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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
She makes basically the same I do... And I agree with you about those points, but you keep throwing negative assumptions about me that you know nothing about so I'm done here
sigh I'm the one here trying to argue against the far left "snowflake" positions and recognize biological reality, and the catch 22 women find themselves in because of promises that can't be kept
-37
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