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?

Right, but it was raised as an issue as many young men fail to win women.

He’s basically trying to get the failing betas to up their game instead of blaming women for not wanting them.

He sees unpartnered young men as loose canons. And he’s not wrong. Many a young man turns their life around when needed to by a partner and child.

Obviously many others don’t. There’s no hope for the truly useless.

Listening is different to agreeing.

I listen to what Trump said ( often in bewilderment) - when he was president USA in a position of power that affect world politics and when it looked like he might be again his policies could impact things like NATO - or world order .

I've also listen to journalists and others asking why millions voted for him.

I have not dismissed Tump - he's a menace potentially huge one - though I don't like or agree with him.and wonder how the fuck hes got near the nomination either time.

I personally distrust the well if you disagree with me on this you must be right wing - terf/nazi/stupid - idea but it's very prevalent on social media and avoids dealing with actual arguments. Patterson strikes a cord with many people - I don't agree with everything he says nor do I disagree with everything - I listen because like OP people in my life brought him up and I don't get to live in an isolated box where the world is what I say it is - so if I don't know what being said I can't counter.

He might have a valid point that young men would benefit from sorting themselves, settling down.

But his way of arguing that is weird. Basically, research comparing polygamous societies and monogamous societies (which in the definition of the research included Canada) shows polygamous societies are more violent. Cool. But then he argues that violence within one of those countries (Canada) is due to the problems associated with Polygamy. In summary:
Place that does A is more violent than society that does B. Therefore doing A leads to violence. Therefore when something happens in a society that does B it is because it is a society that does a.

I don't like people twisting data/making stuff up to justify their arguments. It is destructive to healthy discussion - even if the original point has validity.

Thanks, that's what I was getting at but the logic was so knotted I wasn't quite sure where to start.

It was actually because of a severe drug addiction. It was so bad he got himself put into a coma by Russian doctors for months to break the addiction. He was offered the opportunity to retire and take Emeritus status and he took it.
Now, that may well have been an excuse to get rid of a troublesome figure, but it was a valid one, so his ravings about feminists being responsible is just stupid.
Like all narcissists, he won't accept responsibility for his own actions.