If you're hung up on the word "policy", substitute it for community practice, then. Or common law. Or manners. What I'm saying is that he always dances around expressing in concrete terms what he wants to see happen.
And I'm not saying he's right! The point you seem to be missing is that the desperation of teenage "incels" is caused not just by their own situation, but what they see (erroneously, I believe) as their hopeless prospects.
-
-
Telling a misfit youth that he should be building his life towards becoming a husband and father is rather different from telling him if he isn't getting sex at 17 he's a failure. But it does depend on marriage and family as a norm.
-
as you noted how things were "up to the 70s", one could say that norm changed as women became more financially and legally empowered to leave undesirable and dangerous marriages. And that's where the subtext of Peterson's innocent shrugging starts rising to the surface.
-
Yes! Now you're making reasonable criticism. I think he thinks that a moral consensus against casual sex would be enough, but I suspect (like you?) that economic and legal equality for women makes that impossible. That's the real argument here.
-
But see how far we are from the original disagreement. "Dating advice for men... you deserve sex for existing".
-
But that is still something incels do earnestly claim, and insofar as it relates to the Peterson profile, he was flirting with their grievances being valid, before smugly clarifying that actually he wasn't saying anything.
-
In any case, I am sleeping now. Thanks for the chat.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.