Jordan Peterson

Ditto.

I wouldn't have thought it was controversial that there are a lot of mixed messages for young men about how they are supposed to behave. Different than the mixed messages women get.

And when a man, such as JP says: men stop being useless, have a family, be responsible and selfless, feminists still complain.

That is why feminism no longer appeals to me. I am old, was part of original rad fem movements, but too mahy things just shout of dogma and fixed ideology in the current feminism. A single lens on everything and a blank slate approach to sex based around social constructivism that just doesn't stack up to the facts.

I genuinely find JP more appealing from a feminist stance than the Guardianesque feminist writers

As for the 'men have no idea what is expected of them' line... surely it's not that difficult to work out.Treat women as equals, don't be an arsehole, and do your fair share.

If you think that is enough to bring up competent men then you are very naive. I have two young men and I can tell you that it is not enough, it just scratches the surface to say "don't be a dick". Incredibly basic.

As the whole trans debate has helpfully pointed out, men are not women. And masculinity requires some direction. JP has offered that for young men because they needed it, and his message is a good one - take responsibility and clean your room!

He uses the word 'competent' alot about men and that being what women want.
Which seems fair, I guess we all want people who are competent in the role they are being asked to take on whether it is bring the money in, feed the kids, fix the roof, change a nappy, support me when I'm ill, or protect me from an intruder.
He seems to be talking about the MN 'cocklodger' phenomenom I think.

I guess the range of things we expect men to be competent in now has broadened, and non of them are exclusive to men, so a distinctive role is not defined as it once was.

There are too many men around though who are just not competent in any/most of those roles, and women are now often in a position of having to take on all those roles themselves.
Often instead of equality we've now got women with more pressure and tasks that fall to them.

There are studies which show clearly that a lot of women say that if they could afford to, they would make the choice to stay at home more with thier children.
NB: NOT studies which say women should, but that they'd want to if it was a choice.

When feminists refuse to discuss that there is a biological basis for different choices and roles, and insist everything should be equal in roles between meneand women, we end up here.

And when a man, such as JP says: men stop being useless, have a family, be responsible and selfless, feminists still complain.

JP doesn't say how everyone should do this. Everyone should be free to have the same opportunity and make choices. He just says women and men make different choices because of thier reproductive roles and biology, and many women want capable men who will step up and support them in creating those families. In the way they decide.

It's not prescriptive. It's more: work it out and step up.

I remember how many comments there were about the awful way Laura Bates articles used comments from her Twitter followers to say things like "x is an increasing problem" or would use anecdotes from random unknown people as evidence of thing she felt were indicative of everyday sexism.

Quite a few regular commenters said, "look, I don't troll these articles, I want them to be held to some kind of standard for good writing and journalism and I point out where they fail. If you want better comments publish better stuff or get an editor involved."

It was the first thing that woke me up to how out of touch their editors were.

Masculinity has been trounced in recent decades - men have no idea what is expected of them. But then go on any Relationships thread and a man who isn't paying his way, isn't pulling his weight, doesn't have a good job is pulled to shreds.

Do you really think a man has to be a 'strong masculine type' to have a good job and pull his weight around the house and with looking after the children? Those attributes don't sound especially macho to me! For a start, many women have good jobs and more than pull their weight around the house without having to be masculine.

As for the 'men have no idea what is expected of them' line... surely it's not that difficult to work out.Treat women as equals, don't be an arsehole, and do your fair share.

I don’t recall Peterson saying any of this protector stuff. I’m just reading his new book at the moment, have just finished the relationship chapter, and he doesn’t give different advice for men and women.

I am not saying he has never said this, just it isn’t part of his central message on how people should conduct themselves in relationships.

FWIW, I am not interested in a physical protector or someone who wouldn’t be at risk of mental health problems if both his wife and child were undergoing serious medical interventions.

I do however want someone who is responsible, committed to family life and has a sense of dignity, meaning and purpose in life. Well actually I don’t; I am happy being single now. But that is what I would look for in a partner, and what I would want for my kids in their future partners.

Those are all things that target individuals to think and live differently. So I'm a little skeptical that people who say they don't believe that is the issue areas committed as they sometimes feel they are to repudiating that individuals need to step up.

In fact, the two positions - it's society - it's individuals - are much more closely tied than that. How do you change social structures without changing individual hearts and minds? How do you change hearts and minds without changing things in society that lead to formation of individuals with a particular perspective?

It's a conundrum and yet we see that social change can and does occur. People who are good at facilitating that seem to consider both. In fact most people consider both I think, though they may tend to emphasise one or the other in someway.

The other supposed binary is the blank slate/deterministic one, where some people tend to feel that we can largely rewrite people to almost any degree and shape society as we like, and those who think there are various limits within which we have to work. Again, most people fall on a spectrum while perhaps being on one side or the other. GC feminists tend to be a bit on the extreme with regard to that where sex and gender are concerned. Peterson, not surprisingly as a psychologist, is less so.

It depends what you mean by strong. I don't expect my husband to be particularly strong or macho. But I don't want him to be lazing around while I do the work - I think that works for both sexes

We dont know what he meant by strong until maryhappywin comes back with the link to where he says this.

FWIW I assumed strong meant stalwart, secure in himself blah blah.
But like I say we need to know in what context and that requires the link.

I do think if we are honest there is a protector element to masculinity that women want / need - especially when children are young

An example, if you hear a bump in the night - you really want a man who is prepared to go and find out what the bump is.

JP just brings that sort of stuff to the surface

me too erkrie

Surely most women would want a male partner to be a decent thoughtful person that pulls their weight. They don't need to be physically strong and six foot tall. It's about who they are as a person. That's how I interpret it anyway.

It is obvious that women want a strong man, ideally. Anyone who has tried to have a child on their own knows this very keenly. It might not be what some feminists want to hear, but that is the truth.

It depends what you mean by strong. I don't expect my husband to be particularly strong or macho. But I don't want him to be lazing around while I do the work - I think that works for both sexes.

He puts forward this idea that women only find strong perfect men attractive. He gave out this image that he was the perfect man, that was attractive to women. That he was the perfect role model.

I think this is the crux of why initially feminists take a dim view of him. But I find it absolutely the truth that women need men who can 'bear the load'. Masculinity has been trounced in recent decades - men have no idea what is expected of them. But then go on any Relationships thread and a man who isn't paying his way, isn't pulling his weight, doesn't have a good job is pulled to shreds.

It is obvious that women want a strong man, ideally. Anyone who has tried to have a child on their own knows this very keenly. It might not be what some feminists want to hear, but that is the truth.

JP for many young men has clarified that masculinity doesn't have to be toxic, and indeed can be a desirable thing if done right.

@NecessaryScene1

Ooh thanks! I'll be watching that this weekend.

thank you. I'll watch it tonight.

while I find Bret Weinstein's story interesting, I've tried a couple of the Dark Horse podcasts and find them very dull.

This is a clear example of how different things appeal to different people. I get along a lot better with Bret than Peterson. Although he definitely needs Heather to keep him in check. Bret-without-Heather isn't as good.

Peterson's actual expertise is more directly applicable to the everyday person - a Jungian psychotherapist can probably tell you more directly useful stuff for your life than an evolutionary biologist.

If you like Bret's story (Evergreen?) more than Bret, have you heard his actual academic story? This is a great discussion with his brother Eric, who clearly also finds him quite exasperating, and wants that story told.

And, like you, he wants Bret to stop being so dull!

500,000 views on that 2-hour discussion with comments like:

> Eric is right. This is way more interesting than the Bret “heroic victim of identity politics gone wrong” Weinstein story.

> The greatest gift of all is a brother who believes you are more than you think you are. It’s the most touching thing I’ve ever seen.

> This is how extremely high IQ brothers fight.

> You can tell Eric is really pissed off about what happened to his bro

> Someone needs to make Brets life into a movie. Gripped from start to finish!

> Honestly, my heart aches while listening to bret telling his story

> I did not expect this to be my favorite youtube video that I ever viewed.

> Once Bret starts telling his actual story, this very quickly becomes a holy shit moment. This is a fascinating story in both the drama of what happened to Bret, and in the biological and medical discovery.

Try and find 2 hours to sit down and give this your attention. It's a fascinating and appalling story from the world of science, framed by a fascinating big/little brother dynamic - rather raw.

Well no, actually.

From this thread, at least, posters either read him or don't read him.

Some people who don't agree with him have read him (fair enough) but the vast majority of those who don't agree with him have not read him. They read what other people say about him and go from there.

Hence the wild claims about what he says

JP is like horoscopes
People read whatever they want into what he is saying

Also, following up what a pp says about JP's ideal audience being young men, I'm an old woman, and I find him pretty relevant to me, or anybody, really.

like 2late, and other people I know, I find him tiring to listen to, even though I find what he says fascinating. But I'm not sure if it would work for his books to be read by someone else. The passionate delivery is so closely tied in with the message.
On the other hand, while I find Bret Weinstein's story interesting, I've tried a couple of the Dark Horse podcasts and find them very dull.

Put me off "feminism" for a long time too. I'm not keen on labels in general and still don't think of myself as a feminist. However, if ever there was a time for women to pay attention and do something, it's now. The trans push is the next real threat to women's rights. Peterson turned me on to that nonsense a good 7 years ago and I've been watching the madness unfold ever since.

I can't imagine for a moment JP putting himself across as the perfect man that's for sure, but if you have something from him that indicates otherwise then would I would obviously love to see it.

Using the fact that he had mental health issues so should not be able to talk on these issues is deeply unpleasant. It's no wonder MH issues are often something that is hidden and covered up. Because of nasty outdated comments like that.

the majority of comments BTL were roundly criticising nonsense articles and the Guardian didn't like it. Solution? Ban commenting

Ah, a fellow refugee. Off-topic diversion...

Happy days, eh? I was quite prolific on CiF. I remember posting some long heartfelt "what are you doing?" essays under the simpering "oh my, what can we do about trolling?" pieces.

Was certainly an omen of things to come, wasn't it?

(Yes, there was a fair amount of CiF pushback on certain writers, and that did probably disproportionately hit women, due to the Valenti contingent. The fact that this could then be dismissed as "sexist trolling" rather put me off "feminism" for a while, if you were just going to play it as an identity card to shield your chosen idiots from criticism).