/lit/ - Literature

>>11175363
"Neo-nazi" is a fake word created by tribal jews to attack white consciousness and any white who acts in their own tribal interests. And Peterson is a cuck machine now.

>>11175363
incels, as in young guys who cant get laid = 11% of the population

old whores or broodmares who cant get laid, unless it’s once a month by desperate married men, or ufly fat fucks: 80%

Old cunts need more help if you ask me

>>11175363
It's more the whole "hierarchy is good and normal" routine that's bad.

>>11175363
Alt-righters doesn't deserve help. They're scum and the only way to deal with their idiotic and hateful ideology is by ridiculing them.

>>11175363
can confirm, im a sad white guy who needs a father.

>>11175383
how is it bad? hierarchy is natural. just think of the lobsters, bro.

>>11175383
Hierarchies exist whether you believe that they're good or natural. They exist in almost every domain where differentiation is possible

>>11175393
If you're an alt-righter then you're right you're a sad guy but what you need is to get the bullet.

>>11175363
I... agree, actually.
Look, the guy's an obvious sophist. And I'm not sure why he styles himself as a philosopher. But he's a decent life coach, and I genuinely think he thinks he's helping people. I've seen a few interviews where he gets choked up talking about people who thank him for "sorting out their lives" after his talks. He spouts bullshit but if that bullshit helps people get back on their feet why does it matter?

>>11175413
nothing wrong with being alt right, bro. i just want my white ethnostate. i dont even believe in supremacy, other races have their own countries. i want mine.
JBP helps my cause and by "mixing it up" just messes up hierarchies to the point where we lose our natural essence.

>>11175417
He's been a clinical psychologist for decades. His advice helps people because that's his fucking job. His philosophical views one can leave or take, but they're not any more sophistical than those of Jung.

>>11175376
retard
>>11175378
retard
>>11175383
The only thing he has sought to prove is that hierarchies are apart of historical, and biological continuity. AFAIK he hasn't said they are good, maybe I'm wrong though.
>>11175391
>>11175396
>>11175413
>>11175417
>>11175425
not retarded
>>11175420
retard

>>11175376
>and Peterson is a cuck machine now
Is the alt right movement eating itself?

>>11175396
This. Also I've noticed that the people against hierarchies tend to be hierarchical as fuck. The anti-hierarchical discourse is all about changing the values of the hierarchy for ones that benefit them. The whole thing is a power move.

>the solution to the alienation of young men is to redistribute women like commodities

lmao, he's done

>>11175436
>carefully lay out my desires
>ad hominem

so, this is the power of /lit/...

>>11175436
Nobody cares about your opinion.

>>11175438
Since when was Peterson alt right? Last I checked the alt right's main tenets were restoring white homelands and kicked the jews destroying them out, neither position Peterson even remotely approves of.

>>11175443
he LITERALLY did not say that. enforced monogamy =/= state-imposed gfs

its an anthropological term for society incentives to maintain monogamy.

ugh.

>>11175425
psychology is a scam

don’t bother replying i am about to get high and read for the next 3 hours faggot lol at you

>>11175413
people like you are going to be very briefly surprised when bulets actually start flying

>>11175446
>he thinks insults are ad hominem
It's an insult. You're never going to make it, retard.
>>11175449
Neither does anyone for yours.

>>11175448
that wouldn't help incels anyway because they're mostly disgusting people who have trouble talking to other human beings

>>11175383
To quote Eagleton (a Marxist), it really is a shame that The Kantian imperative to have the courage to think for oneself has involved a contemptuous disregard for the resources of tradition and an infantile view of authority and hierarchy as inherently oppressive.

>>11175457
you attacked the man rather than my argument. you called me a retard. how's that not an ad hominem, huh, retard?

>>11175448
the state and corporations using their power to enforce ruthless social codes is not any better, you sophist

>>11175463
btw, ^ that is an insult, not an ad hominem

the nytimes doesnt get it man, the more they bully incels the more incels believe they are right, just like the more they disrespected trump the more his base rallied behind him

JBP is awful, basically a cult leader that doesn't understand Nieztsche and Jung even though he claims to follow them and he's a huge fraud and decieves young men into spending two thousand dollars on rugs for their clean rooms that they could have just cleaned anyway and also he says he's a Christian but still follows Nieztsche like wat and also he's bad.

How'd I do? Am I a proper /lit/-tier psued yet?

>>11175465
i never said the state or corporations. society can enforce these rules. for example, we used to exile adulterers. now we reward them "you go girl, take his alimony money"

>>11175463
Wow you are something. To be an ad hominem you have to make an argument such as:
>this guy has a retarded statement, therefore ...
But notice, I'm not using an argument, so how the hell can I make an argumentative fallacy?
I'll leave it where I left you.
Retard.

>>11175363
incels are the most hated demographic by far, nobody is going to be sticking up for them, they are the losers of evolution, and evolution runs everything whatever leftists pretend

>>11175470
It's run by jews, what do you expect?

>>11175474
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43vRoD8GnIY
that time he got BTFO by zizek

I think people mainly have a problem with his intellectual dishonesty.

>>11175483
Good impressions

>>11175475
in our capitalist society it would be the mega corporations enforcing those social codes at the behest of the state.

basically what you want is for marvel superheroes to be fat fedora wearing losers with trad wives. lmao at your life.

>>11175474
>tfw i bought a $20 rug from walmart so my bed wouldnt leave dents on my fake wood floor

i-it looks nice

>>11175436
jude

>>11175490
i just want the marriage contract to have consequences if its broken, man. the incentives for unions are not properly aligned nowadays. sure, getting exiled is terrible but now theres no accountability.

>>11175493
>the marriage contract to have consequences if its broken,
marriage was imposed by force, and it was removed by force

there is no whining for power

>>11175493
if you're a trve christian like jbp claims to be then those consequences will be meted out in the afterlife, so what concern is it of yours

>>11175479
outside of sex criminals, terrorists and pet abusers/killers yeah definitely, all humans have a programmed incentive to kill them off and its an excuse to let off tension by aggressing upon them. wolves attack the omega male to blow off steam, its unsurprising that mostly average looking middling anons are so vicious towards them. there is no impetus to be empathetic, they don’t protect or care for the young, they’re too weak to fightc they’re too autistic to be good company, too ugly and impotent (deficient) to provide pleasure, usually not gay, completely unseemly hygiene, grotesque personal issues you wouldn’t want to treat as a physician or spiritual leader, self-hating so you don’t feel solidarity with them, suicidal but also incredibly boring, basically the Sons of Cain if you think about it.

>>11175493
Imagine being so pathetic you fantasize about getting married and then can't hold down that relationship

>>11175508
true
incel genocide when?

>>11175513
cant happen soon enough tbqh

The people giving him attention are just as bad as his fans

>>11175516
They'd be better put to use doing jew removal in major cities. That's how they used to be dealt with, the incels were sent away to conquer and colonize.

>>11175512
how much of a narcissist can you be that you think everything is within your control? i want a more perfect society and I cant do it all myself. I of course try my best, but I am just yet another man.

>>11175502
sure, thats nice and all but that shouldnt justify bad deeds on this earth, if you catch my drift.
>>11175500
what do you mean by whining for power?
i am talking about people's incentives to maintain an equilibrium strategy or shirk, and the current marriage landscape is that it is profitable to deviate and shirk.

>>11175535
India is a nation of Aryan incels who were cast out, wound up on the subcontinent, and fucked a bunch of dravidian bitches.

Will we seen the internet getting swamped by "muh enforced monogamy" now?

>>11175508
evolution works by culling some of the population each generation, and with most mammals that means a bunch of males, and some females.

Cain lol, i guess Elliot Rodger is the cain of the incels

>>11175550
mormons be like "it's finally our time!"

>>11175535
>deviate and shirk.
this is not a viable strategy

witness the west being overrun by various hordes of aggressive retards since 'deviation' became a thing, resultant of course of a general evaporation of balls

>>11175582
i agree, my dude.
thats why JBP is correct that enforced monogamy is a (maybe not a good by today's standards, but one nonetheless) solution

>>11175588
a solution in the sense that if western men magically started acting that way, then sure things would turn around

but that would be racist, sexist fascism, and i dont see the stomach for it in our present stock

hey, all civilizations fall in the end, it's not a big deal cosmically speaking

>>11175600
>but that would be racist, sexist fascism
Not seeing the connection here. How is monogamy racist or sexist? And if it is actually furthering one race and sex above another, is not polygamy equally as racist and sexist for doing the same but opposite? I just really don't understand.

>>11175363
>he's the patron saint of incels.
More like the Patreon saint of incels

>>11175609
It isn't how you want it to be. The good people won't win.

the West is going to go under to Islam, except the US which is approaching some kind of Brazilification

I suppose you can take heart in the fact that much more stringent sexual mores will undoubtedly be applied to women in the next century in our countries.

>>11175640
thats because history is amoral, it doesn't care about chicks feelings

>>11175640
Doesn't make it racist or sexist. Those two claims are very specific. You need to elaborate why it favors one sex or one race over another.

>>11175650
you can't win what you're doing is my main point man. it's over, it's been over for a long time

How much would I have to pay Jordan on Patreon to make him read this book?

>>11175659
No, you had said
>but that would be racist, sexist fascism, and i dont see the stomach for it in our present stock

Which is not making this claim at all. You are arguing morality, not functionality. Don't try to switch mid argument.
Furthermore, you conclude your statement with
>hey, all civilizations fall in the end, it's not a big deal cosmically speaking
Which implies you don't really care about functionality when compared to morality at all.

>>11175483
That Zizek is spot on

>>11175470
Media will continue to bully incels because society loves to bully them and love to hear stories like that. Also the more incels that crack and shoot up schools, the more breaking news stories they can make

>>11175670
Ok i will try to explain

What youre proposing will be seen as racist, sexist, fascism, your JBP is already seen that way, and he is the last of a dying breed who is in any case nothing resembling a proper reaction.

the morality is a function of how society works, and it has worked for the past 5 centuries as a Lefitsts exponent, designating your entire prorgram as blasphemy

you will not win, if you want power, go for the throat, full communism, join some youth socialist group, or if you have the balls just be a criminal, it's a more free sort of existence

the ideal of society you have is crumbling, and anarchy is coming, before hostile invaders kill your and your people and take your women

>>11175383
>hierarchy is bad
You're right anon. I should just let the random homeless guy on the side of the road cook me my steak at the steakhouse. I'm sure I won't get food poisoning you thick twat.

>>11175679
the most interesting dynamic to me has been how society has gone from bullying nerds to now using slave morality to attack nerds from below as they became ascendant, nerds can never win, but wiping away the tears with cold hard cash and stock options helps make it bearable

>>11175681
I don't agree with lot of it, but it was nice to finally understand. I'm not sure where exactly we would find common ground, though, so I think an argument there is pointless. All the best, anon.

>>11175681
You're an idiot. Stop repeating jewish narratives and trying to demoralize whites who are taking their countries back. That is the only thing that is inevitable and the hordes you speak of are completely incompetent.

the irony of all this is despite all the triumphalism about the demise of white males, inequality is steadily increasing and the surplus is all going to 'white' males, the left has totally failed, which used to make me mad but i got over it, fuck the left, this is real life

>>11175694
jewish narratives give me a break. The Jews will be crucified once we're gone, as they always are, their history is nothing but expulsion and genocide, everybody hates them because they're worthless parasites.

you deserve the jews you have, as someone much wiser than me once said.

People afraid of Jews are people who have alreayd lost their way.
>>11175693
Id be interested to know where you disagree. Honestly I get the impression you are a young man, and you are hanging your hope on Jordan Peterson, without any sort of awareness of what is actually happening to the country you live in.

you have to understand that this is not a joke, the period we live in is turmoil, and it will not be resolved by conversation. It might sound ridiculous but warnings of bloodshed always do right up until they happen

>>11175701
>once we're gone
Whites aren't going anywhere and a few years from now there will be more white people alive than ever before.

>>11175705
Western civilization is entering a cataclysm. If you dont see this, you are either young or stupid or uninformed.

what happens to whites is not even remotely clear

>>11175470
There's nothing wrong with bullying incels. In fact, we need to go much further than just bullying them.

>>11175709
I say let it come. The modern West is an active agent of evil. Let it die. No, more than that--kill it. It doesn't deserve to live.

>>11175728
destruction is fun sure, but what are you actually proposing

>>11175709
Western civilization has been in a cataclysm for several decades. It is just now beginning to pull itself out.

>>11175688
Incels shall conquer the Earth, inshallah

>>11175705
>and a few years from now there will be more white people alive than ever before.
wait are you sayin that population growth is exponential wo wait hold on let me just hrnnnnngghg let me sit and digest htis info for a sec hrnghnghgnnghgh fuck this is melting my brain

are u a sociology major or somethingWOW do u have an email i could contact you at for further correspondance u seem like a real bright guy

>>11175734
I'm saying the West has been reduced to nihilistic barbarism and emptiness of spirit, just as it was in the waning days of pagan Rome. And so it needs to be destroyed in the name of preventing further evil, just as pagan Rome was destroyed.

>>11175567
im aware thank you son
>>11175619
why is he so dapper lads?

>>11175748
Imagine if everyone went on autistic killing sprees because someone was a meanie weanie to them online.

Every household should have a parental figure, mother or father, that just beats these kids over the heads with insults day in and day out. Maybe take a few jabs at the little porker's weight if he's fattening up. Tell em they look ugly as fuck today before you kiss em on the forehead and send them on their way to school. Maybe that'll do something to toughen up these thin-skinned whiney-vagineys that feel like the world owes them anymore than a "fuck you" and the promise that tomorrow will bring with it another "fuck you", nevermind the goverment mandated free pussy gibbsmedats that Peterson's drones probably want.

>>11175363
>There is literally nothing wrong with giving confused men guidance if you're not a neo-nazi or cult leader.
we've been telling him to look up postmodernism in a dictionary for years now. you can guide a whore to culture but you can't make him think.

>>11175759
>I'm saying the West has been reduced to nihilistic barbarism and emptiness of spirit, just as it was in the waning days of pagan Rome
You mean in early Christian Rome. The meek-centric egalitarian jewish ideology that brought Rome down is a mirror image of the neek-centric egalitarian jewish ideology currently bringing the west down, because bringing down civilizations is what jews do.

>>11175806
I'm saying it was Christianity that destroyed paganism, and it will wind up destroying the current spiritual state of the West. We've been here before. Christianity wins in the end.

>>11175815
Christianity is the deadest part of the west, it's not coming back and whites should be grateful for that.

>>11175789
just wait till you get the shit kicked out of you

>>11175824
lol, I'm sure that's what you think. But there's a funny thing about Christianity and dead things...

>>11175436
retard

>>11175849
eat a dick you fucking cunt

>>11175748
"i wasn't a nazi until someone called me a racist online!!"

lmao kys

>>11175363
you know what. I want to say unpopular opinion.
he is better than zizek for being guidance

>>11175879
A blind deaf comatosed labotomy patient would be better then zizek

>>11175879
Zizek doesn't give 'guidance'.

JP is fine as a self-help guy, but trash-tier for anything else he says.

>>11175376
Based

>>11175376
This is the answer. Very good anon

>>11175443
We need a comunist distributio of sex and a capitalistic distribution of money

>>11175470
Jews aren't actually that smart

>>11175391
How the fuck did you make your way to 4chan?

>>11175479
They are the losers of evolution but the winners of revolution. Just like Rome was founded by a bunch of leftovers, criminals and male scum. If they find a leader they will be unstoppable

>>11175363
is he a lunatic? is he planning to put women into camps and force them to marry autistic incels just for social cohesion?

>>11175979

>>11175383
that's the only decent thing he says, the problem is that he is just a boomer conservative instead of being a proper reactionary

If you take advantage of anyone and fill their heads with bullshit you should be shot.

That said, Peterson is a mongoloid and the fact he got popular means there's a lot missing in the lives of pathetic betas. I blame capitalism and American retardation in general.

>>11175974
Real talk, one of these days somebody's going to come along who's charismatic and tells people like the ones who go to /r9k/ exactly what they want to hear. That's when shit's going to get real.

>>11175982
What a lunatic

>>11175383
everybody believes in hierarchy, even the whole history of the left has been the history of revolts started by a small "aristocratic" group of intellectuals that enforced their vision of the world into a large majority that didn't have any interest on it until they were brainwashed by their intellectual superiors

all the "popular revolt" memes are just propaganda to justify their own power when you look at the actual numbers

>>11175363
I don't think he's particularly bad, he's popular though so 4chan hates him. Plus he makes leftists go absolutely nuclear for some reason.

>>11175986
>If you take advantage of anyone and fill their heads with bullshit you should be shot.
Let's kill all leftist college professors then

>>11176003

I said bullshit not truth.

>>11176003
By that standard lets do parents too.

The liberal myth of perfect individuals who have never been influenced by anybody and whose whole personality came from inside by their own unique characteristics is just a cancer that can't die soon enough: the truth is that either you brainwash your kids to make them part of your lineage, or somebody else will do it for their own purposes, it's your choice

>>11176007
this pic is cringeworthy. Also, that "truth" of yours is greater cancer than your imaginings of liberalism. If your standard is taming children to serve the clan, you want shitty future for all and belong among savages of Afghanistan, rather than people of West.

>>11176088
i don't believe in the west, and i don't believe in taming children whatever that means, i just believe that children will be given a worldview by somebody, might as well be you if you are the parent

>>11176007
>The liberal myth of perfect individuals who have never been influenced by anybody and whose whole personality came from inside by their own unique characteristics is just a cancer that can't die soon enough
You're right it's a myth but it's a necessary one. If you kill it you would kill the left as it puts its focus on self-expression. If you make people realize that without our culture imposed by our nation we wouldn't be better than cavemen traditionalism would win and the whole progressist project would go to shit.

>>11175436
I can smell the autism

>>11175483
This video is one of the best on youtube, but I can't show it to my friends because it may out me as a peterson fan

>>11175463
Ad hominems imply attacking the character as to derive conclusions about his argument. He merely insulted you. Retard.

yikes

>>11176145
That whole New York Times article is a slanderous hit piece where everything is taken out of context and presented in snippet form - the same way 5 year olds are fighting each other in legalistic forms (grab brothers hand, hit him with it and asky why he's hitting himself, same shit). He should sue.

>>11176098
You say something different now. Sure, it should be parents to give basic values to child (from the nature of things), but better be them good.
>>11176114
Modern left is not for self-expression. They destroy the thing by mixing it with their products like abstract art, for nihilistic purposes. And real self-expression is what gave us civilization - values that brought us to new heights came from individuals who disregarded what was well accepted.

>>11175383
Yes, hierarchy doesn't exist.
There are no differences in strength, intelligence, artistic talent, beauty or goodness between people and if they did exist, they totally wouldn't create hierarchies in their respective fields.

>>11176156
lmao

>>11176156
>That whole New York Times article is a slanderous piece
Color me surprised.

>>11176159
>values that brought us to new heights came from individuals who disregarded what was well accepted.
This is not always the case at all. Most advances were done by refining what we had precisely because we valued it. It wasn't done out of disregard but to take further something loved.

>>11175363
I've watched his last few interviews on UK talk shows and it's so fucking painful. They give him such low hanging fruit and he just dismisses it when he should be taken to the woodshed for his money grubbing and ego. But instead they just act like he is some secret racist women hater

>>11176164
>There are no differences in strength
There's unironically no difference. If we can say someone can lift let's say 500 pounds is because we have decided arbitrarily how much a pound weights.
If we have two men, one who can lift 100 pounds and one who can lift 10, we could arbitrary change the value of a pound for each one in such a way that we could say the 100 pounds lifted by one now are worth just 10 and the 10 lifted by the other one now are worth 100. Now the later is stronger yet the only was ideological.

>>11176185
>the only change* was ideological

>>11176185
This was hilarious, anon, but I was expecting serious objections.

>>11176185
You laugh but there are people out there who feel smugly smart for thinking that kind of insanities.

>>11176185
Oh no... Please tell me you're joking mate. If not, I'll kindly try to take you by your hand and try to chaperone you through these dark corners of retardation that you've taken refuge in.

>>11176185
Zizeked

>>11176185
Now that I think about it, assuming that of course you're facetious, this is a nice way of framing a covert problem with a lot of people's reasoning, that is thinking that the thing itself and the name of the thing are the same thing.

>>11175363
Yet another person defending Peterson. You realize you're part of the majority, right?

>>11176156
>everything is taken out of context! no one understand peterson!

this sophistry doesn't work anymore my dude, everyone sees peterson for what he really is

Fun fact, David Foster Wallace was Peterson's roommate when he went to study Quebec at McGill

>>11176213
I think the problem with the criticism against Peterson is often the opposite. He's never criticized by someone using his same metalanguage. For example that video of Fantano saying Peterson was a brainlet for saying religion was integral to art taking it as if he was talking about religion as an institution when Peterson was talking about the hierarchies of meaning and how that's related to religious thinking.

>>11176220
why would you make that up.
that's definitely not true.

>>11176226
And their drug dealer you ask? Thomas Pynchon

>>11176220
I wonder if DFW would have liked Peterson because they think the same way or he would have hated him because he hated himself.

>>11175436
I can smell the shitty diapers and cum encrusted Disney animal doll.

>r/braincels has 22.0k subscribers
wow it's fucking nothing

>>11176159
>Sure, it should be parents to give basic values to child (from the nature of things),
the whole point is what does exactly this mean, which you seem to think that it involves "just be yourself" liberal values, and i don't

>>11176185
is this the power of abstraction hegel spoke about?

>>11176226
prove me wrong though

is Peterson finished now that le-ebin-english-comedian-actor-man OBLITERATED him in a debate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0

>>11176373
Dyson is such a massive embarrassment.

>>11176395
don't even know who that guy is, is this the bbc?

>>11176231
Diapers?

What part of this stereotype am I missing.

>>11176406
Yeah.

Just a flat out racist bigot who is unable to produce a single valid point during the entire debate.

>>11176269
It's a new subreddit. /r/incels had way more than that before it was banned. Most went to incels.me

>>11176416
how do we solve the issue?

>>11176416
>incels.me
Reddit has no idea what it did. This is like banning a mosque for average muslims and then most of them going to isis.

>>11175383
>It's more the whole "hierarchy is good and normal" routine that's bad.
>that's bad
>believing that some things are good and some things are bad

>>11175698

Do you mean (((white males)))

>>11176424
good, let the cretin fester in their own echo chamber.

>>11176428
Hierarchy isn't good or bad, but opinions can be right or wrong. They can also be constructive or destructive (bad), depending on your view of what's moral and beneficial (to society).

>>11175363
just be a dad for your degenerated daughter

I just saw Peterson has now done a debate with Steven Fry. He's now become a total meme, should be irrelevant in a year.

>>11176442
Watch the debate. It's quite entertaining.

>>11176423
go after the source of all social alienation?

>>11176431
incels.me is probably just an FBI honeypot tbqh

this society eliminates geographical distance only to produce a new internal separation

please read debord, im literally beggin' ya

>>11176445
Will do but I just hate Steven Fry so much.

>>11176434
>Hierarchy isn't good or bad, but opinions can be right or wrong.
mmm, almost sounds like there's a hierarchy of opinions

>>11176451
>go after the source of all social alienation?
life? sounds a bit too extreme and destructive for my taste

>>11176451
>go after the source of all social alienation?
desire

>>11176435
can you convert people from instathot-ism? i think it's too late

>>11176453
>please read debord, im literally beggin' ya
is he a degenerate or an actual good guy?

>>11176467
Can't un-ring a bell, can't un-thot a slut

>>11176457
Like him or not, he actually manages to be the best of the bunch in that debate.

>>11176457
Why do you hate him? I think he's very rational and doesn't fall for Peterson's vague bullshit.

>>11175990
JUST ASKING QUESTIONS BUCKO
IT'S JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
*erection clearly visible in corduroy pants*

>>11176476
did he win?

>>11176479
you are under the spell of his smug english accent that makes him sounds +40IQ points to whatever stupidity he is saying

peterson is the worst too, so this is probably an unwatchable pleb-fest

>>11176225
>Peterson was talking about the hierarchies of meaning and how that's related to religious thinking
lol this is absurd

>>11176479
Isn't Fry supposed to be on Petersons side in this debate?

And I dont like him because he's a member of the now irrelevant new atheist psued crowd along with dawkins and sam harris. I just think he's very arrogant.

>>11175837
based

>>11176482
And THIS, just imagine if Fry spoke with a working class accent, everyone would treat him as the sweaty pot bellied pederast sodomite he is.

>>11175982
What the fuck? That's so idiotic yet he's actually right. LMAO. He shouldn't say this on twitter though because people will call him a misogynist or whatever but he's unto something.

>>11176225
I really agree with you on this. All the criticism I see of Peterson outside of /lit/ just seems so off the mark. People totally misunderstand what he's saying because he has very specific definitions that people don't bother to find out about so they can strawman him.

>>11176469
Kind of a degenerate (drunkard that killed himself) but still lucid enough to recognize the degeneracy of late capitalism. He failed to fully recognize the degeneracy of the 68 movement and of the situationistes though.

>>11176484
What's so bad about new atheism? There's nothing wrong about ditching old customs now that we have rationality and science.

>>11176185
>>11176164
I can't tell who's being ironic but holy shit what the fuck

>>11176488
if you are going to literally enslave women, the least you could do is not pretend to base your whole project in "the individual", be honest and say "law and order" or "social cohesion" or "natural law" or some actually fitting meme

he wants to have the individualist cake and eat it too because "i'm just asking questions duude"

>>11176493
well at least the drunkeness and the killing-himself-ness indicate that he was aware at some level of how wrong things really were, i'll give him a read

>>11176499
Agreed. Peterson should abandon liberalism.

>>11176494
are you a visitant from the 90s?

>>11176494
>now that we have rationality
anon, I...

>>11176499
I don't think he pretend to enslave women. He's just pointing out that for women to have that kind of freedom it's required a power that forces men into not forcing their own power over women. He probably would say the solution would be to try to find a balance where that power still exist but not to a tyrannical degree.

>>11176511
>>11176499
jesus christ people saying "you have to find a man to marry" isn't slavery, fuck this timeline

>>11176511
still that sounds outside the real of individualist liberalism and more on the side of traditionalist balance and temperance of natural forces and drives

>>11175705
If you are in the US and have 2 kids, you’re already at a higher reproduction rate than the average non-white (1.8).

>>11176515
>>enforced monogamy
>>necessitate state tyranny >>11175982
>not slavery
i'm not saying he is wrong, just saying that what he is saying lays outside of the realm of liberalism and there's no possible reconciliation, he is not being honest about his own ideas

this modern far right pathological hatred of women really started with the freikorps and is mostly rooted in classism. the women that the freikorps hated/feared the most were Red women - vividly aggressive, armed with guns under their skirts, using their sexuality to lead them down alleys into an ambush; there was no distinguishing their sexuality from the mortal danger they presented. this was transposed from a general hatred of the working class that these women represented and communism ultimately came to be the embodiment of that primal fear of dissolution that all reactionaries have, particularly the communism of rosa luxemburg - a communism that represents promiscuous mingling and a breaking down of old barriers. something wild, disorderly and chaotic.

>>11175798
Anyone claiming that Peterson lacks basic academic understanding is clearly being disingenuous, and should be ignored.

>>11176524
>outside of the realm of liberalism
By "liberalism" you mean the liberalism of the last 50 years, for some reason you're ignoring the preceding ~150 years

Why do people talk about monogamy like it's some kind of wacky new economic model hatched by coked-up neurotic geniuses? It's literally just the normal way that Western civilization operated for thousands of years.

>>11176528
>They hate us for our Freedom

>>11176533
Marriage is enslave and has no place in a progressive society. Women belong to themselves. Not to any man.

>>11175986
Positive male role models have been vilified and censored in modern western culture.

>>11176511
>it's required a power that forces men into not forcing their own power over women
Lol ok. You realize that women having resources and social power allows them to advocate for themselves and not need only men to protect them right? Society is a collaborative effort (at least at this point), there's no indication that men would ever be able to force women into submission as a whole without the socio-economic system there which made that a reasonable arrangement in the past.

And yes, to imply that (either sex) must have mandatory marriage is very close to what he's being accused of. It's not 'enslaving', but it's basically asking for enforcement of the old social structures, and in this case those largely just benefit men at the expense of women's personal freedom. I'm not saying this is 'inherently bad' or something, but to pretend that it's not advocating for a reduction in rights is silly.

>>11176528
>modern pathological hatred
if u dont think wamen shud b sluts u hate them!!!!!! > :[

>>11176533
>By "liberalism" you mean the liberalism of the last 50 years, for some reason you're ignoring the preceding ~150 years
liberalism is social acid, just because it takes time to dissolve some things that cohabited with the acid for a time it doesn't mean that they are part of the acid or that they belong together for long

>>11176536
It's not slavery, it's enforcing contract rights, which is necessary for capitalism to function.

>>11176517
>balance and temperance of natural forces and drives
Essentialist Jungian garbage.

>>11175363
Welsh are the true master race.

>>11176542

>>11176542
>contract rights
Like?

>>11176537
This is definitely true, but there's also the fact that as society changes, the role models for both women and men will end up shifting. It's media's mistake for not promoting healthy male models and demonizing men just for their gender though.

>>11176547

>>11176529
At best his knowledge of philosophy as a whole is superficial. His name dropping Nietzsche and Heidegger, both of whom he seems to have read at a glance and decided that was enough to understand them, is an appeal to authority of the worst kind and anyone who actually knows those thinkers would show him up for the charlatan that he is.

>>11176542
No. Fuck you. I'm not going to sign a paper unless it says I belong to anybody but myself. The chains are broken now and we won't be put back on our cages ever again.

>>11176540
Agreed.
>>11176536
I belong to myself, doesn't mean I should be allowed to rob a bank.
>>11176538
Misconduct should not be a right. No one is entitled to immoral behavior.

>>11176529
He has plenty of basic understanding. He falls short in his knowledge of philosophy, anthropology, mythology (outside a western context), and history - on a more formal level.

>>11176558
> Misconduct should not be a right.
And what misconduct is in question, here? Is sex outside marriage misconduct? Is it misconduct for men as well as women?

>>11176544
there's nothing traditional about jungian garbage, it's just appropriating traditional stuff to give flavor to liberalism

>>11176499
>people should be monogomous
>gynocentrist somehow thinks this only effects women.

>>11176559
>short in his knowledge of philosophy, anthropology, mythology, and history
Im not criticize but you should give some empirical to that

>>11176550
The woman trades exclusive rights to have sex with her for wealth and security. Cheating as a woman is breach of contract. Failing to support your wife is breach of contract. Infecting her with STDs you caught off another woman is breach of contract, but cheating as a man is not. And of course a contract is only valid if both parties enter it freely and with full understanding, so arranged marriage actually is slavery.

>>11176556
Then don't sign it. But society should shame you as a slut if you are sexually active.

>>11176528
seriously though if you read old freikorps personal journals they read like early 20th century versions of /r/incel shitposts. it's fascinating.

>>11176570

Peterson is good, I didn't dig a lot so I don't know how you could.

I don't like his idea of relationship and mariage, for me monogamy is just a theist thing, mariage was a financial and political contract, when people started to marry for "love" that's where it became retarded.

I also don't really like how, like many Americans, he considers campus SJWs as being the prequel to a marxist dictatorship, spend all his energy on fighting them. But main while Trump voters, who are at least equally worst get a " we should listen to them " free pass. To me they are both cancerous, and he has a strong bias here, you decide either to fight both or to listen to both, but you don't get to call one an absolute cancer and take the other in pity.

>>11176536
I'll just point out that marriage exists in societies where women are not treated as property. In fact, it exists in societies that are fairly close to 'matriarchy'. In fact, men end up being treated as property to a degree too. That said, reduction in divorce rights, the enforcing of gender roles (man as provider, etc.), and the resultant financial and social pressure for women to not develop skills is an inevitable result of a nuclear family-based model in which life-long marriage is held to an extremely high regard.

That said this is purely an anthropological point. If we're talking stuff relevant to JP, which is western social structures and culture, then yes enforcing marriage is more-or-less restricting women to be dependent on men.

>>11176556
Great. Be free among your cats.
>>11176562
Yes. Since women are the gatekeepers of sex they have a greater responsibility to avoid it. It isn't "equal" but any serious social attempt to reduce fornication/adultery cannot succeed if it does not stress women's responsibility in this matter. Trying to get unmarried men to avoid fornication is like urging water to avoid being wet. That isn't to say that they are absolved of responsibility, just that it isn't practical.

>>11176529
His "basic academic understanding" of Foucault, Derrida, et al. come from that shitty Stephen Hicks book, my dude

>>11176565
i am not saying anything beyond legalize polygamy and put incels in camps, it's the most humane solution

>>11176579

Sage

>>11176581
Women actually hate incels more than the Nazis ever hated Jews.

>>11176481
yes

>>11176580
the guy whose fave books are 1984 and gulag archipelago thinks that art with politics inserted into it is worthless
he's an extremely dumb person
the stupid man's intellectual

>>11176577
>then yes enforcing marriage is more-or-less restricting women to be dependent on men.
Women are still dependent on men. If men disappeared women (assuming they could reproduce) couldn't maintain the standards of living they have now.

>>11176570
>The woman trades exclusive rights to have sex with her for wealth and security.
And why do women need wealth if they can support themselves? Are you implicitly saying that women should not work?

>but cheating as a man is not
Why not? Are you advocating for a type of marriage in which men are allowed to sleep around?

> Cheating as a woman is breach of contract.
Oh I totally agree. I don't think anyone is ever advocating for cheating being good. Enforcing fidelity within marriage is fine, and imho should happen more. But not everyone wants an arrangement like what you've suggested, where the woman is dependent. Some want an equal sharing of their resources.

DESU I'd agree with you if what you were proposing is a contract people could sign which allowed one party (the man) to have fidelity enforced on the other, etc. Sure, there's nothing wrong with that if that's what people want. But to imply that ALL marriages have to be like that is ridiculous. Sure, allow for your contract but don't expect any women who are independent to want to have part in it.

> But society should shame you as a slut if you are sexually active.
And why is that?

>>11176595

>>11176582
>>11176575
>>11176548

>>11176601
He's not wrong. Both the jobs that actually produce wealth and the jobs required to maintain society working are insanely male dominated and are pretty tough.

>>11176579
>any serious social attempt to reduce fornication/adultery cannot succeed if it does not stress women's responsibility in this matter.
I agree, but men's involvement is just as serious. You seem to think that men are inherently incapable of controlling themselves. Men going after sluts is what ends up with women thinking being a slut is a good thing. What's not practical about enforcing it for men that's different about enforcing it for women?

Also, why is fornication required to be reduced? I personally think it does, but I don't come from a western country. In the west, I think there is no way the culture would allow a reduction in pre-marital sex.

>>11176599
Not that anon, but
>society should shame you as a slut if you are sexually active
>why is that
basically, this.

>>11176481
you know better than to ask that about a debate. They simply serve confirmation bias for the vast majority.

>>11176606
that only applies to productive men though, you can get rid of incels without much negative effect

>>11176603

>>11176599
>Are you implicitly saying that women should not work?
No if they marry. How will they look after the children properly?
>Are you advocating for a type of marriage in which men are allowed to sleep around?
They should be shamed for it just like sluts, because it is slut-enabling. But it is not breach of contract, because the man is not trading sexual exclusivity (he does not need to because he does not get pregnant).
>And why is that?
Because sluts reduce the incentive to marry, which reduces the economic output of beta males.

>>11176611
Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Am I the only one who doesn't have strong feelings towards this guy? People either seem to shit on him or absolutely love him. What's the deal?

>>11176491
I kinda listened Jordan Peterson, but even that guy's argument doesn't appeal too much when it comes to JP talking about religion. when he says about religion, It feels like he suddenly become postmodernist or something. very confusingly, and interestingly, become vague as possible on those terms. this right now is off-topic, but I think I should talk this particular one

>>11176595
I agree that most of them are. But there are many who aren't, and there's a ton of dual-earning, highly-educated couples. In fact it's extremely frequent in the highest educated sectors like academia. To say that women NEED to be dependent on men (anthropologically this is enforcing a 'virifocal family structure') would be restricting the lives of those women who do choose to develop skills and earn.

actually now I see I was unfair by posting humanoid robots, for the emotional cripples that congregate in this thread crying about women these kinds of robots are more appropriate

>>11176615

>>11176615
People love to hate and they love to be "part" of something.

I disagree with him on some things and agree with him on other things. it is what it do

>>11176590
seriously? he said his favorite literature is 1984?

>>11176613
>No if they marry
this will just greatly reduce the working population and give young womemes less incentives to marry in the first place
you people are so fucking retarded no wonder no one takes you seriously

>>11176609
Oh I totally agree that it makes relationships worse due to a reduction of pair bonding.

>>11176613
>How will they look after the children properly?
Look, if one person stays home that's fine. But you can raise kids just fine with two people working, and there's nothing wrong with the father being the one raising the kids if the mother is capable of earning more.

> But it is not breach of contract
It is, if the contract is to be monogamous. You obviously have no idea about how people feel when in relationships, jealousy is a thing, just like pair bonding. Promiscuous men also reduce happiness of marriages. It's not just about parentage. And if the issue is really all about being cuckolded, maybe we can just have government-mandated genetic tests or something. Even that would be better than a system where women are confined to monogamy but men are not. Remember, women's sexual strategy isn't monogamous either - it's not in their interest to be monogamous just as it's not in men's interest - fully.

> Because sluts reduce the incentive to marry
fair enough, I agree. but I still don't think that's going to change since both western men and women are incredibly promiscuous.

>>11176626
>implying the average woman contributes anything valuable at work

>>11176625
https://jordanbpeterson.com/books/book-list/

>>11176616
>It feels like he suddenly become postmodernism
His argument in favor of religion is very similiar to Vattimo's "believing in believing". They arrive at it by two different paths, JBP by Jung and Vattimo's by Heidegger, Gadamer and a little bit of Nietzsche but the conclusion aren't very different.

>>11176607
>What's not practical about enforcing it for men that's different about enforcing it for women
the instinctive response to sex, for a man, is "yes". in 99.9% of cases. There isn't really much of a "no" mechanism, instinctively speaking. Women already have a "no" mechanism. An individual woman would prefer not to sleep with the majority of men already, the trick is just to get her to not sleep with the rest.

>>11176617
>In fact it's extremely frequent in the highest educated sectors like academia
I value academia but most academics, particularly in the humanities, are some of the most dependent people in the world. But, yeah, I get what you're saying, but women are dependent of men as a whole much more than men are dependent on woman regardless. Winning big money doesn't mean you're actually creating that wealth.

>>11176625
https://jordanbpeterson.com/books/great-books/

Longer list

>>11176630
>But you can raise kids just fine with two people working, and there's nothing wrong with the father being the one raising the kids if the mother is capable of earning more.
there are so many wrong liberal assumptions packed into there i don't even know where to start

just because something is theoretically possible it doesn't mean it will work out properly in real life, and when trends get generalized they start causing big societal breaches

>>11176631
yes they do or they wouldn't be hired in the first place
how do you plan on filling the gap left by married womemes who are suddenly obliged to sit on their asses at home all day? by giving their jobs to genetically engineered catgirls?

>>11176613
>No if they marry.
Why would a woman who can earn for herself ever sign up for such a deal? You're clearly so bitter and angry about women that you can't see them as humans who you'd want to have a relationship with. Ironically, that's the benefit of monogamy. By your logic actually men should have as many wives as they can support, because if the only point is women being paid to be baby-making/child-raising machines in return for resources, why not distribute women according to wealth?

>>11176645
They're hired because of social connections and quotas, not because they're good at the job.

>>11176649
ok dude I don't know what to tell you good look with causing another economic crisis I guess

>>11176636
For what purpose?

>>11176637
>Women already have a "no" mechanism
You have been lied. If you get a woman aroused enough she will lose her mind and fuck you regardless the consequences unless his SO can get her aroused to that point as well immunizing her to other men.
t. serial fucker of married women

>>11176648
>Why would a woman who can earn for herself ever sign up for such a deal?
Because she doesn't have to work, and she can spend all her time producing the highest quality children possible.
>By your logic actually men should have as many wives as they can support
No, because that makes it impossible for other men to marry, which is even worse than women being sluts, because then there's not even hope of sex to encourage men to work.

>>11176655
don't know don't care
it depicts an r9k denizen in his usual surroundings

>>11176661
>If you get a woman aroused enough she will lose her mind and fuck you regardless the consequences
This is impossible for 80% of men regardless of what PUA tricks they attempt.

>>11176664
They literally refer to themselves as robots.

>>11176664
kek

>>11176638
> women are dependent of men as a whole much more than men are dependent on woman regardless.
I agree, but that doesn't mean they should be forced into relationships. Most women who can't earn end up leeching onto some man who does have resources anyways. I do think that such men should be given consideration more. But to assume that all women want/should be totally dependent is dumb.

>>11176644
Not a liberal, I'm a traditionalist, just not a westerner. I didn't say that this works for most couples - in fact most women are not capable of supporting a family. But if a woman works (say earns, 60% of her husband's wealth), she shouldn't be confined to just domestic duties - these can be split by the couple depending on how they see it. If a woman doesn't work at all I agree, she should be doing her duty.

But I don't see how it's wrong to say that men can participate in child rearing (as dual-income families do), or even take over much of the work if he earns less.

GOOD BOY

>>11176653
not him, but civilization managed to get by without mobilizing a significant portion of the female population into the workforce for millennia. We'll be fine without you. Ultimately the mobilization of women into the workforce hasn't actually increased the earning capability of households, instead women are driving men's wages down, which means that wives can't rely on their husbands so they have to work.

But grrl power and "i dont need no man" amirite?

>>11176663
>and she can spend all her time producing the highest quality children possible.
I hope you realize how batshit you sound to mentally sound people.

>>11176114
>if people think that culture influences them, no one will advocate for universal healthcare anymore
Conservatives really are this stupid.

>>11176670
why do you think I've posted a dozen images of robots :D

>>11176661
unironically you should be murdered

>>11176661
you're talking about "overriding" this defense mechanism, you aren't saying that it doesn't exist.

>>11176674
>but that doesn't mean they should be forced into relationships
I agree. I just thing most governments in the West go way out of their way to facilitate things for women and make sure they never are in need of a man. These things should be worked out between individuals. Women should be given a fair chance and even perhaps some benefit here and there but that's it.

>>11176678
"progressivism" in this context isn't "free shit" but rather "BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE BIGOT" and "what do you mean it's wrong to give children gender reassignment surgery"

>>11176663
>No, because that makes it impossible for other men to marry
They will be incentivized to work because otherwise they just won't get to breed. What's wrong with that? It's how much of the world worked in the past.

>Because she doesn't have to work
Many women want to work though, you are saying it like working is a bad thing. Having your own finances and ability to support yourself is a huge benefit to women, because otherwise there is no ability to leave your husband even if he is abusive etc. And even otherwise, it allows women to actually have a say in their relationships, which many prefer.

>she can spend all her time producing the highest quality children possible.
Is that what all women want to do? First, we don't need an extremely high fertility rate, in fact having tons of kids is a big problem especially for educated families due to the costs involved. If you just have 2 kids, a woman can go back to work after a few years even if she stays at home otherwise. Even then, there's no reason dual parenting doesn't work.

>>11176679
You're trying to offend people by applying a label that they already apply to themselves.

>>11175534
the whole notion of incels is bullshit

>>11176694
it's always easier to call yourself a piece of shit than to actually hear it from someone else
lesson 1 in human studies, mr roboto

>>11176691
the first is simply a consequence of living in a society that's not made of facsimiles, you'll have to accomodate people you don't like
the second is a lie, of course, kids don't get GRS

>>11176693
>They will be incentivized to work because otherwise they just won't get to breed. What's wrong with that?
Because most will rationally decide their chances of winning are low enough that porn and video games are a better option.
>It's how much of the world worked in the past.
Civilization never succeeds without monogamy.
>no ability to leave your husband even if he is abusive
Wife abuse is breach of contract.

>>11176666
Probably less but I honestly think like at least 40% could pull it off if they worked on themselves. Maybe more. If a girl feels attracted enough to want to fuck you you can take that very further.
>>11176680
Don't be mean, man. I'm just sharing my experience to help.
>>11176684
That may be true, but if you want to keep your wife you should know how to do it. It should be one of the duties of a husband.

>>11175640
you have no clue. russia and china will sice official control over the usa. then this stupid allure to an utopical capitalist society will fade away and a new culture will emerge with chinese and russian-european ideals. so don't worry and don't fight it, just go with the flow.

>>11176699
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/
https://au.news.yahoo.com/child-4-in-sex-change-bid-as-government-reveals-hundreds-of-kids-seeking-gender-reassignment-32501729.html#page1
>the first is just a consequence of living in a progressive society
exactly
>the second is a lie, of course
SJWs always lie

>>11176690
>I just thing most governments in the West go way out of their way to facilitate things for women and make sure they never are in need of a man
The logic afaik is that the current culture still has women preferring to latch onto rich men and not develop skills themselves. In a more egalitarian (assuming monogamy) society, men themselves should be more selective about their women, which would actually encourage them to develop value. I don't like the idea of giving anybody free stuff, but if the idea is that in a generation or two things will even out, then there's some merit to encouraging women to be more inexpedient. The issue is, the way it's being done is often wrong - giving homeless people stuff doesn't get them off their asses. But yeah I think we're in agreement here - I also think the western feminist agenda is deeply flawed and myopic, and often caters to exactly the wrong type of woman.

>>11176676
>civilization managed to get by without mobilizing a significant portion of the female population into the workforce for millennia
Great fucking non argument there you mongoloid, we also managed do get by without the internet since the beginning of times, that doesn't mean that suddenly taking away the internet won't cause any issue because conditions vary and societal changes are almost always strictly interlinked with economic changes.
>We'll be fine without you
I'm not a woman you sperg
>instead women are driving men's wages down
The issue isn't this simple and you need to stop getting your economic facts from /pol9k/. You're assuming a superfixed model in which the demand for jobs is never increasing and the so by increasing the supply you're decreasing the median wage whereas in reality more womemes in the workplace is almost always a function of increased demand.
>But grrl power and "i dont need no man" amirite?
Epin meme you said amirite at the end this means you're a true intellectual and indipendent thinker

>>11176707
>Don't be mean
I'm not being mean. You're a self described "serial fucker of married women". You should be put to death (as should any serial adulteress).

>>11176712
>SJWs always lie
nope, your own articles show you're a liar
you do remember we were talking about SURGERY do you?

>>11176703
>that porn and video games are a better option.
>Civilization never succeeds without monogamy.
Not really, men at the top were always allowed many women. As wealth is not as stratified today, we'd probably have most upper-class men with more than 1 wife in said system. Only the absolute lowest of society would end up without women, and that's a good thing for selection.

>Wife abuse is breach of contract.
You seem to be completely unaware of how easy it is to abuse a dependent. If someone is financially and socially incentivized to stay with you because they'd starve/die without you, they won't object to abuse nearly as much. Are you seriously under the impression that every woman would prefer to not work? In my experience it's really the lazy and low-quality ones who are like that.

>>11176714
you are not even ridiculous. you are just blunt and boring - and of course, stupid. don't speak about things you don't know anything, it is embarrassing

>>11176720
one thing you missed:
>women are driving men's wages down
the beauty of this braindead argument is that it really strips the incel/r9k crowd to its bare bones as petty hateful shits because their prime instinct isn't to band together and demand better working rights and wages
no, the first thing they can think of is forbidding access to work to a huge number of women who would without that job be effectively on the street (and presumably easier prey for them)
it really shows how behind these arguments there isn't an ounce of care for the issues they purport to talk about (wages etc) but only the wish to have a house slave with a pussy

>>11176714
Yeah, I mean I'm not even really that against governments helping women but they should at least accept they are being helped out and feel thankful for that. And I'm not some incel pretending everything about being a woman is nice. Many, most even, have to go through some shitty things. But why are they so fucking petty about their benefits? They act as if it were some divine right.

>>11176637
Not really, men are just socialized less than women, to be against being slutty. A woman if she thinks she can get away with it, will be promiscuous. And in a monogamous society it's the responsibility of both sexes to enforce monogamy for both the sexes. It's true that men are less picky, obviously, but exempting men from this is silly.

>>11176727
You're not being very kind, my friend. Chances are I haven't fucked your wife. There's no need to hate me.

>>11176729
>you do remember we were talking about SURGERY do you?
oh, so they just chemically castrate the kids, they don't actually cut their balls yet, that's so humane, go ahead then

>>11176746
nobody wants or needs monogamy. the romans addopted outstanding people as their suns as successors. you are just brainwasched by christian or jewish propaganda.

>>11176744
>They act as if it were some divine right.
Because traditionally, they are coddled and not told that they have flaws. Feminism gave women rights and the ability to work and that's good, but it didn't give them a sense of responsibility and social/civic sense that has traditionally come along with the power men had in society. I do think that feminism is a pretty broad term though. Not all of them are entitled SJWs, the ones who actually think a bit are very much aware of the realities of the situation. But many of them are basically selfish assholes just like the incels who want government mandated gfs - the point of 'feminism' for them is just getting more for their own selves, not actually encouraging a more fair society that works well.

>>11176729
My bad, you don't hack their dicks off, just pump them full of hormones during puberty. I thought you were doing something WRONG, my mistake.
>>11176720
I'm not economically literate enough to understand how it's possible that increasing the supply of labor *DOESN'T* decrease the price of labor. There's still a great deal of unemployment so I'm not buying this argument that demand necessitates/necessitated a 50% female workforce. I'm sure the fact that real gdp per capita hasn't increased since women were brought into the workforce en masse is totally unrelated.
>>11176748
Go fuck yourself.

>>11176752
I wasn't supporting monogamy. I was just stating that if monogamy was to be enforced, it's the duty of both genders.

>>11176749
>>11176758
the difference is one is reversible and the other is not

>>11176765
Right. Totally reversible. Flooding the body with hormones during your transformation into adulthood has no consequences.

>>11176741
this. it's literally the bitterness-driven near-solipsism you see from the SJWs, just reflected.

>>11176752
I would like to get a lovely wife to start a big family with at least five kids. Intimacy is the most wonderful feeling in the world and you can only get that through loyalty.
>>11176758
>Go fuck yourself.
Come on, man. I'm offering you my friendship. Be the better man and take it. Will you tell me you have never fucked a married woman?

>>11176741
Kek good catch

>>11176494
They maintain Christian moral axioms without any rational proof of them. In fact all axiomatic value judgments are irrational. You can't rationally establish that life is better than death, that pleasure is better than pain, that generosity is better than cruelty. Usually they try and use the greasiest good for the greatest number, but again, consensus is not rational proof.

They're laughable really. Despite being fervent anti Christians they are the last champion of the moral framework created by it. In that respect they're more akin to Christian heretics than actual atheists

>>11176770
ok doctor

>>11176776
> be a manwhore
> still want a big traditional family
Good luck with that.

>>11176778
>In fact all axiomatic value judgments are irrational
What if you take phenomenology as your axiom? Wouldn't that be rational?

>>11176741
>>11176773
Traditionally women lived with their parents until they got married, generally. All this talk about house-slaves and hatred and preying makes me think you two would be surprised to learn that women reported themselves as happier in the 50s than they do now. Look it up, it's no secret.

>>11176741
yea why don't we all just demand higher wages dude, we could all be millionaires.

>>11176631
OH NO NO NO
LOOKIT THIS DOOD

>>11176538
Women have for the most part replaced husbands with the state, which is also run by men. The notion that women now stand on their own two feet, equal in stature to men, is utterly ridiculous

>>11176784
I make my own luck and it's always good, but thank you.

>>11176786
>self-reported
and into the trash it goes

if you keep a man in the basement eating gruel for his whole life and then start feeding him cheetos he'll "self-report" that they're a culinary invention of divine taste
it doesn't make them fucking fine dining does it now

>>11176776
I have actually never fucked a married woman. I once turned down sex from a woman who was engaged. I'm not going to pretend that I'm your friend because I don't respect you. You probably never fucked my woman but hypothetically you would, or at least a hypothetical man like you would, and I would kill that man. You aren't a friend, you're an enemy. Your actions are evil and you should thank the heavens you haven't been struck down.

>>11176778
>You can't rationally establish that life is better than death, that pleasure is better than pain, that generosity is better than cruelty.

imagine being so alienated from yoursel lol

i have a suggestion: take a screwdriver and push it into your ear, hard. then think again if pain is good or bad. i guarantee to you, that you will instantly know the answer.

>>11176758
>I'm not economically literate enough to understand how it's possible that increasing the supply of labor *DOESN'T* decrease the price of labor.
I told you, increased womemes in the workplace is a function of increased worker demand. Women weren't "brought", they started working when
-ww2 caused a good portion of men in society to go to war
-technology made the figure of the stay at home mom increasingly less necessary. Before mass tech the housewife could not be done away with because being an housewife was the equivalent of a full time job. To give you an example, after WW2 both my greatgrandparents were poor as fuck (I'm Italian) and my greatgrandmother had the role of a full time farmer (she had to cultivate crops or they'd starve) plus that of a housewife which alone took the same effort of an actual job and she also took care of 10 kids in order to raise more money (my great-grandfather was instead a coal miner).

>>11176788
yes we could, by crushing the capitalists
if not millionaries with ski jets then at least normal people who aren't under debt and a sudden 500$ expense away from eating ramen and worrying about licing on the streets

>>11176741
Quality post

>>11176800
>implying any happiness measurement isn't self-reported

>>11176798
you are the result of at least two people. what you consume, what you eat what you wear is made by other people. your desires are intrinsically related to other people. the basic fact that you are able to speak and write is due to other people teaching you and due to a society that ensured the transmission of those skills. you can't make your luck on your own.

>>11176805
Higher wages encourage more women to work. More women working depresses wages.

>>11176765
Breast growth and possibly sterility are not reversible

>>11176786
Nobody ever said that today's women are happy, but to equate that with "they are unhappy because they are no longer housewives" is a fallacy. There's a lot of other social changes that happened, and happiness is based on many other things. Women had happier relationships in communist East Germany even though they were doing labor as well as raising children. It's not as simple as you make it.

>Traditionally women lived with their parents until they got married, generally.
Yes, and? The point is that allowing women to earn (not saying they have to be equal earners, but just the ability to) allows them to advocate for their rights and well-being, something that you can't trust her husband to always do for her. Let me flip it - and give a different example. In some matrilocal societies men would often end up unhappy and emotionally abused, and their wives would not be faithful - because the women controlled finances. It's pretty obvious that economic control gives rise to the potential for abuse. I'm not saying that we shouldn't trust people to be good, but the idea that women would be happier as housewives without the ability to earn and support themselves in case of emergency, or the ability to pursue their own interests, is ridiculous. Every human wants those basic freedoms.

>>11176812
>implying I consider happiness measurements important at all

>>11176812
Happiness measurements don't reflect as much as you might think.

>>11176818
I'm not as concerned about individual human freedoms as I am about familial and civilizational health.
>>11176805
5 real dollars of median wage growth? Holy shit! can we bump it up to 6 if we get the children working too?!

>>11175363
>le wise youtube advice man changed my life

>The only way I can get a GF is if women are forced to fuck me, now let me tell you why Western society is in the shitter.

>>11176838
see
>>11176603

>>11176814
Wrong.
>>11176831
Irrelevant. The point was to demonstrate that there's neither correlation nor causation between womemes in the workplace and lower wages.

>>11176831
>familial and civilizational health.
And do you think that civilizations where women have little to no social power and financial freedom are better? Besides, the whole idea of forcing people to adhere to a social structure because it's deemed better for society as a whole is unlikely to catch on and be satisfying for many.

>>11176803
You're right. We are not friends. I'm just jesting. But if you ever knew me I'm pretty sure you would come to like me. My qualities make up for my defects.
>>11176813
I have to agree with all of those things and yet being someone who started with such a bad hand I have to think some of the merit must be mine.

>>11176804
Give me some rational reasons why you shouldn't kill yourself.

>>11176831
>5 real dollars of median wage growth?
It's proof that you were wrong.

>>11176798
>>11176851
This routine is top cringe online.

>>11176862
>le cringe man

>>11176840
It actually does demonstrate the correlation. 5$ median wage growth over 30 years is basically no wage growth at all. At all. For 30 years.
Let me put it to you this way. Demand and supply of labor were in equilibrium for 30 years, roughly, right? Because the wages stayed about the same. That means that if there had been a reduced supply of labor, the price would have gone up, right?
>>11176851
>My qualities make up for my defects
I'll let God sort those out.
>>11176849
>do you think they are better
I think that they survive, whereas this civilization is actively attempting to replace its own native population.

>>11176785
Yeah, but not in the way new atheist mean when they use the word rational.

>>11176866
nice retort

>>11176831
The causation is backwards. Places with high demand for labor will see wage increases. This will obviously increase the female work force participation. If they didn't join then the wages would be even higher.

>>11176877
>If they didn't join then the wages would be even higher
That's been exactly my point all along.

>>11176867
>this civilization is actively attempting to replace its own native population.
How so? I think not having a high fertility rate is not so bad, educated people in any place prefer less kids. And there's no reason to think that women having less rights and freedom results in happier marriages, better kids (more kids tho is true), etc. And the disregard for the happiness or desires of the individuals is pretty hilarious coming from a westerner.

>le women are driving down wages meme
specific examples of this in action please.

>MOst active thread on /lit/ in ages
>Peterson thread
*sigh*

>>11176883
i agree, having no regard for posterity is ok as long as you don't expect posterity to have any regard for you

the problem comes when you expect to import people from traditional societies and brainwash them into carrying your intellectual legacy instead of doing their own thing by their own values

>>11176883
>How so?

>>11176886
come on, enforced monogamy lunatic threads are fun regardless of peterson

>>11176856
see
>>11176867

>>11176883
Not the anon you're talking to but I think maybe we have made a serious mistake in believing so naively in the merits of our educational system without considering if the ideology behind it could be detrimental or not.
>educated people in any place prefer less kids
You see these kind of correlations all the times and we assume whatever the educated people do must be good but what if we fucked up and alongside the facts and skills and all of those things we're teaching something destructive that's not innate to education in itself but we can't see it because we're blinded by all the wealth we're creating?

>>11176897
but not on /lit/

>>11176838
Sexual liberation means that sex is distributed to men by the Pareto principle. This type of inequality is insanely dangerous, even more so than financial inequality. People can get by with little money, but no sex? That will drive men to start shooting holes through your civilization, often quite literally. As long as there's enough residual money that they can buy flashlights and videogames the betas will keep quiet, but if the economy shits itself there will definitely be an uprising. All sorts of fringe political groups will be stuffed full of Elliot Rodgers whose main goal is vengeance. Islamists often fit the type, especially the European ones.

>>11176908
where else? there's nowhere else to go

>>11176867
>It actually does demonstrate the correlation. 5$ median wage growth over 30 years is basically no wage growth at all.
Dude, look at the fucking graph, more women in the workplace means slightly higher wage growth, how is that not a fucking proof idk
And wages not going up is a function of first world countries reaching advanced states of economic development (exacerbated by economic depression caused by dumbass american policies, but that's another argument).
That there is no correlation between womemes in the workplace and negative wage growth can also be demonstrated by looking at some historical examples like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_economic_miracle during which womemes I the workplace went up to 30% (if I recall correctly, haven't looked up the relevant literature in years) and post Berlin Wall fall Germany which experienced a strong growth at the same time that womemes were entering more in the labor force.
>That means that if there had been a reduced supply of labor, the price would have gone up, right?
I don't know how to tell you this senpai, once again you're working with a superfixed model in which job demand is fixated whereas I already explained you that more women in the workplace is a function of more jobs being in the demand.

>>11176883
>>11176904
>>educated people in any place prefer less kids
this should read people educated in the liberal dogma, not educated in general

>>11176892
>>11176894
>when you expect to import people from traditional societies
If you're referring to immigration by people that don't share western values, I agree, it's idiotic.

>>11176904
It's true not just in the west, but almost everywhere, even in non-westernized areas. I agree that education plays a role in promoting bad aspects of culture, but in this case I think it's reasonable to say that for urban, educated people there's really no reason to have many children. It's harder to get them all to be extremely successful, and that's what you really want.

The issue of course is immigration from people that have tons of kids and take advantage of said system.

>>11176910
/pol/, unironically.

>>11176910
>Everything else has been turned to shit by this so might as well turn the last clean palces to shit as well LUL

>>11176912
>you see comrade, when supply increases it does not decrease price because the increased supply causes increased demand due to glorious progressive policies

>>11176918
>If you're referring to immigration by people that don't share western values, I agree, it's idiotic.
you can't ideologically choose who you import, if you open the doors you should be aware and accept the consequences be what it may

>>11176918
I'm referring to the replacement of the native population. It isn't about who it is "by" or who it is "for", it is happening.

>>11176918
>It's harder to get them all to be extremely successful, and that's what you really want.
But this is part of the same mentality that got us here in the first place. You can't just nitpick the things you like about something because the mindset behind it never stops pushing.

>>11176928
>>11176929
You can always severely limit immigration all together. That's not only a good idea imho, but far more reasonable than trying to re-organize social structure in the west.

>>11176918
>non-westernized areas
Is the "education" you're referring to in this areas, bychance, "Western" education?

>>11176918
we have decided as a society that applying any sort of criteria to migrants is racist and should not be tolerated, there's break in the train of progress, and we will have to go through it to the end and see what happens

>>11176924
>ur wrong lol
cool, explain to me this graph then oh wise economic sage >>11176805
according to you the median should go down instead of going up

>>11176935
not possible now that we have decided that borders are racist and literally equivalent to mass murder, now there's no going back but to accelerate and go through with it

>>11176936
Why would it be?

I'm not saying that it's to have zero kids or remain single like many westerners do, but rather not to have huge families. There's nothing western about that idea, traditionalists do it too.

>MRW this thread

>>11176941
>>11176937
Well that's fucking dumb. At least one can enforce the western culture on them, hopefully.

>>11176933
What's being nitpicked here? Sorry. I don't think it's some cultural mentality that causes the highly educated to have less children, it's more to do with economics and common sense for urban people. And I still don't see the utility of having a large number of kids. I'm from a rural place with huge families, and really it's mostly about having labor and it doesn't result in happier or better life in really any way, especially considering children can socialize just fine in urban places with other families' children.

>>11176956
>At least one can enforce the western culture on them, hopefully
good luck doing that while upholding liberal values, there's literally no way to do it, we had many "model" countries of integration or multiculturalism, france, germany, sweden, the uk. they aren't used as models anymore for some reason, i wonder why

>>11176939
I'll explain the graph for you.
>Women who get educations are more likely to work
>Cities with more educated people have more economic growth
>Cities with higher female labor force participation have more economic growth
Now for the last time I'm going to try to drill home the actual point that you should take away from this graph.
Real wages effectively did not change for 30 years. The range of most of the data on the chart is between -3$ and +4$. That's a whole lot of fucking nothing. Now I'm gonna give you a heretical capitalist economic education real quick:

increase supply => price go down
increase demand => price go up

You still with me? Alright, from this, using capitalist voodoo magic where we perform a seance with Adam Smith we can reach the following conclusion:
price stay same = supply/demand stay same
in other words
supply go up + demand go up
supply go down + demand go down
Now compare the points on this provided chart in 1980 and 2010:
As you'll notice, there is a higher labor force participation rate for women in 2010 than in 1980, and a higher cumulative labor force participation rate. AKA, supply went up.
So remember our lesson:
Supply went up + ________ = wages stayed the same
Demand went up. That's right.
Now since we know that demand went up, what would have happened in supply had stayed the same?

I'll let you contemplate that for a while. Do get back to me. Remember kids, Adam Smith is just a seance away.

>>11176969
> there's literally no way to do it
Can you explain why? I'm not debating you here, I'm curious why you think that. Is it because the previous precedent was too lenient on them?

>>11176956
>I don't think it's some cultural mentality that causes the highly educated to have less children
I think it does and it has to do with consumerism. The city exists not to make us happy but because it's efficient. No one dreams with retiring to the city once they get older and finally feel they deserve some peace and no one think paradise is a gigantic building filled with malls and night clubs. What the city does to allure us is to hook us into never ending forms of instant pleasure. We're junkies. Tourists always looking for something new and exotic and incapable of developing intimacy with anything because that requires a type of devotion we don't have time for anymore. It's a dehumanizing way of living and we end up adapting the same efficient, utilitarian mindset the city needs to survive, which means less children.

>>11176991
because people are more than warm bodies to move around and the sizes of population that are being moved will take hundreds of years to integrate in any meaningful sense, the ethnic makeup of the UK has changed faster in the last 50 years than in the previous 1000

even integrate is not a good word here, either there will be some sort of synthesis that will form a new culture, or the host culture will impose itself, or the guest culture will impose itself, or ethnic lines will reassert themselves and we will end up like Lebanon with a Muslim Party and a "Christian" Party, each one pushing their own interests

>>11176986
>People finally realizing that most work is modern slavery and that they can live without.
That's what I see and shold be celebrated.
One day the capitalist, communist or w/e systems will all colapse under the enw reform that work is not the thing everybody strives to have.
YOU ARE LIVING IN THE PREVIOUS MILLENIA;, GRANDPA!!!! TIME TO MOVE TO THE ENXT ONE!!!!

>>11177009
>communist system will colapse
GO TO GULAG XDDDDDD

>>11177014
THE WORK- OR LABORCENTRIC SYSTEM WILL COLLAPSE!!!!!
>19th century mindsets in the 21st
hurr durr

>>11177003
I agree that part of it is consumerism and modern lifestyle, but I don't think that's all of it. I agree that consumerism has destroyed family-focused mentalities, etc. However I don't think the latter is to be equated with having more children - that's a very biased view. You can have an intimate, loving family with just a couple of children, and you make sure to emphasize extended family connections, etc.

And you are thinking of cities as places of entertainment but this phenomenon is true even 80 years ago in developing countries. People went there for jobs and had less kids because of economic reasons is all.

>>11177003
Heidegger, go to your grave. You're dead.

>>11177006
That makes sense, I buy it. You can't really force culture on people so easily. Why Europeans support so much immigration is beyond me. Both conservatives and liberals should be against it.

After the NYT article, is he finished /lit/?

>>11176986
>Again with this fucking superfixed model
You clearly have never studied economics past Smith and Ricardo because you sound like a huge retard. Stagnating wages is a product of western countries reaching advanced stages of economic development, not of fucking women entering the workplace.
You seem to believe that there are somehow magically a fixed number of jobs, and that due to women entering the workplace, this doubled the supply of labor which caused all wages to perfectly halve across the board. Zero women were entrepreneurs. The solution to stagnating wages is to ban all women from the workplace because according to you logic, this would halve the labor supply and "therefore" double wages. You presumably believes that aggregate demand and the number of jobs are immutable and eternal and would not be affected by banning an entire gender from work.

>>11177031
yes, enforced gfs is too crazy even for peterson sycophants, there's no going back now

>>11176986
Dunning-Kruger: the post

>>11177031
>>11177047
lol no, people are in too deep
and I'm not talking about the cultists on r/jbp or the incels, but about the normies
they'll read something like that and say he's been misconstrued
he's very careful with his words, motte-and-bailey is his bread and butter after all

>>11177045
>again with this fucking superfixed model
nothing about the model I've described is fixed in any sense. The demand CHANGED, the supply CHANGED, their relationship determines the price. This isn't a matter of disagreement, this is actual economics 101 shit. You actually seem unable to grasp the relationship between supply and demand.
>You seem to believe that there are somehow magically a fixed number of jobs
No, the number of jobs increased, which is also encapsulated by the statement "demand for labor".
>stagnating wages is a product of western countries reaching advanced stages of economic development
in other words, "I don't have an argument but what you're saying doesn't fit my ideology so I'll just restate the party line"

You still haven't answered the question. I will ask you again, answer it this time.
If the price stayed the same but the supply increased, the demand increased. This is not debatable.
What would have happened if the demand increased in the same way but the supply did not increase?

>>11177068
>motte-and-bailey is his bread and butter after all
Pretty accurate. It's honestly a pretty smart tactic in his position. The normies can't pick that out if their life depended on it.

>>11177068
i guess if you watch too many Peterson DISEMBOWELS crippled feminist videos there's no going back

>>11177022
>You can have an intimate, loving family with just a couple of children
I mean yes you can but if you're focused on intimacy and family then having a child is like winning the lottery. Why would you want to win it just a couple of times?

The best part is finding out he has a house full of Soviet art to remind himself of the horrors of communism. Dreary is the only word to describe him. Gray both inside and out.

>>11176185
please. PLEASE. please, be trolling. if so, i totally get what you're doing since i know so many post-modernism influenced SJWs that go full relativistic to justify breaking down "patriarchy and the man", all while working as waitresses at their local vegan(TM) café.

truly saddening

>>11177084
>Why would you want to win it just a couple of times?
For some people that's good, not for others. There can be many reasons, and personal preference is a big one. Too many children can also result in less time to be with them, especially while working (and even if only the father works, having time with the father is very important too). I'm not at all saying that large families are worse, but rather that they aren't necessarily better.

>>11177060

>>11176814
>the lump of labor fallacy
its literally econ 101.
labor is not a zero sum game, my dude

>>11177075
>This isn't a matter of disagreement
You're fucking retarded and you haven't studied economics 101. The fact that you even consider this scenario
>What would have happened if the demand increased in the same way but the supply did not increase?
Is why I believe you think in fixed terms. You believe that if women didn't enter the workplace the demand would have increased in the same way.
Now, for the ACTUAL economics 101

Let's use a standard model to think about this - the Cobb Douglas Production Function, which says

Y=K^a L ^(1-a)
where:
Y = GDP (or total production)
K = Capital (ie, machines, land, etc)
L = Labor
a = some number between 0 and 1. The standard number that shakes out empirical is around 0.4.

Let's use a =0.5 so the math is a bit easier (we can talk about square roots). And just to make things a bit more concrete, let's say that the economy starts out with 10 "units" of capital and 10 units of labor (if you like, imagine 10 people farming with 10 plows).

Y=sqrt(10)*sqrt(10) = 10
Cobb-Douglas is nice because it builds in an important concept: diminishing returns. ie, you don't want a lot more plows than people. If you have 11 plows and ten people, that helps you a little bit (if a plow breaks, you have a spare ready to go while the other is repaired). Similarly, having 11 people and 10 plows only helps a little bit (they can take turns and are a bit better rested).

We'll be using the standard, perfect competition model of labor markets. An outcome of such a market is that people are paid their marginal product.
Our starting economy has

Y=K^(1/2)L^(1/2)

Y=sqrt(10)*sqrt(10) = 10
the new, women less economy is has a GDP of:

Y=sqrt(10)*sqrt(5) = 7.07.
In other words, taking out 50% of the labor force means - surprises! - the economy decreases in size. It doesn't decrease by 50% because we are now making more efficient use of capital, but 30% is still quite a lot!
For the wages part, remember that wages are the marginal product of labor. Start with our GDP equation:

Y=K^(1/2)L^(1/2)
and take the derivative:

dY/dL = (1/2) K^(1/2) * L^(-1/2)
Plug in our numbers for the original economy:

dY/dL = (1/2) 10^(1/2) * 10^(-1/2)

dY/dL = 0.5
And you get 0.5 (this should make logical sense = there are 10 units of economy, 10 units of capital and 10 units of labor. Since labor and capital are equally productive in this model, they are all getting 0.5, 1/20th of GDP).

What happens when we double the labor supply?

dY/dL = (1/2) 10^(1/2) * 20^(-1/2)

dY/dL = 0.35

Nananaaa!

Your model is just Y = W * L with wages being GDP and labor invariant.

>>11177152
You have argued very effectively against a claim I didn't make. If I had said that women entering the workforce is bad for the economy as a whole, or that it was irrelevant to the GDP, I would be so btfo right now. But that was never the claim. The claim is that when women entered the workforce they brought down the wages of men, and that male wages would be higher if women hadn't entered the workforce. Now that's some very nice math you've got there, but I can't help but notice that
0.5 > 0.35

>>11177121
And your pic is another example of a brainlet, what a surprise.

>>11177142
>labor is not a zero sum game, my dude
I never said it was. It doesn't need to be for men to be harmed by women entering the workforce.

>>11177182
>when you can't win an argument so you just call them a brainlet

>>11177193
I didn't start an argument.

>>11177190
I liked the part where the guy whipped out his "sufficiently complex" economic model to prove that we're right lmao

>>11177197
Exactly.

>>11177190
Society isn't men v women. Both are needed for a family. What is harmed by women working, is the family structure where the man works and the woman does not. No wonder that it's less common now. It's not "men" being harmed though.

>>11177204
>It's not "men" being harmed though
True, it's men's wages, as was kindly proven by this poster. This directly harms women because their providers cannot earn as much money for them or their offspring.
>>11177152

>>11177208
I'm not the person talking about econ. And it doesn't harm women unless you assume said family structure, which is not a valid assumption. In fact it can be argued to help women on many levels.

What it does, is harm the men and women who want a one-earner home but are not able to support it.

>>11177173
Mate, did you miss the part where I told you that wages are GDP dependant and with removing women out of the workplace you decrease GDP of 30%. The second part is just to illustrate what happens if you increase the workforce without increasing the GDP. My God you people really can't read

>>11177226
*without increasing GDP and Capital

>>11177226
So we should be comparing 0.5 with 0.35*(10/7.07) = 0.495?

>>11177226
wages don't actually grow proportional to the GDP in the real world though. Economic growth has occurred at the top for the past few decades, with America at least.

>>11177269
That's a separate problem really, and not much of an argument that it "hurts men".

>>11177258
Yes, but with a=0.4 you get 0.5305; a slight gain for men's wages, proportionally.

>>11177198
Read it again.

>>11177284
Given that GDP growth hasn't increased the QoL for people of the lower economic classes I don't see any reason to believe that the "GDP benefit" of women entering the workforce will help men's wages at all. It's counter-intuitive. Besides, how many men are unemployed because women are doing the jobs they would be doing otherwise? With unemployment rates as high as they are there's no shortage of labor.

>>11177310
> muh intuition
Yes you are right that for the lower classes things are worse, but they are worse just in general, not because women are in the workforce. The GDP growth as well as wage trajectory is not just due to women entering the workplace and there's no reason to think that if they had stayed at home, things would be any better. In fact, having single-earning families when times are rough is worse for the low earners, since they may not even be able to afford basics and education for the kids.

Remember also, that the high-earning men are doing just fine, perhaps better, due to all this.

>>11175667
Damn, first time I've ever seen this book mentioned on lit. You ever seen that one video where JBP is exasperated bc he can't figure out why women don't read him?

>>11176609
>hapiness