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).

gin picking up on your settling down by mid twenties - I wonder whether brain development plays into this? One thing we're increasingly coming to realise is that the pre-frontal cortex - the bit that does forward thinking, planning, impulse control etc. - doesn't finish developing till the early to mid twenties. So maybe it's not so much that the relationships settle them down, more that brain development settles them down and then they are in a position to form stable relationships. (And the other thing we know is that the prefrontal cortex is very vulnerable to damage during development - particularly from abuse and neglect in childhood).

I agree about MC and upper class young men showing aggression in different (though not all that different) ways - I live in a town with a notoriously posh university, and for a while lived on the fringe of the student areas. The rugger buggers used to think it was fun to come down the road pissed as farts at 2.00am and kick the wing mirrors off the parked cars. You could tell from the sound of their voices that they were from very well off backgrounds indeed.

therealposieparker

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

I agree. I doubt very much that Peterson is arguing for compulsory marriage or banning divorce. I took it more to mean adopting a more responsible attitude to entering into relationships, especially ones which result in children.

FERMAT ..definitely... brain developmental studies showing stabilising by mid twenties seems to show a reduction in poor impulse control and an increase in planning and deferred gratification skills , and also the reduction from peak testosterone will calm things down .

Obviously many exceptions to this in individuals and long term damage in early years develoment can hinder this change but as a general picture it seems to fit .
As for toffs on the rampage ...much more accepted in certain social circles and tolerated and excused in a way working class hooliganism and aggression isnt .

fmsfms:
"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."

So, feminism is to blame?

Hi RC.

Of course, I'm not in favour of anyone being forced into a relationship with someone they don't find attractive (and I don't think that was being suggested).

However, the Peterson approach can benefit Incel types by moving them on from self-pity and towards taking more responsibility for their own actions. While this may not result in them looking like Tom Cruise / growing six inches taller / curing their male pattern baldness etc it surely makes them at least slightly more attractive / less repulsive, hence increasing their chances of forming a relationship.

but what is the Peterson approach Freespeecher?

he seems to be big on (very strange) opinions, and low on actual practicalities.

Are you saying it isn't 'enforced monogamy' (whatever the heck that is)? In which case why did he say it?

If he means young men should polish their shoes and get their hair cut, well yippee - I don't think any one would argue.

but really it feels like arguing about the bible. It's all so bloody vague. Interpreting Peterson is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

yes, men working on themselves is fine.

but that's not what he said.

he didn't say 'this young man couldn't get laid, maybe he should have has a little think about why'

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

Note the cure. Not a cure.

for a man who makes a living bandying words around he is remarkably careless with them.

However, the Peterson approach can benefit Incel types by moving them on from self-pity and towards taking more responsibility for their own actions

How does having a society that rewards monogamy going to move them towards being responsible for their own actions? How is it not just going to move their anger towards their parents, or society for not providing them with a suitable wife?

This is just the grownup version of having schoolchildren sit boy/girl/boy/girl in an effort to make them more controllable.

As one of those girls, it didn't, it just meant that rather than having a group of boys the teacher had to control, I had 2 boys harassing me that I was expected to keep under control, or be told off for fighting with if I lost my cool.

Peterson has consistently said that if a man has problems attracting women and holding relationships it's not the women's fault and the man has to make changes to his behaviour ...

However, the Peterson approach can benefit Incel types by moving them on from self-pity and towards taking more responsibility for their own actions.

How exactly do those of you supporting this Peterson approach actually perceive it as different from the system we have now? What actual POLICIES could be introduced to further promote monogamy without diminishing women’s right to freely choose, and leave, partners? It’s all very fuzzy at the moment.

Peterson has consistently said that if a man has problems attracting women and holding relationships it's not the women's fault and the man has to make changes to his behaviour

How magnanimous.

How is this squared with incels being better off if women are 'societally encouraged' to be in monogamous relationships with them?

Thinking of getting some
Love Hadley
Hate Peterson

T-shirts printed.

In forced means no choice and consequences for those who don’t comply. What we have now is a choice. You can’t enforce a choice, you can only enforce something that has been imposed.

In forced means no choice and consequences for those who don’t comply.

Yes hot rocker. This is my understanding too. But he’s clearly back pedalled on that and various posters on this thread seem to have bought it. I’d love to know what this Peterson approach actually looks like, in tangible policy terms, if it doesn’t involve forcing.

Sorry, I worded my post poorly.
What I meant to say is that a system of choice by definition cannot be enforced, otherwise it ceases to be a choice. Either JP has a poor grasp of the English language, which I very much doubt, or enforced is exactly what he meant, and probably the reason why he didn’t elaborate.
I think the real question is, why didn’t Mr I say the unsayable have the balls to say it?

X post Sloth

Posey went into the whole 'enforced monogamy' thing a page or so back and expressed it better than I did.

"Peterson has consistently said that if a man has problems attracting women and holding relationships it's not the women's fault and the man has to make changes to his behaviour ..."

What were the words he said that convinced you of this?

If you have didactic tendencies it could be expedient to pay attention when leveraging your verbiage so that those in proximity can comprehend your logos.

Or to translate from Petersonese:

If you'd like to explain things to people, why not try using language they can understand so they can follow your reasoning.

Enforced monogamy main mean something to an anthropologist, but most of us aren't one.

To translate into Camperese

Just say what you fucking mean man!

Maybe people should ask MNHQ to ask for a webchat with JP - he seems to be doing every bit of press possible so might be up for it. I will get the popcorn

he argues for a living waddle, he'd certainly make mincemeat of me! I like to go away and have a think about my replies.

Of course I also try not to make bullshit blanket comments that leave people making this face so that could be another reason why I'm a bit slower.

Aren't these violent males we're discussing high school age? Like 16-18 years old. These Peterson remarks are in response to high school shootings.

Very many teenage girls don't feel ready to have a relationship with anyone, so most teen boys will not find a sexual partner.

I love living in a society where women do not have to live with men and very many choose not to. It brings me great joy.

If there is an increased risk of public violence, it is absolutely worth it.

We've had socially enforced monogamy for a long time only they didn't call it that. Religious groups forbad divorce. Social convention made divorced women pariahs. The law made divorce so onerous people didn't divorce because it was too difficult. Divorced women lost any rights to their children.

The point of this wasn't to provide frustrated men with easy access to sex, but to regulate female reproduction and control access to properly, but the effect was the same.

I've never seen any evidence that enforced monogamy led to less violence towards women, inside or outside of marriages.

yes, and the methods of enforcement you list dance are horrible.

I wonder if they were the sort of thing Peterson had in mind.....