Doctors, psychotherapists, liars and butchers

[beastlyslumber]

This is really pretty good.

I don't think he sees feminism as having been overall great, but I think he would probably separate that quite clearly from what you might broadly call women's rights. He seems to think that a lot of changes in women's roles that people ascribe to feminism are much more about technological change, particularly birth control, mestrual hygeine proucts, and modern sanitation.

HIs idea about men and women competing is interesting, because at some level it feels strange to me, I don't identify with those kinds of feelings. On the other hand, it fits with some of the observations I made when I was the only woman working in a military unit, particularly around the way men competed and communicated among themselves, and I found some of that felt very unnatiral to me as well. I don't think I'm alone in that observation either, there was a really interesting essay Kathleen Stock wrote a few weeks ago about changes in academic philosophy that occured when it tried to become more woman centered.

I really don't like the tendency to decide this kind of observation is bad - it seems to me that very easily slips into ignoring observed differences that don't fit into a prefered ideological framework, and that is a very bad habit.

It seem to me that you are talking about rather purist version of academic postmodernism and marxism, and studying them through a mainly historical perspective.

That's important, but I really don't see how it follows to say that modern identity politics of the progreasive left don't emerge from marxist or postmodern thought. They clearly have, even if, like every ideological and intellectual tradition, often later iterations look like misunderstandings and bastardizations to those who prefer the older way of thinking - like a member of the Orthodox Church talking about some American Pentecostal sect. To say that they aren't significantly linked would be completely incorrect.

The modern progressive left has inherited from Marxism some pretty significant ideas around how political action should behave, around ideas like privilege and oppression, a tendency to social constructivism, around the goal being a kind of overthrow of current structures in order to usher in a utopian ideological vision. Those things don't come from postmodernism - which has also influenced this political movement or at least the rhetoric they employ, but I think you could make at least a plausible argument that the marxist influence is greater. And undoubtably is also seems to serve the interestes of the global elite, whether that involves some kind of individualistic influence or represents a cynical ploy by those people to cow the population at large.

It's not observing intra-sex competition (or intra-sex cooperation which also happens) that is the problem for men in his book; it's that he uses unverifiable arguments to make them the reason men dominate in the societies.

He interprets almost all differences as evolutionary adaptations and doesn't pay much attention to such historical facts as women's very recent rights to keep their own earnings when married or the very limited avenues that were available for women to improve their economic lot except by marriage, or even the way women were banned from most professions until the 19th century.

I believe a richer result can be obtained by mining information from all the relevant areas in trying to improve our understanding of which differences might be innate, which are societal and which are both, and sometimes interact in complicated fashions. To preclude so many alternative sources of data and alternative theories leads him to view almost every difference between the sexes as innate.

Correction on a typo in previous post by me: "that is the problem for men in this book" should read "that is the problem for me in this book."

Well they are all going to be unverifiable arguments, no matter what side you come down on.

I don't know that women keeping their earnings is that strong an argument for difference, either, the whole idea of earnings seems to relate to such a tiny slice of history.

His main argument is certainly evolutionary in that he says the biggest reason for different roles of men and women in society through time is reproductive role and it's consequences, such as the effects of menstruation and breastfeeding, none of which were really things we could get around to any great degree until the mid 20th century.

But aside from that, I think he would say that if you want to talk about data, the fact that the more choices women have, the more likely they are to make different choices from men, in the aggregate, is one of the most well established pieces of data in sociology. So that the extremes end up being exaggerated.

Whether you agree with that or not, I don't really see how it's sexist as such. Are you suggesting that differences in behaviour between men and women based in biology are inherently sexist? I don't really see why that would be the case, unless you are making an a priori ideological claim that differences like that are sexist.

I don't see Peterson's claims as based in sexism, and I don't think he believes in some kind of natural inferiority of women. I agree with pp his main argument is evolutionary. He does claim males and females have different aptitudes and abilities, at least at the level of data. I agree with that and don't find it sexist at all. But ultimately, 12 Rules isn't setting out his thesis about men and women, so I'm not sure we can really usefully discuss it in that way. It's a self-help book. People do find it really helpful - men and women, both. But I think it appeals to young men who are struggling with their identity and role - and his message to them is so great. Clean yourself up, be honest, work hard, get married... it's old-fashioned, I guess, but very wholesome.

I had no trouble with the self-help parts of the book. They are certainly something many drawn to the incel sites should access.

I did have a problem with the wider framing, i.e., seeing masculine as order and feminine as chaos, given that wars cause about the most chaos one can imagine.

I think he's referring to the symbolic or mythological realm. I don't think he literally means that men are orderly and women are chaotic. He also makes clear that he believes both elements are vital to each temper the other. His next book is called 'Beyond Order' - I haven't read it, but maybe that sheds more light.

I'd prefer to stay within the question about the book, because the things you mention here will lead us to a very wide area and is not something which can be quickly addressed. (But of course I accept that average sex differences exist, in terms of distributions though with overlap with respect to most of them. Why they exist and what they can be used to justify are very important topics to be treated with great care because these are the arguments that have traditionally been used to justify women's subjugation.)

But in terms of Peterson' book, my main concern is that he assumes that hierarchical societies based on largely male domination are natural. I disagree with that assumption.

Well they aren't unnatural, at least in the usual sense of the word. I suppose you might say artificial, but the it seems like that would apply to any society. I don't think we can claim realistically that there is some sort of natural, unconstructed state where men and women lived in egalitarian harmony.

They are in fact almost ubiquitous. Although to some extent that may depend on how you define "dominated."

I saw something of myself in your posts. Myself at 18. Aristotles 'The Politics' had been recommended to me. I subsequently bought it. A few pages in and I had seen references to slaves and women. Slaves weren't to be part of the democracy, and neither were women. Women were like children and attracted to bright shiny things. I cast the book aside tout suite.

Move along and I took 'Politics' in university. We studied 'The Politics'. One class changed my life. The lecturer gave the example of 'baby and bathwater'. There may be dirty bathwater wherein the baby sits. Aristotle was a man of a certain time and place. However, his gem was the idea of democracy. That is the baby in the bathwater. Aristotle may only have regarded male citizens as worthy of this idea, but we do not have to discard the idea of democracy itself because of that. Don't look at the bathwater; look at the baby. The idea itself without all the wrapping paper.

It has truly allowed me to read most things and throw out the bathwater, but assess the baby. It has been liberating. One class has been a gift for life.

I must admit I have never read Peterson. But if he has anything sensible to say, then I could ponder over that and discard any dirty bath water.

But this whole theory is based on the assumed inferiority of women and girls, to begin with! That is the reason why boys or men winning is deemed as not really winning, and that is the reason why boys or men losing is seen as particularly bad.

And so what you're saying is that women aren't assumed to be inferior? He seems to be describing an aspect of patriarchy, and you're saying, no, women are actually regarded as equals?

Sounds to me like he's channelling Jane Clare Jones, but describing a negative impact that those attitudes have on males.

I get the sense you would deny patriarchy rather than admit it can have a negative effect on men.

The other element to this is, it might be worthwhile understanding why someone like Aristotle thinks that there might be groups of people who are not included in the democratic state. Assuming he is just an ass, or assuming he is just not able to think aoutside of the box, could be a mistake. Even if you ultimatly disagree with him, his reasons could be useful or even insightful.

One of the ideas Aristotle has about slaves and women is that they don't really have autonomy, so they could only really represent the interests of those whom they depend on, and they also don't have the same kind of responsibility to others an autonomous person would. That's quite interesting and it's worth asking, is that wrong? Can a person who is beholden to others really vote freely? Can someone without responsibility to others be trusted to vote for the good of the group rather than personal benefit? How does that play out in modern democracy?

If people just throw out the book because they disagree, they are really just avoiding wrestling with those kinds of questions, and often because of the underlying assumptions in society those questions never come up. Their views end up being much more shallowly rooted.

I really think this kind of approach to older thinkers is behind a lot of the shallow thinking we see in universities now.

Je ne suis pas un Marxiste - Karl Marx. By which I take him to mean he would adapt his theories to changing conditions and nothing was set in stone?

I don't think he could have forseen the power of mass media let alone the Internet. Or the importance of feminism. I've no idea if he was a racist. Darwin certainly was and nobody wants to cancel him.

I like Marx for his class based analysis of capitalism. Marx is the reason I have zero time for Identity Politics. I am a socialist to improve the material conditions of poorer people.

Peterson recently debated Zizek about Marxism. It was soon embarrassingly obvious JP knows nothing about Marx. He is pretty good on the loony Identity politics rabble in Canadian and US universities of course. As well he might be! And I think some of his advice to young men is very sensible.

@Cailleach1 , I do know about the baby and the dirty bathwater. 😁
I did read the whole book and its end-notes/foot notes, and enjoyed thinking about the issues Peterson raised. I then spent time reading some of the sources he used and also many hours watching his YouTube videos and reading about him.

I learned a lot from that, and I certainly recommend reading older (and more recent) thinkers as @MangyInseam recommends.

Tolstoy, for instance, has a lot to give, even though his views on women weren't exactly based on equally deep thinking as his main philosophical arguments. Freud has similar blind spots about women, but his theses are still worth perusing. Aristotle and Plato are obviously important to understand, even today. I like the idea of trying to keep an open but critical mind about intellectual arguments.

I like Marx for his class based analysis of capitalism. Marx is the reason I have zero time for Identity Politics. I am a socialist to improve the material conditions of poorer people

Peterson recently debated Zizek about Marxism. It was soon embarrassingly obvious JP knows nothing about Marx

But in practice applying Marxist principles to an actual real and living state has been a disaster- unless of course you're (general you) of the "but that's not what Marx meant" school.

There's a strong argument that none of the communist revolutions we've seen seems to follow the expectations that Marx set out, so I think it's very fair to say they weren't what Marx was describing.

But at the same time, I think Marx is actually pretty clear that if you believe in his predictions about how capitalism ends, it will be full of violence.

I think his descriptions of what capitalism looks like and where it is contradictry, and parts of his description of the necessary relation of worker and capitalist, and intersting and useful, and I've never seen how they can really be just pasted onto an identity framework where the relations are more or less arbirary.

But all of the elements about the future and the revolution seem completely speculative and almost willfully blind to human nature. Even the idea of late capitalism presupposes knowledge none of us has. It reminds me a lot of the peeople in the New Testament who were convinced Jesus would bring the Kingdom of Heaven about in a concrete political sense.

So maybe it's not surprising that it is that element where revolutions go so horribly wrong.

Or to put it a different way, if you really believe what Marx says about dialectical history and its relation to class and ethics, it's maybe inevitable that you will be comfortable with violent revolution, opression of dissenters, and the revolution being the answer to all moral questions.

Marx advocated the abolition of private property and the family. Any society that has tried to do this has created utter horror. I think there is a link to identity politics, especially the attack on the family, the abolition of childhood, trying to separate parents from children etc.

But in practice applying Marxist principles to an actual real and living state has been a disaster- unless of course you're (general you) of the "but that's not what Marx meant" school.

And from what I've seen, I think that is JP's number one concern above pretty much all else. He's a 100% hardcore "anti-utopianist", because he understands human psychology and what humans are capable of once they become convinced they're Doing Good. The bigger the good you think you're doing, the more evil you can justify. Humans have a huge ability for self-deception.

Whether "Marxist" is a good label for this thing he's opposing though, I don't know.

And I think a lot of people misinterpret that as him being "accepting" of the world the way it is, which I don't think he is. He just approaches things from the other end - practical self-help stuff - cos he believes that a method that can work, helping individuals, which will in aggregate help society.

A lot of his stuff which people interpret him as justifying or excusing behaviour seems to me to be more him justifying why certain approaches to tackle that behaviour won't be successful.

He is trying to do hands-on work, in his own way.

I liked that Louise Perry piece I've linked a few times, where she says:

The truth is that, if men started behaving in the way that Peterson advises, the feminist movement could pack up and go home. If all men controlled their violent aggression, supported their children, treated their spouses with honesty and dignity, stopped watching porn, stopped buying sex, and applied themselves to the task of behaving more ethically in every area of their lives, then there would be no more need for feminism. Plenty of men are doing this already, and more might do so under Peterson’s influence. That’s a good thing.

That's a great quote. I like Louise Perry, and her friend Mary.... name escapes me. They call themselves Reactionary Feminists. Very interesting people.

Harrington!

The technical difference between modernity/classical industrial capitalism and postmodernity/late capitalism isn’t Marx’s, but that of later Marxists / cultural materialists.

It might be summed up as follows: in modernity / classical industrial capitalism, we can become aware of our own alienation from our own labour, and of the fissures between ideology (or the “superstructure” of culture, discourse, ideological positioning etc., in Althusserisn terms), and the material base of our exploitation underneath. In postmodernity/late capitalism, we become unable to tell the difference between materiality and ideology, and in fact late capitalist culture (postmodernity) explicitly works to upend our ability to tell ideology from material exploitation, and to turn our alienation into a feature of the culture that is not just obfuscated, but celebrated. People become unable to tell fact from fiction, representation from reality, ideology from materiality: and far from this being a concern, it’s experienced as a kind of enraptured absorption into commodification, ideology, abjection of all kinds - a sort of joyful wallowing in alienation as identity rather than seeing alienation as a indication that something is wrong with culture.

You can see here how Marxism is diametrically opposed to both late capitalism/postmodernity, and to the kind of individualist identity politics that it celebrates/wallows in.

The current formulation of identity politics, especially as it emerged in the US, came it of a rejection of Marxism and an embracing of a kind of activist version of neoliberalism. Marxism in the US has had almost no purchase in intellectual terms, aside from little pockets at Berkeley in the 70s and the New School in the 80s.

There’s no indigenous Marxist tradition in the US; but there are strong traditions of civil rights discourses that tend to make claims of separatism rather than universalism, and for which “identity” allows for a claim to Constitutional rights in a way that never was quite the case in the European tradition. These forms of civil rights discourses tend towards being fully complicit in US commodity-capitalism, and in fact often thrive on rejecting Marxist or socialist social thought.

IMO Peterson’s lazy reliance on tired old pseudo-McCarthyite tropes about Marxists and socialism is a huge gaping flaw in his thinking, which means above all that he isn’t interested in exploring the ways in which monetary, capitalist and state interests prop up transgender ideology in North America in particular.

IMO Peterson’s lazy reliance on tired old pseudo-McCarthyite tropes about Marxists and socialism is a huge gaping flaw in his thinking, which means above all that he isn’t interested in exploring the ways in which monetary, capitalist and state interests prop up transgender ideology in North America in particular.

That's not logical. Peterson can and does explore (some of) the ways in which monetary, capitalist and state interests support ideology in this very essay. Not sharing your understanding of Marxism doesn't mean he can't do that. Same goes for Abigail Shrier, Helen Joyce, and others - what makes you think they're not interested in how capitalism/the state props up trans ideology?

Do you think that only Marxists can understand ideology in relation to money and systems? Because honestly, I don't see the Marxist critique of trans ideology anywhere, but I see lots of centrist and centre-right people taking it apart.