Also as I’ve been trying to point out in the Peterson sub, it’s already the norm. Americans are overwhelmingly monogamous. Promiscuity and infidelity are already shamed. So what is it he’s actually proposing?
Well let’s go look at things he’s said about marriage in the past
He views the fact that divorce is even possible as contributing to relationships ending;
“What do you do when you get married? You take someone who’s just as useless and horrible as you are, and then you shackle yourself to them (man JP must be a riot at parties). And then you say, we’re not running away no matter what happens…If you can run away, you can’t tell each other the truth…If you don’t have someone around that can’t run away, then you can’t tell them the truth. If you can leave, then you don’t have to tell each other the truth. It’s as simple as that, because you can just leave. And then you don’t have anyone to tell the truth to.”
On the subject of people supporting no fault divorce because it protects an individual’s freedom to leave a relationship he says;
“You want to be free, eh? Really? Really? So, you can’t predict anything? That’s what you’re after?” he demands, going on to admonish, “It’s a vow. It says, look: ‘I know you’re trouble. Me too. So, we won’t leave. No matter what happens’…That’s why you take it in front of a bunch of people. That’s why it’s supposed to be a sacred act. What’s the alternative? Everything is mutable and changeable at any moment”
On page 119 of 12 Rules;
“Was it really a good thing, for example, to so dramatically liberalize the divorce laws in the 1960s? It’s not clear to me that the children whose lives were destabilized by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation introduced would say so. Horror and terror lurk behind the walls provided so wisely by our ancestors. We tear them down at our peril. We skate, unconsciously, on thin ice, with deep, cold waters below, where unimaginable monsters lurk”
So let’s be clear here about what Peterson means when he says enforced monogamy. People have been understandably focusing on the word “enforced” when in reality they should be focusing on the word “monogamy” and how Peterson is using it.
You and I likely use the word monogamy to mean “only 2 partners in a relationship”. That usage of the word allows for the possibility of having more than one relationship in your life time. I don’t think Peterson is using it that way. I think he’s using it in the way biologists use it to categorize the behavior of different species. Which is to say “only one relationship for life”.
Peterson isn’t just saying we need social norms that discourage polyamory and promiscuity and infidelity. Because we already have that. Now I’m sure he wishes that we discouraged promiscuity in a much more vehement and repressive sense (funny how much he jives with fundamentalist Islam isn’t it?), but what he’s actually advocating when he says we need “enforced monogamy” is that he thinks we need social norms that discourage people from having more than one romantic relationship ever.
Though he’s completely dishonest and full of shit to now imply he’s only advocating for social enforcement. He has as you’ve mentioned very clearly expressed that he thinks unilateral and no fault divorce should be illegal. That the government should make it hard to divorce.
And let’s be doubly clear about that aspect. As many have pointed out, it’s unclear how socially discouraging promiscuity and infidelity would benefit incels, since it’s not like women are going to suddenly want to be with them
He’s pointed out plenty of times that most divorces are instigated by the woman. When he says divorce laws shouldn’t have been liberalized, and that somehow this will help sexless men, he’s saying “it should be harder by law for women to be allowed to leave marriages they don’t want to be in” and that socially we shouldn’t permit women to leave any relationship they don’t want to be in.
