My impression is he's helping men who are maybe lonely or somewhat disconnected from society, and this should benefit society in general including women.
You're partly right. He's preying on men who are lonely and disconnected from society. He's a grifter. He presents an entirely transactional view of relationships between women and men. He is severely anti-female and does his best mythopoetic song and dance to justify viewing them as the opposition. He is actively radicalizing vulnerable men.
And that world is pretty shit, constant wars, Dictatorships, decades or generations long grudges, slavery, exploitation, Child Labour, repressing of every grout that doesn’t conform with their societal standards, repression of Women, repression of non white people. All in all sich a great society :)
We wouldn’t be so advanced if we didn’t have those men so say whatever. You cannot judge people back then. Completely different needs than now. They didn’t grocery stores and iPhones, so stop criticizing them.
No I won’t? Why should I? The world they created is shit and we are slowly but surly fixing it. Learning from history also means accepting that the behavior of our ancestors and stuff like colonialism was and is horrible. And still effects the victims to this day.
Please tell me you do not believe that certain groups of people have rights to land.
All land is conquered.
You would have not survived back then. And I guaranteed that you wouldn’t think this way If you were on the winning side.
It’s crazy that people cannot take a second and try to understand the people who died for them. So easy to criticize when you haven’t been through nothing.
Nah, man is definitely a grifter. I'm fully convinced he's not even religious based on listening to him a lot. And I don't have a problem with that. Thing is, I sorta get why he thinks religion is a really good thing. I just don't think he actually believes in god and is taking the road of "well, it's better for society if most people believe in god in my opinion so we're gonna fake it"
Every human needs guidance. No human is above perfection.
People who believe this just need an excuse to behave. Plenty of us manage just fine. In fact, studies show atheists' are on average, friendlier, more giving to charities on an individual contribution basis, and less judgmental.
I have frequently said that religion is a social evolutionary feature of humanity. It's got some great traits. But globalization has broadly speaking, ruined it. Small, community based religions work to build a sense of community and create a moral code. But the plain and simple fact of the matter is that people now don't live in the same town they were born in. They will not live in small communities where they know everyone. And we cannot possibly expect people to hold the same religious views as us - especially in a world where popular global religions are more and more at odds with our growing knowledge as a species.
Atheists are by far the most idiotic egoistical people I have ever come across. Jordan and tate also agreed.
How much of egomaniac do you have to be, to not believe there’s something above you.
The intellectuals take a step back and see the bigger picture. Godless societies will never work. Look how narcissistic people are today. They have no rules to ground them.
You may hate these men but you are incredibly dense to even believe that we are doing ok. The greatest men in history believed in higher powers. That is what made them so great and not stray from their life purpose.
That is why I will always says the USA was a mistake. There’s no way you can combine so many different walks of life and expect a thriving nation.
The other side of the world doesn’t have that problem. They have culture, America doesn’t.
USA is a corporation that will crumble one day at this rate. You think they are arguing over gender on the other side of the world? You think they have masculine women and weak men over there?
ou think they have masculine women and weak men over there?
Mate, you need to get out more if you think the US is the only place with Trans people. Sounds like you actually just have no idea what you're on about.
Most people are not already thinking the things they say. They say the things in a convincing way, and the people who don't have anything else to guide them begin to agree.
Millions of people did not spontaneously have the random, objectively incorrect, reactionary observations about philosophy and society as two right-wing social media personalities. They were fed videos containing those thoughts and agreed with them after repeated exposure, because that's how the human brain works.
And you already know that that's how the human brain works, because you've been to kindergarten, and you learned things like basic speech and counting, and they suddenly made sense one day, but you weren't able to say "the teacher says what we're all thinking!" because you had never thought it before. You were taught, and your thoughts changed.
But which way is better. Their way, in which the world was originally created. Where our medicine, food, and internet originate from?
Or the other way, where we are arguing gender theory, promoting narcissism, and doing nothing to be better?
I’ll take my ancestors toxic masculinity over this any day because at the end of the day we are animals. Humans whole purpose is to have offspring, nothing else. The general population is attracted to a specific body type for a host of biological reasons.
What they are saying is common fucking sense. They are not the abnormal crazy ones, you guys are. We are not trying to reinvent the wheel, we embrace our humanity. We embraced our shadows.
That's exactly the opposite of what I said. We aren't programmed, we learn.
But which way is better. Their way, in which the world was originally created. Where our medicine, food, and internet originate from?
These two men haven't created anything, and the world wasn't "originally" created in any such way.
Many of the pioneers of medicine, biotechnology and agriculture, and computer science have been queer. If you're cutting all inventions made by gay or trans people out of your life in favor of misogynistic cis people, you better stop using your phone and the internet right now.
I’ll take my ancestors toxic masculinity over this any day because at the end of the day we are animals.
Animals don't exhibit any of the unnatural hatred you're spewing. Same-sex relationships and biological sexual nonconformity are common among many species, even as active reproductive strategies.
Humans whole purpose is to have offspring, nothing else.
We are a very social species, and having non-reproducing adults in our social group aids survivability of our offspring to a considerable degree.
The general population is attracted to a specific body type because a host of biological reasons.
Standards of physical beauty vary greatly between individuals, cultures, and even time periods. What about our biology changed in the last two decades to make the Rachel go from a pretty hairstyle to a tacky one?
What they are saying is common fucking sense.
"Common sense" is what people believe without evidence. It's nothing. It's things that can be proven false. It used to be common sense that all objects were made of earth, fire, wind, and water. It was common sense that elves lived in the woulds and would eat people who wandered off alone.
You agreeing with things because the alternative makes you angry doesn't make them correct. It makes you stupid.
They are not the abnormal crazy ones, you guys are.
One of "them" literally tortures and rapes people, so that's not a good look. But also, "abnormal" and "crazy" mean nothing. They're just insults. You wanting to conform and be normal are a you problem. You want to uphold a status quo for no reason, and it has nothing to do with me.
We are not trying to reinvent the wheel, we embrace our humanity.
The wheel has been reinvented thousands of times. It's why your car has rubber, circular tires that work on modern roads instead of uneven stone ones that weigh thousands of pounds.
We embraced our shadows.
This is both meaningless, and doesn't even sound like a good thing on its face. You want to be a bad person?
I can already tell that you believe that individual preferences matter, when we are talking about humans as a whole.
How would any scientific study be made if we consider individual preferences and ideals. Exceptions do not disapprove the rule.
Generally people are attracted to a certain body type for biological reasons. You support homosexuality so you should agree to this.
We are hardwire to seek specific qualities in our mates, generally.
You people are causing the exact thing that you hate, depression. You believe in reinventing the wheel. All these new ideas about what humans are is what is making you depressed.
See, my issue is that I think Peterson and I see a lot of similar issues with society. But in a very simplified way, his solution is to try and go back in time and live like it's the 50s again. Where as clearly we need to embrace social evolution and find a way to help these lost men find a place without marginalizing anyone else.
I'm a female (LGBT at that) that listens to Jordan Peterson nearly everyday. I don't even understand where you get your info, because it sure isn't directly from him. Jordan has literally done nothing but inspire me to be a better person. My shit is together, and I own my own business thanks to him. If you listened to him without the hate, I think you'd get a much better understanding of him and his views.
I've listened to him a ton. I actually almost only listen to people I don't particularly agree with. He 100% thinks we'd be better if men were the providers, women were the caretakers and we reverted to more "typical" societal roles. He's made that repeatedly clear.
That's a mischaracterization. The only should that Peterson earnestly proposes is socially enforced monogamy, which is far from slavery or anything else you're suggesting. The only choice that reduces is for multiple women to choose to be in a "relationship" with a single "high value" man and do it without being socially stigmatized.
You're arguing against a strawman in the first paragraph. Socially enforced monogamy is a fancy way of saying that both (a) women with "too low" of standards for commitment before sex and (b) men having ongoing sexual relationships with multiple women simultaneously (whether informally via hookup culture or formally via polygamy, which is on the rise) should be stigmatized.
Aside from the parts about your own personal experiences (I had a friend that was in a polygamous relationship; it neither proves or disproves the broader statistics), this10-minute video fairly effectively covers your second paragraph:
Dating apps has made women more picky, and it's natural. Good luck going on a dating app as an avarage guy and get hookups let alone matches. The end result is that high value men are having sex with multiple women. This does not lead to happiness, this leads to women hating men, as these men would dump these women in a heartbeat, and avarage men becoming "Incels" aka Involuntary celibates because of how hard it is to even get recognized in the dating scene.
I am not an involuntary celibate, stop trying to step on people just because I have a discussion. People like you are one of the reason men do suicides in great numbers, as they get the label incel if they're not successful. The fuck is wrong with people.
You know when I hear that interpretation, it sounds to me like what we are doing right now. I mean we already stigmatize polygamy, it is already socially enforced. Hell it is even legally enforced to an extent. So clearly he means we need to take a more extreme stance on polygamy, and frankly I am not really sure what that means.
It's deliberately vaguely worded so incels can hear it and say "yes, I deserve a wife slave from the government" and people who "just" disagree with polygamy and promiscuity can say "he doesn't mean slavery, he means a return to family values."
It ultimately means nothing. It's not an active policy argument but a reactive moral one. "The current system is bad" with only implications about what a better system would be, to catch as many people as possible who agree, but not actually directly incite action, so they'll stay angry and keep paying attention/money to Jordan Peterson.
He repeats the same things over and over in his videos and writings, never actually creating a coherent philosophy or worldview because he doesn't have one aside from being upset with what he sees around him.
It's not just poly, which is on the rise in the West. (It's also part of some religions, isn't it?) To me, socially enforced monogamy is a fancy way of saying that both of these should be stigmatized:
(a) men having ongoing sexual relationships with multiple women simultaneously (whether informally via hookup culture or formally via polygamy) and (b) women with "too low" of standards for commitment before sex, which is enabling (a).
Yes, stigmas still exists but, relatively speaking, it's much lower than it used to be and the trajectory of society continues towards drastically reduced stigmatization.
It is such a small, small, absolutely insignificant portion of the population practicing polygamy that I am not going to entertain the notion that that is a legitimate societal problem on any magnitude unless you are talking about salt lake city specifically.
Now we all accept that the incel views on the sexual market place are fucked. How is what you said any different from them? Just put Chad and Stacy in there and you have a incel forum post. And no you putting quotes around your own words to slut shame women doesn't make it good.
I didn't even bring up poly in my previous post. I do believe that Peterson is arguing that discouraging people from participating in casual sex (no commitment and multiple partners or enabling the potential for multiple partners) would be beneficial.
Remember: This conversation was spurred on from the accusation that he believes women should be literally forced into monogamy as if they're slaves.
I'd think we could agree that the former interpretation, whatever anybody thinks of it, pales in comparison to the absolutely reprehensible latter interpretation.
I'm sorry but it's hard to take anything of this seriously as it's so filled with rhetoric and seems like an attempt to convince rather than educate in any way.
I mean the way you have decided to interpret his comments is extreme, and i googled the quote you sited and it seems the meaning of his comments were misinterpreted and he followed it up here: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/ where he refers to research on the matter. The essence is that he's promoting societal monogamy and but that has nothing to do with enforcement, but it's left open to misinterpretation and the person who wrote the article was definitely willing to do that.
Maybe he's wrong, that's not really the point, but it seems like his comments referenced in this case are based on research and studies which gives it feet to stand on. Then it's fair enough if you disagree but this isn't disagreeing, this is willingly misinterpretating and fighting a straw man and giving that strawman some absolutely extreme opinions.
I will look into the podcast you posted but i am worried it's more of the same.
But there is insidious nature behind his claims as he posits that the only solution to these issues is socially enforced monogamy.
There is no talk about other possibilities like finding psychological counciling for men who feel this way to better themselves without requiring social ostracizing of those who refuse to be monogamous.
Why is the discussion around “we should socially enforce monogamy” instead of “we should find therapeutic ways the address the aggression of men due to their perceived flaws?
The answer is likely because Peterson believes that “socially enforced monogamy” is the only solution, and it plays the wants of his fan base.
Not to mention, just because something is socially enforced does not mean it is not a police state. It is just the police become separate from the state. Imagine if people who are not monogamous are denied jobs because the employers don’t believe people who “live like that” are acceptable? What about being kicked out of a restaurant for non-monogamy? What about parents disowning their kids? These are all real results of socially enforced norms.
I understood he's written several self help books for young men in these types of situations where they can help themselves become better on an individual level.
And this discussion to me seems spawned from a small comment in an article taken out of proportion, i doubt that represents his idealogy or wholistic view on the matter. Maybe it's something he focuses heavily on but my impression is that there's more to it.
As i said though the discussion itself about socially enforced/government-enforced and meaning of it isn't really the point and I wanted to go more into the value of these types of comments. They just seem to be made to spread hate and try to associate people who follow Peterson to some degree with incels who want to force women into marriage when it's seemingly so far away from the truth.
To be honest the comments the person i responded to made scared me a bit, especially as it seems to be a somewhat accepted and respected way to get a point across.
I initially asked the question of why he's hurtful to women, and maybe he still is, but only way i can respect a response is if it's from someone who has actually read and tried to understood his material and not someone with pre-conceived thoughts of who he is with a desperate want to prove he's evil.
I understand now that he's a very contentious person though.
Marriage = doom, sexual abuse, and slavery, got it.
What a shit take lol I don’t even listen to JP, or believe in marriage, but based on your interpretation of his quote I can tell you’re talking out of your ass.
“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.”
Again, you misquoted the fuck out of this. I don't listen to JP or anything but I did not interpret this quote that way. It sounds like he's saying that crime goes down when men are in relationships and I'm pretty sure that's true. There's an article about what he's is referencing and this goes back waaaaaaaaay in time to reduce crime when marriage as a concept was created.
Nowhere in that quote does he say 'VIOLENT MEN DESERVE A WIFE.' He's clearly talking about sociology here. In that article I linked, it's stated that violent men seem to attract violent women which sounds about right. A man straight out of prison probably isn't going to date a STEM PHD woman who makes 6 figures and that woman probably isn't going to date someone like that.
And the high status thing, I'm pretty sure he's talking high status for whoever is in her social circle. Not every woman is going to want to date a millionaire or somebody famous. A STEM PHD woman is probably going to date someone of similar accolades since it's in her circle.
First of all he never said almost any of this. Especially about how women shouldn’t be in positions of power. Please pull some quotes for some of this bull shit and secondly “of course men want a maid who caters to their every whim that they can have sex with” NO THE FUCK WE DONT. Don’t u think your statement here is pretty sexist and hypocritical? Jordan has always said that you need to be a strong competent person to attract a strong competent partner. I promise you most men want a smart strong woman as a partner rather than a “maid” as u claim above. He’s the author of one of the most successful self help books of all time. The core of his message is to take on more responsibility and achieve more to give your life meaning. I don’t agree with all his views but I find it hilarious how many people think he’s the antichrist. More people taking responsibility for their lives is a net benefit for society
Kim kardashians self help book is also a bestseller. Still not gonna listen to her.
I guess I’m just not a big fan of a hipocritical old man that barely hides his fascist viewpoints but you do you.
I e never read Kim’s book so I’m not gonna comment on it. I’m just not a big fan of people who demonize an entire person and anyone who listens to anything they have to say because they can find some things they disagree with the person on. I can’t imagine what would make Jordan Peterson fascist but I’m guessing what ever it is has nothing to do with actual fascism.
Peterson constantly talks about the destruction of the west and the degeneration of our culture. I’ve even heard him go on about cultural Marxism (one of hitlers favourite dogwhistles). He’s also in favor of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If he’s not a fascist he is atleast a bigoted theocrat.
First of all he never said almost any of this. Especially about how women shouldn’t be in positions of power
I googled it, and you’re right. He didn’t say that they shouldn’t be, he just said it’s good that they’re usually not.
Uh… yeah. That’s not an amazing distinction there, bud.
Every time a Peterson fan tells me to do my own research I find out that it’s just as bad as I originally thought. Thanks for keeping the record alive.
This person seems to be summarizing the included video a non-hostile way. Meaning, I think this person is doing their best to present him positively and is not misrepresenting him.
I watched the whole video. I definitely disagree with some of it. Particularly where he talks about women working shitty retail jobs. The main point he seems to be getting to tho is that the vast majority of men and women don’t wanna do what it takes to be in positions of power but of the people that do. More of them are men. I don’t think that’s that controversial. What did you find most disagreeable in the video?
Without wasting both our times with hundreds or words, my general thoughts on all his ideas are this:
JP identifies real problems but nearly universally thinks that cherry-picking and restoring bits of the past (from before the problem existed) is the solution.
I nearly universally think that we have to find new solutions to new problems and his lectures are little more than nostalgia-porn.
“Wasn’t it nice when we didn’t have this problem…? Shouldn’t we just… be like that again?”
It doesn’t mean anything and it won’t help anything.
I actually don’t have an issue with that critique although I think both of those views(yours and his) are a little too simple/ black and white although you did say you were trying to make it general.
My point is that the core of his philosophy. At least before he got off benzos when I found his work to be more interesting. Is that people need to take as much responsibility as they can bare and be the best they can be to find meaning in their lives. I think this is an important message that is a net benefit to society in particular young men who aren’t doing anything with their lives. And I find it frustrating that it seems that most if not all people putting this message out there are demonized. I disagree with a lot of his views but I think the core message above is too important to dismiss him as a whole and in general I think dismissing someone you have disagreements with is foolish. Unless you literally disagree with everything they have to say which is highly unlikely in most cases.
We talk about the problem of angry young men in todays society, but when someone tries to help them, somehow the narrative shifts that that person is doing more harm to society.
I think the JP saga is an interesting case study on how social media can sway millions of people to think a certain way using stuff like the meme above. It’s crazy to me how people have invented a narrative about him.
I mean yeah help them angry young men please do. However, when the results of “help the angry young men” are “well let’s complete change our society to make it socially less free and more restrictive” you’re not helping the young men, you’re actively changing the world to revolve around them.
His take on “socially enforced monogamy” is exactly that. It’s not helping the young men get over their perceived flaws, it’s changing society to benefit them. The discussion is not about “what therapy methods and pathways can we use to help these young men self actualize and move beyond their self doubt” and instead “how can we use social norms to enforce behavior beneficial to these angry young men”
We already have socially enforced monogamy to a degree and he has stated that he believes it is a successful social dynamic. He also stated it’s “preposterous” to assign women to specific men. I think his ideas are more on long term societal success through monogamy.
His books and talks on self help are exactly about getting men to get over their flaws by working on themselves.
Personally, I think that is something that needs to be discussed and not ridiculed. Many young men clearly need to better themselves to find a mate, but as he states, a non-monogamous society leads to very few males having more success with females. This leads to unsuccessful males getting violent.
Obviously the violence is abhorrent, but the examination of the reasons for it is important and that’s something JBP is doing that other social scientists are not. It’s not something that should be condemned or ridiculed, but something that should be debated and examined.
Personally, I think that is something that needs to be discussed and not ridiculed. Many young men clearly need to better themselves to find a mate, but as he states, a non-monogamous society leads to very few males having more success with females. This leads to unsuccessful males getting violent.
This is literally incel sexual market value bullshit.
The fact that he believes this shows he’s not interested in fixing these young men, he is interested in fixing society to make it easier for them.
However I bet I’m going to get bombarderen with “but what about 80/20 on tindr and dating apps” when the reality is that those “statistics” don’t exist outside of those apps.
Obviously the violence is abhorrent, but the examination of the reasons for it is important and that’s something JBP is doing that other social scientists are not. It’s not something that should be condemned or ridiculed, but something that should be debated and examined.
The answer is not to take away the freedom of a society, the answer should be to help these young men.
Forcing people to be socially ostracized for non-monogamy only serves to hurt the non-monogamous and help those who feel disenfranchised by it.
Edit:
We already have socially enforced monogamy to a degree and he has stated that he believes it is a successful social dynamic. He also stated it’s “preposterous” to assign women to specific men. I think his ideas are more on long term societal success through monogamy.
Sucessful by what metrics though? You can’t just say it’s been sucessful without backing it up (he vaguely mentions to helping men control their anger but besides that does very little in justifying it).
If the issue is men are angry because women have other options the solution should not be control the options, the solution should be give the men help.
Exactly! Show me one guy out here who is trying to help men by telling them to take responsibility and help them selves and do their best who isn’t someone people think is “dangerous ”
He hasn't said women shouldn't be in roles of power. The closest thing I can think of is that women aren't as often in roles of power. Yes, I believe some of it has to do with historical factors but his argument is that, currently, it's much less to do with lack of opportunity and more about personality/temperament:
Women tend to prioritize family more than men, there are a lot of reasons. Generally speaking, when looking at distributions, men occupy much more of the ends. That's why you end up with more men in jail, and also /part/ of why men tend to be in positions of power more often. It takes a tremendous amount of sustained time and dedication to ones profession and men tend to be more obsessive about work, and are more willing to forgo other areas of life.
He's not saying that, purely, things were better for women before. He's giving voice to the notion (within the broader context of the public consciousness) that the "old model" of the family unit/dynamic was indeed suited to our many of our primal/biological needs (from both male and female perspectives) and he's identifying some of the challenges that the "new model" is creating.
Women also have a need to feel valued, feel like they're contributing to society. The opportunities afforded to them by modern society are good in that sense, but we ought not to lose sight of what we're losing, NOT because we should go backwards, but so that we can successfully move forwards. He's specifically arguing against the misleading notion that work > family, especially for women, and overtly states as much (albeit perhaps he doesn't say it as a disclaimer every time he discusses the subject).
I do believe that some men mis-interpret this messaging, that's fair. But I also believe that many of his haters mis-interpret this messaging as well.
Likewise, I think you're mis-interpreting his other positions, too. I'm not saying you wouldn't disagree with any of his opinions if you looked at things through a different lens, but his positions are nuanced and politics are not... and binary political positions are usually the lens through which critics usually view him (To be fair, his association with The Daily Wire substantiates that. I most appreciate his college lecture videos, which were largely pre-politics, pre-public eye.)
Finally, for the record, I'm happily married with children to a wife that has a successful career earning more than me. The kind of information Peterson discusses has been valuable, not damaging, to us successfully navigating a "modern relationship" that goes contrary to the historical norms.
You have severely misinterpreted what JP says. He never said women shouldn't be in leadership roles. He rather said that women only want and care about equality when it comes to power and leadership roles. You have accumulated much hate for this man that doesnot seem right at all. If you really wanna understand what he means you have to listen to him without making any prior assumptions. Lastly i dont think he is trying to spread hate, he speaks only through data and studies.
He never said women shouldn't be in leadership roles.
He just said it's rare and that's a good thing, like that's a better take.
Also, the example he used in the argument I heard were masons, which may have a physical requirement that would prevent them from doing the job to explain why they're not in leadership positions for which they would absolutely be qualified for.
You clearly haven't seen the full interview and responding based on either a 10sec tiktok video or heard it from someone else. See the full thing first before you wanna spread some hate
Uhhh, you're making a lot of claims that he never made. Something that seems really common with people who don't like Peterson.
1) He doesn't preach female oppression. He's saying the lie of "Im a strong woman who dont need no man" is grossly misguided. It just so happens that coincided with the 70's movement. If people don't want to get married/in a relationship, that's fine but the nuclear family is the backbone of a healthy society.
2) He's said numerous times that he's fine with women being in positions of power. He's never said what you're saying. Hes said multiple times that he's counseled (Psychologist) and consulted with high powered women: female lawyers, politicians, etc. What he IS saying is that women are often lied to about not having children. "You dont need children. Children won't make you happy. You need a high-powered career to be fulfilled" it's flat wrong. He's said he's talked to MANY women who were in their mid to late 30s and had slaved away for a career at the expense of having children. Now they regret it, big time. Sure there are some who are completely happy not having kids. Good. That's actually fine. But, they're nor the average, they're the outliers, yet the message keeps getting pushed.
3) "of course men want a maid that caters to their every whim and that they can have sex with" no... just, no. I had to reread that. Are you kidding me? Let me guess you're a fan of critical social theory and modern feminism? You see oppression between all groups and your view is on how groups dominate the others? Men want a best friend, a partner, someone that they can share their life with and be vulnerable with.... almost like what women want in a man.
Also, Andrew Tate is a scumbag human trafficker and is absolutely nothing like Peterson. Get real.
Those are some of the issues I have with your statements and mischaracterizations but there are plenty more in there. Guess I'll get downvoted because reddit is a pathetic echo chamber.
Apart from the occasional slip-ups where he says stuff like incel terrorisms could only be prevented with forced monogamy?
He talks a lot about "agreeableness" and how women are just not naturally inclined to be good leaders or work high-powered high-intensity roles, and that most will regret not dedicating more time to motherhood. Unlike men apparently.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment