Disagreement with DH over Jordan Peterson

[NorfolkSky]

Just had a disagreement with DH triggered by this article: Jordan Peterson: Critics complain over 'misleading' book cover quotes https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66520089

Specifically we argued about the video clip of him speaking here about the patriarchy. Essentially Peterson was saying that it is wrong for society to strive for equality of outcome, and instead we should only want to achieve equality of opportunity. (He cites Norway as an example of a country where women have greater opportunities and says they still choose to work in teaching rather than the corporate world - I'm summarising).

DH thinks he is very measured and is correct in this. I think it's bollocks and in order to dismantle the patriarchy you need to first have at lease 50% of the gatekeepers / decision makers being women. Surely until this happens the patriarchy will remain...?

Who IBU?

(Incidentally the original article is all about the bullshit misleading quotes on JP's book cover...)

I've watched a lot of his clips though haven't read his books. I actually agree with a lot that he says. Some if it is common sense but others can be thought provoking and provocative.

I find JP an 'intetesting' character. IME, the men who agree with him are often the ones who kind of get it but miss the bigger picture.

And that's sort of my view on him. I don't know a lot about him but what I often come away thinking is, "Argh. He started so well. He correctly identified the problem but his proposed solution??!! WTF?!"

So only going on the details included in the OP. He's not wrong. Equality of opportunity is the desired outcome. Equality of outcome suggests employing women just because they're women whether or not they're the best person for the job.

The problem is (and I'm assuming this from what I've read of him previously), he fails to see the bigger picture that men and women aren't starting from a level playing field. As other posters have said, from birth boys and girls are applauded for different qualities; we still see language differences use to describe adults. eg men = assertive (+ve); women = bossy (-ve); marketing of children's toys (pink, gentle, feminine versions for girls eg lego); logos on children's clothing; dumbing down and sexualising women in the media; women still being valued for their compliance and appearance rather than their skill; fathers being viewed as (and required to be) accountable, capable and competent parents rather than just a second rate 'mothers help' so that the role of mother and the importance of family is valued and respected and not seen as something that we tolerate because it's what women want 🙄 and because it provides future tax payers and so on.

Those are the thngs we need to address in order to achieve equality of opportunity and would also lead to great equality of outcome because everyone would view women differently then.

JP is utterly hilarious
A man so self obsessed with an ego so huge that he denies the existence of female sexual pleasure just because he's shit in bed 😂🤣😂🤣😂😂😂🤣

Can you link that?
I have heard this before and would really be interested to know how accurate a description it is.

@Backtothe90splease I work with a number of firms with that approach and I really like it. However, that's at the end of the filter. If you want true diversity in, say, woodworking (just cos it's been mentioned a lot in the thread) it's not just about employing diverse woodworkers at the top of the filter, it's also about ensuring there are enough diverse woodworkers at the bottom. Which is where your girl-only woodworking classes might come in at school, or women-only woodworking retraining.

Anyway, op - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. There is sometimes common sense in what Peterson says. I suspect though (I don't follow him closely) that focusing on patriarchy in terms of employment without tackling the intersection of capitalism means his arguments don't stack up. Until 'women's work' is valued properly (which it cannot be in a capitalist society) then the patriarchy will stay.

Put the 'dirty jobs' men in a care home or a poonami and then let's talk about how hard dirty jobs are, eh?

'The problem is (and I'm assuming this from what I've read of him previously), he fails to see the bigger picture that men and women aren't starting from a level playing field.'

That's what I find so frustrating too. He seems to deny the existence of patriarchy and doesn't have much empathy with women, or understanding of women's lives. He certainly has interesting things to say, and he's not the devil incarnate like some people suggest. I really enjoyed the GQ interview he did with Helen Lewis, it's on YouTube. He said it was an awful experience and she hated him on sight, but I don't think that comes across at all as a viewer. It's a robust discussion and she had certainly done her homework, but I thought they were pretty evenly matched and it was a good watch

@Lottapianos I’ve seen that and agree it was a well matched discussion. I really like Helen Lewis. Really switched on and pragmatic.

Some feminists reposted it saying HL owned him in the debate and far more JP fans reposted saying he had got the better of her. But the truth was it was a very good debate and thought provoking.

The view that positive discrimination to ensure a 50/50 split of men and women in leadership roles will lead to those women being treated with suspicion as people think they haven't got their jobs through merit bothers me. Given that 50% of people are women, why don't more people feel suspicious of the men in leadership roles' merits. Surely their over representation means that some of them aren't the best person for the job.

I never listen to Peterson because I find him to spew the most misogynistic crap. Am I the only one who thinks this man secretly hates women?

I was a bit confused, I thought you meant Jordan Henderson

No, you're definitely not the only one. He secretly (or not so secretly) believes women belong in the home and exclusively as sidekicks to men.

Hi, MRA.

We see you.

Explain mra please.

Bless your heart, lol.

That's the Exact place where I have committed myself to.
For over 25 years I have thoroughly enjoyed, raising our children.
Never once missing a field trip,class party or an assembly from our 3 children.
I can't imagine thinking a career of any source could ever be more important.

"strident"? "shrieking?", "simpers"?

Bleurghhh on your sexist language.

If I remember correctly, JP also outlines a reason for why "women's" professions pay less.

If we take a typical male profession, for example engineering, these professions tend to involve outcomes or products that can be scaled up economically. So an hour's worth of work on say, an app, can potentially yield many thousands of dollars.

Whereas an hour's worth of work in a female profession, say teaching or nursing, may result in one class increasing their learning, or one ward of patients improving in health, but that input cannot yield further outcomes over time and space.

While this is unlikely to be the full story, it is likely to be part of the story.

Which is partly due to the way we measure outcomes, thinking further.

You're not as clever as you think you are. Not fooled, sorry.

JP the drug addicted crackpot who is king of the mansplainers.
He uses the age old persuasion techniques of ethos, pathos, and logos.

The scaling up economically argument sounds like tosh. A teacher who has enabled 30 children to do engineering has laid the foundation for 30 x the potential of the one engineer's achievement.

I mean, I don't have children and won't be having children. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that there are women with no children?