[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

Some women were treated as property, some weren't. The great majority of men were effectively indentured servants to the powerful as well. Low-status men could be beaten or killed at the whim of powerful women.

But that's a more nuanced narrative than feminist ideologues want to acknowledged. Far easier to present a simple and emotionally-satisfying narrative that all women were oppressed by all men.

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

In-group out-group behaviour is hardwired into all humans, men and women. Look at what would happen to a captured enemy handed into the tender mercies of the women of a community.

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

Now who's identifying a position someone doesn't hold? Security and freedom are a trade-off. Give people more freedom to do as they like, and they will expose themselves to more risks, more unforeseen and unwanted experiences. In a liberal society, we accept that price because we value the autonomy it affords us as individuals, and the dynamism it gives us collectively. There's less street crime in places where there's a curfew. Less drunken violence in places where alcohol is prohibited. Less campus rape in cultures where men and women go to different schools.

The more social contact you have between unattached men and women, the more opportunity there is for predatory behavior, unwanted pregnancy, or even awkward and embarrassing encounters. Not long ago, single men and single women could not live in the same apartment buildings (not just suites, but buildings). Parents of young women living on their own felt more comfortable that way, and I doubt it was because they regarded their daughters as property (unless you think your grandparents didn't really love your mom).

But the daughters said no, we're going to be liberal and live in the same apartments as men, and go to co-ed dorms. The young women knew this would make them more vulnerable to predatory behavior, unwanted pregnancy, and awkward and embarrassing encounters. But they were willing to take those risks to be more free. That's one of the big divides between older and younger feminists today - the older ones threw off the stifling protectiveness of their youth knowing that with more freedom comes more danger. That doesn't mean you have accept that greater danger. But any adult recognizes that liberal freedom is inherently less safe than conservative conformity.