You know Peterson is advocating enforced monogamy now, right? I think somewhere in there he even threw in that word you used, 'proscribed' , which may be where you got that confusion if you've been listening to his blathering.
Peterson is no better than Tate, IMHO, he just dresses better and isn't as bawdy in his presentation.
Not sure about Simon. I admit, I thought he wasn't at first, but he's written some articles recently that has me questioning that assessment.
All men have bias against women. In fairness, so do all women, both against themselves and against men. Men have bias against themselves too. You can't live and have been socialized within a structure that depends upon bias for it's divisions and think you're exempt from them. That's ludicrous.
Best you can do is make a commitment to identify them, challenge them, root them out of yourself, and do your level best to not pass them forward. And fight for political change.
For me, this is what feminism is about.
I think I've been more successful than not. My Urchling is 19 now and she doesn't hate her body. You can't comprehend, but I marvel at that. It's almost universally unheard of amongst my age cohort.
Simon seems to think the purpose of feminism is to get men laid or it's not "really" inclusive. This is his attempt to fix our "PR" problem. That seems somewhat problematic to me. But then, I'm not a liberal feminist falling all over myself to cater to every aggrieved opinion from men lest they be mad at us because bless their hearts, they just can't handle big feels. *Sigh* I track more toward radical feminism. As such, I don't pander to men or male grievance but I also would never infantalized men. I'll trust you to handle whatever is going on within your own ranks until the failure to do so lands on women badly in some way or you ask for my input and/or help. And, I'll ask you to do the same for us; if we need men's help, we'll ask for it. Otherwise, leave us alone to deal with our own unpacking bias and trauma of overly gendered socialization shit. (I won't say that word you all hate..."PaTrIaRcHy", 👻
Even though that's what it is. 😜
Maybe slightly less than half are problematic for me. I'm going to describe that as having opinions and behaviors that require me to go to extraordinary lengths to ignore or smooth over to keep the peace. I figure that if society has determined I have no further worth or value now that I'm past my shelf life, that's fine by me. I'm retired. Don't expect me to hold up society any more. I've done my bit for God and country. From here on out is me time. No need for me to keep investing in "society" then, is there? I don't need or want any of that shit in my life anymore.
Population reduction is not a bad thing. It needs to happen. It's going to haooen one way or another. A controlled reduction is preferable to a population crash due to overshoot. I'm guessing uoure looking at it from an economic perspective rather than an ecological one. Economics cannot trump or stop ecological overshoot. Beware the protonatalist mutterings of capitists. They're operating red ledgers. Overshoot day this year was Aug 2nd. How long do you think that can go on before the house of cards comes down?
