Yesterday, I wrote an explainer for you on Jordan Peterson and why he is the worst. Today, the New York Times ran an article about him in which he is revealed to be even more terrible than we thought he was yesterday. And not just because he has the worst taste in home decorating on the planet.

Over his bed is a painting celebrating electrification in the Soviet Union. On the wall across from it is a hyper-realistic painting of two nude women with swords. His bedspread is familiar: It’s the same image as his Twitter avatar, a dark geometric design based on a piece of art he made out of foam core in 1985 that he called “The Meaning of Music.” He says it’s “an attempt to portray in image what music means.” He has had it made into a rug as well.

I think I saw that same painting at Spencer's Gifts back in 1997.

In the article, which addresses his devotion to the patriarchy, Peterson says a lot of terrible things that are basically (not basically: PERFECTLY) indistinguishable from things one might read over on the incels subreddit.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

This is, of course, a favorite argument of the manosphere. That the evil sexual revolution led to "hypergamy," which has left "low status" men without the vaginas they are entitled to, as illustrated in this completely unscientific diagram.

However, back in reality, this is all bullshit. As Slate writer Osita Nwanevu pointed out on Twitter earlier today, there has actually been a decrease in assortative mating since the 1960s -- fewer people are, in fact, marrying outside of their class -- as illustrated in this scientific graph.

WHOOPS.

As we learned yesterday, one of Peterson's favorite sayings is "equality of opportunity not equality of outcome," but he explains that this does not apply in this situation, on account of how redistributing women will make men less violent.

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that."

It is only possible to think this way if you do not think of women as human beings.

What he is saying here, and elsewhere in the article, is that if we are to stop this kind of violence against us, if we are to repair society, the onus is on women to selflessly forsake what we want so that all men -- especially great husband material like violent, maladjusted psychopaths -- can have something (not even someone) to stick their dick into, who will make them sandwiches and spit out babies in order to prevent them from "failing." What women actually want is never considered here, nor is the notion that perhaps these men should take some "personal responsibility" here instead of demanding vagina handouts.

The thing here that is almost kind of cruel (in a way) is that rather than teach them how to live and function in the world as it is now, Daddy Peterson is raising his internet sons to think that they can have the 1950s patriarchy back. They can't. It's gone. You cannot have "enforced monogamy" without completely eliminating the rights of women and perhaps lobotomizing us all. They might be able to find a few women here and there who are willing to go along with this plan, but there are not enough of those women to go around. And even those women are likely not all that into donating their bodies to the cause of keeping violent psychopaths from going on murder sprees.

[New York Times]

Wonkette loves you! You love Wonkette! Click here to tip us!