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.
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.
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