Understanding DH - Jordan Peterson and feminism

[whovillewho]

DH has been listening to Jordan Peterson for a while and has developed/started to express views that I would generally describe as ‘anti-feminist’. I have tried briefly to discuss this but his (DH’s) points don’t make any sense to me. I should point out that I have always considered myself to be a feminist but I have never really felt the need to justify it, as it simply makes sense to me.

DH has said to me “You can’t be a feminist as you’re not a bricklayer and you couldn’t do a bricklayer’s work” and “What do you do that proves you’re a feminist”. I don’t argue/discuss this as to me he’s not making any sense… He’s also a bit of a wind-up (joker) but generally a reasonable guy (this aside).

I have tried reading some of what Jordan Peterson has written but found it to be very muddled. I have listened to some of his interviews, and found them to be okay. I have tried to google his views on feminism but so far haven’t been able to find anything that explains DH’s (to me) bizarre stance. Does anyone have any pointers that could help me understand (and subsequently counter) DH’s views?

I haven't read/heard any Jordan Peterson. I presume your husband means how can women be equal if they don't have the physical strength to do all the men's jobs. I'm sure there are female bricklayers out there but not a lot and it's very hard physical work. I think it's possible to say men are on average stronger than women but that doesn't mean individual women can't do jobs traditionally done by men which are very physical. Maybe keep asking your husband what he means by that - does he mean women should only do certain jobs? Does he mean women are less valuable members of society? Most stances on equality say there should be equal opportunities to succeed rather than everyone should be treated exactly the same.

I agree it must be hard to counter an argument he doesn't appear to have even managed to actually formulate!
Can you start with just repeating "what do you mean" until you drill down to something that makes some sort of sense, so you at least know what his actual argument is.
If it is literally that "feminism means women are as good as men. A woman couldn't do x specific job therefor she can't be as good as a man" then it's quite easy to respond

-firstly there's absolutely no reason why you absolutely COULDNT be a bricklayer if you wanted to. Perhaps your physical strength and skillset meant you couldn't be as good at it as a large man, but would they have the skills to be a good neonatal nurse or artist or plastic surgeon?

• an old man probably couldn't be a good bricklayer either - does that mean old people are inferior to young ones?

• a physical disabled person also might struggle -does that mean they aren't equal to able bodied people (hopefully he will get a bit worried here and realise he's getting into eugenics territory)

Why is bricklaying the defnition of value? There must be lots of jobs not everyone could do?
He doesn't sound particularly bright - would he be able to be a brain surgeon? If not is he happy to accept that makes him inferior to cleverer men? Lots of women are brain surgeons so surely that makes him inferior to them too? How about a professional translator? Academic lecturer? Actor?
If he is comparing one average woman (you) to one average man (random brickie) then surely the reverse applies - one random man (him) isn't able to do the job one random woman (female fellow in astrophysics at oxford) could do therefore by his logic all women are superior to men?

Perhaps use the Olympics as an example. Swimmers, gymnasts, weight lifters etc all have different body types- Simone biles couldn't chuck a shotput across a room but Ryan crouser couldn't do a double somersault ten feet in the air. Does that make one of them the "better" olympian?

Or just respond with "what on earth are you rabbiting on about you absolute tool?"

Here's something Peterson wrote:

.Boys are suffering, in the modern world. They are more disobedient — negatively — or more independent — positively — than girls, and they suffer for this, throughout their pre-university educational career. They are less agreeable (agreeableness being a personality trait associated with compassion, empathy and avoidance of conflict) and less susceptible to anxiety and depression, at least after both sexes hit puberty. Boys’ interests tilt towards things; girls’ interests tilt towards people. Strikingly, these differences, strongly influenced by biological factors, are most pronounced in the Scandinavian societies where gender-equality has been pushed hardest: this is the opposite of what would be expected by those who insist, ever more loudly, that gender is a social construct. It isn’t. This isn’t a debate. The data are in.

So he seems to endorse the idea that gender isn't subjective and on a spectrum but innate and immovable. He also believes sex differences in interest is biological. He's a gender essentialist.

Yeah, agree that he needs to explain himself better if you're wanting to have an actual discussion. He sounds like he's interested in arguing and being confrontational though rather than having a discussion. I wouldn't get into a debate if that's his attitude. I think I'd point out that it sounds like he doesn't like you or women very much when he makes those statements.

Tell me he has no idea what feminism is without telling me 😂

Jordan is interesting and complex. I enjoy listening to him for short periods and take from it only small clips of insight.
I think two people could listen to the same podcast and each take away a different meaning.
Sounds like you will need to dig deeper into how to express your view while your dh might need to dig deeper to better understand his (which sounds rooted in the biological aspect of being female).

I haven't watched a huge amount of peterson but from what I recall, his stance on bricklayers etc. wasn't that women couldn't be bricklayers it was that the women only lists are for high paying boardroom jobs and not for bricklayers and mechanics, etc.

Currently, his views sound rooted in bricklaying....!

Are there "women-only lists" for boardroom or "high-flying" jobs in the US or the UK?

As I understand it JPs analysis is about tendency or averages. He is not saying, for example, that a given girl cannot be interested in things over people, rather that girls as a class tend not to be. He does think that these tendencies are biologically driven, but not that this means they are universally innate to all of those who are a particular sex.

You are right that you husband's thoughts do seem confused right now!

I suspect Canada, as that is where he is from.
But there were women only selection lists for parliament and various jobs in the UK at one point.

Jordan Petersen is an interesting listen. I personally enjoy what he says, but feel very strongly that he shouldn’t speak for women.

That’s when he goes right off target, imo.

Bookmarking for later as I am interested in JP and the subtle rise of anti women rhetoric which he peddles.

Would Peterson say that the reason why there are significantly fewer women MPs is because generally on average women are just biologically not suited to it?

I don’t think so. I think he acknowledges the world is patriarchal and we don’t value the qualities over represented in women.

Like agreeableness.

I sympathise with your husband suddenly becoming a knobhead.

but in all seriousness, question him on what he believes feminism is? What does he believe the current climate needs feminism for? What are his thoughts on mothers mortality rates during pregnancy/childbirth? VAWG? Female healthcare?

JP is not in anyway shape or form a source on feminism, let alone women in general. He's one of many big names who decide to put their opinions in about anything especially that with which they have no expertise.

Fuck me that "agreeableness" quote fucks me right off. Speaking as a bloody disagreeable woman.

I think how you measure agreeableness is affected by culture/society and that levels of that "agreeableness" in women is a reaction to the society they are socialised into. The opprobrium meted out to disagreeable girls and women is a clear factor here.

I pity the fool that might expect agreeableness from me just because I'm female.

Many businesses have diversity quotas and I believe the Labour party has all women shortlists.

But I think women often need to make an active choice to relinquish agreeableness. Men, not so much.

It’s taken me a hell of a long time.

Diversity quotas are not "all women lists".

So Peterson is identifying a widespread problem, globally or perhaps just in Canada?, with men being prevented from accessing political positions? How much of an issue does he see this to be?

If anyone says they are not a feminist or starts to say there’s something wrong with feminism I always do the faux surprise thing. ‘Surely you’re a feminist. If not, what rights do you think women SHOULDN’T have?’ Ask him that. It’s about rights.

I don’t pretend women and men are the same. That would be stupid. We have different strengths in general. I can’t get excited about bricklaying as an example. It’s very well paid for a manual labour job. As it should be. I don’t think it’s harder than elderly care is for women though.

It’s true that most women couldn’t easily do a few traditionally male jobs but boy do the men struggle with thankless, monotonous, caring roles.

I don’t think JP would do well as a bricklayer either. Doesn’t make him an inferior man. Also. Why is he so very miserable all the time?

Find the Helen Lewis interview with Peterson. I've only heard clips but it's hilarious as she's just baffled by some of his statements (select quote "how do you know when a lobster is happy?")

Don't know what you do about your DH, if mine started with this is would get shouty very quickly.

OP, I'd start by saying, I am sufficiently feminist to be confident that I don't get told by a man whether or not I am a feminist, but make my own mind up, based on my own knowledge and powers of critical thinking.

Can he handle a sentence that length?

Jordan Peterson is Deepak Chopra for dudebros. He knows a lot of words and concepts but usually when he puts them together and you really dig in to what he's said it's often gibberish.

I’m a feminist through and through and I think it’s worth listening to some JP before getting annoyed about it, particularly snippets from someone else who won’t necessarily have heard or understood what was intended. He’s not exactly Andrew Tate!
I think as an evolutionary biologist, his take is rooted in there being sex-based differences in humans. And I have heard him talk a lot about how there should be equality of opportunity rather than pushing for equality of outcome (via quotas etc) although obviously this is complex because without women in more positions of power, girls and women are less likely to pursue these paths.
I think his take on the patriarchy is interesting too, insofar as a) the western ‘patriarchy’ is moving towards women having more opportunities - certainly better than many other societies, and it is often the male products of these patriarchies who are trying to further women’s rights, and b) what would a matriarchy look like? We are aware of the negative aspects of patriarchy - power/status as winners, but we really should think about what the negative aspects of the matriarchy would be like, given the more female approach to power grabbing, which can be more manipulative eg reputational sabotage.
He’s not right about everything, and he can be quite confusing to get through, but h has produced a lot of thought-provoking content. I can’t see that’s a bad thing, if he helps people to think.