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?

feminists are really pushing for matriarchy not equality because they are happy to leave low paid, low status and/or high risk jobs that are male dominated to stay that way - bricklayers, bin men, armed forces combat roles, etc.

One of the many points he's wrong about. Feminists fought for decades to be allowed frontline roles in the armed forces (and other roles - I've not checked recently but army musician was still a post reserved for men well into the 1990s). They've also fought for construction roles, - not just as culture change but also changes that were preventing women doing the job, such as the absence of women's loos on construction sites.

Peterson isn't half as well informed as he thinks he is, and relies heavily on the gishgallop and misdirection rather than actual logical argument.

I listen to Jordan Peterson quite a bit. He’s a really interesting guy. Has some really interesting ideas. He seems to absorb a lot of ideas from classical literature, theory, philosophy and psychology and mash it all together.

He does have some odd ideas about feminism though. Previously I thought this to be a combination of a despise of the logic of 3rd wave ( which many here share tbh), combined with the odd Canadian/ American conservative view of womanhood which have potentially been absorbed from his wife and daughter.

Some of his thoughts and critiques of feminism I agree with. But in his latest podcast with a U.K. feminist writer I was completely gobsmacked. He had a huge blind spot. He was saying that we have R strategist (like fish making thousands of eggs they don’t care for) and K strategists (like humans who have few children but nurse them for decades from childhood to adulthood) with regard reproduction; and that the contraceptive pill has made women more like R strategists as we can now have sex without the risk and so are opening ourselves to psychopathic men. And he’s usually very logical. But he concluded the complete opposite of what the logical answer was. Which to me is that the contraceptive pill made modern woman the ultimate K strategist. That’s why we have even fewer children. One or two mostly because we want to delay until we have more resource and limit the number to enable us to put even more resource into our children (higher quality of life - holidays, clubs, private schools or tuition etc). So to me that was very strange.

He has been ill a few years ago and suffered a mental breakdown. This has made him incredibly agreeable compared to his old self, and I’m wondering if this is why he was doing this. Mirroring the guest as opposed previously he would challenged quite intensively even those he agreed with.

That’s a babble but in summary I like the guy. I categorise his views on feminism as just that. His own views.

But surely the fact that women fought for these things doesn't by necessity contradict his point he is making, which looks as women as a class, not as individuals? He is not saying (as I understand it) that women shouldn't be able to do these things or that changes shouldn't be made to ensure that those women that want to can do these things.

Yeah I agree. He’s saying that if everyone had complete free choice then woman choose certain jobs and men choose certain jobs on average. And that men’s jobs can tend to be more physical, more dangerous or more away from the home. Ie. An oil rigger, firefighter or a truck driver etc. Which I can’t argue with.

He’s saying this is why there will never be true equal representation in roles. And that’s it’s not something we should be striving for.

I agree with him on that.

If your DP thinks that means he doesn’t believe in equality for women and respect woman then he’s wrong. I think he does. And I don’t think he’s a misogynist or a problem to feminism. But some men don’t listen properly.

His point about femists as a class is wrong because feminists as a class fought for things he said they were happy to leave to men.

if everyone had complete free choice then woman choose certain jobs and men choose certain jobs on average

As nobody has ever had completely free choice, he can't possibly say what people would do. He can say what people do do, but is poor at exploring why.

If you believe women and men would pick the same jobs on average then fair enough. I don’t believe that. And I’m about as feminist as you can get! I really don’t see that idea as anti feminist. To me the main points of feminism are about opportunity and choice.

I believe it's impossible to say.

What annoys me about this, is that he is arguing that women can freely choose better paid career paths/to prioritise career over children's rearing like men do. But simultaneously feeding a panic about women choosing those better paid career paths and therefore delaying having children etc. It's a very clear logical problem him and his like have completely missed. The only way out of that is to argue that actually women do want lower paid jobs etc but some of them don't realise this because of brainwashing etc

I don't think he is some evil figure. He clearly knows a lot about psychology and I agree with him on some things. But he has massive blind spots and isn't the all knowing guru some people want him to be. I don't think being treated like he is either the devil or a guru has helped his mental state TBH. It would affect anyone. Also some people (your husband?) take the complicated points he is making and massively simplify them to the point they become ridiculous. It's frustrating to then argue with someone who is saying "it's just logic" when it really isn't.

He would probably say it’s because they are less power hungry and psychopathic 🤣

Edit - he’s quite sharp about men’s ‘average’ flaws also.

Yes. So just biologically essentially unsuited to it, so it's a natural order of things. Cool for men to be naturally the ones who get to be in charge.

Again, not sure that is what he would be saying (getting a bit speculative now). I think he would be saying that women are not drawn to politics as it is. He may also say that it is difficult to change the way politics is because of the way men are. I doubt he would be saying that women shouldn't be involved in politics or that it would be a problem if politics was more suited to women's (on average) personal traits.

It's so convenient that it's all just so tricky to change, and anyway women don't even want to be politicians so no need to bother about it.

I'm sure he's got enough sense not to say out loud that women shouldn't be in politics or in positions of power, authority, influence.

I agree with @Shalfive

I don’t think he's saying that.

Most people recognise that the ones who want to be in charge probably shouldn’t be!

I think he’s talking more about the want than the should.

I find this such a bizarre interpretation, but fair enough if you believe it.

Yes absolutely. You’re filling the blanks and assuming JPs position. A lot of anti feminist men do similar and are big JP fans. It’s probably what OPs DP is doing.

You might all be right!

You're right, I should probably try and read some of what he's actually written in his own words and judge him on that rather than other people's interpretations of what they think he's saying. Perhaps the mystery of why he attracts men who don't like feminists might be revealed.

“You can’t be a feminist as you’re not a bricklayer and you couldn’t do a bricklayer’s work”

Idiot.

Remind him he cannot push out a baby. Far more important than brick-laying.

By the way, I have a female friend who learnt to set down the foundations of a house during her study.

I love not having these kind of idiots in my home....

Ah this is timely. I have recently watched hours of Jordan Peterson. If your husband is watching this on YouTube he may be directed to Kevin Samuels and even these Whatever Podcasts. I have watched so so much of this 🤣.

One year ago I would have said no way and argued against these suggestions. Now, I actually believe they are really speaking some sense on these issues. If your husband is prone to suggestion, I'd be keen to know if he's watching alot of this stuff that's popping up all over YouTube. Something in what JPeterson says is resonating with him or he wouldn't be watching it.

JP and others cited above often cite various studies or simply point out the fact that many modern women are of the mindset ' we don't need men, we can do everything they can '. JP and others above say, no you can't and that's proven time again. For example, you remove the entire male race tomorrow and all those jobs that maintain infrastructure amongst other things would be void and society would totally collapse. When given choice and opportunity, women either cannot compete physically to complete these jobs or choose not to. JPeterson references biological differences such as men having a brain biologically wired towards for example engineering whereas women's brains are biologically skilled or rewarded through interpersonal roles such as say nursing. They therefore tend to do better in general on such roles. That's a massive oversimplification on my part

He feels it is dangerous to young men and women to continue to push this egalitarian view. I used to go round saying I'm a feminist etc etc. Now I've been presented with some excellent facts and arguments, I agree entirely with so much of what these guys like JP are saying.

I am a single mum, had a great career so I'm not the typical ' trad wife'! I'm just open to reality and accepting reality.

If my hubby, I'd love to just understand his view and feelings on it all.

If you get chance to watch some of this stuff, it's really fascinating in my view.

@PangolinPanJP and others cited above often cite various studies or simply point out the fact that many modern women are of the mindset ' we don't need men, we can do everything they can"

But the Op is married to her husband. Presumably she isn't one of those terrible "don't need no man" women you mention since they live together and have children. In fact the husbands argument seems to be that because she doesn't want to do everything/think she can do everything (eh lay bricks) she can't claim women are equal. But if she was saying she could do everything that would also be bad.

You do realise by the way that the Whatever podcasts aren't real? In the sense that the "feminists" they bring on to say provocative things "we women don't need anyone" and then look completely baffled at the hosts superior logic and reasoning are in on it? It drives clicks to their own Instagram etc.

The point of the whatever podcasts (and ones like them) is to drive engagement. They do this through rage bait opinions (big fat lady says she's pretty, lazy woman says man should pay for everything, silly lady says men don't contribute to society), and enticing thumbnails (a very pretty but kind of annoying looking women in a low cut top pulling a sort of gormless pornstar expression. I can't describe it but it's always the same). It's an attractive image for young men to click on but you aren't learning anything about the views of "modern women" other than yourself.

Sorry that was @Pantaloons99

you remove the entire male race tomorrow and all those jobs that maintain infrastructure amongst other things would be void and society would totally collapse.

Remove the female half and society would collapse even faster. Remove any random half and it would be in serious trouble. It's a nonsense argument. There are people of both sexes doing all jobs - not necessarily in the proportions needed for long term social stability, but that can change if needed.

When given choice and opportunity, women either cannot compete physically to complete these jobs or choose not to.

Some. Perhaps even most. But I'd challenge him to find any job that no woman does. And what are the reasons for those choices? (Wrongly designed equipment and social expectations are 2 significant ones.)

JPeterson references biological differences such as men having a brain biologically wired towards for example engineering whereas women's brains are biologically skilled or rewarded through interpersonal roles such as say nursing.

This is not sound science. Neuroscience has not reliably found these differences. Step away from.the computer for a bit and read Gina Rippon's The Gendered Brain, which explains why the studies claiming this are almost universally bollocks.

I have recently watched hours of Jordan Peterson. If your husband is watching this on YouTube he may be directed to Kevin Samuels and even these Whatever Podcasts. I have watched so so much of this 🤣.

One year ago I would have said no way and argued against these suggestions. Now, I actually believe they are really speaking some sense on these issues. If your husband is prone to suggestion, I'd be keen to know if he's watching alot of this stuff that's popping up all over YouTube.

Do you realise you have just described brainwashing yourself, via algorithm?

Tell him it’s great that he’s become so interested in feminism and that you’re excited to hear his thoughts on all the female feminist YouTubers that you’re going to send to him over the next few weeks.

@biscuitandcake regards OP already being married - so that's exactly why I suggested enquiring as to what has drawn him to this and why he's making his 'jokey' comments. There may be nothing in it, but OP came on here for a reason after all.

I've got alot of time for JPeterson and he convinces me in every single interview I have seen ( with women who are not OF models). I see him as significantly less extreme than others and definitely not an Andrew Tate type.

Ref Whatever Podcast, oh yes it's appalling what they are doing. I can see they are baiting very naive unprepared OF women, many not that bright, on subjects they have not really thought about or repaired for and that is very underhand. They are also humiliating women again and again. This will however appeal to a proportion of disaffected young males and that's worrying.

Whatever has speakers, Andrew Wilson and Rachel Wilson, who do reflect some of the points made by JP, which I happen to agree with also. The point regards immasculation of men as per almost every girl on this show. My friends and I have done it and espoused the whole we can have it all mentality. I agree with the point regarding labour and men doing the work better and more willingly in key professions we absolutely need to live. I agree with the mentality ref low body count as male preference. I agree with so much I could go on and on. I do not espouse the entire worldview of these Whatever guys as it's pretty terrifying. Much of what they say is based in reality.

Do I think alot of these guys on Whatever secretly want a Gilead like societal system? Yep I do. Is that terrifying? Yes!