Understanding Enforced monogamy: The latest Jordan Peterson hit pieces

Anyone in the Jordan Peterson controvers-sphere is getting the same enforced monogamy quote thrown at them. I saw Joe Rogan talk about it on his podcast with Dave Rubin. Disagreeing with the quote on it’s face. While I agree with Rogan that, enforced monogamy isn’t a sufficient solution and making incels, and all men for that matter, better mating candidates is a better solution. Peterson would agree as well as he has said that in the past. The first 5 minutes of his Cathy Newman channel 4 interview was him putting a fire under weak incompetent men to get their act together and grow the hell up, so they can contribute to society, the world, and their partners. So they can be someone their partners would want to be with. So when Peterson’s incel quote is taken on its own and read sternly of course it is lacking. But anyone who follows Peterson, knows that is not his only solution and that he has been trying to raise weak men to compete in all facets of life, including the mating hierarchy, for almost as long as he has been speaking publicly. You can find a good amount of his old lectures on YouTube talking about men becoming stronger, better, and more competent for women as well as themselves. So he is absolutely a advocate of self improvement of weak men as is Rogan.

Many of his detractors take the quote

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, {Toronto killer}. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

from the NYTimes article, where they call him the “Custodian of Patriarchy”, and try to infer Peterson thinks women marrying violent men is how you stop violence against women. That Peterson wants women to enter dangerous relationships with violent men to make them not be violent.

The guardian jumped on the band wagon with their follow up hit piece that makes that same inference. Stating “we’re just told we should cure violent men with our magical vaginas, and if we fail to do so, our vaginas were presumably insufficiently magical.” no one “told” you that or said that in any way. You will find all his detractors using that Peterson quote and making the same inference, but no he did not imply vagina is the cure to violent men. Simply monogamy reduces male violence in general on women and other men. Studies show long term relationships, like marriage have a lower rate of domestic abuse. It could simply be not jumping around from man to man puts you in less risk of running into a violent man. Either way studies show marriage helps with longevity of life, reduces domestic violence, depression, various diseases like STDs, but even seems to effect things like heart disease. This is true for both men and women. While the effects seem more potent for men, they live longer in marriage have reduce health issues, which seems to be a bigger issue in men, I think monogamy is most useful for women as the main purpose for marriage at least up until recently was reproduction and it was the way to ensure a woman’s security before they entered the work force as well as their children’s before child support.
Now lets try to understand the quote specifically. What is his view that enforcing monogamy would help violent men, in addition to all the other stuff he advocates of course, based on? The way I see it he is talking about the hierarchy of mating. If you think about it, mating follows market principles. Women and men compete in the free market to get a suitable mate for their needs, there is a hierarchy to it as the most viable men gets first choice and the most choices. Previously these men get one choice, they pick the best mate, marry, then are removed from the market as the old saying goes. But since the sexual liberation movement has changed the dynamics of the market. These viable men are no longer taking one women and removing themselves from the market, they are taking multiple women and essentially locking them down in various open relationships. The sexual liberation of women is arguably most harmful to women as before a man would have to work to get a woman and commit to them to have sex, hardest case, get married to them. Now no one has to work at all to have sex with many women. Men get all the free and easy sex they want with little to no commitment, who really won that? Women? Who have higher rate single motherhood since then and all the economic hardships that come with it, since the movement started in the 70s, which is arguably the worse situation to come out of it other than death from abuse, but you also have higher rates of domestic abuse from promiscuous relationships, issues with emotion health like depression, higher rates of diseases like STDs, ect. Or did men win by getting easier access to sex with more women with less strings attached? Though promiscuous men also have many of the same negative outcomes such as worse emotional health, higher rates of STDs, domestic violence, ect, but as far as the mating hierarchy/market, woman’s sexual liberation benefited predatory men the most.

Now how does that tie into Peterson’s point on violent men. Well when a hierarchy becomes corrupt or unbalanced like a small amount of men are getting access to a large amount of women and there by restricting access to other men, you get a gap in distribution. What comes to mind is his position on relative poverty and Prado’s distribution. When relative poverty goes up, not actual poverty, there becomes a issue of disenfranchisement. When people see others around them are getting way more than them, anger, resentment, and hatred goes up. When the gap becomes too big, there is a point when these disenfranchised people are willing to turn over the hierarchy to restart the system. In the case of relative poverty it is riots, robbery, violence, crime, ect. But in this case, you get men violently lashing out at society and women, as in the case of the Toronto incel murderer.

I am not against sexual liberation in it’s general premise, I think women should have the choice in who they want to be with and have sex with. I think when the idea of sexual liberation came in contact with the hippy movement and became free love and later became a political tool there was an issue. Rebellious women saw sex as a way to get back at the “man”, so they decided to have sex with as many men and women to attack the establishment, which is ironic and stupid. They pushed this idea of sex being empowering because it was control of their own bodies, while actually hurting themselves with devolving relationships that damage their mental and emotional health, increase of sexual disease, unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood, and domestic violence. And again who benefited most? Predatory men. Good job getting back at patriarchy. What seemed to happen was a conflation of empowerment with control. Stupidly wrong, but not surprising when you look at most logic behind leftwing protest culture created during this time. Control does not necessarily mean power. Self mutilation is control, but it isn’t empowering. It is just destructive. Girls who cut themselves, generally do it out of control (a coping mechanism, a way to control their feelings) and I would hope no leftist would advocate that as a empowering act. Though it wouldn’t be surprising. So why is engaging in sexual acts that potentially will hurt them mentally, emotionally, physically, socially, and economically seen as empowering?

Peterson sees societal enforcement of monogamy as the “redistribution” method to resolve at least that type of violence. No you aren’t going to reform wife beaters by getting them married, I don’t believe he thinks that or ever said that. Simply when society valued monogamy and enforced it on a societal level you get less male violence on both female (domestic violence) and other males (competitive violence), as well as improving other areas of life and health for both genders. That is what the numbers show. That is what I believe Peterson meant with those statements. And I generally agree. Though more for the other benefits of monogamy than the reduced violence of incels. Which I see as a smaller issue compared to the socioeconomic issues of the free love movement of the 70s. But since we are talking about incels, yea it will help with that as well. Though as Rogan and Peterson advocates, bettering weak men so they don’t become incels in the first place is the better solution.

Also a issue has come up about “redistribution” being contradictory to Peterson’s stance on equality of outcome. There is a difference between redistribution by force as the government or some authoritative group makes a policy where they say we want this outcome so we will force individuals to do this to obtain that outcome and Peterson’s position on societal values on the individual level, Peterson no where advocates force to obtain any outcome, but advocates knowledge and values to make the better societal choice. Simply put out information that monogamy is a better and healthier choice on a societal level, and let each individual choose for themselves what they want. He doesn’t want to force someone into getting married or force women to marrying violent men or any man. He wants to allow the free market choice go on with proper information. While so many places advocate sexual promiscuity, women don’t need men, or some other anti monogamous position and often anti man, Peterson just wants to advocate monogamy based on statistical facts, not force it. Every person is still allowed to make their own choice in their own life and not get punished as is the difference when redistribution and equality of outcome become authoritarian policy.


New York Times Article:


Guardian Article:


Cathy Newman Interview:

Single Motherhood Statistics:


Promiscuity on Physical Health:


Longevity of Monogamy:



In Defense of Free Thought: Kanye West

I am not particularly a fan of Kanye, sure I like his music, but never bought an album, went to a concert, or listened to anything other than the singles on the radio. But for transparency I would consider myself a “fan”. Always thought his lyrics were insightful and covered a broad range of topics. I appreciated his perspective, though I thought he was a bit crazy even before this TMZ interview.

I first heard Kanye’s TMZ comment in a written transcript, which was very damning. Reading it on paper I had no way to take it other than literal. In the article, which funny enough was from a conservative news site, the statement was separated from the rest of his interview. That being:

“When you hear about slavery for 400 years – for 400 years? That sounds like a choice. Like, you was there for 400 years, and it’s all y’all? You know, like, it’s like we’re all mentally imprisoned. I like the word “prison” [because] “slavery” goes too direct to the idea of blacks. It’s like “slavery,” “Holocaust” – “Holocaust” is Jews, “slavery” is blacks. So, “prison” is something that unites us as one race. Black and whites being one race, that we’re one race. That we’re the human race. “

His interview I saw later on Youtube was a short 3 minute clip that also edited him down and ended with that statement then cut to TMZ’s Van Lathan criticizing him. Again with that statement clipped out it is hard not to take him literal. But what confused me was Van Lathan’s response was not about what he just said, it was about representation, marginalization, being a role model. He mentioned slavery, but only to relate to modern black people today, which Kanye’s sound bite sounded like he was talking about black slaves that lived 400 years ago in oppression. I was confused why Lathan did not say outright slaves 400 years ago did not have a choice, it was slavery, death, or become a lifelong fugitive, which to any reasonable person is not much of a choice. I thought maybe he was being polite because Kanye was a famous guest, but he outright said, “you’re not thinking anything” and called him fake, so he could not be holding his tongue. Something wasn’t clicking. Sure Kanye is a bit eccentric, so maybe he was crazy and thought that slaves had a choice, but then I thought it could just be editing and false narrative.

I went and watched the full interview, which is a 30 minute interview. Literally the next sentence after the statement about “slavery being a choice” was him clarifying he does not mean literally, but was talking about people’s choice to mentally let slavery hold them down now. Stating:

“Right now, we’re choosing to be enslaved.”

then talks about a conversation with Ebro Darden where he says,

“You’re choosing to enslave people’s minds, you’re choosing to not let the truth be free.”

Which explains why Van Lathan’s response, 17 minutes in,  was about modern blacks. If you actually think about what Lathen said, he in fact proves Kanye’s point. Where Lathen states:

“the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives. We have to deal with the marginalization that has come from the 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice“

Here he points out that they have to deal with “marginalization that has come from the 400 years of slavery”, which is black people choosing let slavery mentally hold them down today. He then misrepresents what Kanye meant by saying “You said for our people was a choice”, taking him literally when he in fact heard him say one sentence after he meant figuratively and with modern blacks.

Also funny he accuses him of being fake and absent of thought when his entire statement was pure rhetoric about representation, marginalization, threats to black lives, and slavery.

I applaud Kanye for standing up and speaking his opinion in a room where arguably everyone disagreed with him, maybe even against him. Standing up for free thought because of the value in it. In the interview he began to ramble and cobble some ideas on the fly after the 8 minute mark, which he admitted openly to clarify not all his ideas are concrete or fully thought out. But that is what free thought and free speech are for. They are tools for each of us to figure out what we believe and what is true. We should express ourselves to either teach someone or get taught when they correct us. Whether or not they agree with us this open dialogue is good and necessary for positive growth. You cannot really get a feel for your ideas if you do not express them and test them out in the world. It is a very scary thing to put yourself out there, especially when essentially everyone already disagrees with you, which is probably why most people would not stand up and say what they think. It is very demeaning when outside parties seemingly purposefully edit and misrepresent your statements, as seems to be the case here. I Think everyone that actually believes Kanye said something wrong or offensive should go and watch the entire interview to see what he actually meant. Also it is pretty entertaining and insightful.

Let me add, taking his entire interview into context, he actually is correct. A lot of people choose to let things hold them down, after a certain point it is your choice to let that burden effect your life.

Frankly, if you are an adult and you are holding on to things from your childhood and letting it effect how you act and live your life, I would say your being silly and need to take some responsibility for your life and seek some therapy to get over your issue. But if you legitimately believe and think that something that did not even happen to you, but your people, hundreds of years ago, has a direct cause in the events in your life today, you are being stupid and using it as an excuse. If you think your great grandfather being a slave is a actual reason why a black kid cannot pass the twelfth grade, cannot keep a job, or had a baby at 16 years old. you are just looking for excuses to cover bad personal choices. These lives will never get better until they accept their responsibility in their decisions in their own lives. If you truly believe slavery 400 years ago is why you cannot do well in today’s society, you are choosing to be enslaved.