Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

I thought your clip was going to be this one of Peterson and Paglia.

Jordan Peterson: “I don’t think that men can control crazy women”
U of T psychology prof says he's "defenceless" against "female insanity"
thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan-peterson-i-dont-think-that-men-can-control-crazy-women/

The article highlights the specific part of the video I was talking about above, but it's actually worth watching (the bit around 37 mins, if you don't want to invest nearly 2 hours for the whole thing), as Peterson is open about his threats of male violence, and how he defines women as crazy if he disagrees with them enough, and he doesn't know what to do with them if he can't be violent to them, and how it's the job of other women to do the work for men like him in controlling the women he decides are crazy.

He and Paglia spend a lot of time enthusing together about gender roles and how other women (not Paglia) are unhappy these days because they have the opportunities Paglia has and aren't confined to such restricted gender roles as her older family (who she visited, but whose lives she didn't have to lead).

This is an example of the sort of thing posters were talking about upthread, where once the speaker strays onto an area you know about, you realise they're talking shit. The clip around maybe 45 mins is Paglia talking but Peterson is agreeing and afterwards expanding. Now I've lived in countries which still have profoundly sexist agrarian societies where women have separate lives from men and fewer chances to determine their own lives, and many women were profoundly miserable and unable to escape sexual, physical and financial abuse. So I'm not inclined to join this naice, educated, urban, first-world pair sitting over their clean white table in their romantic primitivism.

After she'd heard Jordan Peterson talking to Nihal on R5 and seen the Cathy Newman C4 interview I bought my Mum Peterson's book for her birthday. She adored it, most successful present I've ever bought her.

And TRPP, I agree that Ben Shapiro can be good value. Saw him on the Rubin Report when Rubin was trying to sum up the difference between Left and Liberal. For Shapiro, if you're a Liberal you're willing to agree to disagree, whereas someone on the Left will not accept any divergence from their current dogma. You may agree or disagree but it wasn't a point I'd heard made before so at least he's not just trotting out the same old points (plus the meaning of 'liberal' like 'fairness' varies a lot depending on who's using it).

For those who don't want to clip, here's Peterson quoted in the article (with my additional comments):

“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me [THIS IS IMPOSING GENDER ROLES] and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. [GENDER ROLE] If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women [GENDER ROLE] and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. [GENDER – WHEN A WOMAN DISAGREES WITH ME ENOUGH I GET TO SAY SHE'S CRAZY] I really don’t believe it.”

Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.” [GENDER ROLE IMPOSED ON MEN]

Peterson also offers an example in which he claims that a female activist organized a movement against him and compared him to Nazis. “I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity [GENDER - MAKING CLEAR HE WASN'T JUST USING "CRAZY" AS A PEJORATIVE, HE'S ACTUALLY DEFINING WOMEN AS HAVING MENTAL ILLNESS] because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me,” he says.

I'm not quite sure how Peterson's words above are supposed to mesh with the posts on this thread saying if you disagree with someone you should just use logic and facts to rebut their argument, and produce good quality to evidence to do so.

(Assuming I've understood posters correctly; apologies if I'm inadvertently misrepresenting anyone.)

@perkingfaintly

"I'm not quite sure how Peterson's words above are supposed to mesh with the posts on this thread saying if you disagree with someone you should just use logic and facts to rebut their argument, and produce good quality to evidence to do so."

Well for starters those logic and facts posts are the context of debate/discussion. Whereas the Peterson clip you've provided refer to someone who has "unfairly trespassed" against him, which isn't the same context.

I assume he's meaning it in the same context as the Lord's Prayer, e.g. Forgive those that trespass against us = do us wrong. He's basically referring to a confrontation that has transcended mere difference of opinion

I'll also add that the man has hours and hours of footage on YouTube and in the public domain.

He's stated that he "chooses his words very carefully" and he believes he's riding the rest of a tidal wave that will come crashing down any moment. He means he fully expects to say the wrong thing which will be used to discredit him for the rest of time.

These individual clips with questionable analysis on your part, taken separately from the full conversation and devoid of context don't really discredit the hours, days, weeks of footage and the rest of his message

It's a common tactic to seize upon individual moments and strip them of context to discredit your opponent

How does he explain the high numbers of women in engineering and IT jobs in India?

There is in fact a full transcript on his website.

jordanbpeterson.com/docs/Transcripts/Peterson-Paglia.pdf

He isn't defining women as having mental illness, that's a rather weak strawman.

hackmum, www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

@hackmum "How does he explain the high numbers of women in engineering and IT jobs in India?"

You could also check out the article posted earlier quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/

More Jordan Peterson on C5, annoyingly only snippets

"Repeatedly clashes with Sophie Walker" (he touches on the gender differences getting bigger as societies grow more equal)

No, he isn't defining ALL women as having mental illness. I abbreviated so as not to overwhelm with my annotations.

I will state more clearly here: he defines women with whom he profoundly disagrees as having mental illness. He has just discussed men "unfairly trespassing" against him and does not describe them as mentally ill.

It's a bit clichéd, isn't it?

But to get back to my original question, would you consider Jordan Peterson to be gender critical?

Or would you consider him to promote gender as innate and biological?

Or... something else?

@perkingfaintly

There is no possible way that JBP can be described as gender critical.

The notion that gender is an oppressive social construct has its roots in postmodernism, and JBP is absolutely postmodernism critical!

Sorry, should have phrased that:
Would you consider Jordan Peterson' work or writings or the arguments he promotes to be gender critical?

@Perkingfaintly "Or would you consider him to promote gender as innate and biological?"

I believe he has said words to the effect of 99.9% of people are happy to identify as male/female/man/woman

He also frequently links to and knows inside out the relevant studies on differences between men and women in interests, personalities etc

Ah, OK. So how do you feel about the views of people who oppose the transgender model because they are gender critical?

You'll have to expand on that for me

I think he’s brilliant. First came across him watching the video where he is on campus and getting shouted down by students. I don’t always agree with him, but I utterly admire his brain. I have a psych leaning too and I’ve always had a fondness for Jung.

What I’d give to sit down and have a conversation with Peterson! Very jealous of everyone going to see him.

What I’d give to sit down and have a conversation with Peterson! Very jealous of everyone going to see him

Same here. I'd love to have a debate with him.

"Repeatedly clashes with Sophie Walker

I saw the whole debate. She did not shine in that conversation. understatment

really interesting comment at 18:33 PerkingFaintly, and also so interesting to see how defensive some posters are of this chap

as for this Peterson quote

If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect

I am absolutely astounded by this. If he was talking to Stephen Hawking he would have absolutely no respect for him? How about Ghandi?

What a bizarre thing to say.

@reluctantcamper

"I am absolutely astounded by this. If he was talking to Stephen Hawking he would have absolutely no respect for him? How about Ghandi?

What a bizarre thing to say."

Except he never said that re Hawking or Gandhi, you've resorted to the most absurd/extreme examples you can think of to discredit his statement

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I think he's marvellous. His ideas on free speech are very refreshing. My husband is an avid listener and he has changed his outlook on many aspects of life and his personality - Peterson has essentially inspired him to be the best version of himself.

no fmsfms

direct quote from a person who at 19.13 you said chooses his words very carefully

^And when men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree. If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have
absolutely no respect.^

so the direct implication of that is that if violence is off the table he's at a loss. There are many men for whom violence is off the table. to say that makes you have no respect for them is utterly, utterly bizarre.

PS, you are JP's mum and I claim my £5