Jordan Peterson Interview with Helen Lewis

[rightreckoner]

here

It's long but I thought I'd give it a bit of a watch since I've heard so much about him. Initial thoughts are - he's not as clever as he thinks he is. Questions he doesn't like he closes down with a bait and switch answer or a terrifying Paddington stare. Comes across as a bit of a plonker. With absolutely no humour. Helen Lewis did a good job I think of not getting annoyed although he is so bullet proof there's almost no point in the discussion.

His basic thesis (if I understand it correctly) is that society is not shaped by the patriarchy but by competence. So the reason men are scientists and women look after babies is that they are better at these skills respectively. There is no such thing as the patriarchy.

There is a good bit at about 1.05.40 where she asks him why women change their names on marriage if not to symbolise their transfer from one man to another and he says - ugh, Margaret Atwood is an idiot.

I felt great admration for Helen Lewis watching this yesterday.

Where to start though with Jordon Peterson?
I think this interview revealed a great deal about him.

The thing is, the patriarchy evolved from the fact that women are the reproducers. They became valuable commodities in agricultural communities as they produce more children to work the farm. Women are quite capable of doing all sorts of things, it suited men to keep them in their place.

My impression is that he's a kind of Guru figure, a beacon for the incels
He is easily destroyed by rational enquiry but that's not what it is about, gurus don't jive with rational enquiry and they're not trying to appeal to people who analyse things in that way
it's all about invoking masculinity with the meat eating, the primitive caveman get back to the roots stuff

It makes me think of all that red pill, holding frame, amused mastery bullshit

I'm afraid that, brief sympathy for his position on pronouns aside, I think he's a prat and I disagree with everything else he has to say.

I don't really pay him much attention. Much better for my blood pressure.

it's all about invoking masculinity with the meat eating, the primitive caveman get back to the roots stuff

Its fascinating to consider Peterson's beef diet in contrast to a thought-provoking lecture at FiLiA conference:

"Carol J. Adams is an American activist and author who has written extensively on the sexual politics of meat. Here she discusses how a culture of meat-eating and the objectification of women as flesh to be consumed are intimately connected. She argues that veganism and the dismantling of misogny go hand-in-hand."

filia.org.uk/podcasts/2018/10/8/filia-meets-carol-j-adams-filia-speaker-and-aurhor

I just can't stand his ridiculous word salad. I don't know how he manages to get through the fucking day. Such a dicksplash.

Also he is so palpably fragile you feel like he is going to burst out crying any minute.

Helen Lewis sounds like an encouraging nursery teacher trying to draw out his best but he wants to play in the sand pit, not count to 10 now. Waaaaaa Waaaaaa!

Rowan -

Loads of vegan chaps are misogynists though :D

Although I bet it was a fascinating talk and the exploitation of animals esp female ones by humans is ?analogous to the eploitation of women and girls by men.

@Rowan, thanks for the Carol J Adams link 😊I will look into that!
I have to admit I didn't listen too much of the interview because I think he's a Pratt and I feel very reluctant to give him that much of my time

NothingOnTellyAgain

Yes of course. The lecture was obviously nuanced.

What struck me was her demonstration of how often meat is advertised by images of the animals as 'pornified' * stereotyped images of women.
The language etc of the advertising discussed was fascinating to me. Its an area I have had a long interest in.

I'll see if I can find a link to a paper but the link above has an interview with Carol Adams.

(I'm not a vegan btw)

More info here:

caroljadams.com/cja-bio/

Video here by Carol J Adams explaining the basis for her book, 'The Sexual Politics of Meat'
www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=108&v=iCi9sFY42K4

Haven't read the thing about meat but I'm hoping it echoes what I have a fear is the true story of primitive man: men go off hunting for day on end, eat part of the catch and bring some meat home, women stay at home and get the hell on with providing the mostly plant and foraged diet of primitive man, raising kids and generally making the village work. praising the men for 'bringing home the bacon'. As echoed through the aeons by the phenomena that I call 'male performance cooking' (mostly to be found at barbecues when men stand around barbecues annihilating meat while women get the bread ready, make the salad, lay the table, stop the kids killing each other and so on. Barbecues must not be left you know!)

sorry massive derail - didn't know I was so annoyed. But, you know, own the anger.

What struck me was her demonstration of how often meat is advertised by images of the animals as 'pornified' stereotyped images of women.*

Collection of images sent to Carol J Adams from around the world here:
caroljadams.com/examples-of-spom/

I think his career relies on the trick of using post-modernism as he defines it against itself. He rails against post-modernism and the notion of deconstruction, but at the same time asks us to deconstruct the patriarchy and consider it as a meritocracy instead. This is probably why he gets airtime when someone like Roosh V doesn't, his strategy is a bit more sophisticated rather than his ideas. I think Helen Lewis did a great job of keeping her cool whilst showing him up for the vacuous one trick pony he is.

Here's a link to the book in case anyone wants to have a read
www.amazon.co.uk/Sexual-Politics-Meat-Anniversary-Feminist-Vegetarian-ebook/dp/B016N2QTU8/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+sexual+Politics+of+meat&tag=mumsnetforum-21&ie=UTF8&qid=1540990336&sr=8-1

I've just watched. I like him (have recently been watching interviews/lectures with him anyway), I don't agree with him over the whole patriarchy thing, but most of what he says is really interesting.

He definitely seems to be on the autistic spectrum.

He's on The bullshitter spectrum

To me Peterson delivers a combination of snake oil and (some) common sense. There's nothing new there. What does look new is that he packages it up in a way that makes it difficult for critics to get a grip on it.

Not a had a chance to watch it but I find it amazing that otherwise intelligent people just think men are clever at science and women are good at babies because, reasons.

If that were the case then why are the numbers specific to the culture you live in and why do more women become scientists every year on year (same with stay at home dads). Nothing to do with the fact that the culture and laws change to make it easier for this to happen? Have women suddenly over the last 50 years evolved to do better at science, men just picked up the multi tasking gene?

Women are chaos and men eat meat
That's the message isn't it?

Haven't seen that particular interview but I think JBP is an interesting example of how, right now, we find ourselves on the side of some people on some issues and against them on others (and it's often surprising to see who you're lined up with and against).

I seem to remember Posie went to hear him speak and had her photo taken with him too so MN opinion is divided over him too.

All the vegan men I've ever known are difficult controlling wankers, so not sure how that fits in

Look at the covers of magazines for girls and the ones for boys. Which magazines do you think are more likely to have content about auto care, electronics, gadgets, and other useful info-- from a fun perspective?

Boys are taught at early ages to have interests that will help them career-wise, while girls are taught to be obsessed with beauty, fashion, and playing with dolls. Then later in life people assume it's a biological thing when men and women choose different paths. Some of it could be biological, but obviously there's a lot of conditioning that takes place during formative years.