Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Ask Hadley on Jordan Peterson

154 replies

Freespeecher · 24/05/2018 11:48

I know that 'Ask Hadley' is a lighthearted column but she opens by damning him by association (he doesn't choose his fans) and essentially writes a hit piece by cutting and pasting a previous hit piece. ReluctantCamper could have written this for a fraction of Hadley's fee!

I understand opinions on Peterson are somewhat mixed to say the least but, in the wake of her articles on the Trafalgar Square anti-semitism demo and ManFriday, this article comes across as a disappointingly weak effort.

Thoughts?

(And link - don't seem to be able to do clicky links on my phone, sorry: www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy).

OP posts:
Original poster
Freespeecher · 24/05/2018 12:08

He did a follow-up piece on his blog in an attempt to make his meaning more clear:

^So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.^

(Back on the PC so yay! Clicky link! jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/ )

OP posts:
DisturblinglyOrangeScrambleEgg · 24/05/2018 12:07

yeah, I have to question whether a person who thinks that sacrificing women to violent men is a good way to make men less violent - given the complete absence of evidence on that, and that actually, it's likely that they'll just continue being violent to their assigned woman.

Just because he has some opinions I can probably nod to the conclusion of, doesn't mean that we arrived there through the same route, or that I agree with his deductions and reasoning.

I feel like there's some law there around vegetarians and Hitler.

Waddlelikeapenguin · 24/05/2018 12:02

Why should ReluctantCamper get paid less for the same work?!?! Grin
I find ReluctantCamper's writing very valuable.

UpstartCrow · 24/05/2018 11:59

Clicky link.
www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

“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. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution.

I dont understand the reverence for JP. And this position on men and monogamy is anti feminist.
While its true that a personality doesn't choose their fans, I have noticed that, for example, David Irving has followers who can be expected to hold certain views and not read Noam Chomsky.

If JP doesn't think his followers reflect his views he is in a position to do something about that.