> Do you think it's healthy for boys to be taught that they are expendable and that their lives only have conditional value that can go away at any time if they are unable to work?

I do see your point, however this is an issue with all self-help advice. As a person who looks for such advice, you're looking for something you can fix about yourself. Whether it is a good thing on a society level is not the question.

> Do you think it's healthy

    "All models are wrong; some models are useful."

Yes. It is essential & useful for struggling boys to internalize the values of male expendability. If anything, Peterson's "go on a hero's journey & prioritize self-improvement" way of phrasing it is fairly optimistic and hopeful.

The question isn't "how should men with already healthy co-ed social circles structure their lives?". Those men don't need Peterson. They already have a functioning model of the world. The question is "how do chronically unsuccessful men with zero potential partners avoid spiralling into a cycle of depression, nihilism & misogyny?".

Peterson's "Women behave in ways that perfectly align with their constraints and incentives." message implies that "There is a light at the end of the tunnel if you can grow in ways that align with women, they may reward you with attention and intimacy." Now this might not be a correct view of the world, but it is a useful model for pulling people out of a bad spot into something productive. The more nuanced views of the world will come later, but at least these people are out of their rut for now. It also humanizes women in that "Just like men, women are greedily looking for interactions that enrich their lives". It preemptively dismantles the 'nice guy attack pattern' which places blame on women.

I am not entirely sure women fully realize the extent to which the societal behaviors of single-straight men revolve around finding a romantic partner. The degree of desired promiscuity varies, but it is foundational to male-female interactions for men in their 20s. This is especially true the more starved the men are. "Starved" is the perfect word for it too, because just like food, those living in abundance of it can forget just how desperate a famine can feel.

> men are violent and angry

I'd say it is the opposite. The inability to make peace with male expendability is exactly what leads to the male entitlement, which in turn leads to violence and anger. The old 'patriarchal' image of man was progressively mocked and dismantled, but it was replaced with nothing. Certain toxic parts of the manosphere prey on these empty men, but the real question is why that emptiness has suddenly arisen in the 21st century.

> beyond trying to act tough by building walls around them.

It makes me wonder if you've only ever experienced the meme version of Peterson. He is among the most emotionally intune and vulnerable men I've seen. I mean, just read the the 12 rules he has come up with in his proverbial bible.

    "Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street."
 
    "Make friends with people who want the best for you."

    "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today."

    "Pursue what is meaningful"

It is literally timeless ideas rephrased for a modern person. There is nothing offensive about them. If anything, the one valid criticism I can think of is "duh, aren't these super obvious"? To which I'd say, not for the target audience.

> I actually love the men in my life and I want better for them

Advice for 'Persons' and advice for 'People' are different things. These books are written for 'People'. You are talking about 'Persons' in your life. Advice for People must by definition be generic. Advice for Persons can often contrast 'generic People advice' because you know specifics about what works for them and their circumstances. Then, it is okay for them to be in conflict. It does not invalidate either.

> They need to feel like they are valued and loved so that they can open themselves up to more possibilities

I would genuinely appreciate if you could elaborate on what you mean here. Vague platitudes are one thing. But, universal specific advice is incredibly hard to phrase. If you could phrase a new positive counter-model for these 'disenfranchised men' to follow, then I am all ears.

>> They need to feel like they are valued and loved so that they can open themselves up to more possibilities

> I would genuinely appreciate if you could elaborate on what you mean here. Vague platitudes are one thing. But, universal specific advice is incredibly hard to phrase. If you could phrase a new positive counter-model for these 'disenfranchised men' to follow, then I am all ears.

I was just thinking about my own life and the people in it and about how socially cloistered and risk averse some of the less [socially] successful men, and women, I've known have been and how that closed off stance toward the world preceded their lack of success. Feeling like you have intrinsic value gives a person a foundation to stand on so that they can branch out socially. Does that make sense?

It's like how coming from a wealthy family allows you to take more career risks like accepting unpaid internships. Showing your personality to strangers and acquaintances is like taking an unpaid internship. You're putting yourself out there with no immediate reward and no guarantee that it will work out. You could get rejected, but you could also make a genuine connection.... If you're "poor" you might decide that the risk is too much.

Somebody here said something like: "men make society and women are society. Men have to buy their way in to society or die protecting it." I think that message is toxic because while a few guys might hear it and feel gassed up about their "heroes journey" toward "buying" their way into being seen as an actual member of society [human], many others will probably find it paralyzing and be pushed into choosing life strategies which are overly conservative as a result.

Part of having a conservative life strategy would be to close yourself off emotionally right? Showing vulnerability is risky because it can open you up to criticism or lower your perceived value; but at the same time people who are vulnerable tend to build stronger relationships and those relationships have a compounding effect on their well being as having more friends and friends of friends etc.... exponentially increases your chances of finding romantic partners, job opportunities and many other of the things that make for what most people would call a successful life.

Another sad thing about it is that the idea of needing to "buy your way in" to society is that it pits men in a competition against one another for value. Seems worth investigating if this has something to do with the way that men don't support each other the way that women often do. Instead men seem to pile onto other men who show signs of weakness and try to totally destroy them as if life were a last-man-standing video game where taking out the competition leaves more loot for you.

Like, have you read much about female autism? One reason girls are better at "masking" their autism is that neurotypical girls will help autistic girls to fit in. They nurture them essentially. Isn't that interesting? How do neurotypical boys treat autistic boys by contrast?

I'm sort of rambling here, but hopefully this makes sense.

Males can't grow babies inside their bodies. Fish can't run marathons. Whatever. Being able to grow a baby inside you is really cool and important but we don't live in a hunter gatherer tribe that is in danger of going extinct due to lack of babies. Feels like we ought to send boys the message that they are intrinsically valuable and lovable too so that they can feel safe to express themselves and build social networks without worrying constantly about falling out the bottom of society.