Jordan Peterson

[Wilsonwilson]

What do people make of him? Watched the triggernometry interview with him yesterday. I have previously seen bits and bobs of his but not taken much notice. In the interview he pointed out that out that his greatest criticism has been because he was lecturing people whilst being a benzo addict, tbh this was my criticism.

I don't know, to me he just seems disingenuous somehow, could be my bias like he says.

Oh God, along comes another poster who's obviously never actually engaged with what he says.
He gave out this image that he was the perfect man, that was attractive to women. That he was the perfect role model. This grade A bullshit. It's just so tiresome that some people can't actually read stuff for themselves and get everything 2nd hand

I have listened to the whole of the ‘cultural Marxism’ video now. I didn’t hear him mention cultural Marxism, cultural rot, the Frankfurt school, any of the members of the Frankfurt school, its critical theory, or Jews.

It was mostly a critique of postmodernism and identity politics.

I'll listen tomorrow.

I heard the fuss about the no platforming at some university, Cambridge? Anyway, I wondered what could be wrong with a Canadian psychology professor from Harvard. So I listened to a bit of his stuff.

He sounds a bit like a rather old fashioned uncle giving no nonsense advice to a wayward nephew. The advice didn’t resonate for me, but then, as a middle aged woman, I don’t think I was the target audience. I think for a confused and lost young man the advice would be overall constructive.

I think he's fantastic. Started following him about 6-7 years ago.

I was on a kick of reading Jessica Valenti's piss-poor Guardian articles at the time and watching the Guardian string together a nice little narrative over a few weeks about why they were closing most of Comment is Free (predictably the ability to comment under such gems of articles as "No, I will NOT wrap all the presents. Why are women still responsible for the holiday joy", or any article discussing trans issues.) the majority of comments BTL were roundly criticising nonsense articles and the Guardian didn't like it. Solution? Ban commenting.

Anyway, this little rabbit hole led to my discovering Peterson. At the time he posted two videos responding to the University of Toronto's insistence on compelled speech and his fight against this. He was so thin at the time, gaunt from the stress of it all. He came through it tremendously and went stratospheric. I've followed him ever since to see how he's getting on and love his lectures.

A PP is right though, his Kermit the frog voice is not suited to reading audiobooks. I much prefer to hear him speak live on a given subject, or being interviewed.

For anyone interested in what Peterson has to say I also recommend having a look at what Bret Weinstein has been through. Here's a god documentary that follows his ordeal at Evergreen State College. It's in 3 parts.

@MaryHappyWin

I am not a fan of the hypocrisy of Jordan Peterson. He puts forward this idea that women only find strong perfect men attractive. He gave out this image that he was the perfect man, that was attractive to women. That he was the perfect role model. Then it turns out he has deep serious mental health issues, but despite that had children and was married. He is a hypocrite.

In general women do find strong, perfect and usually tall men attractive, it's in the genes probably, you know the mate with the best male, get the better offspring?

I'm pretty new to JP probably heard of him a year ago maybe and watched several videos now, in my limited time, not once have I heard him say he is or was the perfect man, or attractive to women, but you evidently have so give us a link eh!

And finally an awful lot of people have MH issues (which mostly dont show til adulthood) and procreate. In a civilised society we dont prevent this from happening and I find it distasteful that you think it should.

In general women do find strong, perfect and usually tall men attractive, it's in the genes probably, you know the mate with the best male, get the better offspring?

And isn't the case what he meant was strong in the sense of being relied on to be a good provider/ strength of character? Also worth considering if you're going to have offspring.

I can't imagine he's put himself forward as being the perfect man.

well, I'm sure that mary will be able to provide a link.

the majority of comments BTL were roundly criticising nonsense articles and the Guardian didn't like it. Solution? Ban commenting

Ah, a fellow refugee. Off-topic diversion...

Happy days, eh? I was quite prolific on CiF. I remember posting some long heartfelt "what are you doing?" essays under the simpering "oh my, what can we do about trolling?" pieces.

Was certainly an omen of things to come, wasn't it?

(Yes, there was a fair amount of CiF pushback on certain writers, and that did probably disproportionately hit women, due to the Valenti contingent. The fact that this could then be dismissed as "sexist trolling" rather put me off "feminism" for a while, if you were just going to play it as an identity card to shield your chosen idiots from criticism).

I can't imagine for a moment JP putting himself across as the perfect man that's for sure, but if you have something from him that indicates otherwise then would I would obviously love to see it.

Using the fact that he had mental health issues so should not be able to talk on these issues is deeply unpleasant. It's no wonder MH issues are often something that is hidden and covered up. Because of nasty outdated comments like that.

@NecessaryScene1

the majority of comments BTL were roundly criticising nonsense articles and the Guardian didn't like it. Solution? Ban commenting

Ah, a fellow refugee. Off-topic diversion...

Happy days, eh? I was quite prolific on CiF. I remember posting some long heartfelt "what are you doing?" essays under the simpering "oh my, what can we do about trolling?" pieces.

Was certainly an omen of things to come, wasn't it?

(Yes, there was a fair amount of CiF pushback on certain writers, and that did probably disproportionately hit women, due to the Valenti contingent. The fact that this could then be dismissed as "sexist trolling" rather put me off "feminism" for a while, if you were just going to play it as an identity card to shield your chosen idiots from criticism).

It was fascinating to watch the Guardian orchestrate that little victim narrative to protect its lowest quality journalists/writers. Unanimous criticism BTL was dismissed as "trolling" and they clearly had no interest in raising their standards. I was always encouraged to read the BTL comments to see that sanity prevailed among the readership. I used to read CiF daily. Now I won't click a guardian link. The twats.

Put me off "feminism" for a long time too. I'm not keen on labels in general and still don't think of myself as a feminist. However, if ever there was a time for women to pay attention and do something, it's now. The trans push is the next real threat to women's rights. Peterson turned me on to that nonsense a good 7 years ago and I've been watching the madness unfold ever since.

like 2late, and other people I know, I find him tiring to listen to, even though I find what he says fascinating. But I'm not sure if it would work for his books to be read by someone else. The passionate delivery is so closely tied in with the message.
On the other hand, while I find Bret Weinstein's story interesting, I've tried a couple of the Dark Horse podcasts and find them very dull.

Also, following up what a pp says about JP's ideal audience being young men, I'm an old woman, and I find him pretty relevant to me, or anybody, really.

JP is like horoscopes
People read whatever they want into what he is saying

Well no, actually.

From this thread, at least, posters either read him or don't read him.

Some people who don't agree with him have read him (fair enough) but the vast majority of those who don't agree with him have not read him. They read what other people say about him and go from there.

Hence the wild claims about what he says

while I find Bret Weinstein's story interesting, I've tried a couple of the Dark Horse podcasts and find them very dull.

This is a clear example of how different things appeal to different people. I get along a lot better with Bret than Peterson. Although he definitely needs Heather to keep him in check. Bret-without-Heather isn't as good.

Peterson's actual expertise is more directly applicable to the everyday person - a Jungian psychotherapist can probably tell you more directly useful stuff for your life than an evolutionary biologist.

If you like Bret's story (Evergreen?) more than Bret, have you heard his actual academic story? This is a great discussion with his brother Eric, who clearly also finds him quite exasperating, and wants that story told.

And, like you, he wants Bret to stop being so dull!

500,000 views on that 2-hour discussion with comments like:

> Eric is right. This is way more interesting than the Bret “heroic victim of identity politics gone wrong” Weinstein story.

> The greatest gift of all is a brother who believes you are more than you think you are. It’s the most touching thing I’ve ever seen.

> This is how extremely high IQ brothers fight.

> You can tell Eric is really pissed off about what happened to his bro

> Someone needs to make Brets life into a movie. Gripped from start to finish!

> Honestly, my heart aches while listening to bret telling his story

> I did not expect this to be my favorite youtube video that I ever viewed.

> Once Bret starts telling his actual story, this very quickly becomes a holy shit moment. This is a fascinating story in both the drama of what happened to Bret, and in the biological and medical discovery.

Try and find 2 hours to sit down and give this your attention. It's a fascinating and appalling story from the world of science, framed by a fascinating big/little brother dynamic - rather raw.

thank you. I'll watch it tonight.

@NecessaryScene1

Ooh thanks! I'll be watching that this weekend.

He puts forward this idea that women only find strong perfect men attractive. He gave out this image that he was the perfect man, that was attractive to women. That he was the perfect role model.

I think this is the crux of why initially feminists take a dim view of him. But I find it absolutely the truth that women need men who can 'bear the load'. Masculinity has been trounced in recent decades - men have no idea what is expected of them. But then go on any Relationships thread and a man who isn't paying his way, isn't pulling his weight, doesn't have a good job is pulled to shreds.

It is obvious that women want a strong man, ideally. Anyone who has tried to have a child on their own knows this very keenly. It might not be what some feminists want to hear, but that is the truth.

JP for many young men has clarified that masculinity doesn't have to be toxic, and indeed can be a desirable thing if done right.

It is obvious that women want a strong man, ideally. Anyone who has tried to have a child on their own knows this very keenly. It might not be what some feminists want to hear, but that is the truth.

It depends what you mean by strong. I don't expect my husband to be particularly strong or macho. But I don't want him to be lazing around while I do the work - I think that works for both sexes.

Surely most women would want a male partner to be a decent thoughtful person that pulls their weight. They don't need to be physically strong and six foot tall. It's about who they are as a person. That's how I interpret it anyway.

me too erkrie

I do think if we are honest there is a protector element to masculinity that women want / need - especially when children are young

An example, if you hear a bump in the night - you really want a man who is prepared to go and find out what the bump is.

JP just brings that sort of stuff to the surface

It depends what you mean by strong. I don't expect my husband to be particularly strong or macho. But I don't want him to be lazing around while I do the work - I think that works for both sexes

We dont know what he meant by strong until maryhappywin comes back with the link to where he says this.

FWIW I assumed strong meant stalwart, secure in himself blah blah.
But like I say we need to know in what context and that requires the link.

@NecessaryScene1

That does of course make perfect sense.

I can see why there would be tension, if either side thought the other was arguing in bad faith.

Are radical feminists saying women shouldn't aim for self-improvement because radical social change is needed?

Is Peterson saying we shouldn't aim for radical social change because self-improvement is needed?

It's not clear to me that self-improvement and societal improvement are mutually exclusive.

Two different approaches, sure, but opposed?

Just different angles of attack, surely?

I mean, radical feminists on this board will regularly say that men as individuals need to shape up, that men needs to stop feeling entitled, that they need to stop watching porn, that they need to stop being violent. In every conversation about sexual assault there are numerous people who feel that it is something where the only valid approach is to tell men to stop and for them to do it. And I think I can say with some confidence that often those statements come from the same poeple who talk about the patriarchy or systemic sexism and so on.

Those are all things that target individuals to think and live differently. So I'm a little skeptical that people who say they don't believe that is the issue areas committed as they sometimes feel they are to repudiating that individuals need to step up.

In fact, the two positions - it's society - it's individuals - are much more closely tied than that. How do you change social structures without changing individual hearts and minds? How do you change hearts and minds without changing things in society that lead to formation of individuals with a particular perspective?

It's a conundrum and yet we see that social change can and does occur. People who are good at facilitating that seem to consider both. In fact most people consider both I think, though they may tend to emphasise one or the other in someway.

The other supposed binary is the blank slate/deterministic one, where some people tend to feel that we can largely rewrite people to almost any degree and shape society as we like, and those who think there are various limits within which we have to work. Again, most people fall on a spectrum while perhaps being on one side or the other. GC feminists tend to be a bit on the extreme with regard to that where sex and gender are concerned. Peterson, not surprisingly as a psychologist, is less so.