Male perception of women in relationships

[LMD]

2 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

That is hilarious 😂 and apt.  

Thanks! It really was fascinating in that car crash way. They were both playing an arrogant game, intellectual and emotional sparring. Milo kept saying things like 'I'm letting you win (by answering his tough questions), next time I'll get you talking'  - weird. 

Was interesting though, they talked quite candidly about his child abuse within catholocism.

[Corraleno]

When asked about Alex Minassian, the self-described incel who rammed his van into a crowd killing 10 and injuring 16, Peterson said the cure for this kind of male anger is "enforced monogamy":

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “

The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” 
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end. 
“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
I laugh, because it is absurd.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

Margaret Atwood said that men are afraid women will laugh at them, while women are afraid men will kill them. Peterson and his ilk are basically saying that if women don't want to be raped or killed, then they'd better stop rejecting men and give them what they're entitled to. 

[Corraleno]

Peterson says that women aren't really victimized and harassed, they just feel that way because they have a greater "biologically-based" propensity towards "neuroticism." Women who want to reject the patriarchy fail to acknowledge that it's based on the superior "competence" of men and therefore necessary to maintaining social order. Men = order and responsibility, women = darkness and chaos. That's why women are associated with witches and swamps! (I know that makes no sense, but he actually said that in an interview with the NYT.)

The fact that women have the power to choose their own sexual partners is seen as such an enormous, all-consuming, undeserved power, that it would be unfair for women to have any additional powers or choices. If they want men to stop discriminating against them economically, socially, and politically, then they should have to give up the right to "discriminate" against men sexually:

 

 

[klmama]

Loony.

[Rosie_0801]

10 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Peterson says that women aren't really victimized and harassed, they just feel that way because they have a greater "biologically-based" propensity towards "neuroticism."

 

How does that work with male suicide rates?

Are they some kind of not-real-men?

[Corraleno]

18 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

How does that work with male suicide rates?

Are they some kind of not-real-men?

Well if women would just stop making them feel inadequate and emasculated, and give them what they're entitled to, there'd be fewer male suicides. Peterson claims "The masculine spirit is under assault. It's obvious." Why won't women just acknowledge men's superior competence and biologically-based right to run the world?

[Rosie_0801]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Well if women would just stop making them feel inadequate and emasculated, and give them what they're entitled to, there'd be fewer male suicides. Peterson claims "The masculine spirit is under assault. It's obvious." Why won't women just acknowledge men's superior competence and biologically-based right to run the world?

 

Ah, see, I thought it was a problem of inadequate emotional intelligence disallowing the formation of enjoyable, supportive relationships.

My bad.

 

Makes me think of an article I was reading about the formation of narcissists. They didn't get enough love when they were young, so they learned to favour power as a more trustworthy state instead, and glory themselves for it instead of getting therapy so they can grow up finally. That's what these blokes sound like to me.

[Ausmumof3]

16 hours ago, Mainer said:

It doesn't match my experience, either. None of my female friends have a movie-star-esque partner, or tried to get one. 

I have a male friend who is on a mission to find a girlfriend. The problem is, his standards are impossible to reach - he wants someone that ticks ALL of his requirements, from looks to age to job to hobbies...  He uses Tinder ALL the time. I've watched him swiping left and right, and it's really strange. Women that I would consider pretty, cute, beautiful... all got rejected. This is a very smart guy, NOT in his 20s, and he was acting totally opposite to the way he acts in real life. With the phone in his hand, he wouldn't even consider the idea that a less pretty woman could be his perfect match. In actual conversations about relationships, he comes across as mature and understanding.

I don't think young women are more obsessed with the looks of a potential partner than young men are... and hopefully it's something that many young people outgrow. In my circle of friends, nobody, male or female, put looks above personality - or if they did, they didn't admit it!

I think this is one problem with online dating in general.  When the pool of potential partners is seemingly endless why settle for less than perfect?  When there are limits based on locality or anything else people are forced to get to know people better and may find they are more compatible with someone than a matching website thinks.

[Bluegoat]

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.

[Bluegoat]

9 hours ago, EmseB said:

I didn't realize Peterson is religious. I thought he was atheist or agnostic. TIL. But I think the only thing I've seriously listened to of his was when he interviewed Camile Paglia, which was sort of fascinating.

But I also thought his take on the incel "community" was that they were all wrong about women being the reason they were celibate and he tried to get them to take personal responsibility instead of hating women. Not sure why I thought that though.

 

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.

[Bluegoat]

5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Yes, that’s why I have major issues with him:  It’s twisted and vile, and no, involuntary partnering is not the solution.

 

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.

 

[DawnM]

Any of these blanket statements that seem to include all should be revised.

Some men's perceptions, or, better yet, juvenile thinking men's perceptions.

These types of men would hold no interest for me in the least.   Looks fade, health fades.....if I am not sure you will stick around for that, why in the world would I want to be with you?

[Farrar]

8 hours ago, Corraleno said:

Peterson says that women aren't really victimized and harassed, they just feel that way because they have a greater "biologically-based" propensity towards "neuroticism." Women who want to reject the patriarchy fail to acknowledge that it's based on the superior "competence" of men and therefore necessary to maintaining social order. Men = order and responsibility, women = darkness and chaos. That's why women are associated with witches and swamps! (I know that makes no sense, but he actually said that in an interview with the NYT.)

The fact that women have the power to choose their own sexual partners is seen as such an enormous, all-consuming, undeserved power, that it would be unfair for women to have any additional powers or choices. If they want men to stop discriminating against them economically, socially, and politically, then they should have to give up the right to "discriminate" against men sexually:

 

 

Wow. Thanks for posting this. As I said above, I knew nothing about this idiot.

What a twisted way to try to play on the word discrimination. You want to discriminate between your sexual partners therefore all discrimination is good, just admit it. What a glaring logical fallacy.

[wintermom]

I took my time to find a husband for many reasons. Firstly, I wanted to accomplish several things before settling down, such as finish up my undergrad degree, travel, and gain some work experience. Secondly, I was far too shy and awkward - both in general and especially around men. I needed some life-experience, and I knew it. So I finished my degree, travelled, got a job and gained some much-needed experience to realize my own strengths and weaknesses, as well as recognize what I found attractive in other people.

What seems to be a commonality with these incel men is that they seem content to sit at home on their computer and complain. What kind of plan have they made and accomplished to learn more about themselves and other people in the world in a real-life way? Do they have personal goals and accomplish them? Are they interested in making themselves more appealing or interesting to themselves, which often makes one more interesting to others? 

[Lady Florida.]

21 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

  But do they in some manner consider provider ability, financial or otherwise? Sure they usually do. 

 

 

21 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

I didn't

 

15 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

Neither did I.  I had worked from the time I was 12 and just took my financial self reliance for granted.  I found someone funny and artsy and exceptionally smart and patient with no dealbreakers (smoking, criminal, addict, misogynistic or otherwise seriously bigoted) and fell in love.  There was no competition.  I dropped another guy like a hot potato when I started seeing my now husband.  

I didn't either. First of all I was raised by a single mother who taught me to always count on myself for financial security. Secondly, I was 37 when I married and already well into my career. Sure, teaching would never make me rich, but I was able to own a townhouse, a car, and feed and clothe myself perfectly fine tyvm. 

9 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

Ah, see, I thought it was a problem of inadequate emotional intelligence disallowing the formation of enjoyable, supportive relationships.

My bad.

 

 

I love you Rosie. ❤️ 😍 You have a wonderful way of stating things.

[Kanin]

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

When the pool of potential partners is seemingly endless why settle for less than perfect?

This is really interesting. It would be cool to see a study about who would be rated as attractive - once when it's just rating pictures with no possibility of meeting, and then again when you would actually meet the person.

[elegantlion]

That's not something I see in my circles either, men ranging in ages from early 20s to 60s. Even medieval jousting was just a way for guys to let off steam, it had nothing to do with wooing women, that was a side effect. 

In my younger days, I had a list of requirements, wealth wasn't on the list, handsome was (but that can be defined in so many ways to me). Today, my list is topped by character qualities and stability. 

[gardenmom5]

22 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

I think that there is a lot to that.  You shouldn't go looking for someone in a meat market, and then be shocked that you are treated (and maybe rejected) like meat.  

I used to work with a nice guy that always dated gold diggers.  I was talking to him once, and he exclusively looked for dates who worked in a job that I would classify as a Waiting-To-Get-Married job.  Then he would impress them with his good job/wealth/status.   Then in a few months he wondered why they were gold diggers who wanted to get married yesterday. 

I just thought of something else.   If a guy is looking at this from a hook-up perspective that status difference might be true just on a supply-demand perspective.   The quantity of men seeking a hook-up has to be much more than women seeking the same thing.  So, say there is a 10-1 ratio.   The women looking for a hook-up could afford to be MUCH more picky.  

 

my brother met his current (3rd) wife in a bar frequented by engineers.   he's completely oblivious to the possibility (my gut instinct, with the facts I have) - she was husband shopping.  he has many of the attitudes of the incel, and his 2nd and 3rd wives have both been from 2nd world countries where that attitude seems to be more accepted.   and he wonders why his ex-wives are "so horrible"... (his 2nd wife is a major flake/loves drama.)

I assume 3rd wife will get Americanized too - and divorce him too.  (I've never met her. just based on his descriptions.)

16 hours ago, EmseB said:

I didn't realize Peterson is religious. I thought he was atheist or agnostic. TIL. But I think the only thing I've seriously listened to of his was when he interviewed Camile Paglia, which was sort of fascinating.

But I also thought his take on the incel "community" was that they were all wrong about women being the reason they were celibate and he tried to get them to take personal responsibility instead of hating women. Not sure why I thought that though.

I don't know who Peterson is - but at least one the surface, he's right about "incels" need to look in the mirror and take responsibility for why they're celibate.

14 hours ago, LMD said:

I love it when blokes try to frame women having standards and boundaries as being regressive, animalistic and mean. Also, it's very much projection (They are the ones running off instinct/hormones and ranking women) and gives us a valuable insight into how they view women. Evo-psych dudebros are the plague, incels are just a symptom. 

my understanding of evolution/anthropology was women are supposed to be "discriminatory" about whom they choose as a mate.  childbearing women are vulnerable, their children are vulnerable - they need someone who will stick around and provide for them and help raise their young.  that's a lot more than just a paycheck.

[Corraleno]

7 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

... 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.

Functionalism provides post hoc "explanations" that state the obvious: cultural trait X exists in human society because it fulfills cultural functions A, B, and C. A functionalist explanation is more a description of what something does than an explanation of how it came to be or why it exists, and in no way does it imply that the existence of trait X proves that it is superior or more "functional" than alternative traits Y or Z. Infanticide emerges in societies because it solves certain problems, mainly reserving scarce resources for the able-bodied adults and children that the group had already invested resources in. War emerges in society because it provides an outlet for male aggression and provides the additional territory needed as a population expands. You can explain any cultural trait that way. The fact that a trait exists doesn't mean that society couldn't function without it, or that other traits couldn't fulfill the same function.

Many cultures in human history, including some of the most historically successful, have been polygamous, and one can easily argue that polygamy also emerged because it solved certain problems, mainly ensuring that most of the children in a group were fathered by the men with the most power and resources to feed and protect them. Polygamy also functions to encourage lower status men to try to improve themselves and their lot in life in order to attract a wife, and in some cultures it also provides plenty of young, unencumbered warriors. Claiming that monogamy exists because it "ensures that men put resources into caring for offspring" ignores the fact that polygamy does exactly the same thing. 

Peterson's whole schtick is taking religious and mythological symbolism and pairing it with pseudo-scientific explanations as a way of claiming that the reason the "male spirit" is associated with light and order and power and control, while women are associated with darkness and evil and disorder and chaos is because these associations have a true, objective, biological basis — women are just biologically more neurotic, more chaotic, and less competent. And he has millions of followers who see him as a bona fide expert and authority on the subject, someone who can provide the "scientific facts" to validate their feelings that women's demands for equality are not only unreasonable and unfair, but would cause the utter dissolution of society, which relies on the naturally superior competence of men to keep it going.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Corraleno

[Farrar]

On some level, we're all shopping around, comparing different options, etc. I mean, men are doing it too. The idea that men aren't also "discriminating" in their choices... I mean, come on. Of course that serves a purpose - protection, procreation, just plain companionship, etc. And of course the purposes needed in a particularly era/society are constantly changing. That's not new. The traits that made both men's and women's "status" higher has always changed based on cultural values as well as needs. Being a good fisherman is rather a random skill these days. On a small pre-modern island, I imagine it was rather highly ranked.

I think it's very easy to be dismissive about incels (because they've stretched these things to absurd endpoints), and everyone is basically saying of course this doesn't represent men or people in my circles... but it isn't an unusual view to think that men have "lost status" that they deserve to regain or that "back in the good old days" things were somehow better in relationships between men and women. And those are the foundations of what gets incels started. If Peterson doesn't like these guys, I think it's because they make his ideas about "how things should be" look bad.

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, Farrar said:

If Peterson doesn't like these guys, I think it's because they make his ideas about "how things should be" look bad.

Exactly — he isn't saying their beliefs about women are wrong, or they have no right to be angry about the fact that women can be choosy about sexual partners, he is just saying they need to get off their asses, "clean their rooms" (a favorite catchphrase in the Peterson cult), and go get laid. 

[Rosie_0801]

8 hours ago, wintermom said:

What seems to be a commonality with these incel men is that they seem content to sit at home on their computer and complain. What kind of plan have they made and accomplished to learn more about themselves and other people in the world in a real-life way? Do they have personal goals and accomplish them? Are they interested in making themselves more appealing or interesting to themselves, which often makes one more interesting to others? 

 

From what I've read, their plans mostly revolve around saving up for plastic surgery. I read about one guy who got curious about them, started reading up on their forms, got suckered into the low self esteem and self hate, and ended up thinking he needed plastic surgery.
 

[DawnM]

20 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

 

 

I didn't either. First of all I was raised by a single mother who taught me to always count on myself for financial security. Secondly, I was 37 when I married and already well into my career. Sure, teaching would never make me rich, but I was able to own a townhouse, a car, and feed and clothe myself perfectly fine tyvm. 

I love you Rosie. ❤️ 😍 You have a wonderful way of stating things.

 

I was not raised by a single mother, but my father was very big on making sure I understood I needed a way to support myself.  He said, "you may never marry, you may marry and something happens to your husband that won't allow him to work, or your husband may die young.  You need a way to support yourself."

I too became a teacher and didn't marry until I was 29.  I started having kids in my 30's.  I took 10 years off to HS my special needs son, and now work as a school counselor again.  

Unfortunately, public education has gone drastically downhill in the 28 years since I started and I am not sure I could make it as a single mom on this salary anymore.  I plugged in "if I made XXX in 1990, how much would that be in today's dollars" and I am making LESS than I made as a brand new teacher in 1990.

If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have gone into it, or I would have gone on to get a PhD or something.  But that is for a whole different thread.

[LMD]

6 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Sadly not just a JP thing. 

People are real fond, in general, of sh*tting on women's boundaries, 'cos 'mean'. 

Oooh yep, the shackle of nice

One of those things that you can't unsee...

[Guest]

I think crushes tend to be on people that the individual sees as above them in some way.  Actual relationships, not so much. But there is a reason why a common teen trope is the girl/guy BFF’s who are extremely compatible and everyone watching the movie/reading the book knows they belong together, but don’t realize it and are actively seeing a relationship with someone else. 

By adulthood, I think most people have gotten over that, but the whole Tinder-type set up seems designed to prolong that developmental stage. 

[gardenmom5]

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

When I'm feeling saintly, which isn't often, I feel sorry for these guys. Imagine thinking plastic surgery is what women are looking for in a mate!

Most of the time I just think they are gross, and there are people out there looking to make a buck from their grossness. 

there are a lot of women who think plastic surgery is what men are looking for.... the ones that are, aren't worth having...

7 hours ago, StellaM said:

People are real fond, in general, of sh*tting on women's boundaries, 'cos 'mean'. 

keep in mind that includes other women.   I think of the one would be model? who took a picture of a naked 50something women in a gym locker room, posted it, along with insulting captions about how fat and ugly she was.   fortunately, in that case - the authorities were able to arrest the poster, and find the older woman so she could press charges for invasion of privacy - they gym also threw the "I'm so special" chickee out of their gym for violating policies of no cameras in the locker room.

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

 

I was not raised by a single mother, but my father was very big on making sure I understood I needed a way to support myself.  He said, "you may never marry, you may marry and something happens to your husband that won't allow him to work, or your husband may die young.  You need a way to support yourself."

I 

your father and I are very much on the same page.

dh and I were both raised by widowed mothers, my mother was extremely undermining about even basic job skills - let alone an education.  I do believe she was  depressed.  After dh's stint with unemployment - I really pushed my girls to get an education.  both make good money, 1dd is single, but has a more comfortable lifestyle than some families. (owns a house in a hcol area,  can travel, etc.)  2dd got married a month before she received her pharmD.  her dh pretty much paid off her grad school loans, though she made more than him when working full-time. (currently she works one day a week, and dh works from home and takes care of baby. so no daycare.)

[catz]

I personally think in general "incels" get way too validity when discussed.  I think most of them probably have untreated personality disorders/mental illness of some kind and have found an online community as an echo chamber that validates them as some sort of victim of society's flaws.  Rather than their own inability to pursue and develop emotionally healthy adult relationships.  They likely OD on porn which further paints a warped picture of normal male-female relationships and expectations.  Emotionally healthy people don't want to isolate themselves to online relationships.  And then you throw in potential for violence in some of these individuals.  

I really think parents should be monitoring their minor teens online usage and not letting their kids bury themselves in online communities.  There is a difference between introversion and society anxiety or personality disorders.  A kid's developmental years are very important to building self confidence, developing interpersonal skills and squelching feelings of entitlement.  

I agree 100% with females needing a way to support themselves.  Even if they envision themselves being stay at home moms.  Things happen.  My parents always felt this way.  My mom was raised in a families where girls were not allowed to go to college unless they wanted to train as a teacher or a nurse.  

Edited July 14, 2019 by FuzzyCatz

[Jean in Newcastle]

My husband looked for the same compatibility and adult characteristics in me that I looked for in him.  By adult characteristics, I mean that we both wanted to marry adults:  someone with a good work ethic, good coping skills, good interpersonal skills, decent self esteem (not too high and not too low).  We also knew that whoever we married would have flaws just as we have flaws. 

[Murphy101]

On 7/13/2019 at 12:45 AM, Corraleno said:

Peterson says that women aren't really victimized and harassed, they just feel that way because they have a greater "biologically-based" propensity towards "neuroticism." Women who want to reject the patriarchy fail to acknowledge that it's based on the superior "competence" of men and therefore necessary to maintaining social order. Men = order and responsibility, women = darkness and chaos. That's why women are associated with witches and swamps! (I know that makes no sense, but he actually said that in an interview with the NYT.)

The fact that women have the power to choose their own sexual partners is seen as such an enormous, all-consuming, undeserved power, that it would be unfair for women to have any additional powers or choices. If they want men to stop discriminating against them economically, socially, and politically, then they should have to give up the right to "discriminate" against men sexually:

 

 

 

Notice how he presumes the women should no longer have the choice of sexual partner.  He is okay with men "discriminating" against female sexual partners.  What a horse's ass.

[Murphy101]

Okay I've caught up and am not buying into the anthropology line as an excuse for Peterson's nonsense.

Anthropology would posset that both sexes need to be at least somewhat discriminatory for the sake of progeny needs and for the sake of alpha related social dynamics.

And sure.  I can buy into that concept.  Nearly anyone past the teen hormone flood stage of development can see that's just logic.

Anyone who says oh no not me needs to pause.

While I wouldn't determine if someone was worthy of marriage by paycheck alone... what about credit? What about debts? From the pov of a 40 something with kids, if I were a single mom? Oh hell no, no thanks.  From the pov of a younger woman looking forward to starting a family? Maybe not.  We know many people are choosing to not get married or have children due to how tight finances are for so many young people these days.  Consider for a moment how very many of them were raised by financially struggling single mothers and have zero desire to risk that scenario for themselves. And that is certainly not just a woman issue to the young men raised in that same situation. And then there's the factor that most of this isn't even talking marriage but actually talking hook ups.  Even less incentive.  All the risk for the woman, none of the potential reward of a life long committed partner to help shoulder the burdens of family.

To those who say they gave this no thought, I bet you did. Or you wouldn't have married.  Maybe he was unemployed, but for whatever reason, you saw some evidence that wouldn't be an ongoing issue.  Maybe he didn't make much money, but you saw evidence that he would be a viable and contributing in some meaningful way kind of partner.

I married at 19, got engaged at 16.  For sure I wasn't cold blooded about it. But also for sure, I wasn't interested in guys who didn't work, didn't have meaningful conversation with me, or have any kind of goal in life, simple though the goals might have been.

I certainly have more criteria with age. Partly because I know myself better, but mostly because the various baggage I need help carrying through life has gotten lots heavier each year.  No wimpy guy need apply.  (Or any guy since I'm married, but you get the point LOL)

 

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, dmmetler said:

I think crushes tend to be on people that the individual sees as above them in some way.  Actual relationships, not so much. But there is a reason why a common teen trope is the girl/guy BFF’s who are extremely compatible and everyone watching the movie/reading the book knows they belong together, but don’t realize it and are actively seeing a relationship with someone else. 

By adulthood, I think most people have gotten over that, but the whole Tinder-type set up seems designed to prolong that developmental stage. 

I think of them as unrequited - which can still be "equals".  just one is interested, and one isn't. (for whatever reason.)

[Bluegoat]

On 7/13/2019 at 3:35 PM, Corraleno said:

Functionalism provides post hoc "explanations" that state the obvious: cultural trait X exists in human society because it fulfills cultural functions A, B, and C. A functionalist explanation is more a description of what something does than an explanation of how it came to be or why it exists, and in no way does it imply that the existence of trait X proves that it is superior or more "functional" than alternative traits Y or Z. Infanticide emerges in societies because it solves certain problems, mainly reserving scarce resources for the able-bodied adults and children that the group had already invested resources in. War emerges in society because it provides an outlet for male aggression and provides the additional territory needed as a population expands. You can explain any cultural trait that way. The fact that a trait exists doesn't mean that society couldn't function without it, or that other traits couldn't fulfill the same function.

Many cultures in human history, including some of the most historically successful, have been polygamous, and one can easily argue that polygamy also emerged because it solved certain problems, mainly ensuring that most of the children in a group were fathered by the men with the most power and resources to feed and protect them. Polygamy also functions to encourage lower status men to try to improve themselves and their lot in life in order to attract a wife, and in some cultures it also provides plenty of young, unencumbered warriors. Claiming that monogamy exists because it "ensures that men put resources into caring for offspring" ignores the fact that polygamy does exactly the same thing. 

Peterson's whole schtick is taking religious and mythological symbolism and pairing it with pseudo-scientific explanations as a way of claiming that the reason the "male spirit" is associated with light and order and power and control, while women are associated with darkness and evil and disorder and chaos is because these associations have a true, objective, biological basis — women are just biologically more neurotic, more chaotic, and less competent. And he has millions of followers who see him as a bona fide expert and authority on the subject, someone who can provide the "scientific facts" to validate their feelings that women's demands for equality are not only unreasonable and unfair, but would cause the utter dissolution of society, which relies on the naturally superior competence of men to keep it going.

 

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.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Notice how he presumes the women should no longer have the choice of sexual partner.  He is okay with men "discriminating" against female sexual partners.  What a horse's ass.

 

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.

[Bluegoat]

12 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Pretty much.

Self-aware, and hopefully self-reflective, but we haven't made the gigantic leap beyond our intrinsic drives we might imagine we had. (Or maybe some of us have, and some of us are still dinosaurs ?)

I know I chose dh partly because of 'status' - not that he was rich, but in the niche area we were in, he was in a slightly more favourable position than me. It wasn't a completely articulated drive, but it was there, just under the surface. And I hadn't reflected on it in 24 years, till I opened this thread. 

It's somewhat unpleasant to admit to, because it makes one seem cold and calculating, which are negative traits. I didn't experience it as cold or calculating, just as a murmured part of attraction. 

I don't agree with JP on much, generally.  I don't really know why I'm adding that disclaimer; maybe because I don't want to be accused of stanning for JP, lol.

 

 

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".

[EmseB]

35 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

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".

I met my DH in the military, shortly after resolving to myself that I was never going to marry someone who was in the military because they all seemed to be immature frat boys without the benefits of college attendence. I was interested in DH and dated him primarily because he acted differently, was well read, thought deeply, etc. In certain environments, he may not have stood out as much as he did in my eyes (although I think attraction is not totally based on qualities we can discern), but in the service he was head and shoulders above any of the other men I knew in terms of status and attributes that attracted me.

And perhaps not coincidentally, all those other men routinely complained about how girls were psycho or unreasonable or whatever. I'm sure some were, but also, the way most men I knew acted and treated women didn't actively promote sanity in any case.

[DesertBlossom]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Notice how he presumes the women should no longer have the choice of sexual partner.  He is okay with men "discriminating" against female sexual partners.  What a horse's ass.

I think we're lacking context for this tweet. I don't think it means what you think it does.

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

I think we're lacking context for this tweet. I don't think it means what you think it does.

He means that if women want to fight against "discrimination," they need to acknowledge that choosing their sexual partner is, in his words, "the ultimate act of discrimination," so they either need to give that up or admit that they are hypocrites who think discrimination is OK as long as they are the ones doing it. He thinks equating systemic racism and sexism with individual choice of a mate is some kind of brilliant intellectual "gotcha." 

[Farrar]

5 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

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.

Oh my gosh. Because polygamy and infanticide are so morally equitable?

[Farrar]

11 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

there are a lot of women who think plastic surgery is what men are looking for.... the ones that are, aren't worth having...

Yeah, seriously. We don't hear about it as much as we once did, but think of all the jokes about women getting breast enhancement surgery to attract a man or for the sake of a man. That still happens. What's notable to me is that Peterson has no issue with those women or that subculture. Because men being able to pick between competing women is, of course, just fine and dandy.

[Garga]

7 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Oh my gosh. Because polygamy and infanticide are so morally equitable?

I’m pretty sure infanticide was pretty common in many cultures before safe abortions were available. It’s not a matter of whether or not they’re morally equitable.  They’re just both things not done in the US, but were/are done in other times or places.  https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/lucius-romans/2016/06/15/why-were-new-born-children-left-to-die-in-ancient-rome/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Edited July 15, 2019 by Garga

[Corraleno]

5 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

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.

Exactly which "unintended links" are you seeing that you think we should be talking about? Because the "link" that incels, Petersons' groupies, mens' rights groups, etc., are trying to make is that women having equal power to men is biologically and socially unwarranted and even dangerous, and that men's anger at women is justified by their attempts to usurp male power. If women are allowed to have equal careers, be paid equally, be financially independent, then they won't be forced to settle for any male who offers to feed and house them — or stay with an abusive partner. If only we could go back to the good old days, when women were dependent enough on men that they had little recourse if they were beaten, controlled, abused, or just plain unhappy. Better yet, let's go back a few hundred years when women had no right to "discriminate" in their choice of mate at all, they were just bought/sold/traded to whomever their father (or other male relatives) chose. 

[Bluegoat]

37 minutes ago, Farrar said:

Oh my gosh. Because polygamy and infanticide are so morally equitable?

 

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?

[Corraleno]

The idea that enforced monogamy is the solution to male violence only serves to validate the incel belief that their anger and violence is the result of being denied sex — if only they were getting laid, they wouldn't be angry and violent. These guys are mentally ill, not just horny! Their attitude towards women is the reason they're not having sex, not the result of it. 

The fact that half of all female murder victims are killed by intimate partners suggests that monogamous sexual pairing is not the solution to male anger and violence. Well, unless the goal is to reduce male violence against other men by having them redirect it towards women. 

[EmseB]

49 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

He means that if women want to fight against "discrimination," they need to acknowledge that choosing their sexual partner is, in his words, "the ultimate act of discrimination," so they either need to give that up or admit that they are hypocrites who think discrimination is OK as long as they are the ones doing it. He thinks equating systemic racism and sexism with individual choice of a mate is some kind of brilliant intellectual "gotcha." 

It might help if you posted a link to the complete thread instead of just the one tweet? I admit that's not what I got out of reading it, but it doesn't seem like it would be something tweeted by itself as a single thought.

Thus discussion is so weird because I thought of JP as an anti-mra or anti-incel and certainly not how you're describing his ideas about women. 

[Bluegoat]

28 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Exactly which "unintended links" are you seeing that you think we should be talking about? Because the "link" that incels, Petersons' groupies, mens' rights groups, etc., are trying to make is that women having equal power to men is biologically and socially unwarranted and even dangerous, and that men's anger at women is justified by their attempts to usurp male power. If women are allowed to have equal careers, be paid equally, be financially independent, then they won't be forced to settle for any male who offers to feed and house them — or stay with an abusive partner. If only we could go back to the good old days, when women were dependent enough on men that they had little recourse if they were beaten, controlled, abused, or just plain unhappy. Better yet, let's go back a few hundred years when women had no right to "discriminate" in their choice of mate at all, they were just bought/sold/traded to whomever their father (or other male relatives) chose. 

 

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.  

[gardenmom5]

3 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

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.  

I've seen some articles suggesting this is starting to happen in china, and it's a problem with which they're going to have to deal.  all those aborted baby girls left a surplus of males.   those males have grown up - and they can't find gf/wives because there just aren't enough to go around, and they don't have the standing to be more desirable than enough males to find a partner.

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The idea that enforced monogamy is the solution to male violence only serves to validate the incel belief that their anger and violence is the result of being denied sex — if only they were getting laid, they wouldn't be angry and violent. These guys are mentally ill, not just horny! Their attitude towards women is the reason they're not having sex, not the result of it. 

The fact that half of all female murder victims are killed by intimate partners suggests that monogamous sexual pairing is not the solution to male anger and violence. Well, unless the goal is to reduce male violence against other men by having them redirect it towards women. 

 

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?

 

[Bluegoat]

5 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I've seen some articles suggesting this is starting to happen in china, and it's a problem with which they're going to have to deal.  all those aborted baby girls left a surplus of males.   those males have grown up - and they can't find gf/wives because there just aren't enough to go around, and they don't have the standing to be more desirable than enough males to find a partner.

 

Yes.  I think traditional ways of dealing with surplus people of reproducing age has been monastic life, and for men the military.  But all those young men with no hope of marriage are a big potential social force, lots of anger, nothing much to lose, that needs to be redirected in some way.

They could also look at something like women having more than one husband or rotating parters, but of course that has complications.

[SKL]

On 7/13/2019 at 10:00 AM, Farrar said:

Wow. Thanks for posting this. As I said above, I knew nothing about this idiot.

What a twisted way to try to play on the word discrimination. You want to discriminate between your sexual partners therefore all discrimination is good, just admit it. What a glaring logical fallacy.

I know zero about this person, so I am only commenting on the cited quote standing on its own.  I don't read it as saying "you discriminate among potential sex partners, therefore all discrimination is good."  I read it as saying "you rightly discriminate among potential sex partners, therefore mustn't you acknowledge that SOME types of discrimination are appropriate?"

I would need to see more context in order to determine which way of reading it makes more sense.

I can tell, however, that several of the paraphrases in this thread are "interpretations" based on the bias of the poster against the individual being "quoted."  I only hope it is that obvious to all readers.

[Corraleno]

45 minutes ago, EmseB said:

It might help if you posted a link to the complete thread instead of just the one tweet? I admit that's not what I got out of reading it, but it doesn't seem like it would be something tweeted by itself as a single thought.

Thus discussion is so weird because I thought of JP as an anti-mra or anti-incel and certainly not how you're describing his ideas about women. 

There is no "complete thread" as far as I can tell.  The screenshot was from his own account, where it appeared as a stand alone tweet. Someone asked him what that tweet was in response to, and he didn't reply.

Peterson is big on using mythology to simultaneously validate the superiority and role of men, and inspire men to go out and accomplish things. He says that everyone is living according to certain truths that are universal in myth and religion, but most people aren't conscious of the myths. Therefore they get stuck living a myth they wouldn't want if they understood it, so they need to go out and consciously create their own myth. So that's where the impression comes from that he is all about empowerment and telling people to get off their asses and go accomplish things, which could be seen as "anti-incel" to the extent that he is saying "stop whining, get out of your mother's basement, and go get a life."

Where his beliefs parallel those of incels and MRAs is that he believes that the reason so many myths and religious traditions associate men with light and order and good, while associating women with darkness and chaos and evil, is because these have an objective biological basis: men are biologically more competent and that any attempt to challenge the natural, biologically-based role of men threatens the social order. Indeed, he believes the reason that society is currently "breaking down" is because women (and minorities and LGBTQ and anyone else he sees as falsely claiming "discrimination") are trying to subvert the natural order of things.