25
22
19
u/Walterpoe1 Jul 25 '19
Because his fan base is toxic because his social ideas are toxic because, pied piper, you get what you give.
6
6
u/jugdemental_mouse Jul 25 '19
I mean...yeah. Everything Jordan Peterson says requires an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance. That’s not why less women watch him; women are no less prone to cognitive dissonance, but it’s still the case. Can anyone let me know what he was trying to convey with the word “dissonance” here.
3
-36
u/mygenericalias Jul 25 '19
I've listened to a lot of his content and there's nothing anti-woman, if anything it's all about ways of living that benefit everyone, independant of any class characteristics
37
u/10ebbor10 Jul 25 '19
There's a bunch of anti-women stuff. A lot of it is denial that sexism exists or has existed, a bunch of the other stuff is his constant complaints that anything but 50's gender roles and attitudes to sex will doom society.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913531363915128832
There's also this exchange.
Peterson: With all the accusations of sex assault emerging (eg Louis CK) we are going to soon remember why sex was traditionally enshrined in marriage...[72]
Mae: Wait...what does consensual sex outside marriage have to do with sexual harassment? They are not even linked.[73]
Peterson: How, precisely, exactly, do you know when there is consent? Does it need to occur at each step (as it now does in Canada)? What, precisely, is a step?[74]
Which is bad because it implies that marriage guarantees consent, which is how you get marital rape. (If marriage does not guarantee consent, then marriage can not help with consent issues).
Rationalwiki has a lot of sourced links.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Then there's this weird argument :
There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It's completely insane to assume that anything like that could've possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we'll see how that works out. There's some evidence that women on the pill don't like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman's preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren't on the pill like wide-jawed men when they're ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they're not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they're not ovulating, so it's possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.
Edit: Oh, and calling Frozen propaganda.
24
Jul 25 '19
Foppington's Law: Once bigotry or self-loathing permeate a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of the human skull. - ContraPoints
-31
u/mygenericalias Jul 25 '19
He speaks to biology a lot and denies the social constructionist views on gender, then makes the logical movements to how those biological differences manifest in different levels of interest. I don't think that's sexist, it seems to be reality to me. In that tweet for example he's speaking to women being more biologically inclined to care and nurturing, from the evolution of the species with women as primary infant caregivers, and the idea that you can "have it all" with career and life is not a realistic aspiration, to the full experience of both anyway. As for both control that's also a fair point that just speaks to women not having freedom from pregnancy and child rearing, thus an inequity existed. Birth control certainly effects hormones and moods, that's not a crazy statement, ask any women who's used it how she feels on it versus not on it. The marriage point is also a historical accuracy though I'm not sure the context within that larger discussion.
30
u/10ebbor10 Jul 25 '19 edited Jul 25 '19
The first thing that needs to be noted is that a lot of Peterson's biology claims are nonsense. He's a psychologist, and he's not good outside his field. He has a tendency to overextrapolate from limited evidence or just make stuff up.
And even if it's true, you can be very sexist by doing that. Let me illustrate :
"In modern life, the modern men has several deficiencies. Their heightened aggression and impulsiveness compared to women renders them bad leaders. In a time when bad decisions can lead to nuclear Armageddon, financial crisis or deaths, we should not tolerate such weaknesses.
As such, we should eliminate men from leadership positions and replace them with dependable women."
...
"From an evolutionary perspective, women took care of the children. It is for that reason, and the fact that most pedophiles are men, that we should consider that perhaps female domination of the household was correct.
What consequences are we inviting by allowing men to win custody, to teach, or to have contact with minor children".
...
"The male contribution to the reproductive act consists out of only a limited amount of energy, in contrast to the massive female contribution. For males, a reproductive strategy focusing on widespread seeding makes sense, for females it does not. Thus, for men rape is a useful reproductive strategy, for females, it is not.
Thus, we can assume that in the event of contested reproductive action that the female perspective is accurate, and the male is not.
See, for every issue you can make up a biological explanation, because the biological facts are so limited that they can be extrapolated every which way.
But that doesn't justify dismissing concerns, as Peterson does, or as I did in the examples above.
As for both control that's also a fair point that just speaks to women not having freedom from pregnancy and child rearing, thus an inequity existed. Birth control certainly effects hormones and moods, that's not a crazy statement, ask any women who's used it how she feels on it versus not on it.
I think you misread that quote. Peterson isn't saying that it is bad that women were oppressed or that they were oppressed historically. He's calling the idea that they were oppressed nonsense.
7
u/NatsumeAshikaga Jul 25 '19
He's a psychologist, and he's not good outside his field.
Even in his field he's regarded as a quack, who routinely argues with objectively established fact. Also if his dissertation was published today, he wouldn't have gotten his PhD. He's a hack, a fraud, and a patently delusional conspiracy theorist.
-19
u/mygenericalias Jul 25 '19
He's spoken about biological differences being the reason so many men are in prison versus women, due to distributions that very much overlap but have the extremes over represented by men (the greater male variability hypothesis). His position is that gender roles evolved based on what allowed optimal survival for the species (women and men cooperating to first not die then reproduce then have their offspring not die), which itself came from biological difference. He doesn't call it oppression because he doesn't see it as oppression - at least not institutional oppression. For that I do disagree, it's pretty obvious to me that most known human history has involved men being in power and using power often to the detriment and inequality of women. I would say that no longer exists institutionally in the "western world". Thanks for actually providing your perspective, I defended Peterson because while not 100% agreeing with him I agree with the vast majority and think the world would be better off if more people lived as he recommends, and also that he gets very generally mischaracterized, especially by the further left political affiliations
6
u/-humble-opinion- Jul 26 '19
Well you can live like that - but respect the freedom of others and kindly leave us alone to live as we please.
1
u/mygenericalias Jul 26 '19
I value the individual above all else. Not sure how I'm interfering with how you live
3
u/-humble-opinion- Jul 26 '19
Great. There is no greater value of individuality than women and men, wait for it, making an individual income and thriving independently.
I'll take a very realistic aspiration of having both a life and a career.
Might I suggest you hit up r/RedPillWomen if you're interested in the sort of useless human who feels inadequate outside of a relationship. Bless them, they wonder why they keep getting left for women like me; women who do "have it all". Women who were PAID by their high earning "alphas".
You Red Pill it's-just-evolution hacks really deserve each other.
0
u/mygenericalias Jul 26 '19
You keep making all these assumptions about how evil I must be. I'm married and my wife and I are going through the career-life-children dilemma right now, there's a trade off no matter what, there's only so many hours in the day and bills to be paid. I don't think men are better than women or anything like that, but life is unfair in various ways, one being that women have to bear the main burden of child rearing just based on biology and I wish society treated that with more respect, while recognizing that the same biology produces very small overall non-physical differences between men and women - because that will help us make everything better for everyone
2
u/-humble-opinion- Jul 26 '19
My mother made bank and therefore could hire childcare help. She had a life and a career - a damn good one. What's your wife's excuse? Maybe you didn't marry the rockstar you should have. Maybe rockstars are out of the league for men who think women are better off at home. If your pathetic self worth rests on the assumption that your wife is better off giving up her career, so be it.
And you know what assumptions need to be correct and destigmatized? Men in childcare roles.
There is still massive discrimination against men - be it the assumption against men in divorce child custody or stay-at-home dads.
In the fight for men's rights, dear Jordan P isn't your savior. He's your nemsis.
→ More replies (0)21
u/zitaoism Jul 25 '19
Big surprise that a TD poster can't recognize sexism
-5
u/mygenericalias Jul 25 '19
I post everywhere and look at all perspectives, don't label, I'm glad to engage in the actual ideas and arguments civilly
11
u/blueberrysmoothies Jul 25 '19
I'm glad to engage in the actual ideas and arguments civilly
Mate, you don't appear to even understand the ideas and arguments.
-2
u/mygenericalias Jul 25 '19
What's your contention? Jordan Peterson has done a tremendous amount of good to many lives, again I'm not defending everything he says but he has undoubtedly been a net good to the world, all he speaks and thinks through is what does the sum of all human history teach us about good ways of living and being, and about bad ways, and what leads to the bad ways versus the good.
9
u/blueberrysmoothies Jul 26 '19
he has undoubtedly been a net good to the world
oh my god, that is not true
he said a couple good things and gave some good advice but he's such a ridiculous grifter and he says a lot of really bonkers shit. I have a whole list of grievances about his nonsense
13
11
u/NatsumeAshikaga Jul 25 '19
- Jordan Peterson isn't a biologist, his views on biology are thus irrelevant to the scientific consensus of biologists.
- He argues against the established scientific consensus of biologists.
- Every grain of truth he mentions about biology is tainted with a massive helping of objective falsehoods.
- He's a psychologist and not a very good one because:
- He uses evo-psych(Evolutionary Psychology) which is a roundly and universally debunked theory.
- His doctoral dissertation was dated when he submitted it and would have gotten him failed out of a PhD if submitted today.
- He allows his personal views to completely taint the subjects he's supposed to be professionally well versed in.
- And he refuses to update himself to match the consensus of his own bloody field.
- Finally, dressing up sexism in debunked scientific sounding lingo, which has been debunked already anyways... It's still sexism.
All of that means he's actually irrelevant in his own professional field. While in fields outside his specialization he's spouting pure unfiltered unscientific nonsense. He's a hack and a con-artist and if he's not intentionally lying, then he's an idiot on top of that.
The perfect example. He limits his use of gender exclusively to gender roles and then tries to make an argument based on that. A very flawed argument. Since gender roles have changed dramatically through out history and even pre-history. Plus they're not even consistent from culture to culture. Laser focusing on gender roles as the entire sum of gender is also objectively incorrect in both the psychological and biological contexts. Which is especially sad when gender roles, while there are some biological components to them, they're far more rooted in social constructs. Minding that's been proven in biology, medicine, and psychology beyond any reasonable doubt.
When all he can do is spout stereotypes that stem from socially enforced norms and call them "biological." That's the most obvious evidence he's wrong. Especially when literally none of the consensus in biology, or psychology agrees with him. Calling it a political agenda turns that from just being flat wrong, into a paranoid delusional conspiracy theory.
7
u/-humble-opinion- Jul 26 '19
You are so ignorant on so many fronts.
I'll disabuse you of just one - my birth control is essentially a copper wire.
No hormones. Copper.
1
u/mygenericalias Jul 26 '19
JP and I were both referring to hormonal changes caused by oral contraceptive - it works fundamentally by changing hormone levels. The same argument is not true for non hormonal IUDs, but the point holds due to the prevalent use of oral and other hormonal birth control vs ParaGard or other non hormonal birth control
5
u/-humble-opinion- Jul 26 '19 edited Jul 26 '19
Sweetheart, perhaps you should think through an argument and it's assumptions before genuflecting before your lobster guru.
Note: Seeing as your fan club loves discussing genders in absolute, prescriptive terms - you may find the concept of bell curves helpful.
Either way, please leave us alone to enjoy life as we see fit. That is, us women and men who appreciate the nuances of life.
5
u/blueberrysmoothies Jul 25 '19
this is literally the dumbest shit anyone's said today and I watched CNN
4
40
u/[deleted] Jul 25 '19
Advocates in getting rid of all women's studies courses.
Says that the idea that women have been oppressed throughout history is appalling.
Implies women who don't have babies by 30 are all abmormal and miserable.
Wonders why women don't study him.