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!

OK, fair point. Well I don't think he would actually say that and I don't think he is fully conscious of the worldview he is promoting in those terms.

But I think this is the worldview he actually is promoting, where women exist to serve men and as an outlet for men and where violence against women is not a big deal as long as nobody has to witness it in public. I don't think he truly believes that women are as important as men.

There's not a hint of awareness from him that women have essentially been enslaved by men for most of human history, and still are in some places, and the role that the institution of marriage has played in that.

Marriage is still an institution bound up with economics

This is so relevant to this conversation. In fact the way we marry / reproduce is one of the BIGGEST factor in inequality. Highly educated women marry highly educated men and the impact that has on children's prospects is significantly different. And reinforces the levels of inequality in a society.

Women DO seek out men of higher status. Look around you. It is the absolute norm. Here and cross culturally. It is not controversial.

What men absorb or don't absorb is a separate issue IMO.

Of course it's not a separate issue.

My point is that ok some of what Peterson says is 'pull up your socks' 'tidy your room' basic self help which very few people could disagree with.
But that's not all he's saying.

He's also saying that gender roles are natural, that violence is at the core of every male interaction and that that's normal. Yes he's saying that men should try to overcome those natural tendencies but the core of what he's saying is harmful to women, and to be honest men.
It reinforces the patriarchy.

The idea that people who follow his work would only listen to the self help stuff and not pick up on everything else it's wrapped in is rather unlikely.

But why is it women’s responsibility?

Why shouldn’t we pressure men to marry low status women to make society more equal?

And he has ZERO self awareness of his own biases which is always a massive red flag.

He's also saying that gender roles are natural, that violence is at the core of every male interaction and that that's normal. Yes he's saying that men should try to overcome those natural tendencies but the core of what he's saying is harmful to women, and to be honest men.
It reinforces the patriarchy.

But what do you think about that status, acknowledging that men have a greater tendency to physical violence? What is your solution?

And he has ZERO self awareness of his own biases which is always a massive red flag.

I hate to break it to you, Furry, but neither do you.

It is the same for every single human walking the planet. I would argue it is worse that you seem to come from a position where you think you don't have any bias.

My solution is not to say that I can’t respect someone who can’t or won’t fight me, that’s for sure

It is the same for every single human walking the planet. I would argue it is worse that you seem to come from a position where you think you don't have any bias.

What on earth are you talking about???
When have I ever said I have no bias?
I'm perfectly aware that every person on the planet has bias and are influenced by the society that they live in to see the world a certain way.
Never claimed otherwise.

But why is it women’s responsibility?

Why shouldn’t we pressure men to marry low status women to make society more equal?

OK, and this is HIS response not necessarily mine and I do find this hard to swallow although I think there is an uncomfortable truth in it.

He argues that the selection selection in humans comes from WOMEN. That they hold the ultimate choice as to whether we mate with a male. We have hidden ovulation, so men do not know when we are fertile which also gives us some 'power' over that choice too.

If you think about normal functioning society that is true. It is the women who chooses to mate or not. We get to say no. Because the consequences are so high for us in having a child. That is also why rape is such a heinous break from the 'natural order' as the woman's choice has been taken away.

I find it really difficult because then you go back to 'men are physically stronger' and therefore 'every man has the potential to rape' angle, and so it gets complicated to ever resolve. But at a simplistic level, anyone teaching men to be respectful and responsible men must help this situation!

But what do you think about that status, acknowledging that men have a greater tendency to physical violence? What is your solution?

Men do have a tendency to physical violence that's true, but I don't think in the society we live in we are seeing a true reflection of something that is just natural.
There's lots of work to be done in society too before we just put our hands up and say ' well that's nature'

Furry

You said it was a massive red flag if someone does not recognise their own biases but that is the nature of bias, people don't know they are doing it - so why is it a red flag? The implication from your statement is that you do recognise your own, and I would argue you really don't. Because you can't.

Any psychologist worth their salt should quantify what they say by acknowledging the lens with which they are looking at the data and the inbuilt cultural bias they have absorbed.

Peterson never does this, ever.

The implication from your statement is that you do recognise your own, and I would argue you really don't. Because you can't.

No, but I recognise they exist and that it may colour what I believe somewhat.

BTW Jordan Peterson would actually cum if he knew about the recent doxxing situation on Mumsnet. He loves that shit and would shout from the rooftops about it.

Except that for much of human history, marriage was a business deal done between the woman's father and the prospective husband. And rape was only seen as a crime if you raped someone else's property. You couldn't rape your own property. Marital rape was legal until fucking 1991 in England and Wales.

But what do you think about that status, acknowledging that men have a greater tendency to physical violence? What is your solution?

Society actually already regulates male physical violence by putting high social penalties on it (like prison). And JP is fine with it. Unless when society's interventions would upset the - violence linked - hierarchy of the sexes.

There's lots of work to be done in society too before we just put our hands up and say ' well that's nature'

He would say that is what he is trying to do. Acknowledge the status of nature, and then teach men responsibility and give their lives meaning

I've read some of the accounts of men who have followed his advice, and generally the outcomes are things that women want men to be - they get jobs, they get off their computer games, they stop watching porn and they start investing in relationships properly.

The idea that women throughout all of human history, and now, have been able to say "no" to men and have that respected is ridiculous. Women have been treated as possessions , chattel, slaves and still are in many places. They have been required to be married and expected to produce heirs, with the constant threat of being divorced , abandoned or worse if not able to.

The idea that women throughout all of human history, and now, have been able to say "no" to men and have that respected is ridiculous. Women have been treated as possessions , chattel, slaves and still are in many places. They have been required to be married and expected to produce heirs, with the constant threat of being divorced , abandoned or worse if not able to

I know, it is hard to swallow like I said. But there is something in it. To be that 'possession' men did have to 'woo'. They had to demonstrate their status with dowries, engagement rings etc. The fact that on marriage women consented to unlimited mating has evolved but the fundamental principle is interesting, men have always had to demonstrate their status to women in order to mate.

Except that for much of human history, marriage was a business deal done between the woman's father and the prospective husband. And rape was only seen as a crime if you raped someone else's property. You couldn't rape your own property. Marital rape was legal until fucking 1991 in England and Wales.

You beat me to it. Historically, patriarchy consideres rape a crime, because some male robbed and tainted another male's 'means of production' of offspring, which is a big nono. This is why in some countries to this day raped women are stoned to death. It is really inconsequential for patriarchy, whether the sex was consensual or not.

...men have always had to demonstrate their status to women in order to mate.

[voice of Donald Trump] Wrong!

...men have always had to demonstrate their status to the fathers of women in order to mate.

Historically, patriarchy consideres rape a crime, because some male robbed and tainted another male's 'means of production' of offspring, which is a big nono

It is slightly more nuanced than this - a male needs to know his off spring is his otherwise he pours resources into a child that isn't his. It's not just a possession thing, it is a practical matter and more likely why it evolved this way rather than patriarchy arguments.

The birth of the pill and contracption changes this.......and with my weary head in my hands, I wonder why noone has mentioned JP's views on contraception. They would be interesting to talk to him about.

Men have not had to "woo". They have bought women from their fathers, simply kidnapped them like the vikings did, or otherwise took women by force in whatever way was the norm in their culture and time.

Crikey, what do you think patriarchy means if not the exploitation and commodification of women and their biological functions?