Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

476 replies

GeordieGenes · 08/04/2019 14:44

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! Smile

OP posts:
SaskiaRembrandt · 12/04/2019 08:10

From this video - which I'm sure those who have watched 100s of hours of his talks will be very familiar with:

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=200&v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs

mooncuplanding · 12/04/2019 08:37

I still don’t see bigotry and sexism

It’s true that men often resolve their issues between one another via aggression and violence (or are we going to get tangled up in the male propensity to violence issue and deny that!)

So he’s questioning something that feminists are also questioning...how do males and females coexist peacefully? I can’t see the issue with this. It’s a legitimate question, and like I say, is at the core of (non liberal) feminism.

mooncuplanding · 12/04/2019 08:45

He believes in 'lady brain' and attributes women not choosing science to pure 'choice' without considering social conditioning, women's family commitments etc.

But what I hear from many of these types of arguments is a total denial of biology and an insistence on social constructivism as the main criteria and an absolute NO to any biology.

I understand why, because we don’t want our biology to frame everything we do, but isn’t it worth questioning?

Isn’t it better to accept any biological realities and work from there. It doesn’t mean all women will be tied to the kitchen. It probably means more women have the opportunity to be fulfilled.

It is why the Nordic studies are so important to his arguments, that given the freedom and respect, women will chose ‘people’ roles. And what’s the problem with this? Historically women were subjugated for this, but that doesn’t have to be the case and if that’s what a higher proportion of women want to do then the question is how do we create a society that respects that?

SaskiaRembrandt · 12/04/2019 09:18

To paraphrase what I said on the other thread:

The biological reality argument doesn't take 'account of the wide variations in behaviours between different societies and different time periods. Or even between the same societies at different time periods. ... It's a successor to racial science and social Darwinism, using pseudo science and distortions of evidence to argue in favour of a narrative that maintains the status quo while trying to appear progressive.'

If people wish to believe that at least be honest and don't try to claim it is some groundbreaking new theory when in fact it is just perpetuating approaches which have been debunked in most other disciplines (eg: hard sciences, history, archaeology, anthropology) for decades. It's very similar to the move to the way 'intelligent design' is promoted as a valid scientific theory.

Makinitup · 12/04/2019 10:33

Y'know, I've also been accused three times in my career of sexual impropriety. Baseless accusations. And the last one really tangled me up for a whole year. It's not entertaining. So there's plenty to be sorted out, but like I said already, we live in the delusion of a thirteen year old adolescent girl. And so, as long as we maintain that level of sophistication, we're not gonna have a real conversation about what rules should govern men and women in the workplace. So, you can't even open the damn discussion without being jumped on by uh, y'know, uh—a ray of like, rabid harpies.

His comments about it. Make of them what you will.

Nothing sexist in there at all... Hmm, thanks for sharing the transcript, even more damning in writing.

deepwatersolo · 12/04/2019 10:39

So, you can't even open the damn discussion without being jumped on by uh, y'know, uh—a ray of like, rabid harpies.

If that's his issue... why would he even want to come on MN. Wink

SaskiaRembrandt · 12/04/2019 13:33

If that's his issue... why would he even want to come on MN.

Quite.

DonaldTwain · 12/04/2019 14:11

So he can wank himself off while patronising women.
Mooncup, like I said, read Cordelia fine. His scientific platform, such as it was, has already been burnt down. He’s an airhead.

Ellenborough · 13/04/2019 06:15

If people wish to believe that at least be honest and don't try to claim it is some groundbreaking new theory

I don't think anything has tried to claim that. Probably quite the opposite in fact.

**

and if being a professor is going to be used as unassailable evidence of not being a total numpty....

like I said, read Cordelia fine. His scientific platform, such as it was, has already been burnt down. He’s an airhead.

Cordelia Fine is a professor. In the words of people who are clearly much more sure of themselves than I am, I am clutching my sides that the notion of modern academia being the benchmark for 'smart' and that being a professor is unassailable evidence of not being a total numpty.

Besides which, as a professor in History and Philosophy of Science I'm not really sure how she is any better qualified to tell us what to think than he is.

Ellenborough · 13/04/2019 06:34

I should edit that last paragraph to say 'Besides which, as a professor in History and Philosophy of Science I'm not really sure how she is any better qualified to tell us what to think than he is on the subject of the gendered brain.

SaskiaRembrandt · 14/04/2019 08:41

I don't think anything has tried to claim that. Probably quite the opposite in fact.

So people are aware that Peterson's work is just the rehashing of outdated ideas?

As a professor of history, Cordelia Fine is in a great position to challenge ideas about brains being 'gendered', because she will be very familiar with the fluidity of gender norms throughout different societies at different points in history. It's a subject which has been extensively studied by academics from many disciplines over many decades. On the other hand, a quick search of Peterson's academic papers shows no such research, most seem to be studies of how personality influences certain life choices.

I am clutching my sides that the notion of modern academia being the benchmark for 'smart' and that being a professor is unassailable evidence of not being a total numpty.

This is just anti-intellectualism - argue against what she is saying, don't resort to insulting her intelligence, it does your cause no favours.

It's ironic that Peterson is so reviled by the TRA lobby because his ideology fits in perfectly with the pink brain/blue brain nonsense that they peddle.

Ellenborough · 14/04/2019 14:48

Reahashing outdated ideas? Perhaps they are still relevant because they are still correct?

This is just anti-intellectualism - argue against what she is saying, don't resort to insulting her intelligence, it does your cause no favours.

I wasn't insulting her intelligence any more than some of the people on this thread have insulted Peterson's. In fact, in case you didn't notice, I was quoting them talking about Peterson, so actually your accusation of anti-intellectualism should be directed at them, not me.

Do you hear that FloralBunting? You are anti-intellectual. don't insult Peterson's intelligence please, it does your cause no favours. Saskia said so.

Here are some more comments on this thread that might also be considered anti-intellectual, so if the cap fits, please feel free to wear it.

Frankly we dont have to engage with [his views] because he is no different from any other man on the street and [his views] don't really have widespread acceptance outside whiny men's rights activism.

he isn't a lobbyist or a politican. His views are no more important than Bob down the pub

Being an academic does not make your opinion more important than anyone else's

He’s a charlatan peddling made up but real sounding rubbish.

I’ve not read Mystic Meg either this week mate. I don’t need to to know it’s probably not Plato.

Read some Cordelia Fine. The whole underpinning of what Peterson says about patriarchy being “natural” has already been blown to smithereens.

He's just your average mediocre white male

like I said, read Cordelia fine. His scientific platform, such as it was, has already been burnt down. He’s an airhead.

So...I think I see what's going on here.

Peterson, a professor of Clinical Psychology is a mediocre white man, a charlatan and an airhead with nothing of importance or relevance to say.

Cordelia Fine on the other hand, a professor of History and Philosophy, cannot possibly be anything other than a highly respected academic whose work is the last word on the matter, and to question that is to be anti-intellectual.

Right-ho. Got it.

CardsforKittens · 14/04/2019 15:23

Cordelia Fine on the other hand, a professor of History and Philosophy, cannot possibly be anything other than a highly respected academic

Fine is a professor of History and Philosophy of Science. This is relevant.

Ellenborough · 14/04/2019 15:25

Oh ok, Philosophy of Science.

Totally relevant.

Clinical Psychology? Clearly not relevant at all.

CardsforKittens · 14/04/2019 15:40

Cordelia Fine has a list of academic prizes as long as your arm. I couldn’t find any list of Peterson’s prizes, if indeed he has been awarded any. I’m also struggling to find any recent academic publications in clinical psychology. His recent work seems to be mostly about the Bible (but he’s not a biblical scholar).

So yes, it looks like Cordelia Fine is more compelling as an academic. Hey, maybe we should invite her to Mumsnet!

Makinitup · 15/04/2019 01:26

@Cardsforkittens - I would LOVE that, I've been reading her book 'delusions of gender' and it is very interesting. Also backed up by actual research and not just 'men are better than women and that's that, signed, a man'.

SaskiaRembrandt · 15/04/2019 07:33

If people are doubting Peterson's intelligence then that is obviously wrong too, he is clearly intelligent, however, I think people can be forgiven for thinking otherwise when his main claim to fame is a work of populist pseudo-science.

Clinical Psychology? Clearly not relevant at all

In this context, no it's not. This is not his area of expertise. His proper academic work (as published in peer reviewed journals) is about personality. To reiterate the point I have made numerous times, which has not been engaged with by any Peterson fans: the hypothesis about gendered brains which influence behaviour is not consistent with the fact that these behaviours are not constant, there are variations between different societies and different periods of time, and even within the same societies at the same period of time. Peterson can be forgiven for not being aware of this because it would not arise in his research, but he can not be forgiven for dredging up a discredited theory, claiming it is valid, then packaging it into a book to sell to a mainstream audience. That smacks of arrogance or worse.

I’m also struggling to find any recent academic publications in clinical psychology. His recent work seems to be mostly about the Bible (but he’s not a biblical scholar).

He seems to have mostly published papers about personality, the most recent was last September, so he is still an active academic. I wouldn't dream of knocking the work he is actually qualified to do.

SaskiaRembrandt · 15/04/2019 07:36

I searched through my university library but he has an active listing on Researchgate www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2 which includes some of his papers.

CaptSkippy · 15/04/2019 08:10

Cordelia Fine is amazing. I just finished reading Testoreone Rex and am now reading a Mind of Its Own.

Mumminmum · 15/04/2019 15:25

Cordelia Fine seems to be much more interesting than Peterson. I have never asked questions in the webchats, but it would be interesting to find out what she had to say.

sunshineonpetals · 16/04/2019 06:29

Jordan Peterson is to academia what Cardi B is to music, or what Kim K is to entertainment.
It would be a mistake to legitimise the incoherent and subjective ideas he presents. This is a site of intuitive, thoughtful mothers and parents; where the community lends itself to bettering each other, Peterson presents absolutes about child rearing that will not be in consonance with each families needs.

This video is a critique of Peterson's chapter on parenting:

Goosefoot · 16/04/2019 23:46

This question of Fine's view as being more academically supported than Peterson's on sex differences :
All I have ever heard on this area of study says that Fine's view while not crackpot, is somewhat outside of the academic consensus, which fairly consistently sees much more a mix of nature/nurture than she is inclined to. Which is not the impression she gives in her pop science books.

CardsforKittens · 17/04/2019 00:49

I found this summary of Peterson’s work quite useful Grin
www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/28/12-rules-for-life-an-antidote-to-chaos-by-jordan-b-peterson-digested-read

JC4PMPLZ · 20/04/2019 09:10

Jezeesus christ, just watching Peterson in debate with Zizek. He is utterly ignorant and he just doesn't know it. He has read no Marx but seems to think he can nail it. Embarrassing.

LassOfFyvie · 20/04/2019 11:24

Cordelia Fine is amazing. I just finished reading Testoreone Rex and am now reading a Mind of Its Own

I haven't read any of her work and am not interested in doing so. But she is a philosopher not a scientist. Her field as said on here is the Philosophy of Science. Presumably she does no clinical research.

Basically isn't she just putting forward her own ideas which gender critical feminists happen to agree with and that makes her lauded as a genius?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.