Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ

MNHQ here: How would you feel about a Jordan Peterson webchat?

229 replies

RowanMumsnet · 05/04/2019 13:13

Hello

We've been offered a webchat with Jordan Peterson (his new book has a chapter on parenting, although the publishers (Penguin) recognise a webchat is likely to be more wide-ranging than that). We know he's very controversial, to put it mildly, but also as you know we believe in the value of open debate. So we thought we'd ask you what you think: would you like the chance to put questions to him and debate him on-site or would you rather not?

OP posts:
FermatsTheorem · 08/04/2019 21:52

An old article but a good one:
stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_art-of-story-telling.pdf

Stephen Jay Gould arguing natural selection of physical traits is empirically testable, but sociobiology is not, and in fact allows for almost infinite numbers of post-hoc adjustments to its hypotheses in order to accommodate pretty much any data you care to throw at it.

Iflyaway · 08/04/2019 21:52

Yes. I would like to see him take on the brilliant women who are on Mumsnet.

mooncuplanding · 08/04/2019 22:02

Fermats

I’ve never heard the SJG argument put to Jordan Peterson, it does explain why he’s so popular! Another reason why he should come on.

I heard the GQ interview where the interviewer tried to pick him up on his simplistic lobster / hierarchies and he managed to squirm out of it unharmed by talking over her.

Another reason why it would be good to have him on!

Saying this....I still don’t think he’s sexist racist alt right...he just has hit a tone that people like and he’s got some interesting (not harmful) ideas that stimulate discussion

FangsTasticBeast · 08/04/2019 22:12

I’m going to say yes

FermatsTheorem · 08/04/2019 22:14

There's possibly the start of some sort of counter argument in the fact that biology itself has moved on since 1978 when Gould wrote that. For instance, some genes influencing behaviour have been found - the "warrior" gene that seems to play some sort of role in psychopathic behaviour patterns. And we also know about epigenetics - the role environment plays in switching on the expression of some genes (to go back to the warrior gene, it seems that having the gene on its own doesn't lead to psychopathic traits being exhibited; it requires the gene, plus exposure to physical abuse during childhood).

But at the same time we know that there are areas where researchers have put huge amounts of effort into trying to find genetic underpinnings for behaviour and failed - homosexuality would be one such case. The sociobiological argument goes that in times of scarce resources, having gay aunts and uncles is advantageous to offspring, because you get more adults foraging for food - and at the same time, advantageous to the aunts and uncles, because even though they don't have children themselves, they share considerable amounts of DNA with their siblings, whose children are more likely to survive and reproduce than children of smaller family units. But no-one has managed to find the DNA underpinning this theory, as far as I know, and it's not for want of looking.

twattymctwatterson · 08/04/2019 22:17

Well I think he's a massive arsehole so it's a no thanks from me

S1naidSucks · 08/04/2019 22:19

I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but I don’t think we can complain about wonderful feminists and feminist supporters being no platformed, then turn around and do the same thing. Yes, he’s doing it for his benefit, but I also think no platforming him will give him even more publicity. There are some amazing women on this site that can more than manage him. You only have to see them discuss/argue on the FWR, to see how capable they are.

BlingLoving · 08/04/2019 22:29

No. Please don't legitimise him further.

DonaldTwain · 08/04/2019 22:34

He writes schlock. 12 rules for life? Come on. Surely you can find someone with a bit more intellectual heft to invite?

DonaldTwain · 08/04/2019 22:35

You may as well invite the geezers who wrote men are from Mars women are from Venus. In fact compared to Peterson those guys would be quite coherent.

Erythronium · 08/04/2019 22:43

He doesn't sound very interesting. I'd say no.

What about Caroline Criado Perez? She's got a new book to promote.

EleanorOalike · 08/04/2019 22:48

Yes please MN, I’d find this interesting. I don’t have strong feelings for him either way but some of what he says makes a lot of sense. I have watched and read a fair bit of his work but never seen any hate speech. If anyone on here, genuinely I’m not being goady, could link to the things he’s said that they take issue with and that they see as hate speech I would appreciate that. I haven’t formed a full opinion of him yet but I’m strongly against No Platform.

CaptSkippy · 09/04/2019 08:29

I have seen some of his talks online. He does not argue in good faith. He just talks over people and then his fan boys will cherry picks segments and use that as yet another reason as to why they feel "woman = bad". And that's more free publicity for his victim mentality groupies.

Don't give him free advertisement on here. At least make him pay for it if you are determined to do it.

Gone2far · 09/04/2019 08:59

Yes please.

fairybeagle · 09/04/2019 09:07

Can anyone actually link anything to back up their negative opinions/assumptions on Peterson? Also not trying to be goady, just interested as I've never seen the evidence

StripyDeckchair · 09/04/2019 09:26

Why not invite a better qualified, more intellectually rigorous, more thoughtful female academic who works in a similar area? I'm sure the Women in Academia Support Network would have lots of great suggestions.

It's not no platforming to say you're not going to invite someone on because their ideas (however popular with certain groups) are poorly evidenced. It makes really fed up that a site like Mumsnet wants to give space to another mediocre man over the many brilliant women who are doing real and deeply interesting scholarly work, rather than chasing controversy and retweets.

Please be more interesting! Buck the trend, start a new conversation.

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 09/04/2019 09:26

@PigeonofDoom

No thanks. He’s a misogynist asshat who uses pseudoscience to support his ideas. Evolutionary psychology is 90% bollocks. As a female scientist I’ve had to fight against silly little pricks like him and it is so dispiriting to think you’d give him space on here. Would you give space to a far right sexist politician? No, so you shouldn’t be giving space to him either.

Well, we have had Nigel Farage on - giving MNers the chance to talk to him about his stated belief that employers should be able to have a policy of not hiring women, among other things.

Sorry to hear about your struggles with the pricks though - can imagine that's exhausting.

OP posts:
MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 09/04/2019 09:27

@StripyDeckchair

Why not invite a better qualified, more intellectually rigorous, more thoughtful female academic who works in a similar area? I'm sure the Women in Academia Support Network would have lots of great suggestions.

It's not no platforming to say you're not going to invite someone on because their ideas (however popular with certain groups) are poorly evidenced. It makes really fed up that a site like Mumsnet wants to give space to another mediocre man over the many brilliant women who are doing real and deeply interesting scholarly work, rather than chasing controversy and retweets.

Please be more interesting! Buck the trend, start a new conversation.

Absolutely, to having brilliant women scientists on - anyone you'd particularly like to see?

OP posts:
WrenNatsworthy · 09/04/2019 09:28

I'd say don't give him the platform.
He's not going to change his opinions and all the MRAs haunting the boards will love him.

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 09/04/2019 09:29

@Erythronium

He doesn't sound very interesting. I'd say no.

What about Caroline Criado Perez? She's got a new book to promote.

CCP did a guest post for us on the People's Vote/second referendum (delete as per political preference) a few weeks back - it was around the time of her book's publication so we sort of had to choose which avenue to take - but yep we'd love to have her on to talk about the book. We'll follow it up

OP posts:
Annasgirl · 09/04/2019 09:31

Why is it always women who have to accommodate views they find reprehensible????

Would a forum for black people ask a KKK sympathiser who believed black people were biologically inferior on a webchat to promote a book on parenting????

No, of course not. So why should we listen to JP?

MNHQ
RowanMumsnet · 09/04/2019 09:32

@DryHeave

Only if Mumsnet donated the payment they’d receive from the publisher to a worthy, woman-supporting cause.

We wouldn't be paid for doing it - there would be no money or payment-in-kind changing hands here at all

OP posts:
GoldenKelpie · 09/04/2019 09:33

I am a "yes please". I don't believe he is a "sexist, racist, homophobe" but even if he was, why not have a full and frank question and answer session? What's the problem? Stifling debate because someone allegedly promotes un-PC opinions is short-sighted at best.

StripyDeckchair · 09/04/2019 09:35

@fairybeagle - how about the picture of him wearing the 'I am a proud Islamaphobe' tshirt?