Woke staff revolt over Jordan Peterson book

I think David Starkey is an odious little man too and he taught for 30 years.

I don't personally think that much of Peterson: to my mind he's the "non-thinking man's intellectual."

I think JP is a bit of a dick

I think he’s an odious little man and I disagree with him on most things

What struck me from the Wiki entry is that prior to his relatively new media fame Peterson had a long academic career at a number of prestigious universities, had published masses, seemed to be a popular teacher and had carried on a clinical practice. Dismissing all of that out of hand seems, I don't know , a bit high- handed- particularly the "little man" comment.

I don't know about your 'feminine chaos dragon' but I have to say as a woman listening to/reading JP I've never felt insulted, offended, patronised, disrespected or hated. I've disagreed with him on various things, but like I say, his message is pretty good in terms of people being able to use it to improve their personal lives and relationships.

The Louise Perry article linked above is a good one that cuts through some of the prejudices about him and his work.

I find it quite depressing that young men can only be persuaded to do this through having their ego plumped up with delusions that they're superior to women and by channelling their hostility towards us into battling a feminine "chaos dragon" or whatever. But it's better than them not doing it at all.
wow - talk about presenting someone in bad faith. If you had any acquaintance with what he's saying, rather than the superficial reading
(incorporating your preconceived thoughts)you obviously have, you might be worth listening to.
And I'm saying that as someone who doesn't agree with everything he says.

he clearly and persuasively tells men to grow up and take responsibility for themselves and be ready to be good partners and fathers.

I find it quite depressing that young men can only be persuaded to do this through having their ego plumped up with delusions that they're superior to women and by channelling their hostility towards us into battling a feminine "chaos dragon" or whatever. But it's better than them not doing it at all.

I think maybe what is being propagated amongst children is maybe underestimated.

Wow that story is really scary. I've never quite understood what the Russians etc. gain out of stirring up artificial conflict on social media so it never occurred to me that they might be doing it to children too.

I know that particular rumour isn't necessarily seeded or planted - kids start wild rumours and crazes all by themselves - but children are also sitting ducks for that kind of hostile, malevolent manipulation.

It's not even the "thin end" of the wedge any more. It's getting quite fat.

The thin end was a couple of decades ago with leaders of the BNP and similar whatever. We're now at academics, journalists and authors.

In the US they're basically already at "anyone supporting opposition parties". At least we're not quite there yet.

Yy, InspiralCoalescenceRingdown! Thin end of the wedge indeed. These thought-policing despots should be challenged at every single turn.

Some celebration!

Why would it be a celebration? Laughing at the cossetted, privileged adult babies who are trying to get Peterson's book cancelled has nothing to do with celebrating Peterson. The whole point about free speech is that even people we don't like should have it.

I'd rather have a generation of men brought up to be tough-minded, resilient, responsible, family-oriented and caring than a generation of "male feminists" in any case.

From that Louise Perry article I mentioned previously:

The truth is that, if men started behaving in the way that Peterson advises, the feminist movement could pack up and go home. If all men controlled their violent aggression, supported their children, treated their spouses with honesty and dignity, stopped watching porn, stopped buying sex, and applied themselves to the task of behaving more ethically in every area of their lives, then there would be no more need for feminism. Plenty of men are doing this already, and more might do so under Peterson’s influence. That’s a good thing.

...

These aren’t comfortable ideas but they are important. They are also hugely consequential for women, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse by aggrieved, violent men, and desperately in need of solutions.

It’s not as though there are many others being presented. Influential feminists continue to insist that we should just “teach men not to rape” through consent workshops and privilege-checking, but thus far that strategy has produced nothing except confusion and resentment. At least Peterson is thinking hard about this issue — harder, in fact, than the authors of most of the pink-covered books stacked in the “gender and sexuality” section.

I like him. I wouldn't say I celebrate him, but I like what he has to say and like the contribution that he makes. I don't always agree with him (and I don't always understand him) but I think young men in particular could do worse than seek him out, and consider incorporating some of his ideas into their lives. His self-help book has the rare distinction of being actually really quite helpful - and he clearly and persuasively tells men to grow up and take responsibility for themselves and be ready to be good partners and fathers. He's a good teacher and I would imagine a very good therapist. He does the whole 'tough love' thing which I think is very much needed these days.

I'd rather have a generation of men brought up to be tough-minded, resilient, responsible, family-oriented and caring than a generation of "male feminists" in any case.

But even if you hate all that and hate JP, it's still true that he should have the right to speak and be published. The anti-free speech lobby can't win this one.

I don’t like Jordan Peterson but he’s allowed to hold the views he likes.

Can't stand Peterson, and disagree with much of what he says.

I don't personally think that much of Peterson: to my mind he's the "non-thinking man's intellectual."

I quite like Peterson at times. Other times I disagree - I manage my trauma about it.

I've not got much time for Jordan Peterson, whose ideology lacks any real consistency other than "How the world would suit me."

I disagree with a lot of what JP says, he's got a very traditional view of gender roles and religion.

I think JP is a bit of a dick.

I think he’s an odious little man and I disagree with him on most things.

Some celebration!

What's happening to Peterson at Penguin happened to Joe Rogan & Abigail Shrier at Spotify and Suzanne Moore at the Guardian.

I was going to say that if we don't criticise these woke bullies at every turn, we would fall into the expanding category of acceptable targets, but that happened years ago.

And this private sector censorship is just the thin end of the wedge. As we know - Amnesty, et al. recently called for GC feminists and gay rights campaigners in Irelend to be censored and disenfranchised by the government.

ChattyLion, yes the impact books have is probably quite limited and the response is often based on misogyny and homophobia already in the culture, not the power of the book itself.

The notion that biological sex is a social construct has become very widespread and that idea was popularised by Butler. Of course most of the people who refer to her have never actually read the book, but that is where the idea comes from. I don’t think we should underestimate the power of academia given how many people now go to university.

None of that is justification for overestimating the danger of books of course. I think we are agreed they are just books. It is the culture they exist in that causes the issue.

I don’t recall there being anything about transgenderism in 12 Rules and doubt there will be in the next book, so don’t think his views on trans rights really comes into it when people on here are judging his books. Not everything on here has to be about transgenderism.

I don't think it's an embrace, as such.
Just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff of his work.
That is healthy, I think.

Maybe I should get a job in publishing!

’It's a little ironic to see him celebrated on the feminism board. I get that you agree with him on trans rights, but I'm baffled by the general embrace.’

I think he’s an odious little man and I disagree with him on most things. I wouldn’t ‘celebrate’ him for his views on trans rights. I’m not blinded by a single issue, however important that issue is.

I’m truly amazed at grown adults believing that they have the right to dictate what their employer publishes because it upsets them. Bret Easton Ellis is published. Donald Trump is published. If Jordan Peterson said TWAW but retained his general views on women the protests about publishing his book would melt away but he’d still be an odious little man.

Yeah literally no one is “celebrating” Peterson on this thread, what everyone is saying is whether you agree with him or not, there is no reason not to publish his book. The way to deal with him is to argue back, not cry like a toddler & wang on about your hurty feels

I'm not going to rush to buy his book because I think he's a fairly hopeless writer - very longwinded and repetitive and in need of a good editor.
But he is an excellent speaker with some very interesting ideas and I respect him as such.
The idea that some nitwits have, that they can shut him down because they don't like him, is utterly absurd. Luckily, like JK Rowling, he is bombproof because he's such a money maker.
On another note, now that Social Media is such a presence in our lives, published books aren't the only way that we can get information. So, even if his book wasn't published, he would still be a visible presence.

BitOfFun, thanks for posting that Problematic video - I was in stitches! The lyrics are so clever. I don’t normally like rap, but that brilliant song is an exception. It’s quite long, but well worth waiting for him to get to the transgender bit. Hysterical.

Doesn't Peterson eat only steak and salt? I hear he's been ill recently, can't imagine why

That gets trotted out by critics trying to make him sound a bit loopy but if this is to be believed there was a reason.

Interestingly (to me, as someone with various autoimmune conditions) it was originally his daughter who reduced her diet to this and doing so put her extremely severe idiopathic arthritis into total remission. She'd been essentially crippled since childhood and had hip, knee and ankle replacements by her early 20s. So it was an increasingly desperate attempt to try to get some relief. It's worked for her and honestly looks like a bit of a miracle.

Off-topic, I know, sorry - but I think people mock JP a lot for his diet and yet when you investigate further you can see why he would want to try it, not least to support his daughter who suffered incredibly. He is also quite clear that he doesn't recommend it to anyone else, but it's helped him and his daughter a lot. As someone who has struggled with various autoimmune conditions, I am tempted to try the carnivore diet myself, to see if I can get some relief from symptoms. I don't think the aim is to do it forever, but as an extreme elimination diet from which you would add back foods that didn't trigger any symptoms or reactions. You'd hope that eventually you'd have a reasonable diet with some vegetables in it (although there are some people who basically just stick to meat and salt forever.)

The coinbase article was interesting. One of the questions asked about it made me laugh though " does that mean the company is just about profit?" Did some people mistake a cryptocurrency generator for Oxfam?

The Coinbase stance was good too. More companies need to stand up to their toddler employees (looking at you, The Guardian)

I mean again it seeks to be a right only of the privileged doesn't it. I mean if you were working two jobs just to get by you'd not be crying in the corner or kicking off at your boss.

You get on with your job or get fired.

The Coinbase stance was good too. More companies need to stand up to their toddler employees (looking at you, The Guardian).

www.google.com/amp/s/in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN26L3N4

I do not agree with alot of what he says. But he's quite good at what he does. I mean he's asked a question and he can answer it and explain where that answer came from why.

Surely thats all these staff have to do if asked? Cite what they feel is problematic, back up with examples/reasons and be abke to explain why.

Its simple. I mean if you have listened and read all sides regardless of who wrote the book becuase if we waited for books to be written by those with appropriate thoughts and back grounds and we agreed with everything, wednhe waiting a bloody long time.

Surely if you can do that, there's no reason to ban any book?