They are referring to Jordan Peterson. He said something along those lines in a recent interview. I haven't read the interview, though, so I don't know the context.
He said the phrase "enforced monogomy" (in a positive context) and everyone lost their shit.
> My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure
> “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.
Basically...traditional (voluntary) marriage.
You know, the millenia-old religious/societal contact "to love, honor, cherish and protect him/her, forsaking all others and holding only unto him/her"
Faced with the decision to interpret Peterson's phrase as dsytopian lobster-like social structure, or pedestrian traditional marriage, the author and others assumed the less plausible interpretation.
Jordan Peterson is a blowhard conservative who's had more success wooing impressionable edgy teenagers than any actual academic pursuits. I don't understand how anyone takes him or his ideas seriously.
Most of the people I've seen praising and recommending him have pointed mainly to videos on YouTube; video is, in communicating ideas, very poor for informing and very powerful for emotional engagement. This isn't widely recognized (it's not something AFAICT well covered in regular education on source evaluation, critical thinking, etc.), which was mildly bad when TV news was becoming dominant, but there was still a pretty strong production and distribution barrier. In the age where every crank with a crackpot idea can, at basically no marginal upfront cost, produce videos and distribute them globally, it's one of the most important things to understand in approaching media.
In regards to academics - he taught at Harvard and University of Toronto for decades, has written books and released hundreds of hours of lectures for free.
The centrist wings of both modern American conservatism and liberalism are both grounded in classical liberalism (the language is different in most of the rest of the West, where liberalism tends to be classical liberalism but widely recognized as a center-right position), so even if true, that wouldn't rebut that he is a modern conservative.
Peterson, OTOH, seems to be a common modern conservative blend of elements from classical liberalism and classic conservatism with modern scientific-sounding rationalization for the classically conservative elements.
actually, he's a tenured professor at UToronto, has 9600 citations, and ran a clinical psychiatry practice for 20 years - including some time at Harvard. So, he's had more success at academic pursuits than like 99.99% of people. The fact that the opposite of what you just said is true, and the truth could have been found a keystroke away on Wikipedia tells me that you consume information from very biased sources and don't question it at all.
