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).

I'm a fan of monogamy.... it's the 'enforced' part, and claiming that would cure young men of violence which is so frankly bizarre.

In any case... does anyone have stats on (a) incidence of violence and (b) monogamous relationships? I'm pretty sure that the first has been tending to go down over time, as has the second since innovations such as women's rights and birth control.

Enforced monogamy works, we (humans) do pair off and it works well for us. I'd go as far to say as if we socialise men to be more decent and responsible there wouldn't be so many women left holding the baby when their husbands fuck off.

Helen Lewis of New Statesman's turn to write a lazy hit piece

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/05/jordan-peterson-and-rise-cargo-cult-intellectual

"But because he’s writing for sad young white men –"

Chosen, mutually supportive monogamy works very well. It's the 'enforced' which is problematic- I still can't work out what anyone realistically could mean by it.

Young men are a problem across many cultures and societies and young male natural aggression (Namalt)and denial of sexual contact has been channelled into fanaticism in many causes and religions ...Red Guards, Hitler Youth , multiple tribal and sectarian groups and even football supporters . The testosterone 'high' obtained by being part of an aggressive group with an identified enemy is something that few women have experienced and socialising young men out of it won't work ..it will go underground and be fetishised . I'm an easy going liberal softy with early membership of CND and all the right on things in my youth but i well remember the euphoria of physical contact and sense of belonging when involved in a couple of violent incidents in my youth .
In a later career working with troubled young people it was a cliche but well observed that young men would be transformed by their mid twenties by forming stable relationships with women ..not all went smoothly by any means but lowered testosterone and taking on 'manly' responsibilities made them much calmer .

ErrolTheDragon:
On the bare face of it, the term 'enforced monogamy', particularly in the context of discussing incels, doesn't put Peterson in the best light. 'Enforced' definitely has connotations of women being pressured, or forced', to be in monogamous relationships for the purpose of 'curing' young male rage. Peterson has backtracked from this negative reading, and is now trying to claim(based off a Reddit comment, no less!) that all he really meant by 'enforced monogamy' was the system we have in place anyway: a system where monogamy is, via social convention, encouraged and celebrated. In that case, it's a very poor choice of phrasing.

However, in his NYT piece, when he talks about the incel who murdered a bunch of women, Peterson says "he [the incel] was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy." In light of this quote, his explanation of what he means by 'enforced monogamy' makes absolutely no sense. The cure for the incel's anger, due to women rejecting him is...what we have right now? But that can't be a 'cure' because we're already doing it, and the guy still got angry and killed a bunch of people. Reading Peterson's quote, it very straightforwardly seems as if he is advocating for something that is new - something we haven't tried before. And that new thing, the 'cure' for these disaffected young men, is "enforced monogamy". Of course, as usual, Peterson doesn't actually give us specifics of what that means.

That's a very interesting comment ginandbearit. I'm wondering what the conclusion is.

The idea of women 'changing' men simply by forming a relationship with them has always struck me as Mills and Boon nonsense. Maybe I just don't have sufficient womanliness to reform any body!

If what you say is true maybe the approach we need to take is teaching young men how to be better looking like attractive partners? Do you have any thoughts on this?

I absolutely reject any solution which involves women forming relationships with men they do not find desirable or suitable simply to try to influence their behavior.

With Peterson's emphasis on taking individual responsibility for one's actions I would expect his acolytes to feel similarly?

better at looking like attractive partners

"If what you say is true maybe the approach we need to take is teaching young men how to be better looking like attractive partners? Do you have any thoughts on this?"

Ask 10 men what they look for in a partner and you'll get 10 more or less similar answers.

Ask 10 women and you'll get 10 different answers

"I absolutely reject any solution which involves women forming relationships with men they do not find desirable or suitable simply to try to influence their behavior."

Who is suggesting that?

I dunno fms, but we seem to be getting a lot of musing on how women can reform men. I'm wondering where it's going....

teaching young men how to be better at looking like attractive partners

I think that definitely is part of his message. He thinks society has infantilised young men and that they should grow up, play less computer games, and take a responsible place in society. I think he thinks () that society becoming to feminised is partly/wholly the problem. Does that sound right to the JP fans?

If men become frustrated because they cant get a partner then how is monogamy a solution? Monogamy is a type of relationship. The men are frustrated because they cant get a partner who will be with them of their own volition.

The only logical way to interpret the 'enforced monogamy' solution is that women would forcibly be given to the frustrated young men and forced to stay with them.

too feminised

I think if you spend any time on the relationships board of this site, you come away with a pretty good idea of how effective a strategy for a healthy relationship it is to pick a man who is a 'doer upper'.

society becoming too feminised

that is a very interesting idea. I wonder how he feels it manifests itself?

Hmmm Camper ..it's not straightforward ..I'm really talking about tough mostly working class men (I've worked with some horrendous mc and upper class types and I think they have their own pathologies )- who tended to get mixed messages about what it was to be a man from the women in their communities . Some degree of aggression and 'manliness' was prized and rewarded , as long as it was tempered and expressed outwardly .
The other 'reforming' influence was working with older men in their trades, perhaps only a few years older , who took pride in their roles as skilled tradesmen and family providers, giving status to being a good father and worker .
This is not to paint an idyllic picture of settled men and stable families but they do exist in large numbers .
The issue that I think has developed over recent years is the swathes of women with children and no permanent man in their lives and no great wish to have one after many bad experiences . There are communities of strong single mums all supporting each other and with men hardly visible ..but that's another thread .

Thats before you get into the whole propensity for violence. Women with violent partners are most at risk when pregnant or within 6 months of giving birth.

''A study from Northern Ireland reported that 60% of women residing in a refuge experienced violence during pregnancy and of these 13% lost their babies as a result of continued abuse.
This study also showed that women attending accident and emergency departments with physical injuries owing to domestic violence are more likely to be pregnant than women attending with accidental injuries.''
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62622/

Women cannot prevent or cure mens violence. We should avoid violent young men. Its a sadistic fantasy to imagine women being forced into marriage with them.

"Does that sound right to the JP fans?"

No, it's more society tells men that masculinity is toxic, they're part of an oppressive patriarchy, they'll be judged on their group identity and not as individuals, they live in a rape culture etc etc

and I think more to the point it is hardly fair to expect women to prevent or cure men's violence, even if it was a job they could succeed at.

Interesting fms

I think there are some people here who feel that extreme femininity is also toxic.

I really should be working.....

"No, it's more society tells men that masculinity is toxic, they're part of an oppressive patriarchy, they'll be judged on their group identity and not as individuals, they live in a rape culture etc etc"

Sorry but that's nonsense. Even on Mumsnet - which must be one of the most female dominated place on the internet - those views are not in the majority. In wider society they barely even register.

If you collared a random man on the street and asked him what the patriarchy is, the most likely response would be a blank expression.

No, it's more society tells men that masculinity is toxic, they're part of an oppressive patriarchy, they'll be judged on their group identity and not as individuals, they live in a rape culture etc etc

I think there's that as well. And he emphasises the positive aspects of masculinity. I think he sees liberal progressive ways of thinking as feminine ("chaotic") and conservative, authoritarian (not totalitarian) ways of thinking as masculine ("ordered") and that society has gone too far towards the former and needs rebalancing towards the latter. That's how I read him anyway. ..

"Even on Mumsnet - which must be one of the most female dominated place on the internet - those views are not in the majority"

Most women don't identify as feminists, therefore you would expect these feminist views/ideas to be in the minority on Mumsnet.

they'll be judged on their group identity
When men can come up with a better way for women to manage risk assessment than by sex class, then they are welcome to suggest it.

Enforced monogamy wont cut it; and is not any less offensive.

How or if he envisions all of this panning out in practice, I have no idea. But my gut instinct tells me it probably wouldn't be a positive thing for women.