No social solution is ever perfect. We outlaw murder but people still do it, it's not reasonable to expect that social structures meant to minimize certain problems will make them go away entirely. Look at infanticide, it's a major taboo, people hate anyone who does it, it's illegal, and there are ways to get out of caring for babies without resorting to it. You'd think it shouldn't happen, but it still does. Though yes, I would say the purpose is bigger that reducing male violence to women, its also about reducing tension in the group as a whole, and toward children. These ideas around the anthropological understanding of monogamous marriage didn't arise to explain the incels, which are a pretty small and recent blip in history. You seem to be suggesting that it should be invalidated as a theory because it might make it sound like they have a point. Whatever academic literature there is, we can just say, sorry guys, this idea has to be untrue because it might seem to justify bad behaviour, lets just let it go? Would the incels be angry if they were having sex? Who knows? They are I suspect largely people who would be a problem population in any case. But the question of how we deal with non-reproducing members, or no sexually active members, in society, is one that many societies face, using different approaches. Why would someone being interviewed about them avoid talking about that?

It may be that the incels are thinking that. Their views are fairly confused all round, as well as unpleasant. I certainly don't think that has ever been Peterson's point. I think that what he is suggesting is that social changes around dating, marriage, and sex, are linked to the rhetoric of the incels - that if you have a group of men that are unable to find mates, or see themselves that way, they are a kind of social risk. It can be mitigated in certain ways, or made stronger in others. You keep saying he says women should have no choices around who they marry, but that is actually the opposite of what he's saying in those quotes, as a few people have pointed out! You don't have to agree with him, but at least disagree with something he's really saying.

What? It doesn't matter if they are morally equitable. The post I was responding to suggested they are all examples of social customs that fulfil a function for the society as well as individuals, which is completely true. I took her point to be they are generally seen as negative in our culture, and so having a function isn't in itself an argument for their rightness, which is also true, though not to the point IMO. But what is your point?

No. Often we forget the whole thing.

So, I got together with my dh shortly after he had bought a house. And at the time he mentioned that his best friend had told him that when the friend bought his own house, he suddenly had a lot more women interested in him. And to be completely honest, the house was an appealing part of the package. I am sure dh also thought he was getting a good deal in me, though he says his criteria was "doesn't run away screaming".

Im not reading that the same way at all. I think he is saying women are supposed to be making a choice based on what they would think would make a good mate - his post is suggesting they shouldn't want to give that up. But that embracing it honestly means understanding that they are making an evaluation that has a very practical element. As opposed to a lot of the posts we see in this thread which have said its not only untrue but kind of offensive.

I'm not sure why you've posted all this. Of course many cultures have been polygamous and that had a function, or infanticide had a function. But in a discussion of incels it's not odd that anyone might point out that a function of monogamous marriage is to help mitigate problems around male competition for mates. You could of course go on to say more about it, but it's not beyond the pale to point it out. You can say any number of things about guys that call themselves incels, as individuals, if you know the details of their lives. You can say, they should just suck it up. But it is also worth talking about why certain problems or trends or ways of thinking suddenly present themselves in the culture at large, and whether there are some unintended links or consequences going on there. And it certainly has zero to do with forcing people to marry on an individual level which seems to be what many think and why many find it shocking.

So, that's not actually what enforced monogamy means. It's an anthropological term. It means on a societal level, monogamy is the only choice, you can't just decide to have 6 wives or something. What he said isn't actually super controversial among anthropologists. Which isn't to say it's not argued, but it is pretty widely accepted that monogamy emerges in societies because it solves certain problems, mainly containing male aggression and competition over mates and also ensuring that men put resources into caring for offspring.

I don't think he is, really, I think he's an existentialist. But he seems to value religion in a similar way that he values Jung, as a means to talk about things that aren't really amenable to scientific laguage, like good and evil or meaning, that kind of thing.

I haven't read other replies yet, I wanted to answer with my first thoughts. I think there is some truth to what they are saying, but it's not the whole truth (and I suspect both likely know this.) I think sometimes when we hear someone say something like that we think, well, that's not the most important part of my relationship, or it doesn't fit me, or most women I know care a lot about other things, and assume that contradicts what is being said. I'm not sure it does though, I think its more a case of several things being at work at the same time, and some of them at a rather deep sub-conncious level. I would also say, in this sort of discussion, it's always a generalisation, just like talking about cancer causing activities, or anything else. Anecdotes can help with insight but the fact that some people don't fit the idea at all isn't itself that important, it's about population level observations. I suppose the first thing is, for women, what counts as a "high status" male. I think that varies. For some it is the classic good looks. For some it is money or power. Athleticism. But it can also be authority, being famous, being the best at something, being really smart. Even just someone who will be a steady provider or is a hard worker. I think that there is strong evidence that many women are attracted to people who fit these kinds of profiles. Certainly in the different environments where I have worked its common to see slightly less senior women and sometimes girls very much attracted to males who are a little higher up in the organisation, be it university students interested in older grad students or professors, or interest of young women in the military in men higher in rank (I found my husband in that kind of situation) or even in business. I've not seen the same kind of thing to nearly the same extent among men. Of course most people also want this person to be someone they like, and if they are mature, think will be a good husband, but in fact I think there are simply plenty of people who would make good husbands and are likeable among every group. And also, not everyone is going to have the choice of the David Beckhems of the world, and we aim a little lower. Not that we think of it this way, but for certain had I known and been keen on D.B. I would never have considered him a serious possibility that I should waste my time pursuing an interest in. It is a little disconcerting I guess, but maybe it helps to think that we are not so much meant to rise above being animals, as be self-aware ones. I don't think we ca ever leave our biology behind, we are animals and these drives will affect our attractions and choices.

Yes, you are right. As a few have said, of course farming this way means a significant reduction in meat consumption compared to the average. But that kind of eating is more efficient and sustainable than a pure vegan diet. Especially if you consider that there is also a fair bit of labout that can come from farm animals that replaces fossil fuel labour. Veganism is only more efficient than the way we eat now, it's not top of the heap by any means. Industrial farming isn't a problem just because of animals, it's a problem because it's environmentally destructive, and non-sustainable, very fossil fuel intensive as well. It also doesn't lend itself to local food security which is likely to become increasingly important. I don't think leaving it behind will be a choice, it will be forced on us if we don't choose it ourselves. I don't think its as inefficient as many think, though it's difficult to compare as most measurements are not suited to looking at those kinds of mixed situations, they like to have a straight up bushel per acre kind of number. What is the case though is that it is labour intensive. As for lab grown meat which someone mentioned, I don't think its the answer. Ideologically I think its another way of separating people from the ecological basis of their food, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. But I am doubtful of the savings. Sure, you only grow the bits you want and there is no need to sustain a whole animal. But it's not cost free, there is all the lab infrastructure and it creates a very centralised food system. But you also have to figure that you don't get the benefits of the duck - the manure, the feathers, and also things like insect or slug control for crops. I also worry about the extent to which reducing animals to bits of protein affects the way we think about them or ourselves. It seems to me to feed right into the trashumanists thinking.

I don't get the jeans thing either. The crotch of jeans get sniffy if you don't wash them, even in Canada in the winter. I am a big believer in only washing when required, but never is odd.

A lot of these things drive me crazy. Ultimately they aren't even solutions in many cases they are marketing ploys, which make things worse. I suspect though that the daily shopping issue might take care of itself. The kind of transportation we have now is not sustainable, even with electric cars powered by renewables. People are going to need to walk and bike and bus far more often and it will necessitate a change in shopping habits. I'd guess it will require people to grow a lot more food close to home as well. Towns and cities and subdivisions are just going to have to adapt. Probably the one that drives me the most crazy is the claim that veganism is the answer. Probably because it doesn't even have the obvious answer that it is a greed driven claim. It would be just as easy to say, significantly reduce your animal product consumption based on your local ecology. The almond milk issue is a good example - I'm supposed to do what amounts to shipping water out of California, an area prone to drought, I am essentially contributing to draining their aquifers and killing their rivers. Then shipping the stuff 4000 km. When I live in a place that is ideal for dairy cows, where there is plenty of water for them to drink and to grow what is fed to them apart from the grass, which the rain would fall on anyway. (And which doesn't disappear, after all, they pee it out again, or I do after I drink the milk.) We're all going to have to get used to much simpler food I suspect, much more like what our ancestors ate, and not nearly the variety at a fingertip. I think the only way to cut down on the waste from products is to make companies responsible for reclaiming them and making use of them when they are finished being used. Then there will be an incentive to make them truly reusable and based on recoverable components.

I'm late to the question, but I think a big part of the problem is that everyone now takes cell phone photos constantly. It's one thing to be a public person, and have some photographers shoot a picture of you at the tennis match, which goes back and they print an ok one in the paper. It's totally another to have people doing it constantly so there are hundreds of them and some jerk posts a photo of you picking your wedgie out of your butt on Instagram. It's not a reasonable request of people, it's not healthy for them and it isn't healthy for the watchers either. These arrangements of public personas only work if we recognise certain boundaries. Which we no longer do.

Yes, I'm sure that's often true, but I am really just saying that its not a question that can be answered as a general principle, without any kind of information about an individual.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I was a soldier, as was my dh, and I don't find questions around killing in war offensive. That' snot to say I think being a serial murderer is the same as killing in war, there are any number of differences, but its worth thinking about just what those are, what killing another person means at its most basic level. Manson himself, in my opinion, was both evil and mad. It sounds a bit medieval I'm sure, but he seems to me like a man who allowed himself to be inhabited by a demon. There is no way he should have ever stepped out of a prison, even had he been able to come to some better place spiritually speaking. But young people, who had been dragged into a cult and manipulated and under the influence of drugs are a very different story. I think that is a situation that could happen to almost any young person under the right set of conditions.

There are a lot of considerations in determining what the best course of action is with a particular inmate, which is why parole boards spend a fair amount of time considering each case individually. I certainly couldn't say without knowing the kinds of details the parole board is privy to.

You know, in some parts of the Christian church, if you have ever killed someone, even as a soldier in war, you can never become a priest. It's not that you aren't forgiven if you confess, but there is a sense that you are somehow changed. I think that is true, I think people are changed permanently. I just don't see that prison is necessarily the best way to deal with that in every instance, permanently.

Well, I have had a salad with popcorn in it. But also lettuce and tomatoes. Also, a watermelon salad with salt, pepper, and cilantro.

am a bit curious about this idea that he wouldn't want to take more variety in his cases. It might be worth revisiting this. I wonder if that is really the reason, because if he took some other job, there would also be less experienced people handling his cases. I think if he is really worried about lack of experience in this area he should let others take some of them - otherwise there will be a time when he is ill, or changes jobs, or whatever, and there won' be anyone with any experience.

Well, no, that isn't enough, if she'd be better off somewhere else. I don't think what the family wants, especially after 40 years, is a very good guide to the justice or rightness of a situation, or what would be best for everyone or society. And for that matter I am not convinced that most people have a lot of insight into what will give them the most peace or the best opportunity to work through their emotions. I think if you dug down into this idea that they are "comforted" by her being there, that is really not what is going on.

I think I would allow her to be released. I don't think anyone gains by her continued presence in prison, not even the families though they may believe they do. And its possible that she could do some good outside of prison.

I wouldn't have called it a fruit salad without dressing. I'd just call that fruit. In any case, usually I use booze, and maybe some fruit juice like orange or squeeze in a lime, possibly a little sugar.

I will look into the D-mannose. Recently a lot of the doctors here have started a new protocol for persistent UTIs, involving a much longer course of anti-biotics - that's what I am planning to talk to my doctor about at my appoitment in June. It would be nice to avoid it though as I really am not keen of wrecking my guts that way, yeast infections, etc, As it happened I didn't get an appointment Saturday night and it seems to have cleared up with just the drugs I have. We'll see, I guess!

I am sure it is actually an infection, they did dip for that. But a yeast infectin is a possibility, I will look into that. THanks!