Of course, not Tomi Lahren though...
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
1268 points (95.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5846 readers
1756 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fun Fact: Rot Brain Peterson has, on the record, unironically advocated that "society needs to work to make sure men are married" so they don't become violent.
And he says feminists are the ones besmirching masculinity.
Incredible, he's infantilized men into big dangerous toddlers that throw a violent fit when they don't get what they want.
The best part is his incel base ate it up and assumed he meant government-issued sex slaves, so he clarified that he just meant society, aka the literal patriarchy, needs to shame the very idea of not being in a monogamous hetero couple so hard it is socially unacceptable to do anything else (you know, again)
That's such nonsense... if one wants to "solve" the incel problem through sex.... what we really need is polyandry, and the more non-hetero the better.
And sex robots.
Government issued sex dolls? Sounds like my kinda place.
Man, these immutable universal attributes take a lot of effort to enforce.
Literally nobody thinks this
To be fair it's a really bad sign for the stability a country if there is a large population of unemployed men.
Yeah I don't know why people keep ignoring that, they are prime material for radicalization, fascism loves them, they are his foot soldiers. And ignoring them and mocking them clearly doesn't work.
Giving them women to abuse also doesn't work for women. We get that some old men in charge prefer it though
We met and discussed it and we've rejected the proposal from Peterson and those like him that violent men be just our problem. Time to address the toxic masculinity on a society wide scale, including the disgusting incentives we've allowed to arise under capitalist patriarchy... or collapse and burn. Your choice
Collapse and burn thank you
What a stupid mindset. Who is actually brain damaged enough to think that women are going to be handed out like food stamps? People like you have some deranged fantasies. No, the actual suggestion that Peterson gave is that society should find ways to reintegrate these young men and one of these ways is encouraging marriage, as the benefits it has on the well being of men (and women) is pretty well documented. The dating habits that are going now are not healthy, and both genders are losing.
Literally meaningless drivel.
That's not a solution though, it sounds more like making men's mental health a problem for their wives to deal with.
What? Nobody is suggesting that marriage is a treatment for mental health. That's stupid. The proposal here is that marriage gets young people of both genders reintegrated into society by essentially giving them a goal and a purpose. Instead of doing nothing all day, they get to love, grow, and serve their own families. There's a reason why marriage has been such a powerful institution for centuries.
These men are not just poor souls, that simply haven't met the right woman yet. These are socially incompetent men, that turn their frustration into hate. They're basically the Principal Skinner meme "Am I wrong? No, it's all the women who are wrong!".
What can you realistically do about that? Maybe schools could try to do a better job to integrate them, but even that is dubious.
You are not wrong in the analysis, but let's be honest, there has always been this breeding ground. And at least today, they want to be in that position. They could better themselves at any point, but they choose to self-victimize. That's not a thing politics can change.
Politics can help set up the incentivizes in place to reintgrate these men into society, however, the change is fundamentally a social one. Treating them as an enemy is not going to work and doing nothing is not going to work either. Having a good chunk of the military aged male demographic unemployed, unhappy, and desperate is a sure sign of incoming chaos for a society.
They are largely not unemployed. And their unhappiness is self inflicted. That's the thing, you can't force these people out of their shells. They put themselves their.
Also, nobody hates them. This is again this weird self-victimization. Most people simply don't care about them, because apart from some mass shooting or online-bullying now and then, they don't matter at all.
My point is that we are heading in the wrong direction, and we should do something about it before we get to that point if we did then historical trends tell us that we're going to some dark times. I would've agreed with you if this issue was only affecting an insignificant number of men, but it's not. The amount of young men who are in this position is big enough to the point where this is genuine societal issue that needs to be addressed.
No, it's only getting more reported and the reasons shifted.
It used to be religious fundamentalism, political radicals, sects, etc. Now it's the more straight forward form of radicalism, but the root is the same and the numbers didn't change drastically over night.
That's not true. There's a lot of good indicitators that things weren't like this before. For example, the marrying age was lower, male happiness was much higher, male suicide rates were lower, male drug abuse rates were lower, loneliness skyrocketed, mental health issues skyrocketed. You're right that this didn't happen overnight. These trends have been happening for the past few of decades, it's just that it's getting to a point where it's hard to ignore because it affects so many people.
What do you propose to do about it? Should women just start having pity sex with these men because they might start a fascist revolution if we don't? Women should just go back to being submissive housewives so men can be "happy" like they were in the 50s? Like what do you think people should do about it?
Military aged men (usually aged late teens to mid 40s) have historically been the drivers of society. If a significant chunk of this demographic feels lost, hopeless, and close to the brink, then that's when all hell breaks loose. From insane crime rates to extremism to war to riots to revolutions to you name it. I don't think Peterson is suggesting that society should do mandatory marriages or anything like that. He's just pointing out that the data shows that marriage improves the happiness and quality of life for men (and women), and it will be a net benefit to society to try and increase the marriage rates as opposed to doing nothing and keeping the current trends going.
Don't you think that group also contains homosexuals, transgender, etc, who have a much harder standing in "our society"? Or what about people who just don't work monogamous?
Shaming them into (hetero) marriages doesn't make them happier.
With an intolerant society, there will always be unhappy people.
So IMO the only way to evolve would be to become fully tolerant and just let people be who they want to be without having to fear, that someone else condemns them for who they are.
Yeah no, I don't think this a good idea because it's basically what we have now and it isn't working. LGBT has been a stable 5% give or take a couple of percentage points for decades now. That means that 95% of society is heterosexual. We have to acknowledge that there is a clear super majority and a clear default. We can't bend over backwards for such an incredibly tiny minority. Societies don't function like that. The most stable societies are the ones where the majority demographics are comfortable and relatively happy. That's what we should strive for.
Heterosexual marriage can resolve a lot of big issues in our society. From the crippling population collapses to loneliness epidemic to the insane suicide rates to the decaying local communities to the drug crises to the mental health crises to the depressing fatherlessness rates and the list goes on and on. The reason why marriage has been such a powerful institution for centuries is because it is a very effective way to integrate young people into society while also providing that society with a backbone.
Basically the point that I'm trying to make is that marriage ties people to something bigger than them. It gives people a goal and purpose, and that's creating ans growing a family of their own. People in marriages have been proven to be happier (both genders), healthier, more involved in their communities, and be more politically moderate. Families seek stability instead of chaos, and stability leads to peace and prosperity. There's a reason why baby booms are usually followed by eras of tremendous growth. We don't need any new solutions to a lot of the issues we have today. We could simply just tweak an already proven solution that has worked wonders across cultures and time.
As for the LGBT people. The wrong approach would be to do nothing for the sake of appeasement. A free for all isn't the wisest of ideas because not everything is okay (like incest for example). Don't get me wrong, individual liberty is very important and should be protected. But humans need a degree of conformity. Obviously it shouldn't rigid because that doesn't work, but we need a form of it. I think the correct approach would be to do what I said but also acknowledge that LGBT people exist, offer them support and acceptance, put in place laws that protect and help them, and offer them ways to conform while still being who they are.
What would you suggest be done to promote marriage among that demographic?
A good start would be getting people to learn how to socialize properly. Either by creating programs for young people to meet up and do stuff together or by restructuring the education system to place a bigger emphasis on co-ed socialization. There's an uncomfortably large amount of people who do not know how to socialize. By that I mean they're really clueless. They don't know how to carry a conversation or how to properly react to situations or understand basic social etiquette or ask somebody out that they find attractive or anything really. I've seen a lot of these people when I was in university, and they are as awkward as they sound. It's not just anecdotal either, the loneliness pandemic is backed up by data. There's huge chunk of people with few or no friends and this demographic is growing. If we can find ways as a society to encourge young people to socialize again, the benefits will be huge. Their mental health would improve, their confidence would get a boost, their social circles will expand, and from their new social circles they have greater opportunities to meet a partner.
I don't get why you're getting so much hate. The statement boils down to people need to be invested in their society, or society isn't stable.
People with families want stability, want to make society better, care about the community more. That's not to say people without families don't, but the incentives are there for people with families.
So when talking about entire populations, pointing out the statistically populations with large numbers of uncommitted men are less stable, shouldn't be controversial