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).

So.... What's his attraction to these blokes then? I could speculate, but there seem to be a few fans on this thread who should be able to enlighten us.

I've read the book, and watched some of his stuff. He does make you think, which I like, but his 'message' seems rather vague. I think he likes to stir up controversy and then back pedal - it's all good publicity after all...

ReluctantCamper ah but the shield wall would hold regardless of one stepping away I'm more of a Berserker

flowers
He does make you think, which I like, but his 'message' seems rather vague. I think he likes to stir up controversy and then back pedal - it's all good publicity after all...
Yes!

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

Quite but makes a convenient divide and conquer regime to entrap women. No one's arguing that monogamy is bad - it's just there's not nearly enough couth men to go around so it's no solution - just a convenient sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

A male friend said the other day JP makes a living form his work now (his aim when his Uni workplace became unpalatable - $80K a week from his Patreon alone. His observation of JP was he creates a lot of "heat" but doesn't use it for the wider good i.e. for anyone or anything else but himself and his promotion.

I swear I am so over the JP phenomenon as he's a relentless self promotor. Words are easy - actions are what count - what actual action has he taken to benefit the wider society rather than his pocket?

Peterson is just another "intellectual" spouting personal opinion as if it were a valid scientific theory. It isn't.

Another hatchet job (New Statesman). Did someone already post this one? It's new to me and this bit really made me chuckle.

"Still, what’s the harm? I’ve spent hours reading Reddit forums full of young men who are furious at the world, but also vulnerably, sweetly worried that they don’t know how to talk to girls and they are somehow failing at being men. Isn’t it nice they have a role model, someone to tell them to stand up straight and believe in themselves?

Unfortunately, this was an argument that could have been plausibly made about the Jordan Peterson of a few months ago. It’s not one that can be made of the Jordan Peterson of today. As a friend – a geneticist – said to me recently: “It’s ironic. He’s evolved into a bellend in front of our eyes: the selection pressure being attention.”"

Woman have always been used to "civilise" men and male cultures. That's why women were sent to the American West and the colonies. Once women have children they are forced to start regularising society in order to provide those children with the best opportunity to survive.

It's not a new idea, and I suppose you could argue it worked on a macro-scale, not necessarily to the benefit of women.

The idea of using women to control individual men by providing them with ready access to sex isn't new either. It's until recently, the law didn't recognise rape within marriage.

The answer to incrls and the like isn't to throw women at them, like a fire blanket over flames, but work out what the real problem is.

And the real problem isn't sex. The real problem is a subset of young men who believe they have been cheated of access to privileges their maleness entitles them to.

Because women, particularly young and beautiful women, have always been a commodity, incels are really complaining about a perceived loss of patriarchal entitlements, as embodied in women and girls.

What if his message is just to make you think? What if that's his greatest value? Even if your thoughts are that he's wrong you still think.

"Woman have always been used to "civilise" men and male cultures. That's why women were sent to the American West and the colonies. Once women have children they are forced to start regularising society in order to provide those children with the best opportunity to survive."

Pretty sure there's a more important reason for women to start reproducing in those new lands than just regulating male behaviour

Yes @therealposieparker. I agree with this. He’s brought a real freshness to my thinking and I like it. I like him. I like questioning my my long-held slightly lefty assumptions about stuff. I work for a university and he’s helped me to understand why the political atmosphere seems so very stifling and why I’m constantly worried about offending people and how wrong that is. How horrendous it is that you can be brought up on a disciplinary for misgendering someone. How stupid it is that I have friends who are scared to say that they support Brexit. How the diversity agenda doesn’t seem to support genuine diversity of thinking or ideas.

As for whether or not he is a “friend to women”, he is telling young men to sort themselves out properly and to take on as much responsibility as they can bear so that they can be better men, citizens and partners. What message could be more helpful to women?

therealposieparker

What if his message is just to make you think? What if that's his greatest value? Even if your thoughts are that he's wrong you still think

Yes indeed. He is not anti- women as I have seen claimed by some.

Females with internalized misogyny are here on this thread licking Peterson' odious balls without countering any points, without making any other point than "talking crap is educational for the ones crapped on" for contrarian/male approval points, the same concession to posturing big-mouthed men that weak women have always made.

And that statement may be wrong, but it has value because it made you think.

sillage, very neat.

"Females with internalized misogyny"

Ahh yes, the magic wand used to wave away the fact that most women don't identify as feminists, or used any time a woman dares express a different opinion to the resident feminists who of course are the authority on the opinions women are allowed to hold.

Sexism, pure and simple

"Internalised misogyny" is an unfortunate phrase, echoing as it does black people getting called Uncle Toms if they go against the accepted view of 'the community', Maajid Nawaz gets called a 'porch Muslim', non Alt-Right males are dismissed as cucks / soy boys and women are derided for their "internalised misogyny" / wrongthink.

('Handmaidens' may also fall under this umbrella but, as I haven't been watching the series and only joined the board recently it may have a more specific meaning of which I'm unaware).

Hang a minute. I am not sucking Canadian cock here, I refuse to be so fucking tribal that I'm not aloud to even consider his opinion. FFS. No better than TRAs group think bullshit.

allowed....

Damned tramodol.

But thoughts!

Thinking!

The "greatest value" of all values!

I don't expect sillage really meant 'internalised misogyny' - it's probably an anthropological term

So sillage what is your point exactly? That JP is a nasty man, so noone should listen to him or agree with him about anything? As Posie said, that's just tribal nonsense akin to the TRA #nodebate strategy.
Given that half of computer owners with a Y chromosome seem to have mistaken him for the second coming, I'm quite curious to figure out what the attraction is...

Naturally, ReluctantCamper.

I suppose this is where I have to explain to malicious persons that by "weak women" I didn't really mean "weak" because I meant socially pressured, externalized culture influencing the trajectory of humanity as it regards relations between men and women historically.

Like when I said "here on this thread" I meant philosophically here, obviously no one woman is actually HERE on this thread, it was a rhetorical device to illustrate the intellectual property of thinking qua thinking and anyone who interprets it otherwise is doing so in bad faith.

Where's my book deal?

and just for clarity, I'm absolutely not saying that no-one should read or agree with JP.

I have zero interest in policing what others do with their spare time or i the privacy of their own head.

Frankly flowers, having read some of JP's prose, I'm inclined to give you some sort of award for getting to the end of the book.

sillage I will forgive you. That response is gold.

camper ooh an award I feel like muttley of dastardly and muttley.

Muttley

It always seems so obvious to me - what JP and men like him don't suggest - women are better at people issues and more civilised than men, generally - if that's the case, rather than harnessing women to rescue men, why don't men defer to women's expertise and let them take over the reins of power? That's a healthy response to the problem.

Unfortunately, men generally don't defer to women and won't give up something important to them for the greater good, i.e. money and /or power.

It's always in what these guys don't say and don't go that their entitlement and abuse is obvious. Why should we have to wait until men catch up and become civilised? Why can't our skills and wisdom be put to greater good and men become the worker bees who serve the Queen Bee - not the other way around?