Jordan B Peterson

Snake oil and stereotypes is right. Jordan P speaks such nonsense, and some of it quite clearly misogynist. Women as chaos, men as order? WTF?

Is anyone here actually defending Ben Shapiro? He's such a racist.

(My apologies for the late reply, btw. I have been very busy).

@EJennings

Tom Your view of history is, uh, quite glossy. The world was very definitely not getting more peaceful in the decades leading up to 1914. Let's see the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Sino-Russian War, the Spanish-American War, the Boer War have I left any out? What was going on in India? I recall something about Lord Kitchener? Africa? We have the Maxim gun and they have none? And what was happening with the Ottomans? Don't forget the Boxer Rebellion. I haven't even considered Latin America here.

No. I said "In the decades leading up to 1914, the world was becoming richer and more peaceful, there was more international co-operation, civil rights were being advanced, and while life wasn't anywhere near as good as now, things were heading in the right direction relatively quickly."

I did not say there were no wars.

All of these were wars of empire -- 1914 was the worldwide explosion of tensions around the spoils of empire.

Which disproves nothing I have said.

As for FDR and the New Deal, he explicitly stated that he was trying every reform he could think of to stave off revolution. In the interwar years, the US was going through all kinds of civil strife, including bombings. Wilson passed the most illiberal laws, barring those around slavery, in US history, including restrictions on free speech, free press and free movement. He rounded women up into labour camps! People were jailed for speech and press violations. Women who married foreign nationals lost their citizenship.

The US did not come anywhere near revolution, which is the main point. Also, remember the context was the 1930s, when liberalism was in retreat everywhere. Despite this, whatever laws were made in the US would have borne no comparison at all to what was going on in the Soviet Union at the same time, in the name of class struggle.

The New Deal was implemented by a democratically elected government, and that is the point.

My British history is fuzzier but I think the interwar years in the UK were marked by similar strife, since the Bank of England had gone off the gold standard to pay for WWI and then returned to it after the war, whipsawing people between inflation (the borrower's friend) and deflation (the banker's friend.)

It's best that I return to the point I was originally making: that the liberal view that progress does not need explaining in Marxist terminology is defensible.

The UK experienced much hardship in the 1920s and 1930s (although other countries, including its colonies did worse) and I don't believe there was any progress of any sort. There was the emergence of some unpleasant groups like the BUF. Ultimately, however, whatever direction the UK was going in was overtaken by war in 1939.

It's just not possible to say that it was liberal democracy using reason and the ballot that brought about moves toward civil rights equality in the US without erasing this little thing Americans call the Civil War. Or the violence of the Civil Rights era and the very real fear many white Americans felt of a Malcolm-X style activist uprising .

Once again, my point is that human progress does not need to be explained by reference to Marxist ideology. Sometimes shit just happens, or for reasons that don't fit into a grand narrative like Marxism. I find it easier to explain the outbreak of the US Civil War by saying that the whites in the South rebelled against the North because they wanted to maintain their own way of live, including keeping slaves. The fact that a weaker group rebelled against a stronger group seems to run counter to Marxist theory.

I am not even defending the notion that all advances come about through reason and dialogue. In fact, they come about for all sorts of messy reasons, both bad and good. What I am defending is that reason and dialogue are capable of achieving this, and the notion that in fact all dialogue is guided by an invisible Marxist hand is not necessary to explain that progress. I would in fact go further and say it is highly suspect view as it's not falsifiable.

In fact, I would argue that the reason women's rights are constantly facing attack and erosion, in cycles through history, in a way that other liberation movements do not is precisely because women are NOT violent and don't inspire fear in governments the way that unhappy organised men do

The rights of all people advance and retreat over time for all manner of reasons.

It's funny to me that you speak of Marxism and Peterson somehow standing against it, when his entire chaos-order dichotomy comes straight out of the ground from which Marxism arose: German idealism. Chaos-order is as much a dialectic as anything Marx wrote, going back to the Greeks. As for materialism, that's simply the recognition that economic forces affect history -- Marx never believed they were the only driver, else there'd be no dialectic between economic conditions and what we call culture in his thought. Adam Smith, of Manchester liberalism fame, believed the same thing

What Peterson damns as Marxism is actually postmodernism, which arose in reaction (meaning against) Marxism.

Thanks - no really - those are interesting points and well made, and if I do sit down and read a book by Peterson I will certainly bear that point in mind. I completely agree that Marx's ideas rest in part on German idealism and I would be very curious if Peterson based his ideas on the same theories.

I think I would disagree about your view on Marx and economics. He always struck me as regarding it as the supreme influence.

Unfortunately his calls for "order" have led to very bad results, particularly when they're used to mobilise young men feeling defeated or disenfranchised by their nation, culture, or economy. That's especially true when he posits women as holding the opposite position of chaos, which of course must be restrained by order.

Yes, it sounds a little odd to me too.

Men do have reason to feel hard done by. They have been, in the US and UK, but not by women. By de-industrialisation. By a refusal of two governments both sovereign in their own currencies to use their economic power to create jobs to replace those destroyed and thereby expand their economies by increasing aggregate demand (not enough money in the wallet) and plugging demand leakage (trade deficit.) That's a political choice, not an economic one.

I think there are many men who have been advantaged by the changes over the last couple of generations. For example, I am currently on leave from work as my children are on school holiday (I'm in the Southern Hemisphere so it is summer). No one thinks this is at all strange. A lot of my preferences, which were considered unmasculine when I was growing up in the 1980s have become normal. This may not suit some men, but it has suited me.

I'm very concerned about a message that places women in the enemy position during times of economic dislocation. Let's see the 17th century European witch-burnings; Germany after WWI and the Freikorps anger that women spent the war in "comfort" and then, when the going got tough, demanded surrender that was a time when a new word, due spike in a specific kind of crime, entered the German lexicon: "sex-mord." Sex-murder. The aftermath of WWII that saw middle class US and UK women pushed back into the home and again into economic dependence. Iran after its revolution. Afghanistan in the wake of its civil war upon the Soviet withdrawal.

I would have thought it simpler to say that women (in Western societies at least) were pretty much all dependent at all times until the 1960s, unless they had a private income.

In March, 2009, Obama told a visiting group of Wall Street titans, "I am the only thing standing between you and pitchforks." At the same time, he told liberals and leftists in the US (paraprasing here),"You elected me to do things you want. Now make me do them." They didn't, and he didn't. No pitchforks yet, but Trump in 2016, and ordinary Americans, not the fringe whackos, are talking now about the possible future break-up of the States into civil war and/or about revolution in a way I've never heard before.

I find what is happening in the US and across the world alarming, but that's why I think it can be explained as a parallel to the fall of liberalism back in the early 20th century. It does not follow that Marx was right after all. Actually, what strikes me is how well American civil institutions are holding up.

In this mix, Peterson is very dangerous to women. Order is not liberal at all. I worry that in his message, and the way in which his followers are receiving it, he is fostering chaos.

Liberalism isn't anarchy. A liberal society is ordered, but in a way that is not oppressive. Whether Peterson stands for this, or whether he stands for odd diets, lobsters and some philosophical views on chaos versus order is something that I look forward to finding out. If he stands for the latter, he's no liberal.

Awwww thanks tbh I respect the hell out of women who achieve those levels of badassery.

Getting back to the larger thread, the pink-collar trend is just the sort of thing that Jordan Peterson outright ignores. Now, he’s good at motivating otherwise worthless men to be better. There’s value there.

But he really doesn’t have much to offer women ... except to tell us not to be feminists? To be the woman on the pedestal that the man tries to better himself for? To blame us for the career choices we make, without considering the sexism rife in those industries?

Not cool, JP

Many “dangerous” jobs don’t actually require the upper body strength where men have an advantage over women, but men have kept women out of those jobs regardless, because for comparative education requirements, they’re well paid.

I don’t know where this is coming from; I never said that women don’t have what it takes to do these jobs? They just don’t choose to do them in large numbers, although in Victorian times (and in third-world countries), you’d definitely see women working down in the mines, for instance, doing dangerous jobs.

I know female-dominated professions are underpaid and undervalued. I know when men enter female-dominated professions, they tend to rise through the ranks faster, and the industry as a whole gets better paid. It’s sexism.

I also don’t doubt you know individual women who do dangerous and dirty jobs. Doesn’t change a general trend. Also, it’s known that women in the military or on a fire squad have advantages in certain ways, like squeezing into small spaces.

That men tend to do them more is a fact. In first-world countries, they are generally rewarded for that, too. But it’s not my primary concern, as most men aren’t in dangerous jobs anymore either. It’s just that they tend to be in those that are still left.

And I don’t know why you are asking me silly things like can I be a fighter pilot/fire fighter. No, I can’t. But it’s down to more than my biological sex. It’s because I’m simply not interested (and, let’s be honest, I’m definitely not suited to it!).

Our interests should lie in making female-dominated industries more valued and better-paid. That’s where we are, and that’s what we most often choose to do. To push a few women into male-dominated professions, well, it’s good for those women, sure. But what about the rest of us? Are we not valuable contributors?

But why not make a bigger difference for the rest of us, by making our jobs better valued and life better for more women? Absolutely no reason for home carers, nurses, teachers, etc. to continue to be underpaid for the valuable service they provide.

I had a professor once lament that his smartest female students went into sociology and not STEM; I get where he was coming from, but I still wanted a humanities degree. It was my choice, and I love what I do ... but could definitely stand to be better paid

For someone who supposedly absolutely smashes it whenever he encounters opponents, Jordan Peterson sure does seem to attract many shallow-thinking and fixed-thinking followers.

70% of families lose their wealth by the second generation, going up 90% by the third.

time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

What causes the difference in lifetime pay between a man and a woman then? And the difference in net worth, which is bigger?
Why do women pick worse paid jobs? Why do women take time off from their careers? How are men able to focus on careers?
Two individuals, one male and one female, being paid different amounts for the same job isn't the issue really.
I never used to believe in an pay gap because I knew I got paid the same as my male colleagues. It's not pay as much as a dearth of earning opportunities. Women aren't as free to pursue earning opportunities, like shift work, like working abroad, like long hours, like networking at social events while the wife babysits the kids you pay for and rarely see.
This in turn means that it's easy to argue against dumbing down requirements for certain roles. I don't want an inexperienced judge. In some roles perhaps it really is a prerequisite to put in the hours - and some women do, although they are mostly childless.
But in many roles that level of presenteeism isn't strictly necessary. If you've ever worked with blokes who deliberately work late to avoid bathtime or school pickup or parents' evening you'll also know that presenteeism is a bit self-fulfilling.
Also, let's be honest - shift work is ok if it suits you. Active work is ok if it suits you. I'd rather be a firefighter than an insurance executive.
So the idea that men earn more out of sheer hard work and heroism is sweet but rarely true.

EJennings
Agreed, many of those roles aren't particularly suited to men over women and in many cases men have made it deliberately difficult for women to apply.

The high risk jobs mentioned are usually construction related or mining.
The death rate for builders is massively higher than for the vast majority of other jobs, this link does mention bin collectors (I'm assuming it's the constantly working amongst a moving vehicle and possibly other traffic that increases the risk) link

You are wrong. Ridiculously so. Pop off and search the academic literature for nursing and low status.

That's nice that you have a relative who is a nurse. Irrelevant but nice. I am a nurse and I am familiar with the evidence on this.

Nursing is both risky and low status. It is low in status socially, within health hierarchies and on an industrial level. In fact, it is so low status that people like you dismiss how many nurses are abused and physically assaulted on a daily basis.

The original claim was that women don't want to do "tough jobs". You have redefined that to dismiss the many, many jobs that women do that are "tough". Just because a job is not traditional manual labour doesn't mean it can't be risky and difficult. That is a sexist position.

Bold claim. Perhaps you could look at the assault rates for nurses, a primarily female profession.

It’s not a bold claim; it’s factually true. Just because one or two sectors that are women-dominated are somewhat risky doesn’t negate the rule. And some that seem dangerous (like police work) aren’t actually all that dangerous btw.

High-risk, low status jobs don’t have to be well-paid (farm help for one). They very often are though, to attract people to do it.

(And I’m frankly surprised you think nursing is low status! Maybe I’m biased because I was raised by one. It is low paid, through, because it’s pink collar. Women-dominated professions for sure are low paid. But again low paid!=low status)

Would you rather be a bin man or prostitute?

I’ve lived in a third-world country where women enter prostitution because it’s a better-paid option than being a factory worker (and being a factory worker is not without risk either there).

I’ve found it hard to square that some women prefer it over the “dignity” of factory work, but it’s their choice (and we can help them get out when they are in danger for sure, even if I wish they wouldn’t get into it in the first place).

Men are more likely to be in high-risk jobs, and be paid well for it. Prostitution is a fine example of a high-risk, low-status job. And it can be well-paid, and women I knew often used it to support their entire family back in the countryside. Their factory work could never do that (and the lies they’d have to tell so their family never knew.....heartbreaking).

Regarding Switzerland: Note that women in Switzerland, who had struggled for voting rights by lawfare since like forever, radicalized in the late sixties (in the newly founded radical feminist organization: FBB), they occupied houses and marched against Bern (1969), which according to Wikipedia scared politicians. 1971 they got Suiss voting rights.

So much for that.

Think you are confusing high-risk jobs with low-status jobs. The former can be well-paid, at times. The latter obviously not.

Bold claim. Perhaps you could look at the assault rates for nurses, a primarily female profession.

I think the timing of the introduction of voting rights for women in Europe is an instructive case in point.

In Germany and Austria, where WWI destroyed the power structure of the elites, comprehensive women's voting rights were introduced in 1918. (Russia with its Boshevik Revolution got it in 1917, again, the powers that been had been destroyed). In England, where some women resorted to violence and self-sacrifice but the system remained intact: 1928. The staunchest, most successful Democracy on Earth (which I in fact value highly in many respects), that did not see wars and revolutions in the 20th century, Switzerland: 1971.

I am absolutely certain Switzerland participated in new technologies just as much as Germany and Austria. The banal fact of the matter is that the Suiss men did not want to share their power absent a threat of mass upheaval.

Would you rather be a bin man or prostitute?

a case can be made that being a house-wife can be pretty deadly

Yeah, well, not just housewives, but any sexual partner of a male is putting themselves at risk somewhat. Not disagreeing with you there.

Oh, I thought someone had mentioned bin men as being a tough job? Didn't realise we were taking danger..
Don't know many men with dangerous jobs but I know lots of women who clean up shit. Although, dp was army, and served. He said, based on his experience in Kosovo, he would rather be a man, with a gun, in an army than a women with nothing in a war zone (although he would obvs rather be neither as he hated the army).

Speaking of CEO salaries, is the job of a CEO deadly or even risky in any form? From what I gather they regularly run corporations in the ground without paying any penalty for it. Instead they get paid handsomely even then. It seems to take unmistakeable fraud and massive geopolitical interests for CEOs to face any backlash (e.g. VW CEO prosecuted by the US; possibly, rarely European banker, as a US banker one seems to be very, very safe, even when ther are obvious prosecutable offences.).

Nobody ever died from wiping arses. Think you are confusing high-risk jobs with low-status jobs. The former can be well-paid, at times. The latter obviously not.

We were talking about tough jobs. Deadly jobs is a qualification that moves the goal-post somewhat. That said, considering how regularly women are killed off by domestic violence, a case can be made that being a house-wife can be pretty deadly, without earning one a CEO salary.

Well said EJennings.

it isn't necessary to rely on violent struggles for power to explain societal changes

No, of course it is not necessary. Just ignore all the evidence and scientific research that refute your alternative theory, finger in your ears, lalala, then mix in some phlogeston and there, it is entirely possible for you and JP to explain societal changes without violent power struggle.

What I find hilarious is how JP insists the dominance of males by power (not competence), is not a thing, by pointing out that only a small minority of males have this power and wealth, while the majority of males is rather powerless and destitute.

Considering most of this wealth and resulting power is undisputably inherited (btw. historically by male-centric inheritance laws), what JP does here is acknowledge the overarching impact of class, which is fundamentally a Marxist position.