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?

I like him. He talks a lot of sense and there is depth and lots of food for thought. I know the woke have tried to paint him as some far right lunatic, but i think it’s because they don’t want people to listen to or read his stuff. They are scared that people will see what he says and see through the woke and break their woke spell and Woke hold on so many in the West.

I agree, Bollox. Same with JKR, it's all "oh don't even read it it's so transphobic!"

That's how I first came across him. I was asked to explain how he could be so horrible and still be Canadian so I looked him up. Having only heard of him, it was a complete eye-opener to hear him.

I say, do not be scared to listen to him, you will not melt!

I'm amazed so many women on a feminist board have such high regard for him. I dismissed him years ago due to his clearly sexist world view.

I can't remember much of what he said anymore, but he has stated that women are naturally drawn to men more intelligent, accomplished, and dominant than themselves.

He also said marriage makes men less violent.

Well, yes, of course marriage makes a violent man less likely to attack people in public when he has a wife and kids to take his abuse out on.🤦

He also supports Christianity, a misogynistic religion.

I dismissed him years ago due to his clearly sexist world view

It's his observation, not his world view. Big difference.

I am not sure Peterson supports Christianity, exactly, or if he does it doesn't seem to be with enormous conviction: the quickest reference is his Wikipedia page, where I find "In a 2017 interview, Peterson was asked if he was a Christian; he responded, "I suppose the most straight-forward answer to that is yes." When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: "I think the proper response to that is No, but I'm afraid He might exist." Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from Jung's philosophy of religion and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Lott also said that Peterson has respect for Taoism, as it views nature as a struggle between order and chaos and posits life would be meaningless without this duality." Sounds more like a Gnostic, really.

I can't remember much of what he said anymore, but he has stated that women are naturally drawn to men more intelligent, accomplished, and dominant than themselves.

That is quite a well known piece of research that shows women do cross culturally partner with someone at least equal but mostly ‘up’ from themselves. They rarely partner ‘down’. It’s actually one of the biggest causes of inequality / social mobility that no one ever talks about because it seems so awful. But mate selection is pretty primal it seems.
Him repeating it doesn’t mean he thinks it’s great, he’s just pointing out facts and granted he likes a controversial fact.

Agree that that happens. Simone de beauvoir said that was one of the reasons she fancied Sartre, that he was one of the few men she could regard as at least her equal.
The way he tried to make out his serious benzo addicton was different from everyone else's addiction and need him to be anaesthetised and that he wasn't psychologically addicted was odd though and the whole family seem to be prone to faddy diets. His lifestyle stuff does make me query how objective he really is as there's a strong crank element to his personality. His benzo addiction also runs contrary to his stand up for yourself and be resilient philosophy.
I'm sure he just tried doing too much but he didn't seem to be taking much responsibility for his addiction, but maybe he will with time.

@Wasabiaddiction

Same here.

I think that his focus on getting men to "clean their room" and grow up is of the benefit of women.

A whole generation of young men really needed to be told to get off their arses, have a shower, make their beds, do some exercise and find a job!

Peterson can be a bit of a dick, definitely, but overall I think his contribution to the 2010s will be seen with hindsight as important and largely positive.

YABU unreasonable to be a fan of him. He's not the kind of person who should have a fan base. He's very clever but not quite clever enough or insightful enough for the overarching theory of everything he's going for. He has so much to say that there can easily be bits and pieces you can like and other bits that are ill informed, bigoted or ridiculous. For instance, I saw a lecture where he claimed that women who truly didn't want children were rare and tended to be disagreeable. Poisonous nonsense to say it to a room full of students, even if you think it. Other things make sense. He's a voice in the room that should be turned down a little, IMO.

2rebecca I didn't think the way he dealt with his addiction odd at all.

For instance, I saw a lecture where he claimed that women who truly didn't want children were rare and tended to be disagreeable. Poisonous nonsense to say it to a room full of students, even if you think it

But it is an objective fact.

He's a personality researcher so when he talks about 'disagreeableness', he's talking about a personality trait from the Big 5 measure of personality - a valid and robust psychological measure - it's not a moral judgment

@hamstersarse

I can't remember much of what he said anymore, but he has stated that women are naturally drawn to men more intelligent, accomplished, and dominant than themselves.

That is quite a well known piece of research that shows women do cross culturally partner with someone at least equal but mostly ‘up’ from themselves. They rarely partner ‘down’. It’s actually one of the biggest causes of inequality / social mobility that no one ever talks about because it seems so awful. But mate selection is pretty primal it seems.
Him repeating it doesn’t mean he thinks it’s great, he’s just pointing out facts and granted he likes a controversial fact.

But for this to result in actual relationships, doesn't this mean that men would have to be naturally drawn to women less intelligent, accomplished and dominant than themselves?

Why do you think it seems 'awful' that women want partners who are intelligent and accomplished? Isn't it worse that men appear to want partners who they see as inferior to themselves?

I love him!
The all meat diet thing is bonkers though.

Old Crone

As I understand it the research isn't so much about things like intelligence, but social status, wealth, and education level - though the latter may be more about the job and wealth. So a woman who is a lawyer is unlikely to marry an electrician, without making any assumptions about lawyers being more intelligent than electricians.

The opposite is not true - men don't mind marrying women who have a job which has less social status, who earns less, or who has less education. Again, that doesn't assume that those women are less intelligent than the men they marry.

The reason that people think this seems awful is the assumption that people with the jobs with less social status or lower pay are less intelligent and accomplished.

One of the things some have pointed out is that this means that as more women take university degrees compared to men, it creates a gap of people who aren't going to find a match if they stick to that metric.

hamster

I do realise that he was using it in that context but he didn't quote sources (common for him), I question if it's true (do you know?), the conclusions he was drawing weren't in the spirit of him speaking as a clinician/academic, it was a brick in a wall of theory that was bizarre and idiosyncratic presented as objective fact (another problem I have) and his manner was highly dismissive. But watch the lecture if you're interested and you will see why no woman would be talked about that way, as a species being observed by the great naturalist.

wish to be

I don't like him, but at least he's speaking out about free speech and the authoritarian take over of academia. He was the only public figure I heard talking about the consequences of bill C-16 (Meghan Murphy got zero media time).

One of the things some have pointed out is that this means that as more women take university degrees compared to men, it creates a gap of people who aren't going to find a match if they stick to that metric

This is especially true in the ‘working class’ communities. Women in these groups are often better educated than men so are simply not marrying at the same rate. Whereas in the upper highly educated classes, marriage rates are still high.

Whatever your opinion about marriage, there is no doubt having 2 incomes coming into a household gives you huge advantage.

I find this an interesting and unexpected turn of events when it comes to equality any social mobility.

But it is an objective fact

@hamstersarse

It's interesting, isn't it? Because one of the things which is under attack, along with freedom of speech, is the existence of external reality. Objective facts, in so far as they inconvenience the dictates of the SJ movement can be discarded. Or those mentioning them can be denounced, no platformed and silenced. It's also interesting how many SJ activists repeatedly call for people to shut up. Silence is a goal.

For instance, I saw a lecture where he claimed that women who truly didn't want children were rare and tended to be disagreeable. Poisonous nonsense to say it to a room full of students, even if you think it

Why is it poisonous nonsense? I don't know the studies linked to such a statement, but I wouldn't find such an observation surprising. The vast majority of women desire to have children (men as well). It is the whole point of evolution and therefore our species will be naturally inclined towards such goals.
Women have more options and freedom these days, and many put off having children until older. Some might be undecided and eventually change their minds either for or against motherhood. Some unfortunately won't be able to have children due to various reasons and circumstances.

I have never wanted children. I've 'known' this from a very early age. It's difficult to describe, but I guess it's the complete opposite of those women who say they have always known they wanted to be mothers. I have always known motherhood was not for me. Never wavered or wondered or been undecided. I think women like myself are extremely rare as I haven't come across others like me very often. I have never changed my mind, despite being told this is what normally happens.

There is a lot of internal and external pressure on women to have children, therefore to be very secure in your decision to not have any (and not waver or be undecided) requires a certain mindset - a level of disagreeableness if you will. I've been very upfront with all the men I've dated that I never wanted children. Absolutely not. Take it or leave it. I don't think many women would be as hard-line about it like that.

Being disagreeable is a positive characteristic for a woman to have. I am not sure he entirely understands that.

@Needmoresleep

He's a misogynist

She is transphobic

They are racist

I am so tired of insult as a form of killer argument. Surely we can do better than that.

Yes. Totally agree. Some of the comments on here (about J Peterson) are just as pathetic as the ones you'd get about JKR on Twitters.

Being disagreeable is a positive characteristic for a woman to have. I am not sure he entirely understands that.

He most definitely understands that, and there are 2 points he makes.
At a population level, women are more agreeable than men. This does not correlate with high competitiveness at work and cites this as one reason for the gender pay gap. Please note one factor, please don’t go down the whole dismissing of multi factorial analysis and recognise it is one contribution only. He advocates for and does assertiveness training for women to counteract this propensity. Disagreeableness at work is generally an advantage.

The other thing he says, and again this is in response to the data on population level analysis of sex differences In personality, is that ‘conscientious and agreeable women are the most discriminated against Group in the workplace’
Women are more likely to have these 2 personality traits and they are basically the kind of people who will get on and do their work conscientiously but not expect any reward for it/ demand any recognition.

I find it quite hilarious that there are either an exceptional number of psychology PhDs on Mumsnet, or that Gove's observation that we've had enough of experts really does seem to be true and that having a pop at a world leader in their field, on subjects to do with that field, from a position of ignorance, is perfectly valid.

His stuff mostly isn't complicated (once explained, I couldn't come up with it myself I don't think), but it does require a person to pay attention and make the effort to grasp his meaning of the words, rather than jumping to outrage - "he said some women are disagreeable, burn him!".

But for this to result in actual relationships, doesn't this mean that men would have to be naturally drawn to women less intelligent, accomplished and dominant than themselves

Because men, I suspect, have different goals in a partner - from a social status POV the partners relative beauty ("look what I have attracted") and in a life sense some sort of estimation of the partners ability to bear children and create a stable home life come more into play.

At its most primal, women want clever / strong men because they can provide, and men look for pretty / homemaker women because they look nice and bring up good kids. (no need for a pile-on, these are very general statements and are not indicative of whether I think they are morally "right", just a low-grain view of what the psychology apparently is.)

Maybe disliking someone for the conclusions he has reached from the data he has seen, because we dislike the data and the conclusions that they lead to, is a sort of shooting the messenger reaction?