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.
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.
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