worried about partner

[Nsmum14]

My partner started watching Jordan Peterson videos around this time last year. Being an insecure man who has not really known privilege he was instantly attracted to J P and to his lectures. My partner started to say things like male privilege is a myth. He now believes it is men that are hard done by by the world generally. That women act like they're victims but it is simply an act.
A year on he's watching all these seemingly vile videos on youtube. Last night he was watching a video called How Women Destroy Nations (and why men let them). Whenever I ask why he is watching this stuff he gets angry and goes into fighty mode. We fall out enough as it is so I'm just keeping silent and hoping this phase passes.

It is upsetting to me though. I don't know why I'm posting this. He seems strengthened by what he watches, I think I just wanted to hear what some of you think of this.

When women say they like Jordan Peterson I just die a little inside. Are you that easily swayed by someone because they're slightly charismatic? Despite all the absolutely disgusting things he's said about women and how insidious his disgusting ideas are? In b4 oUt oF cOnTeXt. They remind me of women Trump voters.

I was going to say beware the sunk costs fallacy but somebody beat me to it.

And I was going to say it's not your responsibility to fix him but several people have beaten me to that too.

My DH spends ages on youtube watching what he likes and is interested in too.. "world's biggest machines" "top 30 Lions test match tries" "amazing tree surgery fails" and the like. It's a bit tedious when he keeps giving a running commentary. But if he got into watching "Why women are shit" videos, even highbrow "Philosophical and Scientific explanations of Why Women Are Shit" I would think he had irrevocably changed.

You might watch something you disagreed with for a bit just to see the other side...but we're all subject to a bit of confirmation bias and I reckon we all gravitate towards groups that generally support our basic beliefs and like the things we like. I spend 90% of my internet time on mumsnet (mostly FWR), a forum discussing the sport I'm interested in, and a forum for members of my profession to discuss work and non-work stuff. On all 3 forums there are different thoughts on specific issues, some different characters and sometimes things get heated...but in general they are my people. If your partner has been an avid viewer of JP sorts of videos for a year I'd say he has found his people.

See this where often vaunted principle of diversity falls down, as we should all be super tolerant of each other no matter our gender, race, religion etc, except when it comes to our politics. If someone has the wrong politics or is guilty of wrongthink then it's ltb, pejoratives abound!

The one thing that sticks out to me about the op's partner is his anger. He's entirely missing a lot of JP's philosophy if he's being overly combatative especially with his partner. There should be room for differing opinions in any relationship, and indeed it's healthy.

I'd advise a couple's therapy and work on the communication a bit more. If you really get down into the heart of what JP is about is self mastery, owning your own shit and contributing to society. Running around blaming women or any group for that matter is the very antithesis of that principle.

The vector in which JP and a lot of his adherents come into conflict with feminists is opposing the principle of equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity), as it stands many social programs instigated by progressive identity politics, of which modern feminism is a branch and expression of succeed in only sowing division and conflict as well as not actually succeeding in their stated objectives. Things like opposing state compelled speech for example.

And every time a rational facts over feelings type of guy has a debate with a leftys like yourself, you leftys all sound the same.

I'll even go into how to debate like a lefty 101 (majority of the time)

1. Leftys first listen until they hear a buzzword such as "men" "women" "white" "black" "Islam" "Jew"

1. Then, after being offended by such words as they are ever so thin skinned and sensitive and never got taught in their marxist education to be welcome diversity of thought, they begin to make a claim for the moral high ground ...

1. In order to do this, to claim the moral high ground and make them feel like they're better, they attempt to character assassinate their opponent in a debate with a corresponding word to the word that triggered them

1. Eg

Men/Woman = that's sexist! White/Black = that's racist! Islam = that's islamophobic! Jew = that's transphobic!

1. And herein, is how they shut down freedom of speech. They get triggered by words as they're hyperemotional and constantly playing the oppressor vs victim cultural Marxist game. Thus, as they're so hyperemotional they don't hear the facts, they only take offence at what they perceive to be an attack on a "victim group" and reply with their freedom of speech- moral high ground- character assassinating words as previously discussed.

(Last comment was in response to fizzthecat1)

Also, correction on my comment above

"Jew = that's anti-semetic*"

I’ve read Jordan Peterson’s book and found it interesting. Most of what he writes about has nothing to do with sex or gender. But he also says some things which are absolute bollocks.

The Peterson thing is a bit of a red herring though, given that the OP’s DP is watching all kinds of woman hating stuff with names like ‘how women destroy nations.’

OP, you’ve two problems. First is that your partner has got into some kind of misogynist online bubble of conspiracy theorists. Secondly, your partner goes through multiple phases and lacks core values and a strong sense of who he is.

You’ve said he’s impressionable. If you go in and try and talk him out of it, how long will that last before he latches on to some other person with some other catchy idea and starts believing that?

He can be a very clever person and still have that core of who he is and what he values missing. And if that is the case, who are you actually in a relationship with?

I do find it strange that some people set up alerts for mentions of JP on the Web. These threads are an infallible bat signal for devotees and they're sure to bring their daft, misogynist terminology with them. It's like a blast from the past - to about a decade ago.

Strange they bring spam too.

The irony of using a username like HighIQ

Bullshit mate

I find the emotional reaction to JP on here quite by some astounding, both from some critics, but particularly from supporter HighIQ.

Ironically, JP gives at times what amounts to ‚relationship advice‘, telling people that for a good marriage it is important to value what the partner does, not jump to what one is not happy about but value all the things partner contributed, and as PP said: self-restraint.

As for HighIQ Peterson has his blind spots. When he asks women why they would not prefer to have a career in fields they are good at (not STEM) he Shows his own biases. For one he ignores that those abilities are statistically distributed. Think of it as two overlapping Gaussian curves, then he ignores that it is not one feature that makes you good in STEM (e.g. Synthetic vs analytic thinking) and then he ignores that his own biases will be present in a lot of men in powerful positions in STEM, which is exactly what makes it harder for women, as their work is much more often doubted / minimized than that of male colleagues. There are studies that show the same paper goes through peer review more easily and with more praise and less censure, when the author names on the paper are male.

It is ironic HighQ, how emotional and ad hominem you got -‚Feminazi‘ - really? - while droning on about JP critics‘ irrationality.

OP, Having looked up 'How Women Destroy Nations', it's clear that's pretty awful stuff. It may be too late to get him out of this weird fixation (assuming that's all it is, of course). But you could perhaps try relationship counselling - having to explain himself in front of a third party might shock/embarrass him into realising how indefensible these ideas are.

Jew = that's transphobic!

It's coming to something when your typos are the most sensible part of your post, highIQs

Though I'm sure that the problem is just that my ladybrain isn't up to parsing your meanderings of utter genius.

I would also be worried in your shoes, OP. Is it an immediate LTB offence? Maybe, maybe not - only you can know that. I happily co-exist with a husband whose political opinions are often quite different from mine - we disagree on ecomomic principles, trade, militarism, the size of the welfare state and a whole bunch of stuff.

But if his world view involved him needing to believe I was inferior, or spending a lot of time listening to, reading and watching people with views that lead to some pretty chilling conclusions, then that would be a whole other kettle of fish. Our relationship couldn't survive that.

I'd quickly lose respect for someone who fell for JP's facile, one-sided pseudo-intellectual waffling, and failed to see the poorly-disguised anger and hostility behind it.

Whoa, highIQ - I was actually reading and rationally considering your points until I hit ‘feminazi’. The last person I heard using that word was one of my low ability year 8 students, who when I challenged him was unable to describe either feminism or nazism (which is unsurprising as he is also unable to write in full sentences or reliably identify where to use capital letters). The cause of his choice of word? A girl had taken his pencil sharpener without asking. You’re not demonstrating your username very convincingly.

OP I hope you get sorted - sounds really distressing and hard to navigate.

The last person I heard using that word was one of my low ability year 8 students, who when I challenged him was unable to describe either feminism or nazism (which is unsurprising as he is also unable to write in full sentences or reliably identify where to use capital letters). The cause of his choice of word? A girl had taken his pencil sharpener without asking.

Yes, our relationship is not great at the moment but surely the sensible things is to try and work things out and find mutual understanding rather than give up without even trying

Doing the wifework by taking on the job of doing all the trying, isn't going to change the fact that you are in a relationship with someone that hates women, of which you are one.

I have looked as the ‚how women destroy nations‘ vid, too.

The premise that women do not deserve the same freedom as men, but that it is something for men to give or take away is startling. The subjugation of women is indeed seen as the natural state.

Also, talk about ‚the plank in your own eye‘. Men destroy and subjugate other Nations (and by going to war and losing often their own) all the time, but of course, it is women‘s fault if they try to survive the shit men rain upon them.

I will say that I do find the attitude of some leftist women disconcerting (and I count myself on the left), when it comes to conservative Islam and its patriarchal Structures. (Men on the Left often hold similar views, but I‘d expect women to be more considerate of women‘s rights).
I have seen a Green (female) politician take the side of a conservative Islamic organization‘s representative against Ahmad Mansour, a (leftist) psychologist who works with muslim boys so that they learn to respect their sisters‘ boundaries and freedoms.

I have seen modern, hip ‚feminists‘ hush women‘s organizations, who pointed out the sexual violence in German refugee camps and the need for separate bathrooms - because racist discourse. (Nobody said these problems would not exist if the camps were filled with Westerners ffs).

There is a problem that some on the Left defer to conservative Islam too lightly, thereby leaving Muslims who want to open their ‚parallel societies‘ up in the cold. And that is bad for women.

But blaming the destruction of societies throughout history on women, when it was always men who called the shots and drowned everything in blood is preposterous. Talk about victim blaming.

The vector in which JP and a lot of his adherents come into conflict with feminists is opposing the principle of equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity), as it stands many social programs instigated by progressive identity politics, of which modern feminism is a branch and expression of succeed in only sowing division and conflict as well as not actually succeeding in their stated objectives.

Burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble burble

Op, from my own experience I say it's likely he had questionable views before hand but they didn't become apparent till recently. Men aren't likely to share their views on women with women until they become emboldened/lose all sense of boundaries in response to someone like Peterson.

Can you imagine getting taken in by these videos? I'd guess not, because you don't have the same latent misogyny.

Long story short, I have a pretty limited relationship with my formerly very close brother - someone who I'd also have described as intelligent and reasonable.

""See if you can find ways to channel his anger toward more appropriate targets, combined with ideas for constructive action instead of just fuming."
This sounds like good advise"
Have a look at the Men and Boys Coalition - its a group of charities, researchers etc who work on men's issues (ie things that affect boys and men disproportionately and we need to deal with as a society)but not in the anti-woman way you get with groups like Justice 4 men and boys.
www.menandboyscoalition.org.uk/

See if you can find ways to channel his anger toward more appropriate targets, combined with ideas for constructive action instead of just fuming.

He sounds like fucking hard work, why should anyone have to put the work into finding ways for him to channel his anger?

Wife work.

Exactly what Juells said.

If I were OP, I‘d tell DH that I have watched ‚why women destroy Nations‘ and feel this requires a response. Then I‘d sit him through the movie ‚the downfall of Berlin - Anonyma‘ and remind him that it were men, German men, who started the war and thus brought this mass rape of ‚their‘ women upon them (leading some women to choose one particular protector/,lover’/rapist over being randomly raped by anyone, to keep their sanity), which happens to reflect a rather universal truth that said ‚women destroy nations’ video conveniently forgets.