Helen Joyce on Jordan Peterson's podcast

[DuckInAPuddle]

Just saw on Twitter that Jordan Peterson has interviewed Helen Joyce for the latest episode of his podcast. Just listening to it now, so can't really comment yet. There doesn't seem to be a thread on this yet, so thought I'd share the link in case anyone else is interested.

I enjoyed this but would have preferred more Helen and less JP.
It's ironic that he talks about narcissists being more interested in themselves than other people but then seems more interested in putting forward his own theories than listening to Helen's

No you have it wrong there. A narcissist will talk about themselves - eg MM. JP talks a lot but talks about the issues. That is not the mark of a narcissist but perhaps someone who likes his own voice a bit too much. But after all it is his podcast.

He talks a lot, which he admits himself. But a lot of people listen to his podcasts precisely because they want to hear him talk about stuff. They enjoy and relate to the way he describes and explains things. They're not tuning in to hear Helen, but to hear how JP processes and understands Helen's ideas.

I agree though: he should let his interviewees speak more - it's not just Helen! But she totally held her own with him and after a while they do get into more of a conversation. She makes a lot of brilliant and interesting points. They are fully in agreement throughout, too, which helps.

Peterson's gets a lot from his interviewees in my opinion. His interview with Yeonmi Park is the most moving podcast I've ever listened to.

Wow! Fascinating discussion - I thought they both came over well. So many interesting issues about parenting and emotional development.
Thank you so much DuckInAPuddle for sharing this.

I watched the first third of this interview last night and became irritated by JP's assertions about women and marriage. Tonight I've had the time to listen to the rest and as others have said, it's a fascinating discussion that I thinks moves things on brilliantly. JP, with his psychoanalytic background, touches on things that I've struggled to understand — such as the visceral strength and certainty many trans people and TRAs feel. His warning that this stuff touches something really deep rang bells. I have one contact, formerly a friend, who now, literally, cannot be in the same room as me because I don't share her GI beliefs. The sight of me reduces her to desperate tears and panic.

There are long passages of this interview I need to transcribe because they deserve more thought and recognition. Thank you to the OP for recommending this talk.

Just to add that hearing JP almost break down when describing the plight of girls who haven't received sufficient love and reinforcement from parents and so seek solace for their psychic pain in the trans community and transition had me in tears too.

Me too pattihews. It was so powerful. I liked so much of what he said about children and their psychological development - I need to listen to it again.
Helen was so clear and articulate - and I enjoyed how they both really explored the issues in depth - both in terms of individual psychology and the impact on children and society.

Yes, or you could compare people from different cultures and environments and see if you can iron out certain particularities.

But I don't think it's all that relevant to this question. The decision to have children isn't just about that kind of happiness. It's more visceral than that, and at the same time I think has more to do with a sense of meaning.

I'm not sure being happy is all it's chalked up to be as a measure. It's better than how rich you are, I guess, but in the end I don't know that it's what really makes life worth living for most. It's interesting that things like suffering in the end also contribute a lot to people's sense of meaning in life.

I haven't watched this yet but regarding motherhood and 'happiness;' society doesn't make it easy to be a mother in particular.

The amount of manipulation by advertising, lack of real rest and support, childcare, expectations that careers are unaffected, lack of valuing the most important role/ job of raising a child is appalling. It's why mumsnet exists.

Whether we live in / are affected by 'patriarchy' or if it's actually capitalism is something I grapple with.

'The affluenza virus' book really impacted how I see current society, with my own backdrop of history of art (which is all about culture, capitalism and social structures). It basically showed how advertising via media influenced our psyche of "how we should be" which led to increased rates of depression and eating disorders.

Capitalism has driven gender stereotypes in terms of marketing excess clothing choices for women and girls, pinkification, the pink tax, make up etc. I can put a different lens on and say it's patriarchy keeping us in our place, and I think it was in the past, can still
be seen as such, but at the end of the day it's all for financial gain.

If I was more awake I could track how it has led to the trans movement. Which is all about image and money.

Oh my gosh, yes. That was incredible. I've heard Yeonmi Park speak to a lot of interviewers, but that conversation was unbelievably intense and moving.

Peterson's gets a lot from his interviewees in my opinion.

I agree. And, more importantly, something different.

Yes, you could just "let the interviewee talk", but if every interviewer just did that, then every interview of a subject would be very similar.

Having the interviewer lead the interviewee down paths the interviewer is interested will likely get something new from them. And as someone who's seen at least a dozen Helen Joyce interviews, I appreciate that.

Please don't tell me you think that those of us who haven't had children are missing out on the meaning of life...

Of course not. I know a couple who can’t (sadly) have children - not by choice - but they do add other dimensions to their lives in terms of career, etc, that others of us don’t.

This is one of my disagreements with Peterson. He has said that people who don't have kids are not properly adult. I can agree with that as a broad generalisation about how we go from being mainly concerned with ourselves to taking responsibility for others. But really I disagree because a) many people who have children don't seem to have 'grown up' themselves; and b) many childless/childfree people seem responsible and dutiful and have lots of meaning in their lives.

This was something he said in a discussion with Russell Brand, and Russell disagreed on instinct but didn't have a well-worked out argument. I'm not sure how much I'm mischaracterising JP's view here as it's not something I've heard him say in that way elsewhere. Anyway, it's a minor point, but always irks me a little!

Christ. Have you never met anyone who has decided they don't want children and is really happy with that decision? Do you assume that anyone who doesn't have children is somehow lacking or sad?

You're being a bit harsh pattiehews! Kellie was agreeing with you.

And this is where I part company with JP too. So Nicola Sturgeon, Elizabeth I, Dian Fossey and George Eliot (clutching names out of the air) don't count as adults? All the childfree lawyers and head teachers and doctors and politicians of my acquaintance, women who keep all our services going — they aren't adults? It's so fucking insulting.

I'd say that many of us who have taken the rational decision not to have children have actually demonstrated how adult we are. This is one of the last taboos in society. We're really not supposed to talk about how women are expected to sacrifice their lives, their health and their creativity to bear and raise the next generation.

Was she? I read it as saying it was tragic that people couldn't have children but nice that they could find other things like careers to compensate for their lack of kids. It's as if Kellie lives in a world where women can't have children and a fulfilling career.

No, she was agreeing with you. The couple she spoke about were not childfree by choice, so she noted that this was sad for them.

I don't agree with JP about childfree/childless people not being fully adult, but I do accept that there is a fundamental role of being a parent/provider that adds a dimension to life that childfree people do not experience. I think that's fair enough. Where I disagree is the idea that childfree people cannot find that level of responsibility and service in other areas of life. But maybe he is right in that there aren't many other experiences which so intensely shape a person as becoming a parent. It's also what we are born to do (men and women) so in a sense those who choose not to have kids are always going to be outsiders and perhaps that's also what he's suggesting there.

(I actually don't think Sturgeon counts as an adult, but that's by the by!)

I still don't read it that way. So are we to assume that the only child-free people she knows are infertile people?

I'm not sure lumping all parents in together as one homogeneous group is particularly helpful. I know parents who regret going down that path as well as those who feel their lives are enhanced by having children and those who are ambivalent.

We are in the very early days of women being able to talk openly about not wanting children and finding themselves supported in that opinion rather than vilified. It's like being in the early stages of women pushing for the vote. Give it 50, 60, 70 years and I think many more women are likely to decide to override the hormonal urge to procreate. We may be genetically programmed to do certain things, but we've survived this long and destroyed this planet partly because of the plasticity of our brains and our ability to adapt.

Anyway, please don't let my irritation with JP's attitude to motherhood put you off listening, it's well worth it.

Yes I have. I said ‘sadly’ in this case because they really wanted children but were unable. Hope that clarifies things. There are of course people who seek fulfilment in other ways.

I've already listened pattihews. I've been listening to JP for years now so you wouldn't put me off. I don't expect to agree with him or you or anyone about everything.

I think it's fine to talk about parents and non-parents as two distinct groups, but agree that beyond broad generalisations or evolutionary arguments we would need to be more specific.

Kellie, it was clear what you meant.

That's quite a stretch, given that the post was about measuring happiness among people who have children.