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 think he was also relating this to the fact that the pill resulted in more abortions- I don't know if this is true

Seems very unlikely, and is almost impossible to prove. In most of the western world the pill was available a decade or so before abortionn was legalised, so.there will be mo reliable statistics on how they interacted. Countries that did it the other way round tend to be culturally very different (e.g. Japan) so you can't extrapolate. Or the had significant social upheaval at the same time as law changes (Russia and much of the Eastern block changed laws on thr pill and/or abortion around thr same time as the collapse of Communism), so you can't unpick causes.

Fair enough. It was the recent one so likely. The feminism of care vs. Feminism of independence.

I will admit I did about an hour and seeing there were 2 hours left I just couldn’t. 🤣

I can and do spend a lot of time of time listening to completely opposite view points. But there was something about this; being so close to my views as to be recognising it, but polar opposite at the same time that made it too paradoxical.

If you think the rest is worth a listen let me know and I will persevere!

@Nothingeverything

And as an aside to me that still makes no sense. Abortion is an ultimate K strategist imo.

I guess it depends on your definition of feminism (there are loads).

But my preferred definition of feminism is the view that women are not inferior to men and deserve equal rights before the law. That doesn’t mean that there are no differences between people - it just means that women are not less human even though there are differences between women and men.

I agree he is interesting. No Andrew tate. Nothing like. But I'm not impressed or convinced by his 'equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome' argument.

So many dominant groups think they are being ousted and unfairly compromised when quotas become even. There should not be, should never have been, such a disproportionate number of white rich men in office, in power, dictating what is worthy in arts, literature, music, hogging accolades for research or work done by female assistants etc.

Fulfilling quotas is a way of ensuring that 'equality of opportunity' doesn't turn into 'set of values dictated by and designed for men'. There cannot be equality of opportunity without quotas. People cannot practise being in positions of power without being put in positions of power and we all know without taxing a single brain cell that vast numbers of men have been and are in roles they are woefully unskilled at. Presidents and PMs of the world for starters.

Also - the equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome argument suggests the only reason diversity matters is for individual fairness. That does matter but in lots of areas - politics, teaching, the probation service, the police, product development etc tec there are actually lots of other reasons that diversity might be important. Most of the time diversity of experience, view, skills etc matters much more than tick box identity diversity (e.g. we need 2.5%of MPs to be black women, x% exactly to be gay disabled men etc). But in reality there is some correlation between who you are and your experiences, a parliament where 100% of MPs were childless, or all female/male, or all went to the same school, or all studied humanities at uni would clearly not be capable of representing the UK or understanding all their consituents issues. Even though a male MP as an individual might be very good at representing me as his female constituent.

The probation service wants to recruit more men because in some cases they think male probation officers would be a better fit for some ex-offenders and there are not enough male employees to do this currently. As a woman I have 0 problem with them targeting qualified, capable men for this. It would be different if they were prioritising incompetant men over competant women.

Or, there has recently been a push to "diversify" train drivers as the vast majority are middle aged white men. That sounds like ridiculous wokeness because who cares what my train driver looks like. But scratch the surface and really they are facing a recruitment crisis, there is no clear reason that women or ethnic minorities wouldn't make good train drivers so they represent a potential untapped source of employees. Its logical and sensible to say what can we do to encourage these groups to consider a career in this area.

For those of you saying that much of what JP says is 'interesting' or 'makes sense", this is what young men say about Tate.

Many also said it in 1937/1938 about a certain Adolf Hitler too.

It's called propaganda.

🙄🙄🙄🙄

I see we've reached the"Everyone who doesn't agree with me is Hitler" stage earlier than usual. Grow up.

The issue with that, @StMarieforme , is believing everything they say.

It’s absolutely fine to recognise sense spoken by a clown as well as sense spoken by an academic or philanthropist.

No one has the monopoly.

We are all supposed to discern the motivation, underlying prejudice and wisdom of everything we read/see.

Thinking it’s true because JP said so is ridiculous, as is assuming he has nothing to offer.

We are supposed to use our own brains, not credulously parrot someone else’s rhetoric.

That whole, I won’t know until I’ve checked with Russel Brand thing is nonsense.

Reading things we don’t entirely agree with helps us form our own opinions.

Much more concise 🤣

I did listen to it all but was not always concentrating.😄 I think Harrington is really interesting as she is pretty conservative compared to most feminists but I enjoyed hearing her reasoning. I might even buy her book!

@Nothingeverything

She was interesting! I had never heard her before and it's something I hadn't really thought about.

Doing 5 hours of podcasting listening today so maybe this afternoon I can bring myself to go back and try again! 🤣

Going to be enjoying Tortoise media's new crime series dangerous memories first though.

Very mature.

A 16 year old boy told me that a lot of what Tate says makes sense, just this week. He does not have the maturity, or the intelligence, to evaluate it further. He believed that Tate has been exonerated of all crimes too.

Would you want him, or his ilk, dating your daughters?

No. But the thread is about JP, not Andrew Tate or Hitler. Not sure why you think they are similar.

@whovillewho
Your husband has a low status manual job whereas you have a higher status job, he is displeased by this.
You presumably are educated to a higher standard than he is. Men typically don't react well when they are bested by a woman- generally speaking the lower their level of educational attainment the harder it is for them to cope.
Personally I would humor him /keep him sweet because men like that can be useful for carrying and lifting heavy objects etc.
(Then again if the sex isn't any good I would probably be looking to be free of him soon)

@biscuitandcake yes you're right in that I'm pulled in all sorts of directions on this one and I need actual facts and reliable stats to help make a firm position - which I don't have. I see both sides of the argument.

I believe JP is appealing to a large swathe of men. I do agree with some of his points. He articulates so well. I'm yet to see one person in debate with him who doesn't come out looking stupid. I'll look at the recommendation you made for sure.

@BlackShuck3 not really, our jobs are pretty much on a par in terms of both pay and ‘status’. Difference is I enjoy mine and he doesn’t (and hasn’t for a while), and his current role is coming to an end, which probably doesn’t help

Well then he can become a brick layer (assuming he isn't already)

@Superlambaanana I think there might be something in what you said about him being unhappy/discontented in some way. I think it can be hard if you reach an age where it can be difficult to find work/you haven’t quite got to where you wanted to be. That said, he has said he’d be happy if I was super-successful so he could step back from work. But I’m not, I just enjoy what I do (well, mostly).

😂

So having posted on this thread I was prompted to reread the book. I stand by my original comments.

chapter 1 can be summarised thusly:

1. lobsters (and wren and other creatures) exhibit social structures
2. those social structures prompt a variety of responses (where a lobster is defeated, it slumps, where it is victorious it stands proud)- this elicits appropriate responses from the similar social community
3. humans also live in and recognise social structures
4. therefore if you simulate the posture and attitudes of a victor, people will treat you as one, and you will live that way.

it is an odd approach, that at some level is, of course, true. If you are well groomed, and if you stand erect, and speak eruditely, even if you aren’t a “winner” (as he terms it) people will treat you as such, and you will begin to live that way.

it is true that if you present well, on the surface people will treat you better. But it does nothing to address the deep psychological neuroses that are mostly what cause people the anxiety that prevents their full flourishing. And certainly those who are mentally ill, or chronically abused or otherwise damaged don’t really have much of a say in the matter. It is a fundamentally middle class approach which says: fake it till you make it. At some levels true, at some levels false. It is basically a saying expounded upon over 40+ pages with some pseudo science to try and back it up.

I started reading the second chapter and I realised that he is in reality a deontologist. That is, he subscribes to the Kantian view that reality in itself is unknowable (neumenal), and that the space-time dialectic which Kant ascribes to the structures of the mind (which Peterson calls the structures of our neurology, which Kant would call the phenomena) grant us access to this “chaos” and “order”. It appears that he read some introductory philosophy, and stopped halfway through at the critiques of Kant. Most notably he ignores the phenomenology of the last century which expounds the fundamental issue of Kantian metaphysics as being as being-true.

I realise I’m going on a bit, but that’s cause I’m on holiday and a few pina coladas deep, but I maintain my initial assessment. The book is largely unreadable and frustrating in the way it skates over topics that it doesn’t really properly address, with a vast number of undefended assumptions.

To be fair as a disclaimer: I stopped reading half way through chapter 2. Which is as far as I got last time when I got sick of it.

So chapter 1 is essentially the psychobabble version of that Noel Edmunds manifesting nonsense? Not selling it to me, TBH.

Hrmmm. I wouldn’t go that far- that’s not a fair characterisation. He’s basically saying that the basic structures of human neurology (the mind) recognise and respond to social status and social cues, and therefore if life has treated you badly (you’re a loser) the solution is to act like a winner, and other humans will subconsciously react well to you. It’s not manifestation so much as rather odd psychology.

It’s middle class tautologies- “you should just pull yourself up by your bootstraps” not accounting for the fact that many people have not the means to achieve even this, not recognising the social structures that favour those from stable families, those with wealth, etc which are far higher indicators of success than suppositions about “standing without slouching”.

Did the young woman or man who studied hard do something to aid their success? Of course they did- studying hard is both its own reward for the inherent value of learning and the doors it opens as a discipline that proves to potential employers your ability to master a topic as well as the technical skills studying can impart. But is that all it is? The young person who “studies hard” who has a functional family life, whose parents recognise the value of education, who don’t interrupt their study, who provide access to opportunities to extend that study are VASTLY different to the student whose parents have a dysfunctional relationship (and so fail to provide a quiet house that is a place of rest), don’t value education, and don’t respect the effort their child is putting in. Further demands on their time as they work casually to provide for the necessitates of studying mean their efforts are hampered further.

Standing up straight isn’t really the solution he makes it out to be.