Jordan B Peterson

But this is just a massive strawman. No body argues for "equality of outcome' hmm Have you ever met anyone in your life who argues for equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity yes but that's not the same thing.

Erm...the gender pay gap? 50% representation of women in parliament/boardrooms/STEM careers? Equality of outcome amongst women and men at the population level seems to be the goal of at least some current feminist thought.

A man that is a known homophobic misogynist that has no problem saying women are inferior, by nature no less, supports sexually harassing women if they wear lipstick and a number of other idiotic, horrendous opinions his base eats up is being praised because a few things he says "make sense".

I got the impression that he has quite reasonable arguments against ideas based on 'equality of outcome

But this is just a massive strawman. No body argues for "equality of outcome' Have you ever met anyone in your life who argues for equality of outcome? Equality of opportunity yes but that's not the same thing.

He's said so many disgusting misogynistic things I'm so over people on this thread "I agree with him on somethings, he makes good points" Yes I'm sure Richard Spencer and David Duke make good points that doesn't mean you can excuse the terrible things they do / say. He wants women to have no choice but to marry these creepy incels, wants them to not earn an income themselves. He literally thinks womens purpose is there for mens benefit.

I haven't read his book, but I recently watched a few videos of him on YouTube to see what all the brouhaha was about. From the bits I saw he was much more nuanced and thoughtful in his arguments then he seems to be given credit for, but as has already been said he seems to have a massive blindspot when it come to the existence of structural inequalities.

I got the impression that he has quite reasonable arguments against ideas based on 'equality of outcome', but for some reason uses this as the basis to go to the opposite extreme where he refuses to recognise the existence of any unjust inequalities.

Yes. Peterson clings to refusing to recognise systemic prejudice against women and black people, for example, despite the fact that it is a proven fact. Peterson just rejects that other people have had to endure prejudice because of sex, or because of skin colour.

He totally fails to recognise that he himself was born male, white, middle class and privileged. He fails totally to recognise his own huge unearned privileges in life.

Enforced monogamy is systemically reducing access to contraception, abortion, sex education, paid family leave, social safety benefits, and independently accessed benefit schemes while socially discouraging higher education and work for all but the elite class

In other words, collectively shifting sexual power dynamics back toward men.

quite amusing

But word, why is it a competition? What are we competing for?

His message is let the men win or they will kick off and everything will turn to shit

giraffe the article he links to isn’t all that unreasonable (even though its the Daily Caller)? Anyway, I’m not a JP apologist, he’s not a feminist and holds to traditional values. Never said he didn’t. I do think he’s really disdainful of the modern feminist movement.

I’m just pointing out that he has value in motivating men to become better people, I’ve seen the Peterson effect in my own friend circle. So I find it hard to dismiss him when I’ve seen the positives.

Feminists should not have to shoulder the burden of fixing men anyway, it’s on them to figure out how to be a decent man in this era.

JP has the air of an irritated and contemptuous parent

Bahahahahahaha, nauticant.

No. Just no.

I don't disagree with most of the 12 Rules For Life. In essence he does seem to be saying that men need to step up and not just be lazy lumps that do nothing because they know women will do it all. I see lots of feminists say the same thing on here all the time.

Being controversial gets him more attention though.

You're missing the context Melanippe. If only you were to put that tweet into the right context you'd see that Peterson was being supportive of women. Apparently.

Prof Peterson showing that he's not massively anti-feminist /sarcasm

giraffe I was under the impression that he does ask them to “clean their rooms” and stop being pathetic. But he could have recorded a video that says otherwise, sure. I haven’t come across one though (enforced monogamy is a red herring). I’ve never seen where he thinks men are entitled to women, but if men want to make themselves more attractive prospects, here’s what to do ... sort of thing. I’m willing to be corrected here if he has something like that out there.

Been married for women often just means more stress and more domestic work, better to be single and earn your own money

I don’t disagree. But it still seems a huge life goal for many women. One that can lead to misery and poverty so I always wonder what’s the big deal about it!

I'm not sure that women are all that keen to get married and settle down these days, I think yes lots of people can see the benefits of being in a good loving supportive relationship, but I think they're much more concerned with their earning potential and making a good life for themselves rather than securing a husband.
Been married for women often just means more stress and more domestic work, better to be single and earn your own money.

If he wanted to build up men and send out a message to his male fans, a more appropriate response to the appalling murder would have been ‘the guy was angry because women rejected him, if he’d tidied his room and not been such an entitled douchebag, he might have stood a chance with them’ not ‘the problem is society is set up in such a way that a large group of men can’t get girlfriends and this makes them cross’.

One puts the blame for the murder on the man, the other blames society - and by extension women, for exercising choice in who they go out with.

My impression is not that he advocates for women to date violent mysogynists; but to encourage young men to become better and more attractive prospects for women. That’s why I think he has some value; he encourages these kind of awful young men to work on themselves and improve themselves.

He’s trying to make men better for women. There are (probably have always been) a lack of decent young men interested in settling down with a woman and starting a family.

I’ve always thought about it from the other way around, i.e. stop telling little girls that their wedding day will be the happiest day of their life (how sad is this?) and pretending that women have worth and greater self-esteem for getting “chosen” and gifted a lovely ring. The wedding industry is horrific in selling women a fantasy that falls short of reality. So many desperate women trying to get their useless boyfriends to propose or wasting their precious youth waiting for a proposal.

The reality is that women’s social status and value seems to plummet after she marries or has children!

But it seems that most other women still want to get married and settle down .... so I see only positives from Peterson’s self-help movement.

I don’t see him tearing down women, just trying to build up men.

He's not a Christian as far as I know. I understand his views to be much more of the 'Judeo-Christian culture is superior to others' which goes a long way to explaining the rose tinted view of Western civilisation, but it arises from intellectual pride rather than religious fervour as far as I can see.

This great intellectual said that the incel who was angry at women rejecting him wouldn’t have murdered all those people if he had a girlfriend?

Amazing insight.

so this man who has publicly stated that he chooses his words very very carefully you're saying that he chose an unfortunate phrase
Ie was careless and was careless in regards to one of his central points
isn't that rather contradictory?

He definitely doesn't advocate "enforced monogamy" - it's an unfortunate technical phrase used to mean culturally encouraging monogamy, not forcing it on anyone

Oh that famous technical term that doesn't exist. Can you show me any psychological papers which use this?

Also he advocated enforced monogamy as a solution to the incel who murdered 11 people. So he wanted enforced monogamy so that a woman went out with a VIOLENT KILLER to prevent a terror attack. I mean what could go wrong, it's not as though someone like that would ever be a violent partner, that never happens.

Honestly you lobsters and your incredible ways of defending every disgusting thing he says as oUt oF cOnTeXt.

This Twitter page basically sums him up twitter.com/jbporcleric?lang=en

He's a disgusting misogynist who cloaks it in fluffy language.

Also stuff about beating up crazy women, outlawing gay marriage, outlawing birth control, getting women back in the kitchen, black people being ungrateful, Jesus being a prerequisite for all math proofs, feminists wanting to be sexually brutalized by Islamic men, and the bible being the source of morality. He doesn't agree with all that crazy stuff about lobsters having shoulders.

@userschmoozer and others

He definitely doesn't advocate "enforced monogamy" - it's an unfortunate technical phrase used to mean culturally encouraging monogamy, not forcing it on anyone. He shouldn't have assumed the public would know this technical phrase though, and he should have foreseen that his lengthy interview would be reduced to that soundbite.

I think some good balanced points have been made about him on this thread.