I know we’re straying from Peterson central a little, although perhaps not that far, and i’ve got some idea of what you’re talking about from the gist of your various posts but would you indulge me by explicating your suggestion?
What are the mistaken assumptions?
What is the root cause? (In summary, if at all possible, it is a complex issue, i know)
Looks like men have a better chance of being murdered than woman,
Not by women they don’t. We men sure do a lot of killing.
This is a serious topic, and deserves a serious response, that I don’t have time for on my lunch break. I commit to providing a solid response later.
A tiny proportion of us do.
Peterson frequently addresses this question. He says: “If you pick a man and a woman at random from the population, and guess that the man is the most aggressive, you will be right only 60% of the time, but if you pick out the 1 in 100 most aggressive people from the population, they will all be men. That’s why most of the people in prison are men.”
If we pretend everyone is basically the same, then we tar an entire gender with the same brush. If we acknowledge variation, then we can direct people into roles and activities that maybe provide an outlet.
Or we could just try scolding naturally aggressive men for being bad people and see where it gets us.
Sorry if i’m missing something but are you saying that some natural biological gender variation accounts for the disparity in murder rates between men and women…and…that’s that? Where do you go from here?
More men are killed, and they are more likely to be killed by other men.
Fewer women kill other people, but when women are killed, it is more likely done by a male.
Are we concerned about people getting killed, by whatever means, or about women getting killed by men?
In fact, for a lot of issues of public concern, it is not the raw number of victims but rather the way they become victims that gets the community ( and the media - cause or effect ) worked up.
Another example would be the concern about “foreign Islamic terrorists” killing people in the US, when in fact you are more likely to be killed by a home-grown non-Islamic terrorist / mass shooter / whatever you want to call them.
It not only accounts for the disparity in murder, but in most violent crimes, but not “and that’s that”.
The standard historical approach is to just wait until they do something bad, then put them in prison, and wait a few years. Most of the aggression is gone by the time they’re 30 or so.
That sucks as a solution. We still get violence and it’s expensive. I’ll refer you to our prison reform policy for the remedial part of the solution, but there’s currently no early prevention strategy.
We could discuss that.
What does this tell us? indigenous women are more ???
Is there enough men being killed by thair partners, to make it an issue?
Prevention strategies is perhaps a discussion for another thread? Obviously i’m in support of rehabilitive approaches to criminal justice.
You might also consider that men in particular are killing themselves at rates that utterly dwarf the murder rate.
In that same average week that one woman is killed in a domestic violence episode, around 40 men take their own lives (single largest cause of death in 18-45yo men), and another 12 women do too.
People across the western world have a crisis of meaning and purpose in their lives. Hence the Peterson phenomenon.
The Peterson phenomenon might put them back from where we all started - the traditional way, which is pretty clear where we landed in time with all the patriarchal societies.
We need new methods of education, not necessarily the traditional way. That traditional way might work for incels to start behaving like gentlemen and treat women like humans, but that’s only the first step.
Next steps would be to enlarge education and chances for women + anything else. Truth is, we lack a lot women leaders, and I’m positively sure it’s not because women can’t do it.
Yes, hence the Peterson phenomenon, alas.
@StefanCristian.B, I think you are mistaken about Petersons relationship to tradition and conservative values.
He talks about history in terms of the structure and roles they had for people, because it’s good to understand how that fulfilled basic human needs to belong and have purpose and meaning in their lives.
There’s no going back, but we should learn from history.
How do you even have that conversation if every time you mention history, hoards of people call you a tradcon to dismiss you?
No, I didn’t mean that. I meant that: doesn’t Peterson advocate for more traditional values in our lives?
He’s conservative after all.
His archetypal analysis, universal and ahistorical, is unmistakably traditionalist, especially in regard to gender roles and this makes him social conservative however it does not follower that we can’t have a discussion about it. Scroll up. Nor does it follower that everything that comes out of the mouths of social conservatives worthless.
But i’ll leave you to answer my question from this morning which may open up an area of more fruitful exchange.
I don’t think that’s right at all.
He may actually be the most radically progressive public figure out there at the moment, but he’s spent decades trawling through history, archetypes and religions in an attempt to distill what is essential to our natures, and now he’s driving a discussion about the way forward in terms of that.
His talks look entirely different when you get that’s what he’s doing.
Many have done that before, and still doing. I don’t see Peterson’s solutions as effective, either. It’s like a repeat-mode of the same things I heard before over and over again. Generally, that’s how traditional values are, imho. “Keep what you have, cuz’ it’s good for you”
But that’s on the traditional values side like family, manhood, etc. etc.
I didn’t say they’re entirely bad, but they don’t solve any kind of big problem.
Woman can do it and are doing it, USA H. Cliton and N. Pelosi
England, The Queen and T. May M. Thacher Germany A. Merkel, NZ, J. Arden, H. Clark in AUS. we had B. Bishop, J. Gillard,