain it, because it’s complete nonsense. Even the Weekly World News wouldn’t publish a headline that preposterous.
I’m working on a family tree project right now. I’ve gone back 15 generations (in some cases, back even further). There are maybe 6 or 7 pairings that appear more than once on the entire tree, which is to be expected when ancestors originate from the same small area. What I don’t see is 256 chads servicing the same 128 women.
That is…not how family trees work. There isn’t a “male side” and a “female” side.
Because sex is not a commodity. It’s an activity. You can’t physically redistribute it.
If we’re talking about forcing women to “give” sex to men who lack it, now we’re literally talking about human trafficking and slavery. That is not the same thing as taxation. People get something back from their taxes: paved roads, decent schools, fire and police protection, a more comfortable old age. These are all shared public benefits. What benefit will women get from forced sex redistribution? I can sure think of plenty of downsides: unwanted pregnancies, STDs, the trauma of being violated by someone not of your choosing.
Would YOU enjoy being forced to redistribute “your” sex to other incel men? If not, why are you so prudish about it? It’s just a casual thing.
If you yourself recoil from the idea, then why should women feel any differently?
Well, we tried Dickensian poorhouses and starving the elderly, and that didn’t really work out so well.
What makes you think privatizing the social safety net would work any better? Now you’re introducing a profit motive and shareholders. That’s an extra layer of people who need to get paid (and will always make sure they get their share first, before Granny). Talk about inefficient.
The Veteran’s Administration has become increasingly privatized under Trump and although the system was flawed before, it’s gotten worse.
The reasons for flaws weren’t due to government services being inherently flawed. There were several factors and fixes for them that didn’t involve privitization.
@WWTH
We already know that dumbass thinks the government is essentially a giant version of the Mafia; I just can’t decide if he’s more stupid than ignorant, or more ignorant than stupid.
Either way, erudite he ain’t…
According to one of Batton Lash’s obituaries, he had a hand in one of the odder comics crossovers to have ever happened.
And somehow made that premise work.
Regarding enforced monogamy
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.
That’s all.
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.
This is the degree he’s advocating. You know, parents telling their offspring not to fuck around and stay in the relationship, looking down on infidelity (slut-shaming, stud-shaming) and so on.
@Makroth
In a way, yes. Very simply put, slut-shaming would have that effect.
@Gaebolga
You could have emphasized ‘can buy legislation’ in your citation and you’d get to the government but then you’d need to think and not just name call.
There’s also this study (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract) and article about it (https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success). I’m not a geneticist, so yes it could be I’m repeating somebody’s wrong conclusions. But I tend to trust scientists. Do you have some other interpretation? Cause you just said it is wrong, but did not really explain why.
Wow, that is some uncompromising self-reflection.
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes
.
Kinda like one talking about encapsulation of sexual behavior in traditional marriage and you saying he wants to ban gay sex?
It’s possible and JBP just did it. You saying we can’t does not mean we can’t. But it gives you an excuse to misinterpret.
It is not. And there is no rape culture (apart from Rotherham and some other places). People are fucking around the world without your ridiculous idea of affirmative consent and it is not rape. Why do you want to get into peoples bedroom and regulate their behavior? Why don’t you actually empower women, tell them tolearn to say no clearly and stand up for themselves, tell them they are not victims in need of ridiculous laws to be truly protected. Infantilizing women is a disgusting behavior for so called feminist. Real empowered women should slap this nonsense out of your head. And that was figurative speech before you accuse me of threatening violence. What a shame to waste your undoubtedly brilliant mind on such nonsense.
Was that a convoluted way of saying no? That is what I got from it.
Yeah, you know, there’s not that many female bricklayer, plumbers, carpenters, diggers, sewage workers, electricians. Interesting indeed.
Erudition? You flatter me. Or .. are you hitting on me? Wanna go for a coffee?
Mothers? But you go ahead call them whores.
Well, you may not like it, but very bluntly put ‘sex for resources’ is how the sexual market works. that is how it worked throughout human evolution that shaped us and our behaviour. Perhaps it is going to change but I have yet this change in behaviour to occur and see the long-term results of this change.
Now the outrage … If I had called women whores and thought whoring is bad, would I not be at the same time saying something similarly bad about men? Do you apply your sharp logic and reading comprehension selectively? Also is there something wrong with whores? If I read your upset comprehensively it would sounds a lot like whore-shaming. Is that allowed here? Be careful girl. Better apologize before they jump on you.
@Rhuu – apparently an illiterati
It is not that I think it. It is what evidence shows happens
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2016.1216153
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Services are redistributable, you should know that.
So unless it is this deeply corrupt government we’re doomed? Could you maybe think of other solutions?
Yeah, those deeply corrupt government workers are so selfless and require no pay and work super efficiently for the greater good. You either work at a government agency or never had to work with one.
@all
I am sorry I don’t address all your points, there is just too many and I don’t have that much spare time.
Also why do you need to use so many insults and ad hominems, are you getting to emotional or something?
Sincerely, I have no doubt you guys are all very intelligent.
@ criannon
I can do a 10,000 word essay on what happens when women say ‘no’ to entitled men; and the potential consequences of that. Or you could just ask any woman for her own experience.
At best it’s going to be ‘nice guy tm’ insults; at worst it’s going to be violence.
I can cite numerous authorities on why the most dangerous time for a woman, in terms of risk of violence (including death), is when they “stand up for themselves”.
Happy to do that if it helps.
The existence of consensual sex does not mean rape doesn’t exist. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up that people around the world like to fuck. Did you think we didn’t know that?
I’m also not quite sure you’re advocating the shaming of pre-marital sex in one paragraph and then in the next implying that we’re anti-sex prudes for advocating consent in the next.
Also not sure why you think we’re trying to remove female agency because we want to socialize men and boys to care about obtaining consent. Part of rape culture is that women are made to feel like in some situations, they cannot or should not say no. Because saying no once you’ve already agreed to be alone with a man, or fool around with him, or whatever is more trouble than it’s worth. Because we know how aggrieved and how pushy men can be. Part of consent education is making it clear to women that they don’t have to agree to sexual activity they don’t want. And to make it clear to men that they can say no too, not being up for sex doesn’t mean you’re not a real man.
Perhaps you should listen to what feminists say about affirmative consent and rape culture rather than listening to what other men tell you we’re saying? Just a wacky thought.
Now, on the frustrated men committing violence thing.
What evidence to you have that discouraging sexual freedom will reduce male violence? Sure we have the incel movement, and they’re horrible. But overall, violent crime has been going down. Thanks to no fault divorce, services to help partner violence victims, and a shift in attitudes away from the idea that divorce is unacceptable, the man is king of his castle, and domestic violence is no one else’s business, rates of domestic violence have dropped. Although it’s still a huge problem. In fact men with patriarchal views on women are more likely to abuse or rape women.
Just saying that men can be dangerous when frustrated isn’t enough. You need to show why the best solution is regulating female behavior. As supposed to say, teaching men and boys that sometimes you don’t get what you want and giving them tools other than aggression to deal with that frustration. That would be my preferred solution.
Another solution would be heavily regulate male behavior. They’re the ones committing the vast majority of violence after all. So how about men have a curfew, no going out after 9 PM. Since alcohol is a big factor in make violence, they shouldn’t be allowed to drink. To protect them from online recruitment into hate groups, no unsupervised internet use. I mean, I’m not personally for this, but doesn’t it make more sense than regulating the gender that isn’t typically the perpetrator?
I’m also not clear on how enforced monogamy prevents men from being frustrated. Even in more patriarchal monogamous cultures, there are still men who lose out in the marriage market.
I just in general don’t think there’s a possible way to ensure that every man gets his way all the time.
From the abstract that you posted. Note the Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence.Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence..
That’s the exact opposite of what you claimed!
What the researchers are saying is that men who are not in constant competition over sexual gratification are less likely to be violent.
Your “enforced monogamy” would not take that competition away. It would escalate it, since every young man would desperately claw for the “high status” women.
That’s why people who believe in “the sexual market place” are making this problem worse: You add another layer of pressure for these men to be hyper-competitive.
“Women are strong independent creatures who don’t need silly things like affirmative consent laws to be protected from rape! They can stand up for themselves!”
“If we don’t regulate women’s behavior then they will cause men to become dangerous and destroy society! Women need to be told how to conduct themselves sexually to prevent disaster!”
So, um, are women rational independent people who can make their own decisions and don’t need regulation in the form of laws against sexual assault, or are they unruly, irrational sex-hoarders that need established social enforcement systems in order to maintain a civil society?
Ok, Eddie, I’ll bite. I’m male, recently became single and I spent my whole life with a whole lot of female attention. Most of my friends are women and my BFF (and her husband) trusts me so much, she sleeps in the same bed as me, knowing that I’m not gonna try anything.
And that is the secret!
Sex is not my goal! I go out and I want to meet new people (when my anxiety allows it) and usually it leads to regular fun and two years ago, it led to a really happy relationship that ended because our life-plans were too different.
If you go out with flow-charts in your head and a whole plethora of “moves”, you’re gonna fail because women are not stupid. They feel that you’re just here for their body. And here is the kicker: Most of them don’t like that. I know, because they tell me when we talk.
If you want to get anywhere in the romance-sector, get that silly idea of “sexual market place” or 80/20 or whatever out of your head, take a breather and just try to make a friend.
Perfect. Then to solve your “problem” of “sexual inequality” we’ll just shame men who have sex. Problem solved!
You need to understand scientists first before you can trust them, you soggy ketchup sandwich.
Why? Peterson doesn’t understand half the things he talks about and look where that got him!
@Criannon
Let me make this perfectly clear because you are an idiot it seems. I did say no clearly. I said no, I’m to young, I don’t feel ready, and losing my virginity is a big deal to me. Then I broke up with him when he kept pushing for it. You know how he responded because to him I was his property? (trigger warning assault)
He beat me. He held me down by hair and he took what he wanted anyways. Then afterwards I felt so worthless because slut shaming and rape culture says that I am, so he got to do that again and again. I wanted to survive it and have it be as less violent and painful as possible.
Also how uncreative are you that you can’t get affirmative consent from a person. Its called dirty talk. It’s fun and it takes the creativity that a mouse couple probably come up with
@criannon
I’m sorry; what? How do we redistribute services? Are you talking about a third party such as a government paying service providers to perform their services with a population that otherwise could not afford them?
If so, an equivalent for sexual services would be a government or other organization paying sex workers their fees when sex workers worked with underserved populations. Sex workers would still have the right to refuse to work with a given client. They would probably have a right to refuse to work with the program at all, unless there was some sort of mandate that for every hour with a private client, you must do X hours with a government-assisted client. They would definitely still have the right to quit sex work.
This form of “redistribution” of services would absolutely not be equivalent to forcing everyone who has a vagina and that you consider to be a woman to have sex with whoever you feel is the most in need. There is no way to quit having a body, so you are not giving these people the choice of quitting. Even if it were an opt-in service, you’re not providing any compensation. You’re not allowing them to choose their own sex partners, but are assigning them with no right of refusal.
@Viscaria
Well put. He’s just so fractally wrong it’s so hard to address all of it.
I think that if Peterson was really worried about young men getting sufficiently sexed up he would put his mouth where his philosophy is and start offering free blowjobs to incels.
Really, dude, if you’re so worried that the boys might get violent if they aren’t sexed up, why aren’t YOU doing something about it.
@Lainy
That’s awful! That person was horrible and no body should be made to feel bad for something that others do to them! Ugh, hatred in humanity rises! I hope you’ll never have to go through something like that again!
And you actually found a very good point:
Yeah, getting affirmative consent through dirty talk and gently testing the waters and paying attention to your partner is fun. Heck, I don’t like sex and even I can enjoy that for the bonding alone. But people who talk about sexual marketplaces don’t go into the “getting sex” business for fun. They consider it a commodity worth getting and hoarding. Enjoyment is secondary over the knowledge that you got more of something than others.
.
.
.
And that’s why capitalism infiltrates everything and makes it shit!