Jordan Peterson

He's a regressive misogynist and I can't believe there are 8 pages of posts defending an openly misogynistic man on a supposedly feminist board. Nuance, complexity and understanding my arse! No one would post that about the TRA stance on women's rights. Peterson does not get a free pass from me.

@mamala321 as I said Google Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Cultural Marxism Jordan Peterson and you'll see that the phrase he's brought back into popularity has antisemitic roots.

@mamala321 I would say my position on his is nuanced. I can appreciate some of his viewpoints but have issues with others, and with people who believe everything he says as gospel truth because some of what he says rings true. JP's followers seem to lap up this verisimilitude.

I'm waiting for you to give us more details about JP's antisemitism muggle. That's a pretty serious allegation to make if you can't give any evidence

I like him. Mostly because he is incredibly smart and runs rings around the TWAW brigade when they try to take him on. Also though because he doesn't apologize for having an opinion - pretty much everyone else backs down one the TRA's are unleashed on them and he never has.
I don't agree with everything he says but why should you have to to admire someone. He has the courage of his convictions if nothing else

Look up Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory if you still don't see the problem, and see exactly what he's repeatedly endorsing. The lobster stuff applied the way he does to defend modern day hierarchies is conjecture and pseudoscience. It doesn't prove what he (or you?) thinks it does.

As to the assertion that I can't possibly know about him because otherwise I'd think the same as you, I find that hilarious, and demonstrative of the type of thought process that leads us to this discussion. He's problematic in many ways.

I do agree some of his views are necessary for these times to some people as a pp mentioned. The common sense sort your own life out, take responsibility approach. Great. But attached to some of his other perspectives it's very concerning that he's become one of the go to references for MRA/incel types, who use it as a basis to reinforce their misogyny and disregard actual female perspectives. This does feminists little to no favour. The tenet JP repeats frequently of men and women being different but should be treated 'fairly' all rests on perceptions of fairness. But without talking about big changes to systems, and he's very pro Capitalism, he means treated fairly whilst they 'compete' with men in a system designed by and favouring men. Without valuing care work differently, for a start, this system can never provide an equal 'arena' for women to 'compete' as equals. A feminist perspective would be that the system needs to change so that differences between the sexes do not directly lead to material or opportunity disadvantage. He sees patriarchy in the current day as a nonsense (though accepts it was around as feminists describe it in the past, then some how in some unspecified by him point it becomes a nonsense - not quite got my head around when or how he thinks this happened, but maybe I've missed it). To him, as I see it from his own words across multiple sources, the current hierarchy that I would call patriarchy is a natural product of societal evolution and therefore inevitable. He doesn't support any actions to make it fairer. He denies societal roles in gender stereotypes and that any sociological constructs contribute to this hierarchy. That's a pretty big assertion that I disagree with.

I agree with you, but I think the bigger problem is that he is complex, and takes some effort to understand.
Many people seem to decide beforehand that they don't agree with him, but, instead of having the maturity to do what you did packing, prefer to search secondary (usually hostile) sources to find something to back up their prejudice.
Also, as someone said, way back in the thread, what's wrong with viewing him in a nuanced way, as an interesting, but not always right, speaker? So many people can't cope with this.

I've gone on a bit of a journey with Peterson. I started off with nasty distaste in my mouth and have slowly come to believe he's a necessary figure in modern culture.

He's pretty much the only person publicly telling young men to sort their shit out, and that the fanciful dreams sold to them by advertising and mass culture are likely to make them terribly unhappy.

He functions as the dad so many young men need who is willing to tell them hard truths about life.

He admits he doesn't understand the female experience, but his point is that women don't achieve parity with men because they tend to score very highly on congeniality. In short, we are too nice. He posits both biological and social reasons for the profusion of this trait amongst women.

I think part of the problem is that he is a Jungian, and Jung seems a bit bonkers when you first come across his work.

Cultural Marxism is indeed taking over Universities both in the USA and the UK. Worth a read is the book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay explaining all the various theories which now infest our cultural institutes and the workplace.

Perhaps done a bit of selective googling.

Without a doubt.

And I would love to see evidence of antisemitism, because it isn't there.

I, too, can't believe that muggle has actually read or listened to JP, from what they say. Perhaps done a bit of selective googling.

What he's actually saying about communism is that it's taking over cultural channels. This is most apparent in universities.

As to my perspective, I've read the blog, listened to his podcasts and appearances, and his big interviews.

You haven't. It's so obvious that you haven't.

As he presents and endorses so many views, some basic common sense, some awful (antisemitic cultural Marxism for example) I'd love to know what exactly you're referring to

Can you reference where's he's anti-Semitic please?

He says cultural Marxism is taking over the universities. Amongst other things. Which clearly it is. He's not endorsing it at all. I'm really not sure what your point is here.

Wow, some very defensive posts from his fans.

Google Jordan Peterson Cultural Marxism if you've not heard of that link before, and also Google Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Also look up Jordan Peterson and enforced monogamy, and just 'arguments against Jordan Peterson' for a variety of alternate perspectives. I'm not saying everything he says is wrong or bad, or that I agree with everything his dissenters assert, but it does feel like some wider perspectives might be useful to some.

As to my perspective, I've read the blog, listened to his podcasts and appearances, and his big interviews. I haven't read all of 12 rules, though I've read a lot of interviews with him, and analyses of him. There's definitely a lot to agree with - the common sense angle - and a lot to be skeptical of, especially the right wing, Christian, misogynistic type ideology dressed up as fact and, whilst he has said he is not a Social Darwinist (Social Darwinism being widely discredited), he certainly alludes to similar notions repeatedly.

I don't think he's a friend to feminists. Any positives there are incidental to his message. He's undoubtedly aware of his influence with incel/MRA types and could certainly use that influence to make a bigger difference to help women if he chose to. Instead he spends more time dissing feminists and feminism, but of course often done whilst talking to so-called feminists to give the impression of support (my god, that femsplainers podcast!).

I thought the point of the lobster was to pick the species least related to us and show that even in that species, position in the hierarchy is related to serotonin. The purpose of that point being that we should treat our bodies and our minds as if we are worthy of respect, for example in our posture. He uses basic counselling techniques but attempts to explain the reasons why they work, using examples from science, therapy, family life, society and myth so that the central themes are memorable.

For the poster discussing why spending time with people who want the best for you doesn’t work as a moral principle because it clashes with take responsibility, that is philosophy 101. Moral principles conflict with each other; it requires moral sensitivity to balance them. That is the case with all moral systems.

It seems JP has simply picked up on lobster as his go to because it's old? Older than humans?

He's just looking for an animal we are most distanced from in evolutionary terms that show the same kind of behaviour. That it is so entrenched, that to think we can just undo that, is pretty much impossible.

Of course we have evolved in intelligence where we can see the hierarchy that is there and try to do something about it. But there's always a fight for power. It's human nature. It's part of our coding. That won't change. The culture of grievance is starting to show a difference type of hierarchy now. As it means those can turn the tables in terms of wielding power. And that is something this section of MN is more than aware of.

JP is not for hierarchy or against hierarchy, he's just trying to explain why.

This is the idea behind the lobsters, I have cut and paste from above as I couldn't be bothered to write it out again

I'm quite a fan of JP but still I haven't heard this yet, I'm certain that as soon as I can I will.
So I am not a biologist or anything,,doesn't pretty much every species have a hierarchy? It seems JP has simply picked up on lobster as his go to because it's old? Older than humans? And of course if it's our nearest cousin if you like that's expedient
I think but again ianab hierarchy gives each species structure, worker ants, queen bee blah blah.
And just because we can see the hierarchy doesn't mean much if its embedded in our genes.
Tomorrow I shall fire up the YouTube and find it.

But go and research JP if you want to know more about him and his ideas

He doesn't address the conflict, right?

Well I dunno when I can hunt it down but so I'm ready, is that it, a lobster analogy? Or is there more arbitrarily linked stuff?

This is the idea behind the lobsters, I have cut and paste from above as I couldn't be bothered to write it out again.

Lobsters: from an evolutionary perspective, animal species organising themselves in hierarchies where some are higher up the social ladder than others, is a trait found in all animal species between us and lobsters on the evolutionary "family tree". Because our last common ancestor with lobsters was about 550 million years ago or more, that means that the origins of hierarchical behaviour go back even further. It's part of our genetic "program" and an inevitable part of human behaviour. The fact that we can question or even sidestep it in specific circumstances also speaks to our evolutionary history but we can't simply avoid it.

Im not aware of any human societies that don't have some form of hierarchical structure. JP uses lobsters to explain why.

Sometimes (quite often for women) it's impossible to do both, so how should we resolve this conflict when it exists? What does Peterson say about it

It is possible to do both. Surround yourself with people you like as best you can, who have your best interests, whilst meeting your responsibilities, as best you can. But go and research JP if you want to know more about him and his ideas.

Luckily I dont give two hoots if you dont respect me.

Good, because I shouldn't have said about not respecting people. It's not true anyway. I was thinking about a specific man who walked out on his partner and baby because he wasn't "having fun any more". I don't respect him much. But at other times, it's complex and people need to take care of themselves and walk away from bad situations. So it was a thoughtless thing to say and I'm sorry.

And he's not advocating that people should walk away from their responsibilities is he

No, he's saying we should be responsible. Also, that we should only spend time with people who have our best interests at heart. Sometimes (quite often for women) it's impossible to do both, so how should we resolve this conflict when it exists? What does Peterson say about it?

It must be nice to feel morally justified to walk away from that kind of stuff, but I don't respect people who do and I definitely don't think it makes society better off

Luckily I dont give two hoots if you dont respect me. And I don't think surrounding myself with people who have my best interest in mind is also abdicating all responsibility for others. You can tell for certain you've never listened to JP as he regularly mentions these issues and more.