To find Jordan Peterson...

[pompous]

Quite attractive? I'm a 30 year old woman so he is a little out of my usual age range but there's something about him I find really attractive. Maybe it's an attraction due to how clever the man is, I'm not sure. I can't be alone in this?

I’m female, replying here of my own free will. I’m also in academia, don’t watch Q.I., and have very little interest in the side of buses (what a bizarre thing to say).

I’ve also paid to attend one of JP’s lectures, consider myself just right of the middle politically, with right leanings regarding economics and slightly more left regarding social issues.

I've just come back to this thread. Fascinating.
Im female and Jordan Peterson came up on my radar at the same time as Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan. I have teenage boys of my own and in my extended family and I discovered that they and their friends were all listening to them.
I took time to listen to them, discovered things I liked and didn't like and spoke to the boys in my family about it.
I found JP highly interesting and listened to quite a few of his interviews and lectures. I don't agree with everything he says but there is merit in a lot of his opinions.
I also admire his stand against compelled speech.
Like a pp, I consider myself politically central and I'm not stupid.

Wow, I am also declared a man now for having my own opinion, as well as a load of other odd generalisations.

It's quite interesting how some people put people into boxes of identities because they can't handle the fact everyone has a different opinion.

"You must be this, you must be that..."
For your information (unsurprisingly) you are wrong on all counts.

FWIW I think Wendeline was being very patient and respectful, and they asked a very fair and basic question. In fact I reckon half the back and forth on this thread could have been left out if only terms would have been defined first.

The basic debate seems very simple: Is modern day Western society patriarchal or not?

And without giving clear parameters of what patriarchy means in this context, I don't see how anyone could argue either side.

I see a genuine passion in him to help people. I don't think you need to agree with absolutely everything he says to recognise this and be inspired by his words.

The quote from Olivia Wilde and JPs response was very moving. Society seem to write off a large group of marginalised and socially awkward men, and the Olivia Wilde's of this world seem to see them as fit for ridicule while JP wants to help them help themselves and give their lives direction and meaning to themselves and to others. It might not be fashionable but I believe it is noble.

The vast majority of his interviews are an attempt to corner him and skewer him into saying something wrong. He navigates these brilliantly and with a grace I am not sure I'd maintain if someone were trying to ruin me live on tv.

He is a professor and a long practicing clinical phycologist, which I may suggest is an awful lot more than those on here labelling him a pseudo anything have ever achieved.

He used to look quite schlubby.

Also, he seems angrier than before. I wonder if that coma broke his brain or something. Seriously.

Im female and Jordan Peterson came up on my radar at the same time as Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan

One of these is not like the others …

enforced monogamy to stop men becoming violent - he thinks the answer to incels and women being murdered is that we 'give' men an assigned woman to have sex with, and that way their poor little men feelings won't get hurt and they won't hurt anyone. Otherwise women will 'only go for the high status men' (i.e. select partners who they believe to be good partners, attractive, etc) and that's unfair on men, who then become violent. That is somehow our fault

Good lord, it’s like you read some hit piece on Jordan Peterson and didn’t look into what he was actually saying.

Im not a huge fan of the guy but come on. This ain’t it

FWIW I think Wendeline was being very patient and respectful, and they asked a very fair and basic question. In fact I reckon half the back and forth on this thread could have been left out if only terms would have been defined first.

The basic debate seems very simple: Is modern day Western society patriarchal or not?

And without giving clear parameters of what patriarchy means in this context, I don't see how anyone could argue either side.

My issue was that I had, over a number of days, responded to every one of their direct questions. I asked one question which was completely ignored and they started demanding a definition.
I don't think it was unreasonable to assume someone who had spent days denying the patriarchy exists would already have a clear definition of what they were arguing against.

I believe very strongly that we live in a patriarchal society. That society has been developed by men and continues to benefit men (as a class). We can see this across different aspects of society and I have given clear examples of how this has impacted (and continues to impact) women's career development.
And, in my opinion, it's getting worse. You only need to look at the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Scotland to see how women's rights are being eroded.

I never said they were the same. I found out that those are the men that teenage boys are listening to. I felt it was my duty to check all of them and their content out.
And I'm glad I did.

I offered a brief explanation in my last post.... a society which has been developed by men and continues to benefit men as a group.

You say you are an academic. I would assume you can't be working in any teaching / lecturing capacity.

Because students simply wouldn't accept this evasiveness. Especially when they're paying.

You talk about respectful debate yet you write this. Nice.

Have you mistaken MN for a university lecture? You aren't paying me to to teach you!

Yet still not defining it. Your brief definition doesn't really mean very much.

You just don't want to do you.

A brief definition is enough on a thread like this. Like I says, it's not a lecture. MN is a distraction, something I do when I'm bored. I'm under no obligation to write like an a academic on here.

How about pushing other people for their definitions? Or offering up your own if you think mine is lacking? Or is just me you want undermine and insult.

In the absence of that, I'll draw my own conclusions why.

More personal insults I'm guessing. Which is a bit shitty as that really isn't respectful.
I might disagree with you but at no point have I insulted you personally. Why do you think that's acceptable?

I work in a university too. I can imagine the outrage from my students if I simply refused to define something for them on order to make myself clear.
You aren't one of my students so this is irrelevant.
Academia is a tough profession, especially for women. If you don't believe we live in a patriarchal society how you explain the need for initiatives such as Athena Swan or networks such as WHEN and Aurora?

As you are participating on a debate here, one would think, in order to make yourself understood, you would want to make yourself clear. But you don't.

I think I've made myself clear. You disagree, that's fine. It's a discussion on a social media platform, not an academic paper.

I'll leave any further discussion with you here yadaya. It's not particularly helpful and actually it just details the thread.

That's probably for the best. Once you start with the personal insults it's time to walk away.

I’ve been reading the exchanges between Yadaya and Wendeline and have found them interesting and informative.

FWIW I believe society is organised in ways that disadvantage women, but I was genuinely hoping for a definition of patriarchy from yadaya and am disappointed it didn’t come.

I didn’t think Wendeline was disrespectful in her replies and I love it when there’s a robust exchange of views so I’m sorry that you’re feeling disinclined to continue, Yadaya.

I’m not an academic but I have a keen interest in societal issues and gender. I’m also not a fan of JP but I find him interesting and thought provoking. I have one of his books on audible which I’m part way through. I don’t agree with everything but like to have my thinking challenged.

I was also interested to read how his ideas had helped an earlier poster to improve her life. I think some of the dismissive comments on this thread are somewhat simplistic.

I don't blame yadaya for disengaging.

It was interesting reading their very different viewpoints but Wendeline was a bit harsh in their comments I thought. It felt unnecessary.

FWIW either of them could have offered up a detailed definition but neither did, as is their right. They don't owe strangers on the internet anything!

With respect, I am firmly against what’s going on regarding Scotland and gender. I fought tooth and nail when the consultations were going on here in England, and was very active campaigning against changes to the GRA.

However, this has nothing to do with what JP talks about — he’s actively against medicalisation of children and was pivotal in bringing pronouns and compelled speech to public attention when he very vocally spoke out against it at his university. He agrees with very many of Helen Joyce’s points regarding trans issues. But she too, doesn’t necessarily agree with the (what I see as very black and white) idea that we live in a patriarchal system. Yes, we have issues regarding violence against women, and yes we have issues regarding safe spaces, but we are, more less, equal in opportunity for the sexes, and there isn’t really a pay gap.

It’s more nuanced than you are suggesting, and there are many issues young males are facing that are simply brushed under the carpet. JP is trying to address those. This is a good thing. The more fulfilled young men are, and the more responsibility they take on, the less likely they’re going to sit in their bedrooms pretending they have a litany of weird pronouns, and plotting how to hate on women.

I wasn't suggesting that JPs views align with what's happening in Scotland.

I was using that as an example of how women's rights are being undermined by government policy. It's a prime example of men's needs being prioritised in society, a patriarchal society.

The question about patriarchy is a bit beside the point.

The comparison is between two extremes of society. One where all the men are basically matched up to all the women 1-1 monogamously (including most of the shitheads). And one where all the women are in shitty situationships with one fuckboy alpha male type. The other men all get nothing and know they'll get nothing.

Which one is "patriarchy" and which one is "not patriarchy"?

JP's point is that at least in the former society men have a bit of incentive to scrub up well and try to make something of themselves. But we are currently leaning more towards the latter society, which is just as shitty for women but also men are incentivised to take massive risks to become the winner who takes all, or to just say fuck it and screw society. So crimes and anti-social behaviour increase because the reward for being a nice guy is just not there. So it's even more shit overall.

In Guardian articles this comes out as "JP wants state-enforced matrimony".

On topic. Yes, he's attractive, YANBU 😉 Love the professor look.