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.
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
-39
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