Jordan Peterson - what is the deal?

[glittertinsel]

I know this guy has been around a while, but I only bothered watching some if his YouTube stuff recently. My impressions are -

He is very articulate

I alternate between thinking he is very insightful and feeling irritated by the 'mansplaining' tone of it all

Some people say he is offensive / misogynist, but I haven't really encountered that??

I get vibes from him of an evangelical (slightly peculiar / deranged?) nature underneath the calm and logical veneer?

When interviewed by Piers Morgan, why did he start crying very suddenly out of nowhere? What was all that about?

Something seems 'off', but also he makes a lot of sense in some ways.

AIBU?

For me he's like moderate religious people, who are lovely about most stuff but when it comes to gay people are homophobic in their views. It's a deal breaker - I can't overlook the homophobia, or in Peterson's case the misogyny.

He's not saying anything revolutionary - he's after a benevolent patriarchy, just like the good old days. When men were men- brave, stoic, organised, in charge, head of the family, providing, leading and dispensing wisdom - you know, before women stepped in with their 'chaos' ( his word not mine) and f-cked it all up.
Except, it wasn't like that, some men were still violent, abusive, misused their power and position, started wars. Noti

He’s an upmarket Andrew Tate, different package same contents.

He says that he agrees with Andrew Rate in so far as describing how men feel about losing their traditional roles in society. But he strongly disagrees with Andrew Tates solutions. So its wrong to say their content is the same.

I think he wants to be seen as some tortured genius. He’d make a good cult leader.

@ThomasinaLivesHere he publicly talks about how intelligent he is. I have yet to see any objective demonstration of this extraordinary intelligence. I'm not saying he's not stupid, by no means. But I'm still waiting to be convinced of this towering intellect.

Some of you are talking rubbish about JP. That he is misogynistic, he publicly talks about how intelligent he is…
I’ve never heard or saw him demonstrate/say these things. And none of you can put a link here to prove these unsubstantiated claims. Where’s the links?

'But I'm still waiting to be convinced of this towering intellect'

There is no towering intellect, he was a mid-level academic before he hit the gold seam of 'men's rights'.

@Monoprix a 2 second Google search will lead you to the info you're asking for. If you don't find a man who thinks men should be given mates to temper their violent behavior or thinks the 50's were halcyon days where women knew their place, then you don't.
It's subjective.

I’ve just read the article he posted about forced monogamy.

Actually teaching our sons that relationships with women are not all about ‘reproductive access’ and instead forming an attachment with another human being is the answer. Low earning and not conventionally attractive men can make very good partnerships if emotionally they are intelligent and they are able to see women as people.

Monogamy probably is a good system to live by, it does solve a lot of societal ills, but in the article the focus was very much placed upon it being a female responsibility and not a male one. As someone wrote in the comments, it’s about producing a well rounded person who can form relationships, putting this at the feet of women is directly influencing the incel sort into not taking responsibility for their own shortcomings and why they aren’t attracting a woman.

We all see on Mumsnet how many men aren’t functioning in their marriages, that’s a huge barrier to monogamy, but I don’t see Peterson mentioning male failure at all.

So he hasn’t changed my preconceptions at all reading that.

@MarshaMelrose MarshaMelrose · 03/03/2023 19:20
ChunkaMunkaBoomBoom · 03/03/2023 14:37
He’s an upmarket Andrew Tate, different package same contents.
He says that he agrees with Andrew Rate in so far as describing how men feel about losing their traditional roles in society. But he strongly disagrees with Andrew Tates solutions. So its wrong to say their content is the same.'

I disagree. They both put a 'value' on women. Same same. One's more subtle about it. But that's really the only difference.

I agree with a lot of what he says. It’s very unfair to compare him to Andrew Tate who is an abusive twat.

I've never heard him put a value on women. I've heard him speak about women's roles traditionally v now. I've heard him make comments on nature v nurture in these roles. I agree with some of what he says, that women do put different values on things to men. I find his views quite interesting, sometimes challenging, and I disagree with some of what he says. But I've never heard him devalue women, speak as if they're lower than him, or, tbf, higher than him.

Can you give examples so I can understand what you mean.

'I've never heard him put a value on women.'

We ear what we want to hear I suppose.

Oh, stop it. I haven't set myself on hearing or not hearing anything. If you can't find examples, fair enough. There no need to have an attitude about it.

I’ve only seen him on TikTok, so only see small parts of what is said, so you don’t always know the context of the full discussion.
But I do like his idea of cleaning up your room. That if you start at the bottom and work up, things can get better.

I've been meaning to check him out for a while. I'm fully expecting him to be pretty bonkers on some aspects but also aware that many take him out of context.

To rant for a moment, it really irks me how intellectually disingenous a lot of people are nowadays (it can only be that or extreme stupidity). I feel part of the issue is the way we interact (primarily online) where somebody can misquote another or take something out of context and very quickly and easily gain a lot of angry supporters who don't care about the real context once riled up.

A good example is the feminist protests of Warren Farrell at universities. I was curious as to the reasons as I always thought WF was pretty good on women's rights from memory.

A quick google told me he came to prominence in the 1970s as a supporter of second wave feminism and served on the New York City Board of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Also
advocating for "a gender liberation movement" with "both sexes walking a mile in each other's moccasins". Sounded reasonable.

Turns out all the fuss was because he made a comment that no doesn't always mean no. Obv this is pretty much guaranteed to get a reaction and I can see it's a risky message to give young men. But I kind of saw the point he was making. He quoted a study where 40% of young women stated that they'd said no when they actually didn't mean it or something like that.

He then went on to talk about how sometimes body language is the real indicator and how it's very important to respect women's consent but basically (to paraphrase) that women sometimes play hard to get. He said that in his day 'we called that exciting.'

It's a risky topic for a bloke but I kind of saw what he was saying. It made me reflect how sometimes in my youth I'd be almost certain I was going to sleep with a guy but would rebuff him for a while as I didn't want him to get too cocky.

However, the furious protesters were frothing and saying that he'd stated 'date rape was exciting' which was quite clearly not the case.

He doesn’t say he agrees with these things he just tells how it was in the 50s and how men would calm down if they had regular sex. He is stating the facts.
Based on this I could also say something like how that the nazis changed the world for the better because during and after WWII women started working outside the home in masses, it became the norm, they got more and more emancipated and independent, had less children etc..and it was all a direct consequence of the actions of the nazis. But it doesn’t mean I agree with what they did because I’m just talking about the consequences of the war and all the rapid, accelerated changes it caused in the world. I condemn the nazis but I celebrate all the change that happened after the atrocities they committed.

He also makes up statistics- 2% of boys will blah blah before the age of 4 … or he picks and choose the stats he uses but takes them out of a wider context to suit his argument.

I can’t take anyone seriously when a quick fact check of the article he references shows that he’s just making it up. It’s like the religious nuts who quote Leviticus on homosexuality’ as proof god doesn’t like the gays, but ignore all the other batshit stuff in Leviticus about owning slaves, or wear certain clothes together or putting people to death by stoning etc.

Good for him though, he’s managed to make himself seem rational just by not being Tate or Trump.

I like him and have time for a lot of what he says. But he'd just be one of many voices I listen to, to try and get a broad perspective. (e.g. I'm here!)

He also makes up statistics- 2% of boys will blah blah before the age of 4

Interesting. How do you know his statistics are made up? That would change my opinion of him.

@MarshaMelrose honestly, a really quick search of some of his ‘facts’ will show completely differing figures, or a clever cherrypicking of numbers out of context where the context itself is everything, or they’re based on his ‘research’ or sample
sizes so small their irrelevant. Also, using figures inly from certain parts of the world or western countries or even just North America.
But I suppose many ‘experts’ do this - either make it up, base it on their dodgy research, or misinterpret or misrepresent other people’s research to prove their own points or theories.

Anyone who states things like ‘4% of all boys under the age of blah blah blah’
shouldn’t be trusted. Which boys? World wide, in every culture? Says who? What’s that based on? Which research?

any decent academic will cite a source or study, acknowledge that it’s limited, etc not make sweeping statements about ‘boys’ ‘women’ etc

regarded as a prophet

Only unstable, irrational people regard anyone as a prophet.

If someone is being regarded as a prophet, you know rational thought has gone under.

If you listen to his maps of meaning series you would know a cult leader is not one of the things he would be! He warns of the dangers of ideological rigid belief systems.

He wrote the forward to the latest edition of the gulag archipelago, a book I have only just read which has along with many other issues over the last 5 years, made me see the dangers in left wing politics that I was very wielded to.

Anyone in the humanities in academia knows it’s absolutely rigid in what can be written and said. It creates an awful strange atmosphere of suspicion and piousness and if I’m honest I think the environment is viscous. Somehow in the name of morality we’ve managed to create a cesspit of a place to work.

So I have listened with interest on his lectures about belief systems.

And his message to young men has helped one of my family members who had lost their way and were bitterly raging at women/the world. Grow up, get out of your mums spare room, get up and showered every day, go to work, get a hobby etc. Take on some responsibility instead of gaming the day away.

Maybe this seems very obvious but there are lots of people who don’t do this and life improves if you do. Life is cruel and very unfair so it’s way harder to do this then it appears. But his message of everyone has something to offer is uplifting to people who think they are worthless.

For what it’s worth I hated him before I read and listened to him! But intrigued as to why he was so hated and was staggered at what I found him to be saying was so true in my own work environment and family life.

I'm always amused by people referring to traditional gender roles - aka 1950s America for relatively well off people.

All the women in Victorian England working in factories, in domestic service, gutting fish, working in the fields (I have a booklet about a country house/hunting lodge shoeing a note of the wages for the women breaking their backs digging out turnips etc - itinerant farm workers), working as seamstresses, hat makers, corset makers, teachers, nurses etc etc. 50% of the female population.
Many working class & lower MC Victorian houses didn't have working kitchens.... Because both adults worked so much outside he home, they bought food from bake houses or prepped it and paid to have it cooked in bakehouses.

My city was built in and run on thousands upon thousands of seamstresses making shirts etc.

The Victorian situation is not special .... Things were never comfortable enough for most of history for women not to have to work outside the home on a regular or at the very very least on a periodical basis - they were earners for their families.

Yet over and over we have people referring to some state re female work that never existed. Too lazy and ignorant to actually read the stats.