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!

a male needs to know his off spring is his otherwise he pours resources into a child that isn't his.

that is what I implied with 'robbing the means of production'. another man's child is produced by 'it'.

JP considers abortion as 'morally wrong but says that does not mean it should be illegal, there are no good options once you are in a position to abort so the issue is with the choices that brought you there'.

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

I think this a slightly over simplistic. I don't know for sure, but the concept to me was "asking the father for her hand in marriage" and in most cases this would be after some initial (non sexual) attraction and acceptance (by wooing) was given by the woman to the man. Rarely just 'pick out from a crowd' type of situation?

Never heard of arranged marriage?

It’s still all the rage in some places

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.

You are describing situations where 'tyranny' have been introduced. JP would not support that. But it is the dilemma we face. Women do need to have the ultimate choice (and in that way hold the power) but men have the means to take the choice away.

I have heard JP say this is why some men hate women. Because they hold the ultimate choice and they get bitter and twisted about it.

No, he doesn't support that behaviour.

I think this a slightly over simplistic. I don't know for sure, but the concept to me was "asking the father for her hand in marriage" and in most cases this would be after some initial (non sexual) attraction and acceptance (by wooing) was given by the woman to the man. Rarely just 'pick out from a crowd' type of situation?

No. The concept usually was families deciding (with children often still in infancy) which farms should marry together, which noble houses should marry together, which entreprises should marry together, what fortune could buy what title, or for less economically advantaged people possibly which suitor could settle daddy's debts or secure a life for the rest of the family.

Literature is full of this.

You are describing situations where 'tyranny' have been introduced.

She is describing the real world in which women have lived for millennia and many still do to this day. It is irrelevant whether JP would support this. It is material reality. Part and parcel of the patriarchy JP denies exists.

He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

True.

Tho' it's a very whiny voice, non?

Never heard of arranged marriage?

It’s still all the rage in some places

I agree! It is how it can so quickly go wrong and has been part of the development of civilisation almost universally. Its also why its so important to acknowledge the biology behind it all.

Still goes back to the fundamental objections to JP. It is not sexist to say there are biological differences between men and women. He does not support men being bastards and exploiting their capabilities. He wants men to be responsible.

Ok, I correct myself, JP denies patriarchy exists only for the modern West.
My point stands.

You are describing situations where 'tyranny' have been introduced. JP would not support that. But it is the dilemma we face. Women do need to have the ultimate choice (and in that way hold the power) but men have the means to take the choice away.

I have heard JP say this is why some men hate women. Because they hold the ultimate choice and they get bitter and twisted about it.

No, he doesn't support that behaviour.

Spot on.

She is describing the real world in which women have lived for millennia and many still do to this day. It is irrelevant whether JP would support this. It is material reality. Part and parcel of the patriarchy JP denies exists.

I think there is a semantics thing where he has a blind spot. He hates the "cos of the patriarchy" type of argument because it seems to imply there is this invisible undercover conspiracy to bring women down. But then at the same time he uses biology (or as you describe it 'material reality') to establish there are differences between men and women and propensity for men to behave violently etc.

So his patriarchy seems to be biology. I think they are the same?

I have heard JP say this is why some men hate women. Because they hold the ultimate choice and they get bitter and twisted about it. No, he doesn't support that behaviour.

But this would never be reflected in male hiring decisions, of course. There it is all about ability and the male will to work >70 hours a week.

But this would never be reflected in male hiring decisions, of course. There it is all about ability and the male will to work >70 hours a week.

He does go to biology about the hiring decisions and the pay gap. In headlines:

• Men are more competitive and a very small number of men are HIGHLY competitive and will be prepared to work the 70 hours a week. Fewer women will do that (they are less intererested)

• Women are on average, higher in agreeableness so less likely to be pushy for jobs / promotions etc. (He has said that the most exploited people in business are highly agreeable and highly conscientious females who do great work but are so agreeable they never take credit for it)

• Ability is not necessarily the thing. The competitiveness and personality type (especially agreeableness) is more of a predictor.

Of course it's not a separate issue.

Furrytoebean I disagree. I think that what men take or don't take from Jordan Peterson is a separate issue to whether or not JP promotes the idea that men should be celebrated for meeting basic standards of civilised behaviour. One is something that JP has complete control over, one is something that he can somewhat influence but not control.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fangirl. I think that his position on compelled speech is important. I think that his other stuff is less interesting and gets a bit too much attention. But he is influential so worth debating.

What does shock me is how obviously misrepresented his opinions have sometimes been in the media. I think that this is almost certainly a reaction to his position on compelled speech.

Regarding the ‘women are underrepresented in parliament because they choose not to be there’ type arguments that I have seen JP and his ilk make, I often wonder if they ascribe the same reason to the underrepresentation of BAME people in parliament....

The competitiveness and personality type (especially agreeableness) is more of a predictor.

The competitiveness and less agreeable personality type, of course, is much better received in males than females. That men hate pushy women so that you are in a double bind (and, turns out, that men may hate women in general for their ability to decline sex) does not factor in at all with JP. Nor that people prefer to hire people they can identify with better (men with kids like to hire men with kids).

No, the position of men vs. women in the workforce is a pure reflection of men's vs. women's natural abilities and inclinations according to JP.

Regarding the ‘women are underrepresented in parliament because they choose not to be there’ type arguments that I have seen JP and his ilk make, I often wonder if they ascribe the same reason to the underrepresentation of BAME people in parliament....

Yeah. 'Genetically, and you see that from their complexion, the high melanin content of their skin' they are much better equipped to work in nature, ideally in the sun, and the artificial darkness of parliament would make them unhappy. You can't even hear a river flowing there...'

I can totally see that argument.

Exactly. Women are better received when they perform femininity and men are better received when they perform masculinity. And just so happens masculinity is all the stuff that is valued in society and the workplace. So a woman performing femininity nicely is a good woman but good women just aren't as good as men because they are too meek and agreeable. But a woman behaving in a way classed as masculine is a bad woman and is not at all treated the same way as a masculine man.

The gender hierarchy is set up to make sure that women can't win.

I am high in agreeableness in real life and this really hit home with me. Learning to tell the truth when your natural inclination is to 'smooth the waters' and keep away from conflict is really hard.

I don't agree on the:

That men hate pushy women so that you are in a double bind (and, turns out, that men may hate women in general for their ability to decline sex) does not factor in at all with JP.

I think this feeling is a reflection of 'agreeable' people coming across disagreeable people and feeling hurt by it. So what I mean is an agreeable person trains themselves to be more disagreeable and by doing that, they will encounter CONFLICT ( you describe that as being hated)

I don't think it is therefore as simple as 'men hate pushy women', it is more that when an agreeable woman stands up and does create conflict, she is IN conflict and it feels doubly bad for an agreeable person to be in conflict (like they are hated).

Disagreeable people of either sex simply don't care they are in conflict, and don't get feelings of 'they hate me'

To be more succinct around that point:

• Agreeable woman decides to be less agreeable and speaks up (or is 'pushy')

• this creates conflict with a more disagreeable person (they don't care about conflict)

• Agreeable woman naturally hates conflict and so this encounter feels awful. And hurtful.

• Agreeable woman decides that this other person hates them

• Disagreeable person gives no shits about the conflict and perhaps the agreeable person eventually capitulates and 'smooths things over'

The moral of the story. Learn how to not give a shit in conflict.

"Men are more competitive and a very small number of men are HIGHLY competitive and will be prepared to work the 70 hours a week. Fewer women will do that (they are less interested)"

This assumes or asserts that the reason women aren't more competitive and aren't willing to work long hours is down to interest. What is the reasoning behind believing "interest" is the key difference? What about opportunity? Women are more likely to have childcare or other dependants to care for which restrict their ability to do long hours. Or is the argument that women are more "interested" in caring for others and choose to do this over working? Again, if that's the assertion, what is the rationale?

I have seen hiring decisions multiple times now, as well as grading decisions. And I know from experience that 'aggressive/competitive' women are judged very differently than men (particularly by men).

Women are considered unacceptably 'shrill, agressive...' quite easily, in strong contrast to men.

Also, there are multiple studies where academic papers, CVs, application letters... were judged very differently depending on whether the same document bore a male or a female name as the author.

This is really not a matter of opinion but of well documented fact.

There is plenty of evidence for people disliking an assertive and disagreeable women where the same behaviour is accepted and praised in men.

This assumes or asserts that the reason women aren't more competitive and aren't willing to work long hours is down to interest. What is the reasoning behind believing "interest" is the key difference? What about opportunity? Women are more likely to have childcare or other dependants to care for which restrict their ability to do long hours. Or is the argument that women are more "interested" in caring for others and choose to do this over working? Again, if that's the assertion, what is the rationale?

He points to research that shows it is a bit of both.

Women (from the research he quotes) are more interested in people.
Men are more interested in things.

So a woman offered the choice to work 70 plus hours a week or spend time with their children, will more often than not choose the children. We see it played out everywhere. It is UNUSUAL for a woman with children to work 70 hours a week, even though there is often a choice. They could but 'mother's guilt' is real, we all know that.

You might say, well work places aren't set up for that, but then we go back to the higher levels of competitiveness (status driven) traits we see in men. They don't have to work 70 hours a week either, but they will (some will I should say) because they are driven by the status seeking.

It all comes back to the same old shit with JP. Society is the way it is because that is the natural order. Men dominate because men are better and women aren't interested.

It's such an obvious fallacy if you think for just a second about how much society has changed in the last 100 years. Does anyone really think we've now reached peak sex equality in the West? If he'd lived in the times of the suffragettes you can bet that JP would have been patiently explaining the many logical, biological reasons that women are simply not suited to participating in democracy and they don't want to anyway. In fact there were lots of men like that (and plenty of handmaidens to back them up). There have always been JPs.