Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
I'd say the outrage was more due to rape being seen as a violation of property rights
|
Emphasis added, as it's clearly needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Lots of stuff tangentially and tenuously relevant to my point.
|
For a man who decries identity politics, you've certainly identified a host of positions I didn't imply and don't hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I was going to say; the ingrained instinct to feel greater affection for, and a need to protect, family members including children and mates is rooted in evolutionary biology, and therefore far predates any formal concept of property rights.
|
That could be true as well. There's no kind of one-to-one motive to behaviour mapping, nor did I claim there was. The idea of people as property had legal force less than 200 years ago in many countries, though, and marriage in that time (and past it) bound women to servitude/slavery as owned things. This is no feminist conspiracy, but historical fact. UTism (us vs them), familial affection, and jealousy of ownership are sufficient - and not particularly moral - reasons that explain the discrepancy in the treatment of in-group and out-group women by the ordinary, amoral man.
If Peterson was arguing that an ameliorative strategy that would minimize the rape of unattached women is to get those uppity bitches attached, which is how it seems, then he is dangerously misguided. Marriage cannot be what it was, because we are not what we were. He'd best come up with better ideas than that, or he'll end up looking like the Pope does whenever that old fraud speaks out against contraception - a fool.