No Prescriptions

Reach180 · 2018-02-13T01:20:20+00:00

JP's definition of sacrifice is not a call to martyrdom. It's simply 'to negotiate with the future' - give up something in the present to make way for a better future for yourself.

He goes on further to say to make your future better in a way that improves the future of your family, and also for the betterment of society. But it always starts with the individual - the individual making his own future better.

I don't see much difference between this and your concept of the male burden of performance.

As you say, you can't opt out of performing. JP says deal with that burden by performing in a way that is most meaningful to you.

SteelSharpensSteel · 2018-02-13T02:10:24+00:00

I think we need some definition of Trad-Con here. I mean, I have a idea of Trad-Con, but are we talking about this? Or this. Or something else. If we are going to have some discussion whether or not JBP is too Trad-Con, it should be defined first.

There was a recent article that had a viewpoint on JBP's thought on suffering:

"Peterson’s basic points are that life is hard, you will suffer, and in order to handle that suffering, you will have to be prepared. Preparing means taking responsibility for yourself. That’s hard, too, so you may try to avoid it. You may use all manner of evasions and rationalizations to convince yourself that things will sort themselves out on their own, or that others will bail you out, or that if they don’t, it’s their fault and not yours. But that’s a lie. So stop lying. Accept responsibility for your fate. It’s a harsh line of thought. It’s also good practical advice."

Perhaps we are quibbling about semantics... on whether or not life is suffering, or you will suffer in life. Regardless, everyone suffers in some form or fashion in life, and you will have to be prepared.

Or perhaps this is some sort of philosophical Nietzsche-ish viewpoint.

I agree that men especially are discontent. I'm discontent with the status quo. I am constantly striving to change myself, my environment. I have goals, short and long term. Being discontent is a state of being for me. But being discontent is a bit different than dealing with life's challenges.

Blue Pill conditioning seems to define his perspective of women: Essentially the archetype he has for women was formed for him as a 7 year old boy when he first developed a soul-mate ONEitis for his wife. His reluctance to acknowledge the Alpha Fucks side of women’s Hypergamy in any video (beyond his repeated use of 50 Shades of Grey as a humorous example) leads me to the impression that he defaults to women as innately ‘good’ and above too much criticism. As such he focuses almost entirely on the good provider / parental investment / Beta need side of Hypergamy. <-- It's easy to generalize here, because he hasn't posted on his viewpoint. All we know is that his future wife was the cute girl across the street growing up. I suspect that given his psychological background, there is more to it than that.

From what I gather from his talks Peterson endorses male disposability as a form of Honor. <-- References, man, references. I haven't seen that yet.

“Get your shit together” is also a plea for sacrifice <-- I think get your shit together actually means get your shit together. Again, life is hard, so best to be prepared and not waste time watching porn and playing video games.

Peterson is egalitarian to a fault: The mantra may be for men to sack up and make something of themselves, but this is couched in an egalitarian equalism that’s prevalent today. If I had one question to ask Jordan it would be this; is there a dominance hierarchy in a healthy LTR or marriage? <-- This isn't correct. Egalitarian: relating to or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. As stated in the Cathy Newman interview, he states that men and women are different. They're not equal. Here's the quote: "Men and women aren’t the same! And they won’t be the same! That doesn’t mean they can’t be treated fairly." He also mentions that equality of outcome is also undesirable. With regards to the dominance hierarchy in a healthy LRT or marriage, he mentions that successful long term relationships are reciprocal. Now, I do think that needs to be elaborated, and that is probably worthy of a topic of its own - key elements of successful long term relationships and what he means by reciprocity in a relationship.

Dr. Peterson regularly resorts to shaming language with men, rarely does he do the same with women: This may be a simple question of his delivery, but Peterson is always harder on men than he is with women. <-- Is he harder on men, or do men take his words harder?

Peterson believes that desire can be negotiated: This is my biggest problem with Peterson’s approach to women. This undoubtedly comes from his being a clinical psychologist, but like most therapists he defaults to the idea that genuine desire can be motivated by a process of negotiation. <-- I think everyone here can agree that desire cannot be negotiated. I certainly agree with you on that. Here's a video: Jordan Peterson's Advice on Finding a Woman, Marriage and Having Children, where he talks about the biological necessity of being attracted to each other.

Regardless, good article, and good podcast this past Saturday. I listened in, and it was very interesting.

88Will88 · 2018-02-13T04:05:14+00:00

This was an interesting breakdown of JPs position. I prefer the idea that red pill awareness and the phrase itself is not an ideology. Just because we share some of the beliefs and goals the MRAs have, does not make us the same. Red pill for me is and always has been about getting laid, but the results of snapping out of blue pill beliefs, and fixing oneself has flow on effects.

Redpillbrigade17 · 2018-02-12T23:08:23+00:00

Solid post. I have been lukewarm of late to Rollo given his often circular, us. vs them common rhetoric of late, but this one has been really good - this is what made Rollo who he is: quality, insightful, selfless writing. Including typos :-) like other’s for plural of one.... anyway good post thank you & keep up good work in manospohere.

ShrodingersDingaling · 2018-02-13T14:27:15+00:00

Wait a sec... Did you just write something to help me improve myself rather than lament and decry the treacherously hypergamous female nature? Nice. Thanks.

BobbyPeru · 2018-02-13T03:20:17+00:00

This is a timely post as the dynamics have changed quite a bit recently, particularly on the main thread, TRP.

Lots of overnight sensation Rambos running around about now.

ReddJive · 2018-02-13T14:42:00+00:00

What do you want?

That was the question presented to me when I first started. It drives to the heart of the matter. Most OPs coming here have no idea what they want all they know is what they aren't getting and a lot of them stay stuck right there. What's even more is that they have no idea how to get what they want. They lack purpose, direction...a mission.

As to the notion of sacrifice. Men sacrifice. It's what we do. There is no way around it. Even the most hard core Red Pill man here sacrifices. Men do things without validation. Without forethought and expect no thanks. We won't be given anything we earn it and take it. Therefore what ever time and attention we give is a sacrifice. When a woman fucks her man the way she wants she is giving after all she is getting something out that deal as well. Sex is fun for all.

there is nothing for a man to give other than through sacrifice. Our time and attention can never be re-placed. It's a finite currency and it must be spent wisely. Over spending reduces it value, but not spending it at all makes it unattainable. Spend it on those that deserve it and have earned it.

It's a simple formula really.

Beta men have reversed this idea. They sacrifice and do because they think it gets them what they want. They were taught, erroneously, that by putting themselves absolutely last, they will make others happy and will reap the rewards.

Honor....ha. Honor is only useful to those that can afford it. It only benefits the stronger party.

Chivalry? Last time I read the code of Chivalry there was not a mention of women. Lots of talk about prisoners on the battlefield, how to address superiors, to present oneself to an unarmed or armed unknown person. But not women. The idea of courtly and chivalric love is a myth written by Malory in the Idylls of the King (Arthurian lore). Chivalry as we know it today never existed.

We are not snow flakes and our circumstances are the only difference, but it still remains that we must figure out what we want. Then go do that.

SBIII · 2018-02-13T11:00:38+00:00

Brilliant post.

I think that when men allow any ideology to dictate to them, that this is fundamentally lazy - this applies to religion, politics, morals and The Red Pill.

It destroys any real need to work or to search for an individual truth and allows men to simply fall back on prescribed doctrines without ever really making an effort to find their own answers.

Sometimes, you can take a long journey to find out that there is no answer to a particular question and many men cannot handle that, which I believe - in part - explains why religion and politics will always thrive.

I think it also explains why some men see Red Pill as just an ideology / a prescribed path. Liek religion and politics, it's an easy (and lazy) fix.

straius · 2018-02-13T22:37:18+00:00

I'm left feeling like Rollo is doing a lot of projection or reframing of Peterson through the common themes HE writes and thinks about because his summaries of Peterson's positions read nothing like what I've internalized from his classes, lectures and interviews. I've probably consumed over 60 hours of his content at this point.

I mean really, we know what happens when you try to describe women's natures to them. They go into a solipsistic conniption fit if they are even remotely neurotic. So why would enforcing a negative view of hypergamy serve Peterson at all?

Why is it important for Peterson to become that anyway? Isn't that what we have RP for? RP praxeology is a very focused lens and Peterson generally deals with issues at a higher level of abstraction.

I don't think Peterson has a whole lot of ignorance about Hypergamy, it's just not a central theme of his work. He will allude to psychology informed views on hypergamy, most notably in his personality class, that in my mind demonstrate that he understand quite well the realities therein. But there is very little in RP that would be well suited for a classroom discussion/lecture and there are definitely value clashes between his trad-con views on family.

Granted there are some conflicts there, but I don't see them as in conflict with RP, not in the sense that they fit together, but the differing views serve well as a competing set of ideas that individuals can use to help conceptualize where their values lie. I think Peterson and RP serve each other better by having these differences than being more similar.

Haven't had a chance to consume the video yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

Title	No Prescriptions
Author	Rollo-Tomassi
Upvotes	20
Comments	22
Date	February 12, 2018 10:38 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MarriedRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/7x4p1n/no_prescriptions/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MarriedRedPill/no-prescriptions.198178 https://theredarchive.com/post/198178

Comments