I like Jordan Peterson AIBU?

[NeatFreakMama]

With his rise to fame recently it seems like Jordan Peterson is everywhere. Personally I really enjoyed his book and I find his lectures fascinating largely, I think for me, because he's a great orator.

I know he has his detractors and I'd be really interested to hear their opinions on him. I don't really see much not to like about his rhetoric; it feels like he tends to speak mostly on universal truths but just in a really engaging way?

He did well because rather than stick blindly to his point he actually takes on Jim's point and admits he had probably been wrong. Is that not a strength of character? You can't be right all the time, we're all human and the more dangerous people are the ones who stick rigidly to their ideas

100% agreed and also...

Rule 9: Assume the person you are listening to might know something you don't

I turned off the minute that you tuber started mocking Peterson’s accent.

I actually quite like it when people resort to ad hominem attacks (copying his accent), strawman arguments (so what you're saying is...), name-calling (misogynist!!!! Transphobe!!!! Alt-Right!!!) or personal dislike

They're just proving to the world that they have no argument, data or logic.

he’s anti-intellectual, a misogynist and beloved of the alt-right.

He might not think he’s those things but the alt right certainly love him.

Many in the Alt-Right also support the view expressed by many Radical Feminists that a man wearing a dress does not instantly become a woman. They might not agree on everything.

Many liberal/left of centre commentators have a lot of respect for JP and his message.

They shouldn't be forced into anything to achieve equality of outcome.

I don’t believe we should force equality of outcome either. But we certainly don’t have anything near equality of opportunity either. My problem with him is that he seems to believe that we do.

Yes, role models are important. Of course they are.

I’m not saying there are answers but we have to admit that there is a problem.

He is very laissez faire when it comes to the GPG but not when it comes to monogamy. He understands how culture plays a part in that

As for the lack of assertiveness of women in pay negotiation. Why is that an ok justification?

Unless it’s a job that requires assertiveness then why shouldn’t people be paid according to the skills they’ve demonstrated?

Such men like to bang on about a meritocracy, about the ability to do one’s job. Negotiating a higher wage for one’s self isn’t necessarily an indication of that.

Also women returning to work are more desperate than men. Sometimes they’re just grateful to be taken on. They might not have the same bargaining power as men.

I don’t believe we should force equality of outcome either. But we certainly don’t have anything near equality of opportunity either. My problem with him is that he seems to believe that we do.

Well it depends what you mean by "equality opportunity" doesn't it. To me it means if someone very motivated and capable puts their mind to it they can achieve something - say becoming a doctor or whatever. It doesn't mean there's no barriers or that the potential barriers are equal for either sex.

Yes, role models are important. Of course they are.

But they're not an aspect of opportunity. I would never have become a gymnast because when I was young enough to begin gymnastics to a good enough level I didn't realise it was an option and had no idea what it entailed. But if I really wanted to do gymnastics I could have done so, I just didn't know so didn't want. The opportunity wasn't the issue.

I’m not saying there are answers but we have to admit that there is a problem.

Honestly - and I am only speaking for me not Peterson here - I really don't think there is one. I think a woman who puts her mind to it can achieve basically anything she wants and has been able to for a long time now. Of course there are barriers that mean most women won't - but so what, if they don't want it enough to overcome those barriers that's fine, they can do something else. I'd have loved to have done a lot of things that I didn't and will never end up doing because it's too hard to be worth the effort to me - and that's ok, there's so many possibilities in life that it's really no great loss.

*As for the lack of assertiveness of women in pay negotiation. Why is that an ok justification?

Unless it’s a job that requires assertiveness then why shouldn’t people be paid according to the skills they’ve demonstrated? *

Because pay is determined by the market and assertiveness makes you better at haggling. How do you determine it any other way? Should we have national pay scales that all employers should adhere to?

Such men like to bang on about a meritocracy, about the ability to do one’s job. Negotiating a higher wage for one’s self isn’t necessarily an indication of that.

I don't know about meritocracy. It's certainly something I've never believed in.

Also women returning to work are more desperate than men. Sometimes they’re just grateful to be taken on. They might not have the same bargaining power as men.

That's not always true. I was looking for a job a bit back (am a SAHM) and basically unless it sounds like it would be fun and worth the money I'd never take a job because I know my husband is paying for all the essentials out of his wage so mine is just for "nice to haves" never "need to haves". I'd also happily quit at the first sign of being fucked around by my employer.

not the place to argue about the post-money system, but really there are no mortgages under communism - OK?

TheWizardofWas

He is a misogynist
Please share one direct quote that demonstrates a hatred of women.

He is anti egalitarian, because...nature

He is not "anti-egalitarian". He is saying life on earth (by the very fact that living organisms have to compete for resources in order to reproduce and survive ) results in dominance hierarchies in ALL systems. This is not by design or a "construct" - it is caused purely by environmental factors and natural selection.

That's why lobsters have claws, stags have antlers and some men feel defined by the flashiness of their cars.

Lobsters have been on earth for 350 million years. Just to put that into perspective - just 65 million years ago there were still dinosaurs. Lobster have existed longer than trees.

Yet the way their brains work with regard to rivalry and status (male competition and aggression, female hypergamy and discernment / selection ) persists to this day - in nearly all animals.

In complex life we might wish for egalitarianism. But can you share even a single example of where it actually exists?

JP was heavily influenced by the writings of George Orwell (The Road to Wigan Pier) and Animal Farm- "We're all equal but some are more equal than others."

Every study of OLD shows that women invariably want potential partners who are tall. Yet only 14% of men are over 6foot.Throughout literature, women select for mates who are higher in a dominance hierarchy. Would "Pride & Prejudice" work if Mr D'Arcy was short and poor? She only really falls for him when she sees Pemberley. Would 50 Shades of Gray work if he had worked in the hardware store? The desire for a mate who will provide, protect and commit is deeply ingrained. Just spend 5 mins reading the Relationships board of MN

The evolutionary data suggests that this stuff is deeply hardwired and is a feature of the oldest parts of our brain.

@DieAntword you see I think those things are important, in order for us to say that we are a truly equal society. True equality of opportunity may not result in everyone being completely equal but they will be a hell of lot more equal than they are now.

I was looking for a job a bit back (am a SAHM) and basically unless it sounds like it would be fun and worth the money I'd never take a job because I know my husband is paying for all the essentials out of his wage so mine is just for "nice to haves" never "need to haves".

That's great for you, but as a single mum I need the money! Also, the "pin money" may well have been a previous "rationale" for paying women less than men but it hasn't been the case for ages. Besides those rationales have a Darwinian way of adapting to survive! I've heard quite a few in my time. One woman I knew had convinced herself that it was because women had periods and therefore weren't as productive.

I think a woman who puts her mind to it can achieve basically anything she wants and has been able to for a long time now.

True equality of opportunity will come when the mediocre woman has the same opportunities as the mediocre man. Otherwise you're just talking false equivalence.

Of course there are barriers that mean most women won't - but so what, if they don't want it enough to overcome those barriers that's fine, they can do something else.

So what? So... a lot of wasted potential and talent. So a lot of unhappiness and frustrated ambition, so an inequality of wealth and power that will continue for generations to come.

I think REAL equality of opportunity is the only direction to go in, but then people need to a) care about it and b) believe that culture matters.

you see I think those things are important, in order for us to say that we are a truly equal society. True equality of opportunity may not result in everyone being completely equal but they will be a hell of lot more equal than they are now.

I don't understand the desire for equality for its own sake. Why should we want to say we are a "truly equal society"?

That's great for you, but as a single mum I need the money!

So demand it? Assertiveness in negotiations is entirely learnable so if you want to bargain for more money you can do so just as much as a man can.

True equality of opportunity will come when the mediocre woman has the same opportunities as the mediocre man. Otherwise you're just talking false equivalence.

Well again, when I think of "equality of opportunity" I mean the opportunity to achieve something if you really want to, I don't mean the ability for all women to achieve anything with the same low effort a man might put into it.

So what? So... a lot of wasted potential and talent.

If someone isn't doing one thing they'll be doing something else so their talent is getting used either way.

So a lot of unhappiness and frustrated ambition

If someone is truly unhappy and frustrated they can just push through the barriers were talking about, there's nothing insurmountable in the way of achieving anything you want, except maybe poverty which applies just as much to men as women.

so an inequality of wealth and power that will continue for generations to come

Inequality in wealth and power seems inevitable to me, and honestly as long as there is sufficiency for all I don't think inequality matters (and if there isn't sufficiency for all that seems more important than inequality).

Why should we want to say we are a "truly equal society"?

Then there isn't much point debating is there?! I don't mean that rudely, but if you don't think inequality matters then there's not much more to be said.

I wonder perhaps if it's because you yourself are not that much affected by it?

I wonder perhaps if it's because you yourself are not that much affected by it?

Depends who you compare me to. I'm not particularly rich or poor by this country's standards (I have £300 in savings and our household income is about 32k), I am of course obscenely rich in global terms, compared to some sections of mumsnet I feel absurdly poor. People talk about private school and things as though it's normal and everyone does it on here.

TheWizardofWas

not the place to argue about the post-money system, but really there are no mortgages under communism - OK?

Under true communism, "all property is theft".

Why would you need mortgages if nobody owns a house?

You seemed to be objecting earlier to the banks putting people into debt and then foreclosing loans out of greed.

How could you have a mortgage without being in debt?

I don’t believe we should force equality of outcome either. But we certainly don’t have anything near equality of opportunity either

100% agreed.

TheWizardofWas

My logic is an entire critique of the financialised system of capitalism,
Could you please share this?

which profits from endebtting people
You said you were OK with mortgages. How can you have mortgages without debt?

but I don't expect the Peterson groupies of the world to understand that.

Please have a go. I promise to do my past and ask questions if I am not following.

He's brilliant OP. I'm very grateful for his courageus voice of reason in what are rapidly changing times. His words are becoming an innoculation against ideological possession, religious or political from right or left.

I'm very thankful that there is a cool headed person simply observing and speaking sense. It does seem now people are pricking up their ears and actually listening.

I do find it interesting that people who only listen to him through a lens unwarantedly call him every ist and ism and equally confusing are those who say his views are far right!?

The desire for a mate who will provide, protect and commit is deeply ingrained when women have no other way of getting those things except through men.

Enforced monogamy + restricted economic opportunities = dependence on a man.

There are many things I could use a man for other than money and protection.

The 50s’ nuclear family is not natural. It may be the most efficient way of forming families in today’s economic and social setup but it’s far from natural. If it were the divorce rate wouldn’t be so high.

@IfyouseeRitaMoreno isn't the argument that men are less wired to be monogamous so their genetic legacy is spread but women maximize their investment securing one or few dominant men. There's definitely an argument to be had about how much of that would be evolutionarily scripted / nature but I'm not sure we can ignore our biological nature altogether, or can we and just decide to be better?

Well polyandry is basically only a thing where land is very scarce but inheritance goes to all the sons and it's main purpose seems to be to prevent it being split up into unproductively small parcels. Polygyny is very common and so is monogamy. Serial monogamy seems to be extremely common too. So in terms of what is natural all the latter 3 have a good claim but the former seems far less evidenced either now or historically.

IfyouseeRitaMoreno
The 50s’ nuclear family is not natural. It may be the most efficient way of forming families in today’s economic and social setup but it’s far from natural.

What is "natural" in your view?

Francine, when did I say I was ok with mortgages? I am talking about social compulsion and the dumb violence of the commodity form which neither JO nor you can get, you may think your logic chopping is funny or clever clever, but it is not. It shows a mind stuck in analytical philosophy 101 and would really benefit from reading some Marx.

So are you're not OK with mortgages.
I am guessing that you're also not OK with home ownership.

Has Marxism ever worked anywhere?

You may think your logic chopping is funny or clever clever, but it is not

TheWizardofWas
We got on to the topic of houses / mortgages when you concluded that Jordan Peterson's rule that starts with the phrase "Get your own house in order..." was literally referring to a physical domestic dwelling. It does in part - but he uses this phrase predominantly in a metaphorical sense - in the same way a younger generation might say "Get your act together" or "Get your shit together".

They are not asking you to make a pile of your faeces.

You're a university professor.

You have come on to a thread to critique a fellow academic that you have clearly never read.

How would you feel if your students did the same?

What is "natural" in your view?

Probably a system where women have support from other family members after childbirth and not separated from their maternal families as is the case in classic patriarchy.

Perhaps where paternity is shared because goods are around to pass on and so it’s not as important.

To be honest though we are way past the point where we can ever go back to what’s natural. So it’s better just to be equitable.

I certainly don’t buy into this idea that women are naturally monogamous as it’s blatantly not the case throughout history despite all the cultural inducements for them to be so.