Military aged men (usually aged late teens to mid 40s) have historically been the drivers of society. If a significant chunk of this demographic feels lost, hopeless, and close to the brink, then that’s when all hell breaks loose. From insane crime rates to extremism to war to riots to revolutions to you name it. I don’t think Peterson is suggesting that society should do mandatory marriages or anything like that. He’s just pointing out that the data shows that marriage improves the happiness and quality of life for men (and women), and it will be a net benefit to society to try and increase the marriage rates as opposed to doing nothing and keeping the current trends going.
Don’t you think that group also contains homosexuals, transgender, etc, who have a much harder standing in “our society”? Or what about people who just don’t work monogamous?
Shaming them into (hetero) marriages doesn’t make them happier.
With an intolerant society, there will always be unhappy people.
So IMO the only way to evolve would be to become fully tolerant and just let people be who they want to be without having to fear, that someone else condemns them for who they are.
Yeah no, I don’t think this a good idea because it’s basically what we have now and it isn’t working. LGBT has been a stable 5% give or take a couple of percentage points for decades now. That means that 95% of society is heterosexual. We have to acknowledge that there is a clear super majority and a clear default. We can’t bend over backwards for such an incredibly tiny minority. Societies don’t function like that. The most stable societies are the ones where the majority demographics are comfortable and relatively happy. That’s what we should strive for.
Heterosexual marriage can resolve a lot of big issues in our society. From the crippling population collapses to loneliness epidemic to the insane suicide rates to the decaying local communities to the drug crises to the mental health crises to the depressing fatherlessness rates and the list goes on and on. The reason why marriage has been such a powerful institution for centuries is because it is a very effective way to integrate young people into society while also providing that society with a backbone.
Basically the point that I’m trying to make is that marriage ties people to something bigger than them. It gives people a goal and purpose, and that’s creating ans growing a family of their own. People in marriages have been proven to be happier (both genders), healthier, more involved in their communities, and be more politically moderate. Families seek stability instead of chaos, and stability leads to peace and prosperity. There’s a reason why baby booms are usually followed by eras of tremendous growth. We don’t need any new solutions to a lot of the issues we have today. We could simply just tweak an already proven solution that has worked wonders across cultures and time.
As for the LGBT people. The wrong approach would be to do nothing for the sake of appeasement. A free for all isn’t the wisest of ideas because not everything is okay (like incest for example). Don’t get me wrong, individual liberty is very important and should be protected. But humans need a degree of conformity. Obviously it shouldn’t rigid because that doesn’t work, but we need a form of it. I think the correct approach would be to do what I said but also acknowledge that LGBT people exist, offer them support and acceptance, put in place laws that protect and help them, and offer them ways to conform while still being who they are.
A good start would be getting people to learn how to socialize properly. Either by creating programs for young people to meet up and do stuff together or by restructuring the education system to place a bigger emphasis on co-ed socialization. There’s an uncomfortably large amount of people who do not know how to socialize. By that I mean they’re really clueless. They don’t know how to carry a conversation or how to properly react to situations or understand basic social etiquette or ask somebody out that they find attractive or anything really. I’ve seen a lot of these people when I was in university, and they are as awkward as they sound. It’s not just anecdotal either, the loneliness pandemic is backed up by data. There’s huge chunk of people with few or no friends and this demographic is growing. If we can find ways as a society to encourge young people to socialize again, the benefits will be huge. Their mental health would improve, their confidence would get a boost, their social circles will expand, and from their new social circles they have greater opportunities to meet a partner.
I don’t get why you’re getting so much hate. The statement boils down to people need to be invested in their society, or society isn’t stable.
People with families want stability, want to make society better, care about the community more. That’s not to say people without families don’t, but the incentives are there for people with families.
So when talking about entire populations, pointing out the statistically populations with large numbers of uncommitted men are less stable, shouldn’t be controversial
Military aged men (usually aged late teens to mid 40s) have historically been the drivers of society. If a significant chunk of this demographic feels lost, hopeless, and close to the brink, then that’s when all hell breaks loose. From insane crime rates to extremism to war to riots to revolutions to you name it. I don’t think Peterson is suggesting that society should do mandatory marriages or anything like that. He’s just pointing out that the data shows that marriage improves the happiness and quality of life for men (and women), and it will be a net benefit to society to try and increase the marriage rates as opposed to doing nothing and keeping the current trends going.
Don’t you think that group also contains homosexuals, transgender, etc, who have a much harder standing in “our society”? Or what about people who just don’t work monogamous?
Shaming them into (hetero) marriages doesn’t make them happier.
With an intolerant society, there will always be unhappy people.
So IMO the only way to evolve would be to become fully tolerant and just let people be who they want to be without having to fear, that someone else condemns them for who they are.
Yeah no, I don’t think this a good idea because it’s basically what we have now and it isn’t working. LGBT has been a stable 5% give or take a couple of percentage points for decades now. That means that 95% of society is heterosexual. We have to acknowledge that there is a clear super majority and a clear default. We can’t bend over backwards for such an incredibly tiny minority. Societies don’t function like that. The most stable societies are the ones where the majority demographics are comfortable and relatively happy. That’s what we should strive for.
Heterosexual marriage can resolve a lot of big issues in our society. From the crippling population collapses to loneliness epidemic to the insane suicide rates to the decaying local communities to the drug crises to the mental health crises to the depressing fatherlessness rates and the list goes on and on. The reason why marriage has been such a powerful institution for centuries is because it is a very effective way to integrate young people into society while also providing that society with a backbone.
Basically the point that I’m trying to make is that marriage ties people to something bigger than them. It gives people a goal and purpose, and that’s creating ans growing a family of their own. People in marriages have been proven to be happier (both genders), healthier, more involved in their communities, and be more politically moderate. Families seek stability instead of chaos, and stability leads to peace and prosperity. There’s a reason why baby booms are usually followed by eras of tremendous growth. We don’t need any new solutions to a lot of the issues we have today. We could simply just tweak an already proven solution that has worked wonders across cultures and time.
As for the LGBT people. The wrong approach would be to do nothing for the sake of appeasement. A free for all isn’t the wisest of ideas because not everything is okay (like incest for example). Don’t get me wrong, individual liberty is very important and should be protected. But humans need a degree of conformity. Obviously it shouldn’t rigid because that doesn’t work, but we need a form of it. I think the correct approach would be to do what I said but also acknowledge that LGBT people exist, offer them support and acceptance, put in place laws that protect and help them, and offer them ways to conform while still being who they are.
What would you suggest be done to promote marriage among that demographic?
A good start would be getting people to learn how to socialize properly. Either by creating programs for young people to meet up and do stuff together or by restructuring the education system to place a bigger emphasis on co-ed socialization. There’s an uncomfortably large amount of people who do not know how to socialize. By that I mean they’re really clueless. They don’t know how to carry a conversation or how to properly react to situations or understand basic social etiquette or ask somebody out that they find attractive or anything really. I’ve seen a lot of these people when I was in university, and they are as awkward as they sound. It’s not just anecdotal either, the loneliness pandemic is backed up by data. There’s huge chunk of people with few or no friends and this demographic is growing. If we can find ways as a society to encourge young people to socialize again, the benefits will be huge. Their mental health would improve, their confidence would get a boost, their social circles will expand, and from their new social circles they have greater opportunities to meet a partner.
I don’t get why you’re getting so much hate. The statement boils down to people need to be invested in their society, or society isn’t stable.
People with families want stability, want to make society better, care about the community more. That’s not to say people without families don’t, but the incentives are there for people with families.
So when talking about entire populations, pointing out the statistically populations with large numbers of uncommitted men are less stable, shouldn’t be controversial