Jordan Peterson Interview with Helen Lewis

Sunnyroad1: The Nazis engaged in the systematic genocide of six million Jews. They also sent gays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses to the gas chambers. They initiated a world war that resulted in the deaths of many millions of people. Please don’t debase their memory by applying the word Nazi to a group of people fighting for social justice.

also, how are we measuring egalitarian?

the domestic violence stats in the Scandinavia are horrible

it ain't no feminist paradise

Very few people had an opportunity to be an engineer of any kind until recently. It isn’t a conventional role for anyone.

according to an ex-colleague, your champion of empirical evidence believes his wife's dreams sometimes foretell the future

the return key still eludes you I see

so do you disagree with the evidence, that the more egalitarian a society becomes the more men and women choose conventional roles? That societies where women have less opportunity e.g middle eastern countries, women given the opportunity will choose to be an engineer.Or do you deny this?

Again, somewhat indicative of the kinds of things I says I feel

Jordan Peterson always draws out some interesting characters

But I do enjoy someone mansplaining my job to me, makes me feel so comforted and as if the status quo is being maintained.

Someone using the word feminazi is simply telling women exactly who he is. I generally believe them when they tell me this.

Whenever I see the word feminazi I know I'm dealing with a man who hates women.

And I could hardly be a Feminazi since I have been married to a man I love for almost 20 years and have 2 DS who I also love - can't quite square that circle can they?

feminazi's who are in the grip of an extreme left ideology

you don't have opinions ladies

you're in the grip of an ideology

also you probably have little gun barrels instead of nipples

that's how feminazis look in my head

should read.I'm not disputing the history of the suffragette's movement

But feminazi is such a brilliant word to describe women who think everything is men's fault and love playing identity politics. People on here are starting to get very 'snarly', because I've queried their opinions, some even say Jordan Peterson isn't an intellectual.??? [femenazi's think he is so thick while they're so clever] But he is able to back up most of what he says by proper empirical research, much of done by left-wing social scientists. He's not saying anything new he's just articulating it so that ordinary people like myself can understand.But feminazi's who are in the grip of an extreme left ideology just cannot entertain a view contrary but are unable to back any up.I'm disputing the history of the suffragette movement,but what was the history of men and voting. How many people could read and write in the 1850's?Do you dispute that life was brutal, do you really think that men and women didn't pull together? Was your grandfather a Tyrant? You are not in my opinion taking a holistic view of how we in the West got to this privileged position.

it is ,but I'm statemented dyslexic, so any written word is difficult for me.

Staging debates with intellectuals is a piece of theatre that JP aims at his fanbase
It makes him look as if he belongs in the same category as intellectuals and thereby elevates his status in Their Eyes because, well even the very clever people can't understand him he's so clever !

Ah Sunny, my profound apologies. I believed you had joined our happy band to discuss this in a rational fashion, but I see you believe that "feminazis" are a thing.

You might want to do some research about who had the vote when and why, because your understanding of universal suffrage is sadly lacking. Or to quote your favourite demagogue, you just don't understand.

oh yeah - 'you didn't understand'

on one of the many previous occasions that we've had this discussion I've been told to go and use google when I asked for clarification

not the point of the chat site really?

@Wee I don't think Peterson really wants to appeal to people like you, ie the people who can see straight through him
His dog whistle is tuned to his fanbase

Lol, so we are told time and time again that Peterson doesn't attract sexists. And yet, further up the thread some guy uses the term 'feminazis'.

And in typical Peterson fanboy fashion, I bet he will respond that a) he was joking/being ironic or b) I 'misunderstood' him, somehow.

Incidentally, this is my biggest issue with Peterson. I'm an ex academic with a PhD - I know how to read. And yet most disagreement with Peterson's ideas is met with "well, you just didn't understand." I'm sorry, but if his ideas are that opaque then he's just not a good writer. I personally think that the whole 'you don't understand' line is a very handy way of not having to defend anything that he says.

@Sunnyroad I get the impression that English isn't your first language?

okay fair enough.Men after long struggles, fighting gradually gained the full vote in the 20thCentury. Women's right to vote followed not long after. There was a peaceful struggle and a radical struggle [suffragettes]. But many people think that the peaceful struggle would have won through without people dying.[i don't know].But if choose to see that as a Tyrannical Patriarchy.so be it.

cor Sunnyroad1, may I draw your attention to the return key?

Move your hand slightly to the right and you will alight upon it

it's just super for avoiding that 'wall of text' motif

So, in answer to the question "why didn't any women have the vote?" you're going with "not all men had the vote" which is interesting. You kind of lost me after that, I find reading walls of text quite difficult for which I apologise.

Hi,How many men had the vote?He has addressed this numerous times.But in the 1800s very few people had the vote.So it's been a gradual thing for everybody. People were very very poor,we can't imagine,but what he says is that it was by co-operation between men and women that society progressed. People had to pull together.If you put everything into a tyrannical patriarchy you are missing the point. Society was brutal to everyone [bar landowners] at this time. He's just trying to point to the context of life. And feminist trying to frame everything as a tyrannical patriarchy isn't serving any purpose.As we can see in the Swedish egalitarian model, and the agreeableness and disagreeableness model in 'success in boardrooms'.Her dismissal of the Indian man developing a 'sanitary towel ', for his wife as something 'nice', shows the 'feminist disconnect', and i would query her empathy for poorer societies.She plugs her book and said she has spoken to a few male teachers who say they feel left out at work in a all female environment. Well, iv'e known loads of male teachers, iv'e never met one who's told me that. She hasn't done any proper survey, collecting proper empirical evidence, but no-doubt some other feminist will quote this half-baked research.I think in the coming months some of her statements will comeback to haunt her.

I'd be interested in how he'd answer the q 'Why didn't women have the vote in the first place?'