Jordan B Peterson

[CandyTiger]

I was given '12 rules for life' by the above author. At first I was insulted that the person who gave me this book, actually thought I needed a self-help book (I don't btw).

I decided to read it anyway. I am not really impressed by the so called 'intellectual' Peterson. He has a bit of a reputation for arguing with feminists.

I am very interested in what other people think of Peterson.

Thanks, in advance.

We only need to elect the right parliament to bring the bankers to heel? Blimey! You know, there is a reason why 70% of Americans want Medicare for all and yet can never vote for a candidate who will pull it off; and the list goes on and on...

If Jordan Peterson is man who values scientific evidence, he must know the Princeton study that demonstrates what the general electorate wants is irrelevant, moneyed interests count. A similar government ordered and then government censored but leaked study exists for Germany. And even the subversion of the will of the electorate by State sponsored actors is scientifically well documented, when you look at the bombing of the Bologna train station 1980.

If Peterson is not aware of these - let us say - severe deficiencies of our real existing Western Democracies, he is beyond naive.

He makes me think of Rasputin

deepwatersolo

We had better agree to disagree, so as not to derail the thread.

I am currently 20 minutes into . Ye gods, what an ill-tempered exchange.

That is not very JP to disagree on scientific findings without providing countering scientific evidence .

The thing is that nobody denies technologies can change material realities such that it changes the power balance and thus makes change possible. Those who want to hold on to their power will still fight tooth and nail to keep it, until they see it is futile. Then they may offer participation in order not to lose everything.

But (having now watched just over an hour of the interview, which has remained resolutely ill-tempered on both sides) it would be very JP to say that you haven't provided evidence of a scientific finding.

The thing is that nobody denies technologies can change material realities such that it changes the power balance and thus makes change possible. Those who want to hold on to their power will still fight tooth and nail to keep it, until they see it is futile. Then they may offer participation in order not to lose everything.

This is simply a repeat of your assertion above, and does nothing to counter my point that it isn't necessary to rely on violent struggles for power to explain societal changes. Unless you believe non-violent discourse and victory at the ballot box constitutes a power struggle, in which case I would say that you are removing all meaning from the phrase in order to make the theory fit.

Because, in my humble experience, women wipe all the arses

Nobody ever died from wiping arses. Think you are confusing high-risk jobs with low-status jobs. The former can be well-paid, at times. The latter obviously not.

Important distinction

Well said EJennings.

it isn't necessary to rely on violent struggles for power to explain societal changes

No, of course it is not necessary. Just ignore all the evidence and scientific research that refute your alternative theory, finger in your ears, lalala, then mix in some phlogeston and there, it is entirely possible for you and JP to explain societal changes without violent power struggle.

What I find hilarious is how JP insists the dominance of males by power (not competence), is not a thing, by pointing out that only a small minority of males have this power and wealth, while the majority of males is rather powerless and destitute.

Considering most of this wealth and resulting power is undisputably inherited (btw. historically by male-centric inheritance laws), what JP does here is acknowledge the overarching impact of class, which is fundamentally a Marxist position.

Nobody ever died from wiping arses. Think you are confusing high-risk jobs with low-status jobs. The former can be well-paid, at times. The latter obviously not.

We were talking about tough jobs. Deadly jobs is a qualification that moves the goal-post somewhat. That said, considering how regularly women are killed off by domestic violence, a case can be made that being a house-wife can be pretty deadly, without earning one a CEO salary.

Speaking of CEO salaries, is the job of a CEO deadly or even risky in any form? From what I gather they regularly run corporations in the ground without paying any penalty for it. Instead they get paid handsomely even then. It seems to take unmistakeable fraud and massive geopolitical interests for CEOs to face any backlash (e.g. VW CEO prosecuted by the US; possibly, rarely European banker, as a US banker one seems to be very, very safe, even when ther are obvious prosecutable offences.).

Oh, I thought someone had mentioned bin men as being a tough job? Didn't realise we were taking danger..
Don't know many men with dangerous jobs but I know lots of women who clean up shit. Although, dp was army, and served. He said, based on his experience in Kosovo, he would rather be a man, with a gun, in an army than a women with nothing in a war zone (although he would obvs rather be neither as he hated the army).

a case can be made that being a house-wife can be pretty deadly

Yeah, well, not just housewives, but any sexual partner of a male is putting themselves at risk somewhat. Not disagreeing with you there.

Would you rather be a bin man or prostitute?

I think the timing of the introduction of voting rights for women in Europe is an instructive case in point.

In Germany and Austria, where WWI destroyed the power structure of the elites, comprehensive women's voting rights were introduced in 1918. (Russia with its Boshevik Revolution got it in 1917, again, the powers that been had been destroyed). In England, where some women resorted to violence and self-sacrifice but the system remained intact: 1928. The staunchest, most successful Democracy on Earth (which I in fact value highly in many respects), that did not see wars and revolutions in the 20th century, Switzerland: 1971.

I am absolutely certain Switzerland participated in new technologies just as much as Germany and Austria. The banal fact of the matter is that the Suiss men did not want to share their power absent a threat of mass upheaval.

Think you are confusing high-risk jobs with low-status jobs. The former can be well-paid, at times. The latter obviously not.

Bold claim. Perhaps you could look at the assault rates for nurses, a primarily female profession.

Regarding Switzerland: Note that women in Switzerland, who had struggled for voting rights by lawfare since like forever, radicalized in the late sixties (in the newly founded radical feminist organization: FBB), they occupied houses and marched against Bern (1969), which according to Wikipedia scared politicians. 1971 they got Suiss voting rights.

So much for that.

Would you rather be a bin man or prostitute?

I’ve lived in a third-world country where women enter prostitution because it’s a better-paid option than being a factory worker (and being a factory worker is not without risk either there).

I’ve found it hard to square that some women prefer it over the “dignity” of factory work, but it’s their choice (and we can help them get out when they are in danger for sure, even if I wish they wouldn’t get into it in the first place).

Men are more likely to be in high-risk jobs, and be paid well for it. Prostitution is a fine example of a high-risk, low-status job. And it can be well-paid, and women I knew often used it to support their entire family back in the countryside. Their factory work could never do that (and the lies they’d have to tell so their family never knew.....heartbreaking).

Bold claim. Perhaps you could look at the assault rates for nurses, a primarily female profession.

It’s not a bold claim; it’s factually true. Just because one or two sectors that are women-dominated are somewhat risky doesn’t negate the rule. And some that seem dangerous (like police work) aren’t actually all that dangerous btw.

High-risk, low status jobs don’t have to be well-paid (farm help for one). They very often are though, to attract people to do it.

(And I’m frankly surprised you think nursing is low status! Maybe I’m biased because I was raised by one. It is low paid, through, because it’s pink collar. Women-dominated professions for sure are low paid. But again low paid!=low status)

You are wrong. Ridiculously so. Pop off and search the academic literature for nursing and low status.

That's nice that you have a relative who is a nurse. Irrelevant but nice. I am a nurse and I am familiar with the evidence on this.

Nursing is both risky and low status. It is low in status socially, within health hierarchies and on an industrial level. In fact, it is so low status that people like you dismiss how many nurses are abused and physically assaulted on a daily basis.

The original claim was that women don't want to do "tough jobs". You have redefined that to dismiss the many, many jobs that women do that are "tough". Just because a job is not traditional manual labour doesn't mean it can't be risky and difficult. That is a sexist position.

The high risk jobs mentioned are usually construction related or mining.
The death rate for builders is massively higher than for the vast majority of other jobs, this link does mention bin collectors (I'm assuming it's the constantly working amongst a moving vehicle and possibly other traffic that increases the risk) link

EJennings
Agreed, many of those roles aren't particularly suited to men over women and in many cases men have made it deliberately difficult for women to apply.

What causes the difference in lifetime pay between a man and a woman then? And the difference in net worth, which is bigger?
Why do women pick worse paid jobs? Why do women take time off from their careers? How are men able to focus on careers?
Two individuals, one male and one female, being paid different amounts for the same job isn't the issue really.
I never used to believe in an pay gap because I knew I got paid the same as my male colleagues. It's not pay as much as a dearth of earning opportunities. Women aren't as free to pursue earning opportunities, like shift work, like working abroad, like long hours, like networking at social events while the wife babysits the kids you pay for and rarely see.
This in turn means that it's easy to argue against dumbing down requirements for certain roles. I don't want an inexperienced judge. In some roles perhaps it really is a prerequisite to put in the hours - and some women do, although they are mostly childless.
But in many roles that level of presenteeism isn't strictly necessary. If you've ever worked with blokes who deliberately work late to avoid bathtime or school pickup or parents' evening you'll also know that presenteeism is a bit self-fulfilling.
Also, let's be honest - shift work is ok if it suits you. Active work is ok if it suits you. I'd rather be a firefighter than an insurance executive.
So the idea that men earn more out of sheer hard work and heroism is sweet but rarely true.

70% of families lose their wealth by the second generation, going up 90% by the third.

time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/