Jordan Peterson on Enforced Monogamy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2018
- original source: • Joe Rogan Experience #...
Psychology professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson explains the meaning of enforced monogamy.
If you want to support Dr. Peterson's work,
you can make a donation on his website:
www.jordanbpeterson.com/donate
If you like his lectures, you will enjoy his recent book:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: amzn.to/2yvJf9L
The term should be "Encouraging faithful monogamy"
Enforced Monogamy is giving a huge advantage to the opponents of the idea by the negative connotations that this phrase produces.
A good point, but it begs the question, is it right to pander to people's ignorance, merely for the sake of utility?
Well, it'd be the same nonetheless.
Basically shaming people if they're not in a relationship.
Social enforcement of monogamy. Just like in the old days, when you were "weird", when you weren't married at young ages. I'd say we did good to get that stigma away. Who knows how many children, women & men were in abusive and/or unhappy relationships because of it.
@@NightmareMindset yes it is because people are stupid.
@Shadow Skull Peterson has already stated multiple times that "incels" need to get their act together and be of actual value in the dating market (properly groom themselves, get a stable job, exercise, be healthy, etc.) in order for them to get a girlfriend.
The way I understood his take on encouraging faithful monogamy or at least a part of it was that there would also be a more fair distribution of women to men (men with actual value and made an effort to not be incels)
I'm not sure what you mean by Peterson's horseshit when to me makes sense.
@Shadow Skull
I wouldn’t call Elliott Rodger “handsome”. In fact, most women didn’t find him handsome at all.
I love mahogany
*Misogyny
misanthropy
@@sheepshiftsheetsplit4322 oh lord... someone didn't get the joke.
What about ebony eyes tho?
Mahogany is pretty good for the low end on the EQ
It finally made sense to me at the 12:10 mark. "Enforced Monogamy", according to Peterson, is if you're in a committed relationship with someone, then you need to stay committed, especially if you have children. That's a fair point. What happens prior to that committed relationship is where the misunderstanding occurs, which Joe was attempting to grasp and understand. "Enforced Monogamy" is highly ambiguous and should have been clearly defined and agreed upon. It would have saved us 10 minutes of misunderstood discussion.
Ah, yes. Thank you for your insight and clarification.
I think if joe would have better express his inadequate understanding of enforced monogamy and allowed the conversation to center around jordan explaining to joe rather than joe blurting out wrong inferences from his wrong understanding of concepts eg enforced monogamy every so often, i think the conversation wouldnt take too much twist and turns, joe's anecdotal experience and what not. But then again the consumption of that video would be to some extent a bit one sided and dull for some. A lecture would be concise but dry, a conversation on the other hand is long winded but more lively.
He intentionally used a ridiculous term for something basically everyone agrees with. Why did he even call it 'enforced monogomy'? Why not call it 'a society where monogomy is the norm' or something like that? He acts like the reporter OBVIOUSLY knew what he actually meant by that term, and that his critics are being absolutely absurd if they take that term for what it sounds like - Intentionally using a term like 'enforced monogomy' sounds like he wants the state to enforce monogomous relationships on people! He should stop acting like that is a ridiculous conclusion to draw, it's not - There are actually people, the incel community, who believe this. It's like he's intentionally vague and wants people to misunderstand him.
@@lilsaam you mean he used the correct term from anthropology and people are too arrogant to stop and question whether they have things correct and find its easier to assume he is a bad person
fixed that for you
@@lilsaam Because he is not proselytizing but doing science, and the way to say it from anthropology is that there are many possible ways, that one of them is to force monogamy, and that - within its failures - enforced monogamy is the way that has more advantages and less disadvantages. I don't totally agree that it's the best way, but I think that's JP's point.
also “enforced monogamy” is encouraging a partnership through culture, not forcing or coercing people by law ...
Yeah. I'm old enough to remember when people considered it their duty to notice if someone was single and introduce them to other potential partners. It was not in a smutty context like Tinder/hookup. It was the company picnic or the church social. It was at a time when you did things like "go steady", etc. Now there's nothing like that ..
Culture _is_ law. Culture _becomes_ law. In Biblical times, we had legal stoning for adulterous and promiscuous women. Because their understanding of human nature was better than our modern "progressive" views.
_"Culture is law. Culture becomes law"_
well _is_ it law, or does it _become_ law?
the fact that even in modern times monogamy/marriage is still seen as such a benefit to society, that homosexuals want to be able to take part in that institution; what does that say about the social worth of monogamy?
Mistah I think homosexuals want to appropriate the system of marriage only to spite it ;)
Other than that, I don't understand completely what you mean. If marriage is still seen as such a benefit to society, why is there so much fornication, adultery and divorces?
tl;dr - people putting marriage off until much later; women in particular, who are not in their prime of fertility; hormonal complications of birth control and mate selection.
because birth control. prior to birth control a newly married couple would be expecting to become parents within a couple of years. there are also some strange effects that hormonal birth control can do to woman's attraction to and perception of her prospective mates.
turns out that being on the pill makes women seek out more genetically similar males, then when she comes off the pill in order to have children, she may well become less attracted to her current mate.
there's also current culture encouraging women to pursue education and careers during their most fertile years, and the little problem that when women cannot ignore their biological clock any longer, they have may have gained skills and resources to help provide for their family; but they're significantly less fertile. men have a decline in fertility too, don't get me wrong, but there are less complications in comparison due to all the things that could go wrong during gestation.
there's also (also) the fact that men are willing to marry down the soc-eco status hierarchy, women by far tend not to. just take a look through all the "where have all the good men gone?" type articles written by women in the last years of their fertility window, lamenting that the men of greater or equalt soc-eco status are already married, or are looking for women in their mid-late twenties.
these are just some aspects that aren't brought up in relation, but i think that they are more strongly connected than mainstream culture would consider. there is no realistic/pragmatic fix to these kinds of social problems. new societies will have to form that either prohibit the above, or build off of the new kinds of family structures (if there are any at all). still though, happy days?
I think a overlooked problem is that there are good reasons why women would not date the immature lunatic who freaks out when he doesn't get a date.
Lunatic doesn't bear that way, they become one.
Im not on either side but I can tell you forsure that it doesnt come from "not getting one date" Think of a lifetime of rejection imagine the girls in 1st grade calling you fat and ugly, then in 5th grade again and again in 9th and then in college and then you get into the dating scene and they reject you even more so then you work on making yourself more attractive and you still get rejected and then you start to feel like human garbage and it all just ads up over an entire lifetime. Like imagine watching every movie that has a romantic plot and listening to all these millions of songs written about love and relationships and you cant even relate to such a huge chunk of society And you see how powerful it all is and the emotions and then thinking "wow ive never had that... whats wrong with me that makes nobody want me?"
Thizz Fox you say this as if girls don’t experience the same thing?? Girls are literally raised to never feel good enough - think about the unrealistic expectations girls and women are expected to achieve in terms of how their bodies look. Girls are shamed their entire lives for not fitting into certain boxes, and they aren’t the ones committing mass murder because they feel ‘upset’.
@@gracebellorini7296 Do you know any girl who can't get a date?
@@tFighterPilot Nipe just trying to make an uneven comparison look level 😂😭
How come the perspective on polygamy is restricted to men being with many women disregarding the fact that women will also be with many men?
Women will only have sex with the top 10% most physically attractive men dumbass bitch. They won't be with "many men"
Probably because that’s usually the most common form of polyamory. I have seen more poly relationships where its a man with many women instead of a woman with many men.
Men are far from okay with sharing their women with other men. The majority of men that do this have tons of beta traits in them and are usually not even considered attractive enough by women. On the other hand, women share to a certain ectend high value men without much of a problem. Look at todays society. The Chads are banging tons of women, yet women know it but don't have a problem with it. Many of them even try to get into relationships with them. It is not men who decide it is okay for men to do this (have multiple partners) and not for women. Women's actions indicate that this is how it works.
Yes exactly especially since the narrative is about women ‘cheating’ with lots of men, suggesting multiple partners is a drive for women
@@michael7210Nah you wrong. Girls is players too
Joe demonstrates how to have a sincere disagreement with good-will between both parties. And Joe asks good questions that test the possible cracks in Peterson's thinking, anticipating what the listeners might be thinking. Isn't it interesting that Joe and Dave Ruin are separate from the old-system of media, and that they are treated as antagonists when I fact they are simply better at journalism.
lol
Lmao
but my harem :(
otk _ts
it’s okay . you can have a digital harem .
In your dreams.
there is still waifus and you can have as many as you like :)
no waifu, no lifeu.
Sanguinius seasonal waifu is for trashes. A waifu stays for a laifu.
there’s also the negative psychological effects of serial dating, the risks of sexually transmitted infections, lack of social cohesion as a result of interrupted pair bonding (opportunities).
people who have failed relationships and then end up alone for the rest of their lives tend to be very bitter people.
i’m still not satisfied that economic equity is the same as enforced monogamy. there are far more social problems as a result of failed relationships and broken families than there is with a market economy with a high ratio in terms of relative poverty.
you're deadass jealous you can't have the chance to acquire all the negative connotations of a polygamist lifestyle
aa a Yeah, and if you were in his position, you would be every bit as jealous as he is, and the only reason you’re not is ‘cause your luckier, so stop acting like you’re any better.
aa a And, you know, there’s the off-chance that he’s not jealous and that he’s actually only monogamous because he chooses to be, and not because he’s forced to be, but you never considered that, did you?
You do know that pair bonding is actually uncommon in nature right? Assuming that pair bonding is when two animals mate for life. I know there are more but the only animals I know of off hand are Beavers, Wolves, and Seahorses. Most others bounce from mate to mate or have large groups of females to one male, humans do not naturally pair bond like that though.
@@Stormkrow280
uncommon in nature? humans don't live in "nature". humans control so much about their environment that the social factors in creating and maintaining stability far outweigh the more base animal instincts. actually take a look at the social and psychological effects rather than just leaping to appealing to nature.
This was a fantastic discussion. I like how they contrast but are both willing to understand.
They don’t contrast , they just discuss . In the end it’s a happy agreement
I love how close he got to talking about communism. "Tilt society to serve the..." *realizes he can't argue for that* "That's a good question"
Timestamp
this is the best comment
Absolutely spot on bro. Sadly Peterson's minions don't recognize this hypocrisy and still hail him as an academic truth-seeker.
@goongoos Can you explain what you mean?
@@ikjman1 yes
"If all the women are rejecting you, it's not the women who are the problem" YES THANKS! some of the ney anti feminism guys don't get that. They demonise women to the point where it's so rediculous. Like a lot of Jordans fans. Listen to what your idol has to say
Dave G ist that an easy solution? To just say the women is at fault? Sorry but that's just comfortable. I really don't think that you know better than him. You only filter the information that you like.
imperator servat and I am a uni student lol. Nobody will earn shit till they are 30. I would not want my men to earn a lot less than me. But I would never choose character over money , so that was weak hun XD Stop beeing pathetic and searching for excuses, as to why women don't want you. Gosh, it's on such a level of pathetic that I can't even word it. If that was the case, guys who don't earn a whole would never have a girlfriend. Yet all my male friends have a girlfriend. You want a hot girlfriend without offering anything in return lol
He has a point that, if "everyone else is the problem" then it's likely just you. However that's also used as a scapegoat to say women can't be the problem. You could be in an area where a lot of the women around you are just awful. The culture in one area (either a city, state/province, or country) can vastly differ from another.
Really I think the blame falls on both sexes, and that can leave good people in the middle of it getting hurt. "Sexual liberation", and the fact that you can get it easily, and without diseases or children has warped people. Both treat each other as disposable, and when they try to get a real relationship, they meet people who just want to have sex for the most part because they've developed a hookup culture. High school/prom has become about getting sex for the first time, and College/University is about getting rampant sex, rather than learning.
And while both sexes are responsible, there is a difference with women, they are the gatekeepers of sex. If they didn't reward sexually aggressive men, then you'd have far less of them because they would realize their advances won't work. Then when insecure girls (think high school especially) or women get jealous of other girls for getting tons of men (even if it's not a real relationship like they want, but still attention) then they compete by being open to sex as well. And then they either regret being promiscuous, or just having sex with a random douche, or even worse have a child, become a single mother, and then hurt her child's future and her chances of finding a good man. Plus, the more men a woman has sex with, the less attached she becomes to future men. Yes, people had sex out of marriage or a committed relationship before, but not to this degree, and it was usually demonized. Now it's fully accepted to the point that people feel pressured or demonized NOT getting their first sexual experience out of the way, and by he end of high school. Just look at all of the types of insults like "wow, you just need to get laid" or "what are you, a basement-dwelling *virgin*?". It reinforces the culture that you're *supposed* to have sex early and often.
The other side for men is one of responsibility. Resist your urges to avoid numerous problems, and honour women by not treating them like a tool to sexually gratify yourself with, because they're human beings. It not only hurts them, but hurts yourself when you try to find a girl and she's more focused on her sex life, than improving herself in other ways. This is terrible on both sides, but when women say, "well, if you do (or don't do) blank, your not getting any sex" and men just do whatever they say just to get it. It reinforces bad behaviour in women (I can get away with anything if I use my body to influence him) and makes the man pathetic and potentially wear down his self esteem and hurt the relationship.
Both are responsible. Let's not pretend like women have no role in the relationship.
Dave G in what state lol? You do know that we live better than ever? We are richer than ever. Judt a fact. In every state that women and men are equal, people live better. Something that peterson also stated. We are completly overpopulated and don't need to breed like crazy. So what state? In what terrible state do we live?
Dave G the way you see marriages Is ridiculous. I really don't have to wait, you have a very deluded view on life, where men are some kind of slaves. I am surrounded by people who are happily married for over 15 years and are in their forties. your dystopia does not exist. If you have such a problem around you, in your circle of friends, I really doubt that you are in the top 20%...honestly, I think you watched to many youtube videos on this topic from males of the same opinion, so now you are in your own bubble. step out of it
Funny how they are not at all considering that women would maybe rather have no partner than a partner they dont want. Apart from the fact that women are indivduals as well and have different priorities in a partner.
Exactly!! I'm from India and monogamy is so damn enforced and normalized that women choose to stay in abusive marriages to avoid the stigma of divorce. Obviously very high rates of polygamy will be bad for a country but "enforced monogamy " has so so so many bad side effects
@@notonfire7318 India is doing well, socially.
Actually, the extent to which "enforced monogamy" is a good idea depends on the degree and the way in which it is enforced. It's not black-and-white; it's a spectrum.
If a woman is in a relationship with an abusive, alcoholic, violent guy, then of course she has every right to get out of that relationship, or not to get into that relationship in the first place. Jordan, I presume, is not talking about extreme cases, but cases where let's say the man is "okay" but not perfect (or the way around, the woman is okay but not perfect). Desirability/undesirability of a partner is not black-and-white, it is a spectrum.
Also, JB is talking on a societal level. An individual man or woman can choose to have no partner at all, or to have a partner but no children, but if everyone in the society did that, that society would soon disappear.
@@notonfire7318 India might have gone to the other extreme. Maybe if JP was in India, he would have pointed out the problems of the Indian society; but he's speaking to a pre-dominantly Western audience.
Besides, you could also look at the positives of the Indian society: as far as I'm aware, in India, more kids grow up with two parents, there are fewer mental health issues from broken homes, etc.
What? Women choose? What is the meaning of this? Lol
The problem here to me seem to be "enforced" implying "force." You can't force people to see why monogamy is healthier, they have to understand it. I see this same problem with any issue really. If somebody wants to steal or murder, you can slap them on the hand and prevent them from doing it out of punishment, out of force, but the true transformation can only come from a society that understands WHY certain paradigms are more beneficial. The ability to see past the instant gratification, to realize that working for something is always more satisfying because that means there is a solid foundation - security, comfort, home - which is a root desire in my opinion. Subconsciously you realize it is more stable and you appreciate it because you put a part of yourself into it. I see monogamy the same. We are operating in a society where a mass majority of monogamous displays are dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean the fundamental underlying elements of it are. Just as our prison system is completely dysfunctional. However, that doesn't mean that fundamental underlying thought that the behaviors we are trying to prevent is incorrect. We simply do not have healthy examples to help people understand why it is healthy from a societal and individual level.
Kelsee Rusinek Well, then, if a rationale for monogamy is what you want, here’s the rationale: monogamy forces every woman to mate with her equal and every man to mate with his equal; it doesn’t allow the average man or the average woman to punch above his or her weight, and it prevents the small minority of hyper-polygamous and hyper-attractive men from amassing a disproportionate number of sexual partners; for every man with ten thousand women, there are ten thousand men with no women, and so, that’s ten thousand men that are fated to die alone, and that have absolutely no reason to continue in the upkeep of their traitor-society; if monogamy is destroyed, and everyone is left to their own devices, that’s gonna lead to the discounting of the vast majority of the male population, because, whether we like it or not, in the eyes of nature, and in the eyes of women, only a handful of men are truly worth anything, and the rest are expendable; it’s really sad, actually; and embittering; it makes you despise the world if you think about it for long enough.
Kelsee Rusinek You see, women only care about the species; they don’t really give a damn about individuals; and so, if you accord them individual choice, what you’re gonna get is the indirect eradication of individuals, en masse; nature lives and breathes on destruction; you know, noticing facts like this makes you really wonder why we object to things like genocide; if a woman can render the judgement: “most of you are unfit”, why can’t a man render the judgement: “everything is unfit”?
by the time they realize whats right or wrong time would have passed
@@aquilo1714 I don't see how monogamy can enforce that on its own, except under a totalitarian regime.
@Aquilo It’s been two years since that comment. So I’d hope you’d change your opinion. But nothing you said was rational. Everything you said was based on subjective values. Wtf is punching above someone’s weight? The idea that somehow physical attractiveness (something that’s subjective) is the value that we can somehow measure is beyond reason it’s plain stupid. Nothing you said was close to rational. You used subjective values to force the opposite sex into monogamy and claimed it’s rational. You gave no stats no studies just rambled on incorrectly about the sex differences and how women are bad and need to be forced to mate with ugly men. Where is the logic in that? Did your mother abandon you? Did she not hug you?
Alot of women just want to be free and focus there attention on things like studying and their hobbies and friends. Relationships and sex are not all that great.
A lot of women are not even interested in men a r all but they didn't talk about that lol.
They love men they just suck at expressing it
They are sharing the top 20% of men Janny. Male virginity is rising FAST. We can't afford to let women "be free"
The dating scene is trash
They are great as part of something greater, not on their own. If you have a deep relationship with a man and you have a lot in common with him and can nurture constructive projects with him, yes. Casual sex or a relationship with a man just for the sake of it, waste of time. JP does not seem to think that women are individuals and they might desire different things, he goes on "women want this", "women want that".
If someone out there really thinks that only unmarried men are violent, I advise you to actually read true crime. Besides the married men who have killed their partners, often after having affairs I might add; there are plenty of married male killers.
Really what percent of married male population involved in these crimes is "plenty?" I would *assume* violent crimes are committed by single men MORE than married men but then again I don't know exact numbers.
You can't just assume that they must be equal, cause they most certainly aren't..
>Elli0t R0dgers (2014)
>Alek Minasian (2018)
>Jake Davis0n (2020)
1) Rogan fails to understand that number of men and women is roughly the same. While not solving the problem of incels, enforced monogamy certainly makes it less severe
2) Peterson could have defended himself better against "enforced monogamy is equality of outcome" accusation. You still compete for the quality of the woman. You can only have one, but you still want it to the best you can get.
To go along with Rogan's example of basketball players. Even the best player can still only play for one team. You can choose to play on the best team, but its only one. Thats the rule.
well it's not equality of outcome, it's market regulation.
equality of outcome would be no one gets a choice in who they mate with.
monogamy is a hard limit on the number of partners at one time.
it's more like lite socialism
Damn straight.
Kash Mere
I wish both these guys would read your last line. Nailed it.
Peterson is right. All successful societies have enforced monogamy.
Zlipster Royals nah if it's the classical maybe but you'll be amazed how cheating works nowadays. 😑
What if 1 chinese man has a boner? What then? Other guy goes to bow and he accidentally gives him a blowjob? Thats much worse then a hug or a kiss on the cheek!
All societies got fucked up at one point
absolutely
As is typical of academics, Peterson has no idea about the practical application or or implications of anything. He just has some nice abstract ideas.
Not even that nice tbh
If you listen long enough you start hearing nothing
Yes ppl have choice and some ppl dont want/have kids but that doesnt mean the rules should be skewed to give them the benefit.
He keeps tryina make a comparison to sports. So take basketball, changing the distance of the 3 point line would slightly alter the game, the same way vesectomy has changed the game, but it doesnt mean the whole game should be changed to benefit those ppl.
7:30 that’s a good question
From an evolutionary perspective the selection process that allowed us to become intelligent far beyond that of the other apes required a rather extremely amount of filtration which is evident in human breeding habits.
To put it simply a lot of men are not good enough when it comes to having a genetic legacy and there is not much anyone can do about it.
This is how it seems to me and I am not making any value judgement to anyone who was dealt a less than ideal set of cards in life.
With that said I think the path is ultimately the same for many people and that is to find something they can appreciate about existence and be thankful for the opportunity to have some time in the sun before the game is over.
Best of luck y'all ✌️
You are ignoring the fact that those that are "not good enough gentically" are the results of succesful reproduction. In addition to that, like Jordan points out societies need monogamy and those "inferior" men doing jobs and fathering for a functional society to go on.
but you have to remember that fitness isn't just intelligence, or even competence, there's this whole array of games that are being played at the biological, and ecological level, as evident by the computational models discovered in the late 1960s that predicted many different species behaviors, including some of ours. Among such, predicted the success of imposters, cheaters, and even temporally local maladaptive individuals. We don't know what less than ideal set of cards are until long after those cards has been played. mammals were certainly not the most adaptive class for a long period of time, neither were cyanobacteria.
The point here is that such variables that are controlled with in a group might not be as useful in an inter-group situation, as witnessed by the extinction of neanderthals, who were much more intelligent and healthier that our ancestors. Sometimes the world breeds for successful individuals, others times it breeds for successful clusters of individuals, which brought about first and foremost atoms from fundamental particles, then amino acids from atoms, proteins from amino acids, single cells from proteins, multi cellular from single cells, tribe from multi cellulars, nations from tribes, and global economic systems from nations. who knows that's beyond that? and which level do you breed for success of?
how come than ugly millionares with millions of health problems have 100 times more woman than a healthy young decent looking me, or any other bloke that is? ahh yes...we know the answer
@@maegtigekasper "You are ignoring the fact that those that are "not good enough gentically" are the results of succesful reproduction."
Not necessarily because what is "good enough" for a given evolving species at one point in time, is not guaranteed to go on if conditions change; the criteria which yield the highest probability of a genetic legacy is not exactly fixed although it may exist within a range which is fairly definable.
"In addition to that, like Jordan points out societies need monogamy and those "inferior" men doing jobs and fathering for a functional society to go on."
Likely correct to some extent if the collective societal aim is to maximize stability.
@@haroldcarter192
"fitness isn't just intelligence, or even competence, there's this whole array of games that are being played at the biological, and ecological level, as evident by the computational models discovered in the late 1960s that predicted many different species behaviors, including some of ours. Among such, predicted the success of imposters, cheaters, and even temporally local maladaptive individuals. We don't know what less than ideal set of cards are until long after those cards has been played."
I agree with you.
While if would be nice if "negative" traits had less success, it's important to remember that whether or not behaviors which offer utility can be seen as less than ideal ethically or morally is ultimately irrelevant to their strategic potential.
Monogamy is already enforced to the degree that it can be. It's why polygamy is usually hidden.
There is a significant emersion of polygamous acceptance and even encouragement in Western culture, especially within the confines of social media/dating apps. This phenomenon is left mostly unopposed by the general population, especially younger people.
It's literally not. Women used to beat and shun individual women that slept with one of their husbands.
@@CagedGod You know a person that is not in a relationship and having different partners is not the same as polygamy?
So, by "enforced" you mean "encouraged".
Culturally it was once strictly enforced. Divorced women and adultresses and nonvirgins were shunned. Nonvirgins couldn't get a man. The Catholic church rejected divircees. The system was so strict that anything but monogamy was essentially radically punished. Nowadays I would agree that it's merely encouraged nowadays.
He’s talking about a shift in morality
No he means forced
“Enforced Monogamy,” to me, seems un-meritocratic and dictatorial. Women chose to date high-status sexual men. They have that right and freedom. Sure, some men get violent over them not receiving women, but it’s not anyone else’s prerogative to care about them, and “not having a mate” isn’t an excuse to get violent, anyway.
Enforced monogamy doesn't mean give every unworthy man a woman with no effort on his part. That's arranged marriage.
Monogamy doesn't mean the men and women don't get to choose their partners.
Jay Esta Fayza You’re ignoring the fact that if you let this problem get out of hand, enough, the women are going to become so picky and so materialistic and so shallow that literally more than eighty-percent of the men in your society are going to be permanently left out of the game of love; which means, they’ll never have children, and when they get old, and the last of their family members die off, they’re finally gonna be left all alone; meanwhile, the women are going to be living life to the full with the conscientious aid of the tiny handful of unrejected men; after that happens, your society will finally collapse, and it’ll collapse rightfully; any society that’s twisted and selfish enough to leave most of its members in the lurch like that isn’t going to exist for very long, and it doesn’t deserve to.
Moyo Atteh Hold your worthless tongue before someone rips it out of your mouth.
Moyo Atteh What’s your point? Why are you even talking? Do you wanna discuss monogamy? If so, here are the facts: monogamy is better for society, but polygamy is better for the individual. Which one you support depends on how selfish or unselfish you are, and on your social and biological status. I don’t deserve to be insulted for saying that. It’s the truth. And anyone who denies it is a fool. In the same way that monarchy is better for monarchs, but worse for everyone else, polygamy is better for the tiny, tiny, handful of individuals who can afford to be polygamous, and worse for everyone else. This is a scientific fact. You denying it?
Moyo Atteh In purely monogamous societies, everyone gets paired off with their equals. This reduces conflict and envy and spite and it enforces harmony. In polygamous societies, the opposite happens. Monogamy sacrifices a certain amount of happiness in exchange for stability and polygamy does the opposite. It doesn’t matter which one is better. Both of them have their merits. I don’t mind promiscuity. But hypocrisy is pretty damn annoying. People in the West pretend they’re so egalitarian, and yet, a lot of them are polygamous to the core. Especially the women. They should stop being hypocrites and just admit that they don’t care about fairness or equality, and that the only thing they really care about is money and pleasure and comfort and convenience. That’s the explanation for the bitter tone that you detected. I detest unfairness more than anything, and when that unfairness is combined with hypocrisy and perfidiousness and lies, it gets me riled up.
1:23 - 1:29
*YES! THIS IS UNIRONICALLY MY POSITION*
Based, same
what are the alpha's getting all cynical at uni for if they are getting all the sex?
because sex just by itself becomes alienating?
if you don't actually encourage the pair bonding part after the sex, then you just end up with two confused bitter people who don't know how to relate to one another, but at least they gets an orgasm once in a while.
they are cynical because it burns when they pee
They get cynical because they start viewing women as objects because, women are just having sex with them and then going on to the next guy.
lol, fair point :)
Thanks for answering my question, i never get replies so it's quite nice that people talk to each other on youtube from time to time
Joe, when LeBron James dominates the NBA, it does not impact the home life of children in the same way that an absent father w/ 10 illegitimate children effects their home.
JP is talking about setting up a society. The society doesn’t continue if they’re not having children. Why is JR keep insisting that we shouldn’t base society on monogamy because some don’t like it. Don’t we have to set down some rules that are for the betterment of the society’s future regardless if 💯 of the population agree with the rules? 🤔
Rogan: why should people be monogamous? I dont think it that big a deal.
Peterson: it protects children and stop the hierarchy structure from be destroyed.
Rogan: yea but what else?
Peterson: ehhh what more do you need
Potters clay it tells Rogan's wants more Moree. 😏
Actually I agree with most of Peterson's arguments and points, since he is very coherent.
But I got some of the issues with his argumentation about polyamorous relationships.
Using distinction between polyamory and polygamy due to many religious connotations.
Peterson's argumentation fails at the basic assumption that I see him talk about how this would ruin hierarchichal structure due to disproportion in amount of female partners amongst men.
This seems all fine (especially considering the fact that noone wants to live in the world with harems if You don't have one), *but* he seems to forget that men don't have monopoly on multiple partners.
Assuming that there would be a portion of men that would be able to maintain multiple women, there definitely *would* be women equalising the scales by having multiple partners.
Hell, from my personal experience, I met *more* women with multiple consensual partners than men with multiple consensual partners.
It protects children if they are born
Crash Bandicoot Same issue as with gay adoptions - IMHO healthy poly/gay/whatever parents are better than straight parents that are shite or none.
Idk, tbh I think that there are too few research done to simply say that poly families are inherently disruptive for child development. Especially considering the fact that people are used to more of a tribal way of being raised and if I recall well (don't take my word for certain) comparably, atm parents are in general too overloaded (young babies spend ~1/2 of time with tribe in places where tribes still exist) and it seems to me that it might be especially hard for only children.
I just want to point out that I don't think that poly is better just as I think mono, gay or straight ain't any better. I'm just not sure whether the JP's argumentation isn't on the weak side here.
Leszek Phan
Socioeconomic status would have more of an effect on children than a parent's sexuality.
The Right is too engulfed in their narrative to accept that gay and polyamorous can be just as good parents as heteronormative parents.
OMFG stop cutting each other off. Would love to hear someone's entire idea in this thing. Jesus.
This is how adult conversations work. By the end of a sentance, or when the other person seems to be trailing off, they are adding, interpreting, asking questions, or affirming what they're hearing. They are being stern because one is convinced and the other is confused, nobodies angry, or being mean, sarcastic, or passive.
jr should shut up a little..
I like that Peterson has a temper. He doesn't pretend he's perfect.
Thank you for posting all these diverse people bite-sized philosophy!
so...cultures with enforced monogamy don't become violent???
6:22 problem is that 10 lesser guys can still gang up on that one super guy, or one malevolent bad guy can still kill em when his guard is down. so the whole male violance thing makes sense
lol
Yup, that's 9/11
Great clip , and fine job being so expeditious.
You taught me a new word. Thanks
Thoughts at 3:38. Why would a polygamist society mean that only men would be having multiple partners? (Ok, made it through more of the video) As an example he later says that it's very common for women to cheat while in a relationship, but not the norm, so he is saying that a lot of people would be interested in multiple relationships. Meaning that a lot women would be involved with many partners, increasing the number of men sexually active just like the men who choose to pursue many partners. Another note, does it matter if a lot of people don't reproduce? I know that evolution has no clear cut goals, but if these men who do reproduce are desirable genetically it would further the goal of making more desirable future mates which is what has happened as he said with the chimpanzees, is he upset that we evolved? I believe that "incels" are too focussed on romantic relationships, live life and if a relationship develops, good for you, but if you hyperfixate it comes off as desperate and makes you bitter. It does really suck when all your friends are in relationships and they want to hang out less, but being in a relationship doesn't fix all your problems you just basically get a new person to worry about in your life.
JP definitely agrees with the idea that enforced monogamy isn't a magic cure all to male aggression. His point was that while most men need to fix issues within their personalities, it merely helps if the society has strong social taboos against polygamy, because if it doesn't it produces inequality in sexual selection to the point that even if the men do make improvements that would make them more attractive and put them in the top 10% of men (for example), it won't help as much because all the women will be flocking to the top 1% of men.
As for the point about female polygamy, on average they're not going to date one or two successful men and then date a couple of men several steps down the hierarchy. They're going to date more of the top percent of men. Even if a few steps down from the top is still pretty dang attractive, why would anyone settle? Now, obviously this removes the personal element in that what women find attractive differs, but they're talking about general trends and aggregate data. So including female polygamy, to me, doesn't alter the argument.
Men are far from okay with sharing their women with other men. The majority of men that do this have tons of beta traits in them and are usually not even considered attractive enough by women. On the other hand, women share to a certain ectend high value men without much of a problem. Look at todays society. The Chads are banging tons of women, yet women know it but don't have a problem with it. Many of them even try to get into relationships with them. It is not men who decide it is okay for men to do this (have multiple partners) and not for women. Women's actions indicate that this is how it works.
Be happy about being a genetic dead end?L0L
I can't seem to find any videos online of ANY minority intellectuals having this type of discussion. Anyone have links?
4:58 well played joe
yeah, he argued really well here, seems more smart than i thought
This talk forgets the fact that the less monogamous a group is the more likely they catch and transmit deadly STI's
Imagine if something like the AIDS epidemic started today. Only those who aren't getting laid, would make it.
That is one hell of a point!
Not if they use protection, but anyway...
At the end he put the whole issue back onto the deconstruction of the honorable family.
That is precisely what he's saying at the end.
While some comparison can be made with wealth distribution and monogamy, the most important difference is that, while economics is not a zero sum game, the dating world is. It makes no sense to view a zero-sum and a positive-sum game as equivalent.
Ideas are simply ideas and there contentious nature should not be a blemish on the character of those who discuss them openly
Joe keeps asking the same question and when Jordan gives him the same answer Joe then says YOU SAID THAT
"Arrange marriage" in eastern world veiw.
Deo Qu
The Nazi's did that
Ah so that's where Shamien's "Who's got the problem....IT'S YOU" comes from.
Which JRE Episode is this from?
Joe at 9 minutes still doesn’t get it. The sacrifice for everyone as a society is what will help better the future, not selfishly think for yourself 100% of the time every second of everyday. We’re heading in a spiral downwards and it’s clearly evident now since these unstable times prove it to be true everyday
Wrong way to understand it, the sacrifice will help the person doing the sacrificing, because we don't rip their limbs off their body. This isn't about everyone, this is about reining in these out of control totalitarian elitists, they need to be reminded why not to touch a hot stove.
By the way.. It's not bad for kids. There are tribes where there is no father and village brings kids. Kids need One consistent person and complex social interactions... That's it.
Dude those are tribes for a reason hahaha
"Yes, and you call enforced monogamy a social norm despite the fact that you clearly used the word 'enforced'"
Some people like to control other people's life
Take the blackpill then you'll understand
I found this to be one of the more compelling interviews presented by Joe Rogan and very interesting because he challenged Jordan Peterson responses in a way that highlighted the duality between Jordan Peterson's critique of equality of outcome between men and women in the workplace going against the grain of biological imperative versus his endorsement of enforced monogamy which seems to be the same - all things aside I can see why this can be a hot-button issue but I hope people can just observe objectively rather than take it as a personal affront
I get it... Its simple: its better if a society has the norm, enforce the standard of... people dating marrying on person at a time. A society where people are polygamous is bad. We already have enfprce monogamy. We look down or think odd of people who have more than one partner at the same time. We made it ilegal for you to marry more than one person at the same time. Its better when society enforces the norm of one partner at a time.
Enforce Monogamy sounds like a bad negative term. Sounds like arranged marrige. It also sounds like government mandated girlfriends.
@May August cults don't help.
If Enforced Monogamy sounds like Arranged Marriage, then I'm sorry but its a pure lack of education the listener's part. Just look up and the definition of the words and think about it for 2 seconds. Don't be lazy and reactionary.
Around 7:30 Jordan kinda reminded me of Cathy Newman for some reason.
If you are mad about society and you are young depending on how long you live you could be angry a VERY LONG time. Just go your own way eventually someone will come along and things will click.
I've never seen JP having so much trouble explaining himself
I won't say the solution is "enforcing monogamy". Incel, the rise of polygamous relationship (and polyamory), etc. (or whatever the name is) are symptoms, the symptom of inequal resource distribution. Resource accumulation at the top population create instable society, so it create polygamous society (because women seek stability and thus who offer stability are the minority), not the other way around. We should fix the resource distribution first, if not, the monogamy would just end up in a miserable divorce (could be due to economy reason or finance issues), which create kind of not-really-stable society too like nowadays lol
Love is love ay
Those studies about Polygamous societies being destabilising are only polygamous for men, hence the problem. If polygamy as accesible also for women, (sexual liberty) a small population of men no longer “get all the women”..... how is a male and female polygamous society negative for incels?
Thank you. The science allegedly proving polygamous societies are more 'violent' is seriously flawed.
People, who seem allergic to monogamy, can you explain why the west is so opposed to the idea of 'willful' prostitution? I mean if you believe in freedom and choice, what's wrong with that?
I'm not allergic to monogamy, as I am monogamous, but I am pro "freedom and choice" and believe people should do whatever they want, especially in consenting relationships. I would also say I don't think there is anything wrong with willful prostitution. I believe it should be legal. Since I am towards "freedom and choice" in both prostitution and polygamy, I don't see what correlation you are trying to make.
Because freedom doesn’t mean you do whatever you want. Some things are still wrong, prostitution being one of them
@@deraokoli7746 why is it wrong though? Someone was willing to pay and she was willing to offer a service. Both parties consented to the terms of the service.
@शिवशंभो 🕉 comparing prostitution to killing lmao. Even Jesus himself told the people the prostitute deserves dignity. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. Nobody said you had to participate
I love the last thirty seconds of the video. Peterson implies that Rogan cannot recognize scum if it hit him under the nose.
Why can’t women have multiple partners? Why is it assumed monogamy is to balance the scale for male opportunity?
This is incel rhetoric, these people don't consider women their equals
Why should a small land not have multiple farmers?
Contradicts the dominance hierarchy.
All you need to do is observe various mating strategies in mammals, in a large number of species, there is a so called harem for the dominant alpha male, and the males literally fight each other for that position. So if we regard that as the most extreme polygamy/hypergamy, we can cleary see that it leads to more aggression/violent behavior. Monogamy essentially fixes this by giving the top male the chance to choose the top female but forces them to commit, thus taking both of them out of the equation. It goes on like this until most of the species is paired off...
This comment deserves more recognition
If I remember correctly, the Romans enforced marriage early in their civilization, several cultures though cut off from each other has seemingly done the same during the BC era. So this isn't exactly an Abrahamic point of view.
Does JP have a video on why birth rates are so low in indigenous western Europe? Is this linked?
not to my knowledge, but i can explain it very briefly:
women are starting careers when they would be at their most fertile; they tend to delay it (or end up avoiding it entirely) about a decade later, when they would be less fertile, and also less attractive to men around their age (and in general).
so they have fewer children if they have any at all.
there are some other factors such as disruption in optimal mate selection due to hormonal changes as a result of birth control.
also women under 40 tend to out earn men, leading to women competing with men in the work place for success and status, whilst competing with other women in order to find men of equal or greater status (than the woman).
women don't tend to want to marry down, not unless they're very secure financially, or just good ol' fashioned plain desperate.
@@mistahsusan2650 Woman who are very secure financially STILL don't want to marry down. Which is why they tend to not get married. They keep looking for a man they see as above them, and cannot find him, because he got married a long time ago.
I don’t believe in marriage and don’t want children but I do believe in monogamy . Sick of letting my guard down to have to put it back up . I didn’t think not wanting to be an option or share someone was such a crazy thing until I opened my heart in today’s society. I was closed off for nine years before that. They think thats being “free.” They don’t understand that true freedom comes with a ton of work..
Kind of ironic his daughter is a single mom 🤣
Again, we see Peterson ascribing to the idea that if the majority of women are refusing intimate relations with a man that it is the women who have the valid argument, while at the same time in arguments of his here on You Tube he warns again and again and again of the danger of ascribing to "the majority is correct" thinking. He applauds minority Christian thinking in its emphasis on accountability, responsibility, and self-determination, while articulating the plight of the remaining masses. If I am to believe that the majority of women are now correct in their denial of this man, then this presents a major contradiction to his assertions that majority rule is often not correct, as evidenced, he has said, by history. Interesting also is this quickly agreed upon notion that if this man were to really become a man he would be successful with women. Anyone who has lived on this earth for at least 30 years knows that's not the case. Herein we have to dissect the meaning of what it is to be a man then. Apparently, the argument here is being inside a woman is evidence enough that one is a man. Laughable.
What he said was if all the woman are rejecting the man then it is dangerous to follow through a thought process that blames the woman and absolves the man. Because it takes you to very dark and dangerous places psychologically.
He asks if all the women rejected a man, who has the problem? the women or the man?(all the women, not a Majority of women as you claim but AlL the women) ...in this case it would be silly to not consider the very distinct possibility that it is the man that has some fundamental failings in him that makes him unattractive to the opposite sex. Now if the cure for this predicament is to Man Up, then Peterson has made it quite clear in his countless hours of lectures what he considers the role of men should be, with emphasis on accountability, responsibility, personal responsibility and self-determination. Nowhere does he make the the argument that being inside a woman is evidence enough that one is a man as you claim.
Any individual not gaining a personal or recognized level of excellence or success in anything ought to be prone to bewildered senses of cynicism.
A different kind of person might be able to cross examine ones own skewed up value system. Hopefully shedding light on how heavy a load is that you're carrying.
Aim low enough
Stack those spells like stairs or lily pads
12:10 - you gotta be fucking kidding me
So the entire argument boils down to "Dont be a cheating bastard."
1st that is already a norm, cheating is generally frowned upon
2nd it has fuck all to do with incels
JorTAN Peterson
Citation please! I can name a dozen tribes that have established polygamous relationships but never go to war.... sooo you know
“Tribes”? So savages?
So a whole society of millions should run like that?
Name them.
Ok so one of the points I don’t understand is why there is a need for the term ‘enforced’ monogamy. Why not just monogamy? Is there a difference?
If it is enforced - then by whom? And if it NEEDS to be ‘enforced’, it would seem to me to be inherently against our human nature. And if THAT’S the case, it would be unlikely to work, as we generally rail against anything that is contrary to our nature.
Also, I don’t agree that there are only two options - enforced monogamy, or polygamy. There are other options out there (polyamory being one). But if you make the comparison between ONLY enforced monogamy and polygamy, then ANY kind of monogamy (enforced or not) will likely be the widely preferred option.
Enforced because it's enforced by society. We do rail against it. Look at divorce rates, look at how prevalent "cheating" is.
What if they choose to raise the children together?
The problem is that Peterson's argument for enforced monogamy is the equivalent of socialism's as enforced redistribution of wealth. Give from the one that has more ability to the ones in need. Otherwise there's too much inequality and the dispossessed in sexual terms will raise again. Rogan's argument is more capitalism based in a way, meaning the individual can solve and improve his situation (whether economical or sexual). Jordan's opinion is foregoing the freewill of women as well, and their need as human beings to have complete and long lasting relationships. A woman might choose to have a short relationship with an alpha male, "hypergamous women hoarding" but she can still decide to have a long-term relationship with a different male and raise a family with him. He is also conflating poligamy with poliamory, open marriages, consensual non monogamy, etc, which are not the same as poligamy. He drops the meaning of them and puts them inside poliginy, which means one man married to many women. This almost doesn't occur at all in Western societies, so it's using a straw man argument here.
I think Joe Rogan is making a wrong point with the equality of outcome argument. JP never said there should be a strict no choice regulation to who you should marry, but rather a competitive environment for getting the highest quality of partners.
Wow ....
Slanged, shortened terminology rubs me the wrong way like sandpaper. Slash through the silliness, Peterson!
Very interesting conversation, i agree more with Peterson, but Rogan is a smart guy
Rogan did a pretty good job of pushing back on Peterson's rhetoric here. Rare instance of me being impressed by him.
i think people need to be more worried about someone completely ignorant (about psychology and sociology) being able to bust such a simple hole in someones conception of world's problems. Peterson is an expert, suppsoedly, someone like Joe (not saying hes dumb, but not an expert) shouldnt be able to push him against the wall on his own field. it shows a lack of basic understanding. and if joe was able to press him on this one issue on what other issues is JP wrong but we simply dont have the expertise to really call him out on?
Jordan Peterson uses arguments that are vague and soft and impossible to pin down so that people can interpret them in a way that works for them, leading the people who see what he says as fitting into their own philosophy to almost worship Peterson’s ideology. The fact that it can be interpreted in so many ways also means no one knows what he’s talking about, leading people to classify him as everything from a closeted Nazi to a liberal. It’s hard to really catch him in something, because he can always just say “no, that’s no what that really means.” and always have plausible deniability. Someone who’s not an expert could find some of the flaws if they can properly press him for more specific answers in a conversation(which is one of the perks of Joe Rogan’s show.)
Brilliant! Absolutley brilliant!! (Just subscribed) 😊❤🙏
One of the best discussion s I heard this year very informative
I wish I would have heard this (and been able to understand it) when I was younger, from Jordan, instead of from what I thought were just judgmental bible thumpers. I always believed in loyalty and have never cheated... but I was definitely not always purely seeking a monogamous relationship... I felt if she is not calling me her boyfriend, then I sure as hell won’t play by those rules either. Maybe it became a self fulfilling prophecy.
So you rejected knowledge because of your hatred for the Bible and now you're paying for it ? Interesting.
just seems like a communication issue to me
He is a judgmental Bible thumper. The dude literally says the Bible is the basis for truth. People who can't hear his fundamentalist worldview in ideas like enforced monogamy baffle me.
As a Christian, it's really sad to me how many people dismiss Biblical wisdom as "judgmental Bible thumping" when it could radically change their lives for the better, and most people who try to preach the Gospel to them just want what is best for them. We're not judging. We're trying to share good news with you.
Just like people who go to third world countries and give them clean water aren't "judging them" for drinking dirty water. They are just saying hey, I care about you and I know this water is hurting you, so can I give you something better?
This is a battle for/against tradition. Enforce Monogamy is traditional because it builds a stable/safer society, like JP said. People don't do it because they wouldn't rather go out having free love, they do it because it is something that has worked in their culture and has becoming "how you should behave" regardless of whether people understand why or not. There is always a battle between keeping and breaking tradition and people often don't look at it scientifically like JP is in this case.
"Mom, why do you cut the ham in half before putting it in the oven?"
"Ask your grandmother."
"Grandma, why do you cut the ham in half before putting it in the oven?"
"So it cooks more evenly...ask your Great Grandmother."
"Great Grandma, why do you cut the ham in half before putting it in the oven?"
"Well, I did it because we just moved to this country and can only afford a small oven, so we had to cut it into two pieces to make it fit."
"Did you know my mom still does that because Grandma and you did it?"
"Hah, that's funny."
There is a tradition that should be broken because it doesn't server a purpose.
I see your point, and this is an argument JBP has made, but dont be so certain the the supposed solution will improve things, its really hard to improve on something that has been building up sinces the beginning of time.
Money and resources should not be regulated because life isn’t fair and who cares if there inequity and discontent, it’s just your livelihood. Relationships however should be regulated otherwise the inherent inequity that results from the winners winning results in inequity and discontent and that’s more bad. Meaning that one’s livelihood is not as important as their relationship ….. yet money is the number one destroyer of relationships.
I think both of them made a mistake in naming Monogamy as a "solution" when it's more of a "goal".. that's why Rogan is confused.. he keeps saying the solution is to be a better man, then yes that's the solution, and the goal is to have a harmonious monogamous relationship..
Whether women choose all men or just a small group of men, IT IS STILL THE WOMEN'S CHOICE! How difficult is it for these fascists to comprehend?
yes its their choice and maybe your right that even disscussing the matter smacks of fascism but it is quite sad though innit ?
A rare time where Rogan talks past his guest and assumes where he's going to go. "What if [the alpha male] doesn't want to have children?"
1) Condoms break.
2) We've already established lady killers are about fucking women. We also know bareback sex feels better than protected sex. Therefore, conception has a non-zero probability.
3) Peterson's point is clear. He was not, nor has he ever, argued for seizing the means of reproduction. Recognizing that both sides have a purpose means he doesn't go all one way.
4) Even if Peterson was arguing for distributive mate selection, the reason why every major civilization-especially India-demands monogamy is because arranged marriages are more stable and conect more people. Yes, India, the land where they wrote the book on sex and worship the Lord of Ganja also has the most restrictive marriage customs ever. Why? Because marriage is as much a business contract as it is a romantic one. Compare arranged marriages to the way we practice marriage in the West. It's a mess that created MGTOW in the first place. Divorce courts are the oldest courts where everyone must be made equal IN OUTCOME and the results are high divorce rates. I happen to think there's an Aristotelian mean betweeen arranged and polygamy, but it's clearly weighted closer to monogamy than polygamy. Even in the US's history, hippies found out that free love was an untenable position. Unfortunately, those hippies taught SJWs no love is better. Which is why Millenials get the least sex out of any generation and are insanely angry at everything.
don't arranged marriages have radically higher rates of infidelity?
@@mistahsusan2650 yes they do. This guy has no idea what he's talking about. Ignore him.
India's got a huge women's rights problem, especially with girls being married off to men at a young age, sometimes to terrible people who will abuse them, because the culture has made it so that it's thought better to be in a bad marriage than to be single. Like, we shouldn't try to emulate that.
@@alicedeligny9240 We also have a huge marriage problem where women like Amber Heard abuse the court system for their own ends. Neither society is good, but one of them has replacement birth rate and the other doesn't.
@@dragonknightleader1 Well liars do abuse the court system indeed. What does that have to do with child brides in India ? I'd rather have some liars than a society that tolerates rapists and doesn't defend little girls. Fuck your replacement birthrates, we're not your fucking wombs.
uhhh they are missing the entire idea that IF women were setting more of a standard of requiring/ expecting a committed relationship before having sex with men then all men including the...."hottest" would be taken OFF the market, because they'd have to in order to get laid. That by default makes more women actually open to dating all the other men. (instead of vying for the attention of the few hottest dudes where there are no actual relationships and everyone loses)
So in many ways, Peterson's solution is sort of intertwined with equal outcome. But Joe assumes that there IS equal opportunity, and there isn't. He's also extremely reductive. "Let's say there's a 6'5" guy and he's attractive and brilliant, and all the other guys are ugly and 5'1", that first guy is going to win." Yeah, but the problem is that most of the men who can't get laid are actually not short ugly losers. Some are quite successful, average height, average looking and no matter what they do, they either can't get laid, OR get lucky once in a blue moon.
Hookers are everywhere if your only goal is to get "laid"
"Successful reproduction is a big problem."
Hell yeah it is.
When your willing to commit violence for successful reproduction it is. Which will happen.
This is what happens when you have a good journalist - he is curious and and inquires. And this is also what happens when you have a guy who makes generalsied statements based on faulty assumptions - his generalised statements do not stand up to any scrutiny. Good on you Joe Rogan
Monogamy is the social norm and I do believe that that is correct as a polyamorous person I can tell you 100% that most monogamous people would be miserable in a polyamorous relationship I do have problems with our community though mainly when religion and polyamory mix because then people start marrying underage and that is incredibly fucked up you shouldn't be allowed to marry into a polyamorous relationship unless you are 18 or older or in the case of my state 19 even with parental consent you shouldn't because then parents pigeonholed their kids into a relationship that they do not want and that is absolutely disgusting to any normal polyamorous person I have ever met
Everybody's responsible for their own actions, but women not f-ing some men makes a very small percentage of them extremely violent, and as such, the rest of us have a responsibility to get these men laid or we can't then blame the outcome of these men choosing horrific violence on the personal choices of these individuals? That it's in fact the collective choice that makes their individual choices inevitable? Very sound logic!
Counterpoint, some people are broken for a variety of different reasons. Maybe getting laid might help some of these men I guess or maybe the women we socially enforce to marry them end up murdered themselves, which is the far more likely outcome of forcing women into relationships with dangerously violent men.
There's the added logical stupidity that I guess Canada and America aren't as a norm monogamous societies. Well, they are, so this stupidity that the incels have become a problem because a few men are f-ing most of the women is just fatuous nonsense. It's just basic ass victim blaming, in this case blaming all of society for the random violence of a sicko.
I'm much more inclined to believe the latter: the women who are forced to marry these guys will end up either dead or severely mentally ill because of severe mental and physical and emotional abuse. Unfortunately, that is exactly what these minority of men want, because they innately hate women and can't stand to not have a woman to abuse excessively.
Enforcement of monogamy on every woman is definitely NOT the solution. Otherwise, the past would have been much more peaceful (considering how pervasive abusive marriages there were, I would say that it is a way to placate the most violent and cruel and psychopathic men to give them a steady supply of women).
Soo, why when talking about polygamy people don't bring up women having harems of men, only men...
Because polygyny (one man with multiple women) has been and still is *far* more common in human societies than polyandry (one woman with multiple men)
Because these are biological imperatives.
Isn’t the core issue the benefit for everyone? Enforcing equality of outcome in a system of free transaction or in organizations is and has always been followed by disadvantaging outcomes hurting the individuals freedom. Socially enforcing that kind of equality between the male-female relationship is obviously benefitting to freedom in the sense of keeping a society autonomous and self-reliant which in return conserves freedom because of its healthiness.
bro how did you upload this video isn't it getting blocked by youtube?
Jordan’s main points for the need for “enforced monogamy” are to avoid polygamy, control male aggression, and to keep stable homes for children. Polygamy has been illegal in the US since 1862. 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce or separation. “Enforced monogamy” is not the answer to broken homes as plenty of broken homes begin with a monogamous marriage. As far as controlling male aggression goes monogamy has no effect on it and is a completely unrelated subject. There are still aggressive males in monogamous marriages. Being in a committed relationship doesn’t solve your personal issues only you can do that. Whatever the hell “enforced monogamy” is supposed to be in Jordans mind definitely wouldn’t solve any of these problems. Monogamy is absolutely already the social norm in the US and always has been. It obviously hasn’t solved any of these problems in the past and it won’t now.
Completely disagree. Those 50% of marriages ending in failure is a recent statistic, this wasn’t the case for a long time, but since the invention of alimony, child support, and the family courts being biased towards women, it’s simply a golden parachute for women to just duck out of relationships with a divorce.
Also, people have been choosing terrible partners recently, the rise of single parenthood has created generations of people who don’t know what to look for in a stable relationship, which just makes the problem worse, especially if single parenthood is encouraged.
Children simply perform better in enforced monogamous marriages, the husband and wife are motivated by the desire to take care of their child over their own personal desires, that can/should wait until after the kid is 18.
Also if we enforced monogamy socially and stigmatised single parenthood, we would see a drop of single parents raising criminal children which would lead to a sharp drop in crime.
Also as far as placating violent men, of course there are violent men who are in monogamous relationships, but you’re missing the point. Without enforced monogamy, most men don’t even have a chance, because women’s dating strategy involves seeking the highest value man and trying to have a child with him. Most men are not high value, and so you eventually end up with only a small percentage of men reproducing with most women, which WILL lead to lower value men colluding to overthrow the current system and they will be the majority of men, and do you think that system is going to favour women? The ones who never gave them a chance? Absolutely not. If you don’t want to lose the rights your ancestors fought for, you have to realise that enforced monogamy isn’t there to placate men, it’s to protect women from violence and abuse.
@@justadummy8076 Jesus Christ. Wm aren’t responsible or for men and their actions. Men have always been violent which is why wm aren’t dating anymore
@@justadummy8076 I’m no new wave feminist but there’s violence toward women anyway. Men can act violently no matter what so no point in enforced monogamy to try to control for that.
@@justadummy8076 As long as you know nothing about the socio-economic situation of marriages that end in divorce, well this is still stupid, but not as stupid. But if you pay attention to the reality that relationships that are more likely to have a "golden parachute" attached to them, i.e. marriages of wealthier individuals, these marriages are far less likely to end in divorce relative to their low wealth peers. Meaning actually having more equity leads to more stable marriage. The decline in marriage rates to the point they are now should tell people like you who claim to give a shit about the well-being of other people that economics is a huge part of the increase in divorce rates. Talking about women's nature rather than the basic economic reality of wages not keep up with the costs of a middle class lifestyle that face a higher percentage of families relative to the golden age you pretend was always the norm in America is a pathetic waste of time if you actually cared about children for example. People up the socio-economic ladder are more likely to get remarried too, so women who have access to a larger "golden parachute" are also more likely to give it up by your shitty logic. That should tell you a lot about the dogshit nature of your argument, but it of course won't because you care about a dumb narrative far more than the basic realities facing low income people in a country with a paltry safety net.
There's also the reality that women have much greater access to the job market, meaning they are no longer economically forced to stay in terrible relationships. That access is a part of your "golden parachute", that is women's ability to work and earn money to provide for themselves. I love that no where in your argument did you present the nature of women as hard working, no shock of course because you aren't interested in the actual lives of women.
That's before we get into the reality that there are a lot of stable couples who don't choose to get married. That 50% number doesn't account for these stable relationships, so your numbers cannot possibly be accurate to begin with. There's also the obvious point that welfare doesn't afford people jack shit because of idiots like you who have cut it and cut it and cut it so that almost all women couldn't use this as a safety net even if they wanted to. So on and so on, your narrative is meant to placate the bigotry of men who think very little of women. It explains nothing about the world.