Jordan Peterson Thread.

[LinekersLegs]

Ähm...more than one would be grand. We've done this high-heels one to death.

What else?

I don’t think that Peterson, unlike his incel supporters, has a hatred of all women. Indeed I think he really likes those that settle down happily at home with 2.4 kids while hubby goes off to work and even has some respect for those that try to balance kids and a career.

But I believe the definition of misogyny also includes contempt and I’ve seen a couple of videos where he shows open contempt for women who chose to be childless whatever their reasons may be - here is one at around 7 mins in I remember as I happened to agree with some of his points up until then. Perhaps there are videos out there that show similar disdain for men who chose not to have kids but I doubt it.


His whole attitude there that “I know best what should make a women happy and it kids unless she’s some weirdo”, unaccompanied by any data to support it, I find very partronising at best.

The interview where he talked about not knowing how to deal with a women protestor he disagree with because he couldn't resort to violence disturbing too but we’ve already discussed that one,

I also feel that brushing off that heels and make up video as at worst sexist stereotyping is underplaying the insidiousness of some the message that you can take from what he says - that sexual assaults are partially a responsibility of the woman dressing provocatively, that assault was easy to report 40 years ago as all you had to do was go to the police, we don’t know if men and women can’t be expected to work professionally together as we’ve only had a few decades at doing it and as @Steve0 said that women are just weasels trying to suborn good men etc.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

I don’t think that Peterson, unlike his incel supporters, has a hatred of all women. Indeed I think he really likes those that settle down happily at home with 2.4 kids while hubby goes off to work and even has some respect for those that try to balance kids and a career.

But I believe the definition of misogyny also includes contempt and I’ve seen a couple of videos where he shows open contempt for women who chose to be childless whatever their reasons may be - here is one at around 7 mins in I remember as I happened to agree with some of his points up until then. Perhaps there are videos out there that show similar disdain for men who chose not to have kids but I doubt it.


His whole attitude there that “I know best what should make a women happy and it kids unless she’s some weirdo”, unaccompanied by any data to support it, I find very partronising at best.

The interview where he talked about not knowing how to deal with a women protestor he disagree with because he couldn't resort to violence disturbing too but we’ve already discussed that one,

I also feel that brushing off that heels and make up video as at worst sexist stereotyping is underplaying the insidiousness of some the message that you can take from what he says - that sexual assaults are partially a responsibility of the woman dressing provocatively, that assault was easy to report 40 years ago as all you had to do was go to the police, we don’t know if men and women can’t be expected to work professionally together as we’ve only had a few decades at doing it and as @Steve0 said that women are just weasels trying to suborn good men etc.

Is that a university lecture? Honestly can't imagine going to college to listen to that - I mean I know it's only psychology or whatever but that is just pure bloke-in-alehouse .

 

[dholliday]

I don’t think that Peterson, unlike his incel supporters, has a hatred of all women. Indeed I think he really likes those that settle down happily at home with 2.4 kids while hubby goes off to work and even has some respect for those that try to balance kids and a career.

But I believe the definition of misogyny also includes contempt and I’ve seen a couple of videos where he shows open contempt for women who chose to be childless whatever their reasons may be - here is one at around 7 mins in I remember as I happened to agree with some of his points up until then. Perhaps there are videos out there that show similar disdain for men who chose not to have kids but I doubt it.


His whole attitude there that “I know best what should make a women happy and it kids unless she’s some weirdo”, unaccompanied by any data to support it, I find very partronising at best.

The interview where he talked about not knowing how to deal with a women protestor he disagree with because he couldn't resort to violence disturbing too but we’ve already discussed that one,

I also feel that brushing off that heels and make up video as at worst sexist stereotyping is underplaying the insidiousness of some the message that you can take from what he says - that sexual assaults are partially a responsibility of the woman dressing provocatively, that assault was easy to report 40 years ago as all you had to do was go to the police, we don’t know if men and women can’t be expected to work professionally together as we’ve only had a few decades at doing it and as @Steve0 said that women are just weasels trying to suborn good men etc.

Really good post, Legs, and thanks for the example. I agree, his comment at 7:45 of your video that childless women with age 30+ are "not quite right" is unfounded, unfair and may even betray contempt.

I personally believe men & women can work professionally together with no big issues regardless of who's wearing what. I said in an earlier post that if a man decides to act like an arsehole then it's all on him, no blame should be attached to the woman even if (for argument's sake) she is dressing-up to attract.

I think most of us commenting here are atheist, agnostic or only mildly-religious. Peterson isn't. His faith defines him in profound ways, and we know how traditional christians/catholics view the role of women...they're not comfortable with women being single, carefree, childless & career-minded as the religious maledom too narrowly-define the woman's role as being the biologically-driven home-maker. It's a character flaw, and I understand if this flaw is too major to accept for some people.

Peterson's religion is a big deal for him, and I believe we'll see him pushing his faith more overtly these coming months. What that will do to this popularity remains to be seen.


While agreeing with your post, I still stand by the last 10 pages of debate or so. Durham Council's statement was far too crass: Peterson isn't saying anything illegal, or arguably even immoral (by the standards of Canada/US). More measured language (like you have used) when criticising JP works much better: it brings more people on-side, and concensuses can be reached.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Really good post, Legs, and thanks for the example. I agree, his comment at 7:45 of your video that childless women with age 30+ are "not quite right" is unfounded, unfair and may even betray contempt.

I personally believe men & women can work professionally together with no big issues regardless of who's wearing what. I said in an earlier post that if a man decides to act like an arsehole then it's all on him, no blame should be attached to the woman even if (for argument's sake) she is dressing-up to attract.

I think most of us commenting here are atheist, agnostic or only mildly-religious. Peterson isn't. His faith defines him in profound ways, and we know how traditional christians/catholics view the role of women...they're not comfortable with women being single, carefree, childless & career-minded as the religious maledom too narrowly-define the woman's role as being the biologically-driven home-maker. It's a character flaw, and I understand if this flaw is too major to accept for some people.

Peterson's religion is a big deal for him, and I believe we'll see him pushing his faith more overtly these coming months. What that will do to this popularity remains to be seen.


While agreeing with your post, I still stand by the last 10 pages of debate or so. Durham Council's statement was far too crass: Peterson isn't saying anything illegal, or arguably even immoral (by the standards of Canada/US). More measured language (like you have used) when criticising JP works much better: it brings more people on-side, and concensuses can be reached.

May indicate contempt??? I’d say suggesting those that don’t are either unhinged or harpies is a pretty decent indication of contempt myself lol

And I don’t just think it a character flaw, as I said I think some of the messages, both on this topic and others mentioned, he sends are insidious which is why I can understand why Durham Council wanted to make a statement although I agree I probably wouldn’t have phrased it quite the same way.

As an aside if a female academic suggested without evidence, even as only a thought experiment, that men only wore deodorant/aftershave/hairgel to work as a pheromone attractant I’d think they were an utter loon. Or if she stated that all men unless they did x would be unfilled I’d think she lacked both logic and nuance. Even if I didn’t think they were a misandrist I would be very unlikely to look at any further work of theirs.

 

[dholliday]

And I don’t just think it a character flaw, as I said I think some of the messages, both on this topic and others mentioned, he sends are insidious which is why I can understand why Durham Council wanted to make a statement although I agree I probably wouldn’t have phrased it quite the same way.

I wouldn't class them as insidious. They're outdated, traditional, conservative, religious, maledom and then arguably sexist with some shades of contempt thrown in. Unpleasant, even regressive, some might say. Insidious is a bit strong, as his agenda isn't the subjugation of women. Peterson isn't really saying anything about women we haven't head conservative males say before. And when you weight that with the interesting & positive things he says (of which there are many), then you've got a complex, flawed but fascinating individual. Bret Weinstein, for example, admits he finds some of JP's views regressive too, but never hateful.


Naturally you wouldn't phrase your Council statement that way because you're fair-minded.

"Mr. Peterson’s racist, misogynist, and transphobic views...Those who seek to exclude or deny the humanity of others will find no comfort here. We believe that violence against women is horrific and unacceptable under any circumstances. "

The above isn't fair-minded. It's vindictive, defamatory, flaming and ultimately counter-productive. This statement only widens the sociopolitical-divide which has been so troubling US/Canada these last few years, and indeed has led to Peterson's rise and that of the IDW (for better or worse).

Better dialogue, more careful language, more open-readiness to display understanding of both sides of the divide, is the key to improving this situation, bringing the sides a little closer to each other again may give the 2020 elections a chance to unseat Trump. It's important stuff.

Durham Council, knowing JP's popularity, chose to further the divide with their statement. Counter-productive. They're being rightly criticised for it (and not just by JP-followers).

As an aside if a female academic suggested without evidence, even as only a thought experiment, that men only wore deodorant/aftershave/hairgel to work as a pheromone attractant I’d think they were an utter loon. Or if she stated that all men unless they did x would be unfilled I’d think she lacked both logic and nuance. Even if I didn’t think they were a misandrist I would be very unlikely to look at any further work of theirs.

Have you seen those Lynx adverts? lol

The male/female dynamic isn't always that interchangeable, in any case. But I see what you're getting at.

 

[Arteta2391]

I'm fed up with him being labeled under multiple political sects.

he is a knowledgeable analytical professor who blends philosophy with psychology with a pro founding effect.

let an intellectual be don't corner him into an imaginary box of beliefs.

 

[ilikecheese]

I wouldn't class them as insidious. They're outdated, traditional, conservative, religious, maledom and then arguably sexist with some shades of contempt thrown in. Unpleasant, even regressive, some might say. Insidious is a bit strong, as his agenda isn't the subjugation of women. Peterson isn't really saying anything about women we haven't head conservative males say before. And when you weight that with the interesting & positive things he says (of which there are many), then you've got a complex, flawed but fascinating individual. Bret Weinstein, for example, admits he finds some of JP's views regressive too, but never hateful.


Naturally you wouldn't phrase your Council statement that way because you're fair-minded.

"Mr. Peterson’s racist, misogynist, and transphobic views...Those who seek to exclude or deny the humanity of others will find no comfort here. We believe that violence against women is horrific and unacceptable under any circumstances. "

The above isn't fair-minded. It's vindictive, defamatory, flaming and ultimately counter-productive. This statement only widens the sociopolitical-divide which has been so troubling US/Canada these last few years, and indeed has led to Peterson's rise and that of the IDW (for better or worse).

Better dialogue, more careful language, more open-readiness to display understanding of both sides of the divide, is the key to improving this situation, bringing the sides a little closer to each other again may give the 2020 elections a chance to unseat Trump. It's important stuff.

Durham Council, knowing JP's popularity, chose to further the divide with their statement. Counter-productive. They're being rightly criticised for it (and not just by JP-followers).




Have you seen those Lynx adverts? lol

The male/female dynamic isn't always that interchangeable, in any case. But I see what you're getting at.

My 2 cents. Insidious is an absolute perfect word choice. Whether intentional or not, his comments on women are insidious because of what those words do.

 

[Walken]

I'm fed up with him being labeled under multiple political sects.

he is a knowledgeable analytical professor who blends philosophy with psychology with a pro founding effect.

let an intellectual be don't corner him into an imaginary box of beliefs.

He's making a pretty penny from this imaginary box bry

 

[ilikecheese]

Insidious...what a word LL. It defines the Alt-Right movement so perfectly...or whatever we are calling folks like Peterson these days and their insidious message.

Peterson's extremely narrow demographic of followers is a massive alarm bell that any smart educator would view as a red flag. He has fallen to fame (power) and/or money in his efforts as an educator rather than being truly introspective on why he attracts an extreme beyond extreme demographic of followers. I suspect both.

He is hoping to be influencial in Canadian politics...and perhaps elsewhere depending on what's in it for him.

 

[dholliday]

I'm fed up with him being labeled under multiple political sects.

he is a knowledgeable analytical professor who blends philosophy with psychology with a pro founding effect.

let an intellectual be don't corner him into an imaginary box of beliefs.

Exactly, Bry. Let a philosopher just be, ffs. Imagine this lot policing every single thing Freud or Hawking ever said.

He's making a pretty penny from this imaginary box bry

80k a month by some accounts.

Insidious...what a word LL. It defines the Alt-Right movement so perfectly...or whatever we are calling folks like Peterson these days and their insidious message.

Peterson's extremely narrow demographic of followers.

 

[ilikecheese]

Exactly, Bry. Let a philosopher just be, ffs. Imagine this lot policing every single thing Freud or Hawking ever said.




80k a month by some accounts.




View attachment 47752

I thought you were done for a while?

Are you now going to tell us that his followers aren't 90% men? He's said it himself...as an educator he should know he's sending a far to narrow message. Unless of course he found a way to cash in on manipulating/errr educating a certain demographic.

You have been willfully dense for two days now, and parsed words on every point as if you are OJ Simpson's defense lawyer finding every and any way to cast doubt on the jury.

 

[dholliday]

I thought you were done for a while?

Are you now going to tell us that his followers aren't 90% men? He's said it himself...as an educator he should know he's sending a far to narrow message. Unless of course he found a way to cash in on manipulating/errr educating a certain demographic.

You have been willfully dense for two days now, and parsed words on every point as if you are OJ Simpson's defense lawyer finding every and any way to cast doubt on the jury.

 

[ilikecheese]

Excellent rebuttal. My view has changed entirely.

*knows he would be scolded if he did the same thing

*thinks twitter would offer 110% more

*thinks LL has nailed it with insidious...it is the perfect word to describe JP and his ilk.

 

[SteveSC]

This thread specifically the last 10 pages has been highly entertaining.

Grown men fawning over some guy who is nothing more than a modern day motivational speaker. Like those con men in the 90's and early 00's going around telling people the bleeding obvious trying to give them confidence and feel like they belong and making a mint doing so through their word and merchandise they pedal.

Granted Peterson does it with a twist, mind you. He comes across smarter than most of them did/do and does actually hold degrees and experience to back them up. But he seemingly is happy to take the direction of his words based on reaction from people be they positive or negative. He is the live version of a twitter troll.

From the many videos that are out there it seems he gets caught out quite a bit and then tries to shift focus or admits he may have misspoken and then follows it with a but....

It is clear i have seen several videos and interviews now and his views on the woman's role is a bit dated and its why he has so many incel types supporting him. Ask yourself why?

He feeds of their angst and frustration in my opinion. The fact he is attracting them in the first place tells you he must be saying things that agree with their own beliefs.

He is pretty consistent with his own views on women not much like anything else he says.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I wouldn't class them as insidious. They're outdated, traditional, conservative, religious, maledom and then arguably sexist with some shades of contempt thrown in. Unpleasant, even regressive, some might say. Insidious is a bit strong, as his agenda isn't the subjugation of women. Peterson isn't really saying anything about women we haven't head conservative males say before. And when you weight that with the interesting & positive things he says (of which there are many), then you've got a complex, flawed but fascinating individual. Bret Weinstein, for example, admits he finds some of JP's views regressive too, but never hateful.

Insidious - proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.

Yes I believe that suggesting what a person wears makes them partially responsible for assault in the workplace is harmful as it perpetuates an excuse that has been used by predators for decades.

I also think that it is harmful to the mental recovery of victims of such assault.

I believe it also decreases the reporting of incidences as people wonder if it was their fault, or if people will assume it is, which in turn leads to those predators being able to operate for longer.

I also believe that sexual assault is far more about dominance/power/humiliation than it is about sexual attraction so it is at best unhelpful to focus on what the person was wearing - plenty of men and women have been assaulted without any so called provocative behavior/clothing,