I woke up today, feeling a bit grateful to be alive, considering World War 3 erupted on the internet yesterday. Yet another Jordan Peterson quote, from a hotly debated New York Times piece, has disrupted all of humanity (to his amusement, I’m sure).
For those of you who are too busy programming your 1980s thrift-store VCR to notice cultural phenomena, you can read the (intentionally) inflammatory article on the New York Times website. Catch up, then come back to me.
Predictably, both his critics and supporters were quick to explain, or mansplain as the case may be, what Peterson really meant by his comments in that interview.
Facebook was busy yesterday. I remained occupied for a large portion of the day, discussing what Peterson meant, didn’t mean, might mean, or could mean by one particularly inflammatory remark. What could have been a day saturated in frustration, or even fighting, became day of… frustration, mostly civil debate, and gaining a deeper understanding of contrasting viewpoints.
Finally, Peterson released his own rebuttal to the article (and I’ll discuss that in a bit). I’ll admit, I was relieved to see it - not because the content was reassuring, but because finally we could all cease debating what he might have meant, could have meant, and so on. Now we can discuss his actual intent.
So let’s get to it.
The New York Times article was obviously, and deliberately slanted. I (and many others) did not fail to notice the reporter’s not-too-subtle framing of Peterson's remarks.
Yet we are supposed to believe that Peterson sat for an interview with a female reporter, from a known liberal publication, and he was absolutely gobsmacked by the way she represented him?
I frequently disagree with Petersons’s statements (although, there have definitely been times that I saw his point, and even agreed). I think at times he overlooks certain complexities within the human condition, his thinking often lacks shades of gray, and a thorough understanding of women seems mostly absent in his toolbox . I certainly do not find him to be a likeable person. But none of that belies his intelligence, and I do believe him to be a highly intelligent man.
So, I’m not buying the “misquoted, misinterpreted, misunderstood victim of the liberal media” narrative. At all.
Highly intelligent people with access to the media have the ability to portray themselves, and their ideas, accurately. They can also be predisposed to a more Machiavellian modus operandus. While we were discussing this issue, my friend Benjamin put my thoughts into words for me, as he often does:
“Milo Yiannopoulos laid out the formula. Agree to debates/interviews with detractors. Stay calm and sound reasonable for the most part (not be reasonable, sound reasonable, big difference), but don't let them respond until you say something you know is going to rile them up and get a kneejerk reaction. Then you get to say you were calm and reasonable, and they attacked. Peterson could have presented his thoughts on monogamy a million different and better ways, but he knew by saying ‘enforced monogamy’ he would get what he wanted.”
Deliberately slanted or not, unless Peterson claims that he was misquoted (and he doesn’t), we still have to deal with the actual quote itself. He says, of infamous “incel” Alek Minassian:
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him...The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
In case you’ve forgotten, Minassian is the guy who drove a van into a crowd in Toronto, killing ten people. He blamed his frustration and anger on his inability to attract a sexual partner.
A quick (and I hope fair) summary is that “involuntarily celibate” men are angry, therefore dangerous, and Peterson is saying that helping them gain a sexual partner will reduce that anger and therefore their violence. He proposes we do this via something called “enforced monogamy”.
It was the words “enforced monogamy” that set the Internet ablaze yesterday. Ironically (or perhaps deliberately), the Times article promoting the vague catchphrase was released just after an episode of The Handmaid’s Tale, in which a mass wedding was performed. Men who had served as faithful “Guardians” of Gilead (the dystopian government that replaces the United States in the series) were randomly assigned teenage brides as a reward for their loyalty. Hence, the many comparisons between Peterson and the fictional architects of Gilead, in which women and reproduction are tightly controlled by men.
Of course, Peterson’s supporters (and now Peterson himself) were quick to insist that he wasn’t calling for anything of that nature. No, not at all, they proclaim… We’re just talking about socially ordering society so that monogamy is highly valued and non-monogamy is discouraged. Peterson’s rebuttal, while too lengthy for me to tease apart line by line, describes “enforced monogamy” in more anthropological and even biological terms. Okay.
That will somehow ensure that “undesirable” men get wives. All propaganda, biased reporters, slanted articles, and emotional Facebook arguments aside… This does not make logical sense in today's world.
First, there is the fact that marriage (and monogamy) are already assigned high value within our current organization of society. A combination of religious views, tax breaks, economic necessity of dual incomes, social pressures, and many other factors heavily tip the scales in favor of marriage (and monogamy). There is also the simple fact that raising children alone is difficult, and most women would prefer to be married. Millions tuned in to watch a televised "royal wedding" yesterday, excitedly proclaimed about it on social media, gossiped about the dress, and damn near fainted with excitement over the romance and glamour of it all. We aren’t failing to choose these incels because we’re somehow against marriage.
Second, there’s the fact that this enforced monogamy has, at no time in history, prevented widespread violence. Forget the guy who killed ten people with a van; let’s talk about World Wars 1 and 2 in the eras of our grandparents and great-grandparents… You know, those old-timers who were married for sixty years or more? Ah, yes, let’s return to the peaceful glory days of the twentieth century.
Third, marriage does not ensure sex, therefore it does not negate frustration or anger due to lack of sex. Let’s all laugh nervously and nod knowingly, shall we?
Fourth, the idea that monogamy prevents male violence sounds absurd when you contrast it with stats on domestic violence. One in three women is a victim of violence by an intimate partner at some point during their lifetimes (and one in four men is a victim, I might add). I got my stats from the NCADV website, by the way.
Fifth, even if we assume a system in which marriage equals sex equals lowered levels of male rage, we still have to get those men married. Women currently say “no thanks” to sex with certain men, so we must assume they would also say “no thanks” to marriage proposals from those same men.
“But but but”, will come the sputtering, flustered response. Here is what currently sticks in the collective incel craw: Women all want to sleep with (or marry) “high status men”. This is happening because women now enjoy greater agency to select their own sexual or romantic partners (how scandalous), and some men are overlooked while other men get all the sex. “Enforced monogamy” will ensure that some women are “encouraged” to settle for men they otherwise wouldn’t want.
I would argue that, in the absence of considerable social or financial pressures, women would rather remain celibate than sleep with men they find unappealing, nevermind be stuck with them for life. Let's not be obtuse and pretend that this fact hasn't occurred to Peterson and/or his incel fans.
So that leads me to my sixth point…
Peterson (and his supporters) claim that no, of course he isn't calling for any sort of government-mandated redistribution of sex. That would sound absurd, and they know it. This isn’t The Handmaid’s Tale, silly women!
The word “enforced” simply pertains to social pressures.
For those who actually watch the show, The Handmaid’s Tale grants the viewer a generous perspective on life pre-Gilead. We are treated to subtle, but meaningful moments, which answer the question, “How did we get from A to Z?” A hospital social worker continues to call the main character, June, by her husband’s last name… After June repeatedly clarifies her actual surname. In the same scene, it is heavily suggested that June is an unfit mother… Because she has a career. She is not doing the job that society has assigned to her, in the way that society expects her to do it.
An allegory comes to mind: A frog, placed in gradually heating water, does not know it is being boiled alive until it is too late to escape.
Rare are the occasions in which widespread, sweeping changes happen overnight - either socially or legally. A politician who suggests that we outlaw divorce, for example, would be mostly mocked and his career buried.
Subtle, but gradual changes, on the other hand…
If “enforced monogamy” involves “social pressure”, what does that look like? At first, possibly just scowling glances from your neighbors, if you dare to be single or divorced. No invitations to their barbecues for you. Maybe ex-communication from your church family. Perhaps those in need of charitable assistance are turned away in favor of those who follow the “rules”. Shelters for victims of domestic violence begin to close down, due to lack of funding or societal “support”, because those facilities are seen as contributing to divorce rates. We can't be helping women leave their marriages! All of these ramifications are voluntary social actions, and neither suggested nor enforced by law.
But are we forgetting that social attitudes and trends lead to laws? I highly doubt Peterson is. I’ve already established that I believe him to be too intelligent, to overlook something so obvious. His followers, on the other hand, might be a mixed bag.
Malevolent ideas, when adopted by enough members of society, won’t lead us anywhere good.
Right now, conditions are such that most women are able to freely choose their mates - or not choose them. There is simply no way to argue that women should be choosing men that they do not want, that doesn’t end up making you sound like a creepy neighbor trying to convince a teenage girl that it's "natural" to sleep with men precisely your age. There’s no way to suggest that we “encourage” women to sleep with incels, without sounding like you desire to take away their freedom in some way. We can argue about those “methods” until we’ve traveled in infinite circles, but that is the only logical conclusion.
I’ll close with this idea: Much has been made of “monogamy” in the animal kingdom, with comparisons drawn between humans and any number of other species. Apes, elephants, penguins, dolphins; you name it, we’ve been compared to it. I agree that those comparisons can be helpful at times. On the other hand, they often belabor the conversation, because we are not elephants or penguins. We are human, and all conversations regarding mate choice should give heavy consideration to that fact.
But if we’re going to go with biology for a moment, one idea stands out to me:
In nearly all animal species, males compete for the attention of females. The female is the gatekeeper, both of sexual activity and of reproduction. When a male is repeatedly denied by females, his genes are not passed on to offspring. This appears a smart plan; only the better genes continue, and over time, the species is strengthened.
Of course, for humans, “desirable traits” are not limited only to the physical and genetic. We know that other traits are equally important in raising children, and in continuing to develop the species as a whole. Learned qualities, like empathy and compassion, contribute to a healthy society. Currently, these characteristics are heavily favored by women when choosing intimate partners. This is a good thing for everyone.
With that in mind, why on earth would we promote any plan to “encourage” women to choose undesirable mates? This would circumvent nature, and could have disastrous consequences.
Rather than arguing for ideas or policies that “enforce” female selection of undesirable males, we should continue to ensure full and complete freedom of female mate selection. Perhaps instead of pretending to pacify violent males - and failing, as we always have - we should selectively breed them out.
Of course, this too would be a voluntary process. All we need do is trust women’s ability to choose their own partners.