Ask Hadley on Jordan Peterson

[Freespeecher]

I know that 'Ask Hadley' is a lighthearted column but she opens by damning him by association (he doesn't choose his fans) and essentially writes a hit piece by cutting and pasting a previous hit piece. ReluctantCamper could have written this for a fraction of Hadley's fee!

I understand opinions on Peterson are somewhat mixed to say the least but, in the wake of her articles on the Trafalgar Square anti-semitism demo and ManFriday, this article comes across as a disappointingly weak effort.

Thoughts?

(And link - don't seem to be able to do clicky links on my phone, sorry: www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy).

Clicky link.
www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution.

I dont understand the reverence for JP. And this position on men and monogamy is anti feminist.
While its true that a personality doesn't choose their fans, I have noticed that, for example, David Irving has followers who can be expected to hold certain views and not read Noam Chomsky.

If JP doesn't think his followers reflect his views he is in a position to do something about that.

Why should ReluctantCamper get paid less for the same work?!?!
I find ReluctantCamper's writing very valuable.

yeah, I have to question whether a person who thinks that sacrificing women to violent men is a good way to make men less violent - given the complete absence of evidence on that, and that actually, it's likely that they'll just continue being violent to their assigned woman.

Just because he has some opinions I can probably nod to the conclusion of, doesn't mean that we arrived there through the same route, or that I agree with his deductions and reasoning.

I feel like there's some law there around vegetarians and Hitler.

He did a follow-up piece on his blog in an attempt to make his meaning more clear:

^So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.^

(Back on the PC so yay! Clicky link! jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/ )

'Enforced monogamy' would allow violent men to commit violence more conveniently and with more control over their victims.

How the heck would he 'enforce monogamy' anyway?

ooh a name check, thanks freespeacher and Waddlelikeapenguin

As I amply demonstrated on the previous thread, i don't really understand why one is not allowed to read what Dr Peterson says, come to some conclusions about what he means (it's not always obvious to put it mildly) and then critique those conclusions.

Feedback on the critique is welcome, especially when it doesn't contain a million hyperlinks (a technique I have since learned can be referred to as a 'snow job'. Every day's a school day).

In the NYT article Peterson is quoted directly as saying [regarding the incel attack in Toronto]

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him, the cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

I really struggle with Peterson's blanket assertions.

1. 'that's actually why monogamy emerges' - does he mean that monogamy emerges solely to offset male violence?
   Do women have no agency at all here? I think monogamy offers some advantages to women too, but have these not contributed at all to people's choice to live monogamously?

2. 'the cure for that is enforced monogamy'. Is he recommending that this approach be taken up by society? It does read like a recommendation

3. what does enforced monogamy mean? How does / would it work

Clarity man, clarity!

Just read the 'clarification'. Is he basically saying that 'Brads' should self-impose monogamy and leave spare 'staceys' for their less attractive friends?

and I'll take being compared to Queen Hadley any day, week, month or year!

If I was writing it I would have pointed out that Peterson (and many evolutionary psychologists) are doing nothing men as a group haven’t been doing for thousands of years. They invent various ideologies starting with religions to justify their actions and so that they can get what they want without criticism. For example many wrote in their religious texts that women were deemed by god to be the property of their husbands, and were created to serve men etc. These ideas were then said to originate from an all powerful deity, not mortal men, and so should not be questioned. When in the west there was less emphasis on religion and more on science, they then concocted things like craniology, eugenics and social darwinism to justify their subjection of others. Similar to how they had previously claimed their demands in their religions were not invented by them, but were the words of a deity so cannot be questioned, they then claimed these new ideologies were just the findings of ‘science’, and so cannot be disputed. The ideologies we are seeing now from people like Peterson and others are just the latest in a long line that follow this pattern, of men claiming that that what they want is reasonable and should be given, and justifying it by trying to use something more powerful than them, i.e. religion and science and claiming this will be good for society. Nothing new here really.

I think it's more on a societal level (if you're prepared to put your faith in a CiFer called HulaHoopPie):

HoolahoopPie 21h ago

Wow. I'm not fan of Peterson's really but the level of misreading and misunderstanding of his statements is some of the worst I've ever seen.

Its worth reading what he says in totality in order to understand it, even if you don't agree with it.

For instance his point about monogamy has truth to it. Polygamous societies (usually where a small number of men get to procreate with most of the women) usually have far higher levels of male violence. Monogamy usually results in far less violent societies. So societies tend towards creating traditions that encourage monogamy. That is a form of enforcement.

Of course those people who spend 30 seconds reading what he says just assume he's suggesting the goverment should force women to sleep with men, because that fits their narrative surrounding him.

The stuff about chaos and order I'm not convinced about, but he has at least some reasoning behind it, and he doesn't describe those things in positive or negative terms.

"and essentially writes a hit piece by cutting and pasting a previous hit piece"

Yes, engages with a secondary source and uses this as the basis for her article.

2/10

Violent attacks happen when men control women. They just happen behind closed doors and are not recorded.

Just take the compliment RC

It could be taken as slightly disingenuous of JBP to bring out a controversial phrase like 'enforced monogamy' and then tut when commenters duly leap on it but there's more to it than 'take a ticket and wait for your woman' is the gist of what I'm saying.

. Polygamous societies (usually where a small number of men get to procreate with most of the women) usually have far higher levels of male violence. Monogamy usually results in far less violent societies

Correlation is not causation. A more violent society (in particular, a warlike one) could result in an excess of women and promote polygamy.

sure, freespeacher but why doesn't he say that!

I've mentioned before that I really struggle to understand him and so do many of my friends

it's not terribly surprising that he finds himself wrongly misrepresented when he talks in such a strange way.

however, if he really believes that men must compete in a sexual marketplace, then surely we should be looking for ways to change that mindset rather than ways to make sure they are able to?

it's a bit like saying we all have the urge to drive at a speed that suits us so let's change the legal system to make sure we can..?

and Artemis7's point is very valid.

Peterson strikes me as a man so comfortable inside the box that he does not even want to acknowledge the existence of the box.

He is not impartial (no-one is), but seems to lack the insight to see this.

society needs to work to make sure those men are married

That's pretty bloody clear - the women are replaceable parts here, the men are the actors in the sentence who 'society' needs to pacify

The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially

The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation

I completely disagree with this. Monogamy isn't 'regulation' it's sacrifice of women.

Regulation would be social sanctions for men that are violent.

Enforced monogamy means that women stay with violent men. Literally hoping that because the man is violent to 'their' woman, they won't be violent to anyone else.

The solution isn't enforced monogamy, it's making violence unacceptable.

Artemis7's article would have been better (though Ask Hadley is always a lighthearted piece rather than in-depth analysis).

I'd be interested to see her points put to Peterson and hear his response. He makes a lot of biblical references so it'd be engaging him on his home turf.

usually have far higher levels of male violence. Monogamy usually results in far less violent societies

I'm going to go ahead and assume that, much as in UK stats, we're not counting rape in this.

I don't think Carole Horton was writing this with Hadley's column in mind but, nevertheless:

twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/999235745842958336

Yes, I think what is instinctively so offensive about his comment it that it betrays no thought whatsoever to those women in monogamous relationships with violent men that they can't get out of because of some sort of (unspecified by Peterson), societal restriction.

The desire of young men for sexual satisfaction seems to perceived as something more fundamental than the desire of women to live with, and procreate with, a partner of their choosing. So in Peterson's world you do not challenge the propensity of young men towards violence, you challenge the desire of women for self determination.

I have said before that he feels no kinship at all to women. It's obvious every time he opens his mouth on this sort of subject.

That follow-up Peterson wrote about The NY Times article doesn't make what he said about "enforced monogamy" any better.

Social control is still control. Social coercion is still coercion.

He's still putting the responsibility of men's actions on women. He says this: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence; but his solution to that is socially enforced monogamy. Not men controlling their violent behavior. Not "hey men, stop being entitled assholes who hurt and kill people when you can't get laid." Socially enforcing women's sexual behavior.

I think that it has been proven over millennia that men don’t want monogamy. What men want is a woman at home for domestic service and sex on demand, and to go out and find other sex as and when it’s available.
I think what JP actually means, but for some reason refuses to say, is enforced domestic and sexual slavery for women.
It has also been proven over millennia that monogamy does not decrease the instances of male violence, it might take that violence out of the public sphere and into the domestic sphere but it does not decrease anything.
These statements cannot be made in a neutral fashion, because they are blatantly incorrect, but also because the very act of potentially presenting something as neutral that is blatantly incorrect is promoting it.
The reason that JP has the fans that he does is because he says the things that he does.

Having read both the NYT article and Hadley's, I can see why on a superficial level you'd think Hadley guilty of "churnalism" on this one. However, I think the NYT article was played with a straight bat - interview the man, quote him, draw attention to inconsistencies (the tension between freedom of speech, self-reliance and individual freedom of action as twin rights/responsibilities, versus enforced or socially heavily encouraged monogamy). Hadley's column, on the other hand, is meant to be satirical - so rather than merely draw attention to the internal inconsistencies and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions, she makes fun of them. Which is a fine and honourable tradition in political journalism and writing going all the way back to... well, whenever, really. Swift, Voltaire, Martial, Euripides. All satirise politics and intellectuals who think they've found the key to understanding the universe (it is impossible to read Leibniz's Monadology with a straight face, for instance, if you've read Candide first).

Leaving aside the obvious immorality of coercing people to be in enforced monogamous relationships (which, given his comments on Betty Friedan, I read as a desire to hold women captive in stultifying marriages which are not working for them), the issue of monogamy and social order seems to me to put the cart before the horse. Has he never heard the phrase "correlation is not causation?" I'd hazard a guess (am a physical scientist rather than an anthropologist, so I'd be very interested to hear from any anthropologists on this one) that levels of violence probably correlate most strongly with inequality - and polygamy might well be a consequence of inequality too. I.e. rather than polygamy driving violence, inequality drives both violence and polygamy as a social structure.