Dr Jordan Peterson

[12boo]

I believe I am a feminist
But I seem to be a fan of Jordan Peterson. Are these states totally incompatible?

[Annasgirl]

@daisyjgrey - thank God there are two of us.

[BabyItsAWildWorld]

He is a psychoanalyst, and that description is about a client trying to make sense of herself and her own experiences.
He is actually focusing on her and the sense she is trying to make of her narrative, her feelings and her decisions.

It's not a socio-cultural analysis of rape and male and female relationships it is about just her.

He is an expert in personality research, and agreeable- disagreeable axis is well understood and recognised as a consistent measurable personality trait in psychology.

Disagreeableness is not a bad trait. It can help you to be very successful.
I am a proud to be disagreeable women. If I'd had daughters I would have tried to bring them up to be disagreeable.
As it happens I have agreeable sons who I am happy have discovered JP.

I think he's obviously a tortured complex soul though.

[Kantastic]

Deathgrip this thread isn't remotely representative of most of the rest of the forum. I think most of the regulars here lost interest long ago.

[Deathgrip]

The Helen Lewis / GQ one is excellent for this sort of stuff, as she talks about the patriarchy and privilege, but comes up pretty short when challenged as to how a women got such a good job inside of a patriarchy, or that she should resign and offer her job to someone less privileged she flat out refuses because she "doesn't want to and doesn't see why [she] should have to"

Sorry, you think it’s excellent because he’s using one woman’a success to disprove the existence of the patriarchy? FFS.

Wow, I've just had to towel off my screen as that paragraph is absolutely dripping in condescension. And we wonder why public discourse might be becoming more polarised...

Have you read much incel or MRA content?

I know what the trad fem argument will be to that - I have used it myself in the past - and it's "you can only blame the rapist for rape" and that is true, she is committing no crime. But this is about asking a women why she finds herself back at a man's house when she doesn't really want to and asking her if she could have any control over that.

That’s not a trad fem argument, it’s a pretty fundamental view of sexual violence. And yes, people would call it victim blaming because it is. It’s also insulting to men to imply that if women don’t protect themselves against rape, men just won’t be capable of not raping.

This narrative not only blames women but infantilises men.

If assessing how you felt responsible for what happened helped you, then that’s great. What was “relieving” for you would be highly damaging for others.

Aside from his evident disbelief that a woman could be a victim of rape five times, he’s also painting a narrative to explain it way without considering the impact of past sexual assault on behaviour. He’s calling her a “ghost” and blaming the rapes on her this, rather than considering the way those experiences have shaped her personality or future actions, or the complex ways in which society attempts to train women to be passive, or the way we respond to past trauma and how that is used against us.

The following passages in the book are not any better - Peterson talks about how he could tell this woman one of two things (that she is to blame or that she is blameless) and that would become her narrative.

it seems entirely possible that someone like that might say - oh, wait, I didn't really mean all that to happen and I felt upset later, I must have been raped.

Seriously, is this still FWR or have I accidentally stumbled on to Reddit by accident?

[Deathgrip]

Good to know kantastic

[picklemewalnuts]

But deathgrip, from that passage, it's entirely unclear what happened.

She seems to have had sex that later she realises she didn't want. Would the man have known she didn't really want it? I'm not sure. Did she show enthusiasm at the time? We don't know.

Unless you want a blanket rule that women cannot drink and have sex with people they don't know. Actually, I would welcome that rule, but I know a lot of women who'd see it as a serious infringement.

I was a woman like her. I identify completely with his description. In my case it was a narc mother that left me with poor boundaries and no sense of self.

Identifying that as a problem that she can address and be less vulnerable in future in all areas of her life doesn't seem to me damaging in itself.

I'm still not sure what you are getting, deathgrip. I'm probably not going to try anymore because your explanations haven't explained and you are angry.

[12boo]

I'm still unraveling it tbh
He definitely acknowledges prejudice and unfairness
His denial of patriarchy seems almost pedantic (imo) as if it were a western tyrannical patriarchy then factors other than competence would determine all desirable positions. So maybe women are disadvantaged partly due to prejudice, personal preferences, "agreeableness" (probably other factors too)
If it were a tyrannical/ systemic issue then women wouldn't hold any of the "better" positions?