Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

[GeordieGenes]

If you go over to site stuff, MN are asking posters if they would like a webchat with Jordan Peterson! The thread is pretty negative, but I think it would be great to ask him about gender critical issues. He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

If you think this would be good, please go and say so on the thread!

Uh, just watched that Joe rogan segment and he literally said that women throw men into a fight with each other and have them fight it out and that woman want "high status" men.

Seems to me like the opposite of telling men to clean their shit up to be good partners.

*...he literally said that women throw men into a fight with each other and have them fight it out and that woman want "high status" men.'

Because we're helpless against our biology and - unlike all kinds of other animals, apparently - unable to adapt to changing conditions (like that we can and like to earn our own money, which makes a cooperative low maintainance man more attractive than a 'high status' man who expects to be pampered 24/7.)

Most of the women I know who are cohabiting with men are with generally cooperative men who don’t beat their chests like gorillas to show their dominance.

Jp would piss his pants if he actually spent any time with the Begbies of the world. Much better to patronise women and encourage young men to do the same so they can all feel like however shit they are, at least they’re ‘better’ than women.

@PineapplePower
dont know how you manage to twist what JP said into the more rational sounding version you posted;

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

I dont know why this has been posted in FWR and not the main boards.

JP made the vile comments about enforced monogamy being the cure for angry men - he apparently doesn't have any analysis on the causes of domestic violence.
He refuses to read or quote certain female academics.
He was interviewed by Helen Lewis. The interview is characterised by his fan club as him 'destroying' Helen, or 'destroying' feminist arguments.

He claims that no one is parenting young men. Well their mothers probably were, but male society doesn't consider that women have anything useful to say.

Its a circular belief system to underpin the sense of superiority of one class over another class. Its also a classic case of the Karpman Drama Triangle, and the only way to get out of that self feeding loop is not to play the game at all.

“The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

About a hundred years back in Europe you couldn't get married unless you had enough money. What did those men do who didn't have enough money, then? I think it is more plausible monogamy emerged in order to ensure one's children survived, especially under conditions of scarcity. (In Muslim countries rich men had and have more than one woman).

An overhang of men without partners is indeed a problem for societies, but my impression is the solution to that, historically, is to send men off to die in wars. (Or else you have revolt at home.)

'Enforced monogamy' is just an anthropological term, isn't it? Although it certainly sounds like an incel dream if the distinction isn't made clear.

I'd be happy for MN to have him here for a web chat. What he does do is engage and debate. Whether or not we agree with his ideas, they are currently highly influential and should be debated IMO.

Is it? What does it look like for the women of the society that uses it? How does its use affect rates of domestic violence, and the recording and reporting of DV?

'Enforced monogamy' is just an anthropological term, isn't it?

Yeah, but if it is just a term to describe the prohibition of polygamy but still maintains a high hurdle for young men to get a partner (e.g. economically), as has been the case historically, it is not a mechanism that can prevent anger issues in young men. So, JP's argument doesn't make sense either way.

The idea that men having a monogamous sexual partner makes them less violent only makes any sense if you think that public violence is genuine violence but domestic violence behind closed doors doesn't count.

To me, it looks like JP just didn't factor domestic violence into his thinking process at all. Which is not surprising, because he consistently takes a very blinkered male-focused approach that ignores the experiences of half the population.

• The idea that men having a monogamous sexual partner makes them less violent only makes any sense if you think that public violence is genuine violence but domestic violence behind closed doors doesn't count.

To me, it looks like JP just didn't factor domestic violence into his thinking process at all. Which is not surprising, because he consistently takes a very blinkered male-focused approach that ignores the experiences of half the population.*

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

This forever

To me, it looks like JP just didn't factor domestic violence into his thinking process at all. Which is not surprising, because he consistently takes a very blinkered male-focused approach that ignores the experiences of half the population.

Yes, this makes sense.

I agree and disagree with Peterson on various things and have watched hours of his stuff trying to figure him out. It is clear that he is sometimes misrepresented and the incel accusation does seem nonsensical to me, placed in context (whether or not I agree with the context that he describes).

But yes, clearly he ignores DV and has a particular world view that is predominantly focused on the male experience. I have no objection to MN inviting him on, because he is currently so influential and because he will debate those who disagree.

Here JP discusses the NYT 'enforced monogamy' interview with a man who reiterates the female NYT journalist's point (which helps in JP understanding the point ).

Basically, a free society and free competition is very, very important, unless women choose to mate with the most attractive man, even if he is polyamorous. Because that makes women unhappy (women don't know what is good for them, apparently).

This summarizes studies, where the case is made that polygamy fuels (nondomestic) violence historically and monogamy can help curb that (it is not 'the solution').

www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/polygamy-fuels-violence/

Obviously, enforced monogamy is not 'the solution' considering that (i) economic factors often still prevented marriage historically and (ii) women will choose to live without a partner in a day and age when they do not economically depend on a man.

Domestic violence is, of course, absent. If a man just beats up his wife behind closed doors instead of destabilizing society, that is clearly a win for everyone writing about this topic.

I’ve learned loads from this thread

Maybe we should have JP, not so we can learn from him, but as a catalyst for learning from each other

The Joe Rogan podcast is an excellent way to get a grasp on JP’s thinking. It’s a bit long to digest in one sitting though. It is as PP suggested, from a male POV and things like DV aren’t considered. That doesn’t mean everything is discredited!

One gem from the podcast that no one here should disagree with: “If all the women are rejecting you, it's not the women who are the problem”

That’s the bottom line. Men are the problem, and JP gives them tools to be better. It’s not super profound but I’ve seen it work.

women will choose to live without a partner in a day and age when they do not economically depend on a man

Interesting, and I do think studies have come out saying that we are selecting partners that are like us economically. Men used to “marry down” so to speak but now they tend to want to marry intellectual equals. People with degrees tend to marry each other (and have relatively stable relationships) and people without tend to not get married at all. Marriage is still an institution bound up with economics

One gem from the podcast that no one here should disagree with: “If all the women are rejecting you, it's not the women who are the problem”

But that's like the most basic basic baaaaasic self help trope thing to say.
You can imagine it written on a sunset with the hashtag #girlboss on Instagram.

Is this the level that we are going to celebrate men working at?

Because the idea that the men are only absorbing those ideas and not anything else he's saying is a bit strange.

Is this the level that we are going to celebrate men working at?

I dunno, seems like a lot of men project their anger at women over this? It’s sadly common for these men to blame women for their lack of relationships.

Of course a man raping or beating up his wife doesn't destabilise society. It is the natural order, because she is his property and women only exist as objects for men to unleash their emotions and urges into. If a man doesn't have a woman-object to unload into, his pent up forces might end up affecting another actual person. Women are valuable resources and should be distributed fairly among the real people. /s

I dunno, seems like a lot of men project their anger at women over this? It’s sadly common for these men to blame women for their lack of relationships.

But do these angry men crowd the boards of mumsnet, or why exactly do we need to hear this message?

dunno, seems like a lot of men project their anger at women over this? It’s sadly common for these men to blame women for their lack of relationships.

Yeah I think that's true.

But not doing that is the most basic level of human decency.
I would prefer a role model for men who went a bit further than that.

MagicMix

Suggest if you put sarcastic words in his mouth then you are adding nothing to the coversation. Just say what you want to say.

I do think DV is a blind spot in his analysis of marriage, as stated. But this doesn’t lead to the frankly grossly exaggerated screed you wrote.

deepwater

It’s an opportunity to engage and debate. I think JP is spot on for some things, but definitely not others.

Also, re: the message. Some of us are raising boys, so it’s food for thought.

One gem from the podcast that no one here should disagree with: “If all the women are rejecting you, it's not the women who are the problem”. That’s the bottom line. Men are the problem, and JP gives them tools to be better. It’s not super profound but I’ve seen it work.

Yes, this stuck with me too. It's why I found the 'JP is an incel' accusation so nonsensical. It's what prompted me to investigate his opinions further, actually, as I'd initially written him off as 'incel woman hater' based on the NYT article and media fallout.

Furrytoebean Of course there's no need to celebrate men who reach the bare minimum requirement of not hurting women. It should never be noteworthy. I don't think that is what he is trying to suggest. What men absorb or don't absorb is a separate issue IMO.

But I think the point is that his message is not benign for women, so even if men do absorb it ‘properly ‘, that’s still not a good thing