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!

He fully admits that all male to male interaction has violence at the heart of it ( i.e. they could fight each other at any point) but that men can't do that with women....there is something therefore about how women CAN have equality (of opportunity not outcome) when men are more physically strong?

Ah yes. The 'you can't have a truthful communication with someone unless you can hit them' argument.

Totally disregarding that lots of men DO hit women, and that lots of men don't resort to violence.

This says far far more about Peterson than the ways of the world.

When it comes to male violence I think it's really dangerous to say it is an innate natural part of men.
I also think it doesn't give men enough credit. As a feminist I am have hope in men, I believe in them, I genuinely think they can do better if they unpacked their conditioning and entitlement.

But it might not be about winning as such. Isn't it more about opening up this conversation further.

With a man who denies patriarchy is a thing.

He fully admits that all male to male interaction has violence at the heart of it ( i.e. they could fight each other at any point) but that men can't do that with women....there is something therefore about how women CAN have equality (of opportunity not outcome) when men are more physically strong?

Oh, if that is the problem, let's just arm women, and exlcusively women, then. Maybe someone can put a gun to his head during the web chat?

It is then about identifying the parts which are not biological in basis. That is so hard, and why we struggle to win the argument with him because almost impossible to prove. I said upthread that I don't think he understands the 'lived experience' of the standard woman, and that is where we could have interesting discussion, perhaps.

He has a wife. A daughter. Why would a webchat do what the women in his life couldn't? Why invest so much energy in one man who apparently just can't get it, when there are so many other men, including many inspiring academics with great ideas, who do?

It all smacks of trying to please the one boy who just won't come around. I didn't have any patience for that in High School and I don't now.

Furry

That’s part of his message to men? To learn to control it, but also acknowledging that it is there for men more then women

I have never heard him speak specifically about DV though

For a man who admonishes his acolytes to be precise in their speech, I find many of his musings (like the solution to incel violence being ‘enforced monogamy’) to be remarkably sloppy

Of course young men like Peterson, how lovely to be told white male privilege is a lie and its just nature.

Yes.

I think the world, especially white men have become a bit fatigued by the deliberate infiltration and stirring of intersectional theory by M/TAs.

That whole stoked-into-a-frenzy 'call out' culture was such horseshit- designed to silence informed voices.

The deliberate bastardisation of survivors' terms like 'triggered' and 'trigger warnings' was all engineered to make examination or criticism of the Status Quo taboo.

That stirring and engineering to paralyse and silence people with guilt and blame for being white, male, middle classed, etc, had a side effect of giving people concern fatigue - especially as there isn't anything pro-active suggested or even doable about it.

JP gives white, middle-classed blokes, who are fed up of engineered (by MRAs) moral paralysis and concern fatigue, some easy answers.

And the message is- ignore all the talk of structural inequality and injustice - it's just people who can't accept things and take responsibility.

He gives permission to not give a shit about injustice, particularly that which is carried out in your name and which benefits you.

That’s part of his message to men? To learn to control it, but also acknowledging that it is there for men more then women

But why is it there more for men than women?
Peterson would argue it's nature, a feminist would argue it's down to social conditioning and male entitlement.

The fact is that actually we have no way proving one way or the other because it's impossible to do a controlled experiment.
So I'm absence of complete knowledge we have to look at which one does the most harm.

When you argue that it's purely nature you take away the opportunity of growth or change, yes men can do better but it's only to the point they are suppressing or controlling a natural urge. How long until men who feel like that take back control of how they think the natural order of the world should be.

If we take the nurture route we can examine society as it is and look at how we can grow and move on from here. The entitlement is dropped.

Peterson is selling way more than just 'pull up your socks' self help, he's also reinforcing and solidifying the whole bedrock of gender biases that the patriarchy is built on.

Peterson is selling way more than just 'pull up your socks' self help, he's also reinforcing and solidifying the whole bedrock of gender biases that the patriarchy is built on.

This ^

I believe that Peterson argues that levels of aggression in males are dependant on biological, social and cultural factors. If a feminist would argue it's down to social conditioning and male entitlement, then it's no wonder you are concerned about him being invited on a MN web chat.

It is a really shit argument to say male aggression is only due to social constructivism and anyone who argues it really is living in a dream world

you think men are inherently aggressive?

cor

you think men are inherently aggressive?

Of course. Our species is fairly aggressive. Some men will be more aggressive than others.

It might be worthwhile finding out what he means by "enforced monogamy" and how it would be enforced on women in practice, given how popular his ideas are with a large subsection of men. It's a pity the New York Times interviewer laughed at the suggestion instead of delving more deeply as to exactly what his plan for women was:

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

He does seem to be tedious MRA du jour though. I remember Warren Farrell filling a similar role in the 1990s.

Erythronium

A youtube clip of

Yes, it would be helpful to get an explanation of 'enforced monogamy'. we had a fan boi here at the time trying to explain why it doesn't mean what you think it means, and actually it's OK and if you watch these 12 hours of youtube vids you'll totally get it....but I'm afraid it didn't convince me at the time and I remain unconvinced.

you think men are inherently aggressive?

probably poorly phrased. I think what I meant was, do you think men as a class are irredeemably aggressive? i.e. as long as we allow men to be 'free range', we will be saddled with male violence?

hee hee, cross post!

We have evolved and survived partly due to our propensity and capability to violence.

Is it so shocking?

It’s not social constructivism. Humans need the capacity to be violent. It’s really basic. If you had had no violence, we literally wouldn’t be here.

What to do with that propensity is the question...not whether it exists

Sorry not rtft... I think he is a doofus who is nowhere near as clever as he thinks. While I would not engage with him, it would be hilarious to have him on MN and have to speak with you very smart women

nowhere near as clever as he thinks.

I keep hearing this over and over. He is a professor. A Clinical Psychologist.

I'd love to know how clever all the people saying he's not all that clever are. How clever/well educated/highly qualified in your field do you have to be before you are considered clever enough?

Ellenborough chill, it’s just an opinion. Oh and don’t be elitist, you don’t have to have a degree to be clever. And we don’t have to bow down to professors, who can still say dumb things! Geez

I feel a bit sad that I have now watched a Jordan Peterson video, even a short one. These types of men have a habit of worming their way in.

I'm not convinced either - why pull that particular phrase out, which doesn't seem to adequately describe the concept it claims to be naming? Every man gets a woman sounds very patriarchal.

you keep talking about humans mooncuplanding. I'm talking about men as a class. yanno, the people who commit the majority of violent crime and 98% of sexual crime.

will we always have male violence as long as we have men? how do we rid ourselves of it?

It is a really shit argument to say male aggression is only due to social constructivism and anyone who argues it really is living in a dream world

Who said that??
I think it's a mixture of the two but due to the fact you can't do a controlled group where someone lives without society it's impossible to tell how much it is either way.

Yes human males have more propensity (at a group level) to physical violence than females. Almost all very violent crime is committed by men, globally, whatever the culture.

This isn’t news right?

I’m not sure what we are disagreeing about. Are you saying ‘society’ causes that?

and if being a professor is going to be used as unassailable evidence of not being a total numpty, may I just draw your attention to Professor Sally Hines of Leeds university Ellenborough. She may cause you to reconsider that theory.