sustainability, nutrition, emotional and spiritual awareness

This is Part 2 of Jordan Peterson: An overview originally published May 27.

When he says enforced monogamy, JP isn’t necessarily referring to the waifus advocated by incels (see below). More, enforced by societal norms that encourage lifetime pair bonding (such as no sex before marriage) and societal norms which support monogamy and protect or mandate against its demise (such as legally preventing divorce), or as he put it ‘social convention favoring stable pair bonding’ (shaming single women but not single men, and allowing rape during marriage in the 1980s are some conventions he might be otherwise referencing

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

This seems to endorse the ‘feminist’ idea that marriage is an institution that is designed to control the sexuality of women.

‘So I don’t know who these people think marriages are oppressing. I read Betty Friedan’s book because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake, you — you — ” –JP

He doesn’t think divorce laws should have been liberalized in the 1960s. He states relationships are harder to find now because tinder and casual sex made it easier- which is probably true, and in this sense the feminist liberation of having the contraceptive pill functioned to provide women ‘freedom from’ unhappy coupling but perhaps reduced their ‘freedom for’ being valued as a partner more so than a disposable sexual commodity. (The liberation in sexual attitude which were there commodified as porn now mass consumed with high levels of violence and degradation in order to sell, and with younger and younger exposure to more advanced sex acts and expectations on young girls for anal and fully removing pubic hair (link*)

That said,

Pretty ironic to argue against a sexual heirachy or to fight for sexual marxism.

A Women’s Place…?

As with racial discrimination, JP dismisses and minimises the cultural factors surrounding the pay gap by blaming it on women’s personalities and them not doing dangerous jobs. He says that in Scandinavia the ratio of nurses is high nurses 20:1, and male engineers 20:1 and claims these are ineradicable traits, as women are more agreeable (medical and nursing they excel, women are caregivers). He is thus implying that this is biological and not nurtured by socialisation.

A Canadian Study
cited by the economist found that women shied away from “masculine” sounding jobs because they feared they wouldn’t belong, not because of the job itself, to explain the continued disparity, likewise toxic masculinity is a barrier to men taking caring, reception, and other traditionally women’s which have lower pay. JP’s approach is to not listen to what women are actually saying about their experience, and to blame, dismiss and minimise their experience.

Despite it forming a massive portion of modern psychological thought, he does not address socialisation as an issue, when it is raised he dismisses that it is possible or more importantly, desirable to change. In the below clip he avoids directly addressing the question about the ways women are disadvantaged, reducing it only to them bearing children, then listing the fact that men die younger, and concluding with: ‘yeah both genders have it bad but to reduce that to a consequence of the social structure, it’s like ‘c’mon, really?”

Yes Jordan, really.

‘Of course you’re oppressed… but to think of that as the consequnce if unjust social structure is just moronic’.

No Jordan… that’s literally the definition of oppressed: ‘subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment’; to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power’.

He concludes that as the women are able to attend an intellectual lecture in warmth on a Saturday morning that ‘there’s no gratitude for what our society is capable of doing‘. This is a healthy message ‘be grateful’ concealing a deeper belief ‘men built this amazing world and did the dangerous work, it is only your essential biological nature limiting you, be thankful for what we have bestowed on you—and stop complaining’.

JP states that the rise of neuroticism and overrepresentation of depression and anxiety in woman, and alcoholism and drug abuse in men is due to biological difference, and again fails to address socialisation.

He again mixes this problematic logic with relatively benign but interesting observations:

1. Men are bigger but women attack husbands physically more in marriage- why? women know they won’t actually harm their husband. But if he hits her he will. [A salient observation for MRA’s about power imbalance and deaths]

2. The world is more dangerous to women, physically vulnerable, sexually vulnerable (the cost of sex is higher for them) [problematic when used to justify existing toxic structures or cultural practices]

3. Women’s nervous systems are adapted to mother-infant dyad. Women are not the same person after puberty, have to express the vulnerability of the infant and care for it, breastfeeding for 9 months. Price that women pay for infant intimacy, and that temperament doesn’t work well with adult men, especially in a business environment.

He says:

Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. Disagreeable people are tough minded, competitive, blunt. Predatory aggression, dominance behaviour, want to compete and win. Exploitation: middle age women who are hyper conscientious and agreeable do disproportionate amount labour for corporations. They do everything, don’t take credit for it, and don’t complain. Wired to be exploited by infant, and agreeable to keep peace for infants, but they don’t know what they want.

When he says women are more agreeable and if they fix that, the problem will go away, not only is he massively generalising, he is victim blaming and dismisses the wide array of structural and barriers and cultural factors at play—which he is also reinforcing.

Regarding agreeableness: women in the workplace are criticised for apologizing too often, speaking in self-deprecating terms, or appearing too cautious. But men do the same thing, it’s received in a completely different way. For example, a woman using vocal fry in her speech is often viewed as being unintelligent or unsure. When a man does it, however, it’s considered perfectly normal.

On the flip side, research shows that while men in leadership positions are often viewed as “assertive,” women with similar traits are “bitchy” or “shrill” or unlikeable, (see satirical Comic on how to appear ‘non-threatening’)

JP denies the importance of bias and explicitly dismissed implicit bias (link).

“Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.  These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.  Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness.  Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.” –Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity

Implicit biases are the reason corrective hiring actions are required. Access is not equal due to discrimination. This is not due to any isolated ‘corruption’ or conspiracy, but more a generalised bias throughout all of society that is not solely based on objective fact. For example,

  • a child on a video-clip playing with a jack-in-the-box. It popped up, the child was startled and jumped backward. When people were asked, what’s the child feeling, those who were given a female label said, “she’s afraid.” But the ones given a male label said, “he’s angry.”

  • children with male names were more likely to be rated as strong, intelligent, and active; those with female names were more likely to be rated as little, soft, and so forth;

  • When parents were asked to predict their child’s ability to climb a slide, they consistently underrated the girls ability, even though there was no difference, both sexes babies performed the same.

  • University professors given a great resume and an average resume labelled male or female:

  1. The male was rated as having higher research productivity. (Females face different expectations for the same reward).

  2. The same list of courses was seen as good teaching experience when the name was male, and less good teaching experience when the name was female.

  3. 70% said yes to hire the male, 45% for the female.

  4. If the decision were made by majority rule, the male would get hired and the female would not.

  5. Reservations such as ‘”This person looks very strong, but before I agree to give her tenure I would need to know, was this her own work or the work of her adviser?” were expressed four times more often when the name was female than when the name was male.

  6. Scientists’ perception of the quality of a candidate will influence the likelihood that the candidate will get a fellowship, a job, resources, or a promotion.

A pattern of biased evaluation therefore will occur even in people who are absolutely committed to gender equity.

Peterson is against this equality of outcomes but can’t recognise it is one of our only available avenues to create social change and begin to dismantle implicit bias. JP says ‘if you want to understand someone’s motivations, look to the consequences‘. When he reduces the pay gap to women’s agreeableness, Peterson is reinforcing existing ideas which underlie the social and cultural barriers to equality of access and opportunity, and when he oppose equal hiring, he is preventing change. The end result is men remaining dominant, retaining the facade of white males being more ‘competent’, unchanged role expectations, including toxic masculinity, and retaining the status quo.

Besides. Like most other sex differences (aside from ovaries and testes), the overlap on sex differences between the bell curves on agreeableness is so vast as to render the differences negligible to all but the minority. This makes it far more likely that it is not increased agreeableness that holds women back in the workplace, but the cultural expectation of agreeableness, and other factors (JP quoted analysis which apparently found 26 but has not provided a link to one which actually includes agreeableness).

Even with the research on male/female brain differences, which already incorporate the impact of socialisation into the way the brain’s developed, the percentage of individuals under the same bell curve where any given male could score within the females range is when it comes to research on sex differences 76+% of people overlap, and differences are small

JP claims sexual harassment won’t stop because we don’t know what the rules are working with women. But at the same time claims the rules are too restrictive and that they’re rapidly spreading.

He shames women for wearing makeup, saying they shouldn’t be simulating arousal in the workplace if they don’t want to be harrassed. Yet ignores the cultural mandates which shames and disadvantages those who don’t wear heels and make up (as much as it is often even part of company policy), ignores the fact most women don’t wear bright red blush and lipstick, and that men also emphasise attractiveness with padded shoulders or beards. He then emphasises that successful women in law firms are very attractive: simultaneously blaming women and ignoring cultural context.

In ‘women at 30’ JP states women in a high powered job wake up and realise they want to have a relationship and prioritise family; uses this as a justification for the lack of success for females without addressing the double standard that men aren’t expected to give up work. EG paid maternity and laws to allow womens careers to continue are designed to prevent the year of pregnancy stopping their fulfilling their aspirations; men should have equal paternity leave and in many places do, as fought for by the feminists JP holds such disdain for.

Age of first promotion tends to be at age of first child, and managers are reluctant to promote women who are starting families, or are likely to do so soon, but not fathers. ‘In Sweden, which increased the parental leave earmarked for fathers from two months to three in 2016, one study estimated that every month of leave a father took boosted his partner’s salary four years later by 7%.’ Though Australian men ask for flexible working less often than women they are much more likely to be rejected. … ‘Government policies also play a role in men’s and women’s decisions about how to combine parenthood and jobs. They do more than raise or lower the cost of working for women. They shape men’s and women’s expectations for their own and each others’ careers—and companies’ decisions about whom to hire and promote.’ – The economist

‘Women have to take primary responsibility for having infants at least, then also for caring for them. They’re structured differently than men for biological necessity. Women know what they have to do. (Men have to figure out what they have to do. And if they have nothing worth living for, then they stay Peter Pan.).’

Presumably, JP thinks the uneven division of child raising and household labour is justified as he labels this a women’s responsibility, but fails to see how this could tie in with the fact women do not succeed as men do in the work place. He also fails to see that parenthood is a choice for women as much as for men deciding if they will have children—and that women have as much work to do finding meaning purpose and identity as men, that the role of a father should be as emotionally and physically large as that of a mother (AKA absent fathers working demanding jobs are not good for children), AND that women can express for men to bottle feed.

Comic about workplace expectations .

This makes more sense in light of his criticisms of the birth control pill because women would likely be happier if they “allow themselves to be transformed by nature into mothers,” and because allowing women to choose anything other than motherly transformation leads to declining birth rates “in the West” that might “do us all in.” He says it was the pill which caused social change and not feminists; I would be interested to know his thoughts on devilish feminists gaining women the right to vote (or how the pill achieved that!).

What is a relationship for?

Of relationships, he says: ‘What you do in a relationship that works is that you actually fall in love with what they could be… so you’re bringing your flaws together, and that’s going to produce a lot of friction, and you are going to have to engage in a lot of dialogue before you reach that level of perfection that you originally had in the other person’s eyes. But maybe you can do it. And then you would live happily ever after.”

Then he says: Relationships are not for happiness.

JP believes children are what give us meaning past 45 into old age. Therefore women bearing children is necessary and a great service to males, and yet his focus is on the sacrifice males make by working, not the sacrifice women make by giving up their jobs, independence and bodies.

Rejecting people because they were too nice, someone biting you psychologically is what keeps a relationship linked together; looking for someone you have to contend with who is going to judge you harshly for your limitations, this will make you angry and resentful, and you’ll take your revenge and all of this…’

The rhetoric is problematic as it can be used to justify abuse and reinforces MGTOW & incel ideology about ‘nice guys’ (see incel discussion below):


Do we need feminism?

JP is vocally anti feminist; he justifies this by pointing to extremists but it isn’t just the extremists he takes issue with. He responded to Justin Trudeau (and his centrist-right government) supporting feminists as ‘inspiring and motivating’ and labelled this attitude ‘a murderous equity doctrine’. As the Canadian prime minister is not what he would call a ‘radical feminist who wants to dominate men’, presumably (as with the transgender pronouns) there is actually a deeper, unnamed objection at play. His stance is also reactionary and as such, is as unbalanced as that which he criticises.

The essence of feminism being about not objectifying or commodifying women, not reducing them to inferior baby makers, allowing women and men freedom to do what the opposite sex do (when they are equally competent) to the extent of supporting them in full development from birth, giving them bodily autonomy and choice (aka not enforcing monogamy, and the choice to not bear children, which is supposedly their responsibility). JP reduces his objection to this to ‘lack of science’ (‘they have lost that argument’), and labels such as identity politics.

Women fighting for rights such as that to vote, to divorce, to not be discriminated or sexually harassed in the workplace, to have safe access to abortion, to have paid maternity leave, and to not be murdered by their partners or incels due to toxic masculinity (aka the women’s rights movement, composed of ‘feminists’) are no different to the civil rights movement. It is not identity politics as it seeks to place women as the same as men and seeks to also liberate men from toxic masculinity. In much the same way slave owners worked against civil rights by justifying blacks as different, JP emphasises men and women are different when he says the pay gap is due to how women are and denies structural discrimination.

Peterson claims women supporting Islamic women have ‘an unconscious wish for brutal male domination’, given his ideology is based around the dominance of males and an aggressive competitive society; given his ideas of men and dominance hierachies, this is likely a pure projection.

When female journalists interview him (such as Cathy Newman) they receive a torrent of violent and misogynist backlash ‘cunt, bitch, dumb blonde’. The undertow his ideas feeds into are violent, misogynistic and problematic beliefs, thus many people with those beliefs follow him and he is a cult for young white men, not women, not mixed race people.

‘The idea that women were suppressed throughout history is an appalling theory’. This is in essence the same as denying the holocaust and dismisses their voices and experience; it is the patriachial notion that he knows better than they do what they truly want, need and feel. Women were suppressed: not allowed to vote, but also raped, beaten, sold, traded—as the physically weaker sex, by men who were not capable of valuing them. This still occurs around the world. It is victim blaming to say that women who are traded as sex slaves have themselves to blame due to their inherent weakness that they deserve to be exploited. Either that or he says they were suppressed because that’s where they belong. There is an inherent lack of responsibility attributed to those who perpetrate these and other acts. His intellectualisations provide justification for those who in positions to make societal change to avoid responsibility. This is divisionary and validates men at the expense of all others.

Women don’t understand that men… at least to the extent that they’re uncorrupted and not bitter about being rejected, are doing everything they can to kneel before the eternal image of the feminine… and try to make themselves worthy’. (See toxic masculinity discussion about worthiness below)

That’s the chivalry story. Out of chaos emerges the feminine. Novelty: threat and promise, hope and anxiety. I don’t know if women have any idea how paralysing they are, especially to young men. Terrified of women, terrified of being rejected. Terror in proportion to attraction to the woman’.

(MRAs mustn’t have been listening blaming this age old nervousness on feminism)

They don’t see her as an individual, they see her as the manifestation of a judgemental ideal. In establishing a relationship… this requires a sacrifice because you never can have an ideal woman.’

In some ways, perhaps that is true.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.’ –JP

No. The men will just be violent against that one woman. Men kill women when they try to leave abusive relationships.

This is victim blaming. This is why women needed feminism to be free and able to leave abusive relationships, and to change the masculinity constructs that lead to men being violent, when as JP said (above), the man won’t be harmed, but the women can die.

It is quite ironic when elected as a figurehead and defender of such as the incel community (see below) who yet miss this explicit message (‘take responsibility’), instead focussing on the implicit blame (‘women did this to you’).

Maybe if men were taking a more ‘feminist’ approach: 1) taking equal share of housework and parenting 2) not objectifying and discriminating against women and 3) sexually satisfying women, moving away from phallocentric sex, or in the very least acknowledging that, for example, women can ejaculate, maybe the ‘feminist harpies’ wouldn’t be so upset. Those are things that would result in less incels, as a result of a change in culture. It’s admirable to encourage men to be better, but it’s not going to create meaningful change with the same patriarchal underlying values and beliefs.

Toxic masculinity says:

1. Women need to be conquered. They are prey. This relies on dominating them, there is an element of force and violence. This is the opposite of consent and forms a foundation for rape culture.

2. Men are valuable only if they can achieve this.

This leads to a sense of entitlement aka if I do A, I deserve B, with B being female subservience (meeting all emotional and physical needs without autonomy or objection—disregarding the reality that no one is entitled to someone else’s time, effort, body or mind).

These goals are male centric, encourage against supporting women (the culture doesn’t value males unconditionally supporting females: taken to the nth with MGTOW culture maintaining that woman are manipulative and exploitative and that those who trust and love women are ‘cucks’ and ‘betas’) and result in them being upset by challenge from females (while expecting it from males).

Someone who doesn’t do this, will have issue with ‘social justice warriors’ where:—

Jordan Peterson’s emphasis on heirachy and dominance, winners and losers, endorsing incels being angry and feeling like losers due to lack of sex as justified, with needing to get themselves together *in order to be in a relationship* reinforces this. This is amplified with statements such as ‘agreeable women don’t know what they want’ (above). And in this way his advice is nothing empowering.

‘Elliot Rodger,” the gunman who opened fire on students at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2014, killing six. In a video posted before his attack, Mr. Rodger called his planned attack “retribution” for the women who rejected him and for “all you men for living a better life than me.”one day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system. Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”’-media

‘Alek Minassian, the 25-year-old suspected of driving the van that plowed into pedestrians in Toronto’s Monday, killing 10 and hospitalising 14, predominantly women posted, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys. All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!’ –Media

Before this, Marc Lépine’s slaughter of 14 female engineering students at Université de Montréal’s École Polytechnique in 1989—was driven by a misogynistic rage: Lépine ordered men out of a classroom, shouted “You’re all a bunch of feminists, and I hate feminists!,” then opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle he later turned on himself. (And Peterson wonders why the women aren’t studying engineering).

Defining INCEL

Peterson reiterates and legitimises the ‘Chad and stacy’ rhetoric of the incels:

‘the “eternal feminine” as “the crushing force of sexual selection”…‘Most men do not meet female human standards . . . It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, ‘No!’ ’ -12 rules.

in terms of increasing sexual inequity in favour of alpha men… sexual access for males is a Pareto distribution pheneomena where a small proportion of a males get most of the invitations… the thing that is a bulwark for that is monogamy… recipe for resentment and aggression‘ –video

He fails to give adequate weight to unrealistic beauty standards and sexual expectations, and issues of power and control which underly the issues facing the young men perpetrating the these hate crimes.

‘For the record most of these men don’t want a relationship with a real person. Women aren’t that fucking complicated, and if you just act like a human being with compassion many are willing to accept your shortcomings. They do not want real women, they want fuck dolls they can humiliate so they feel better about themselves. Because what’s going to happen after the 4 second of sex is they will feel even less like men and that would be her fault too‘. -Facebook commenter

Violence against sex dolls

‘The appeal, then, of sex robots, is that while they look like a pornified ideal of women, they are not like real human women in a very key way. They have no voice. They don’t say no, they don’t have their their own sexuality, they don’t have their own tastes and sexual proclivities..’

(This is reflected by manosphere “traditional marriage” advocates, who argue that you should aim to marry a very young woman as she’s likely to be easier to control).

‘The idealisation of the woman who never says no; the normalisation of sexual aggression; the eroticisation of non-consent – this is the reality of sex robots and this is what lies behind the attack on Samantha’.

This is reflected in common manosphere use of the word ‘femoids’ reflecting the dehumanising idea that women are robotic or sub-human.

While doing their research in 1998, Dr. Burgess said they were “startled” by the number of men who described their ideal relationship based on what kind of female body they wanted. Buying into the idea that masculinity is defined by a tally of sexual conquests, they blamed women–who they had trouble seeing as fully human–for not giving them what they felt was their due.

Much of the incel culture initially solidified on 4chan which had an extreme emphasis on liberty ‘in which isolated man-boys asserted their right to do or say anything no matter someone else’s feelings. This meant generally posting pornography, swastikas, racial slurs, and content that reveled in harm to other people’…’celebrated failure — that from the very beginning encouraged anyone who posted to “become an hero” (their term for killing themselves, and sometimes others in the bargain)’, and led to anonymous who don the Guy Fawkes mask, Gamergate in 2014 (someone’s ex cheated on him-> stemmed into Gamergaters saying that “SJWs” were promoting gender equality in video games-> Yiannopoulos arguing against feminism-‘men they can and should walk away from the female sex en masse’).

The meme Pepe was popularised by 4chan and later used as a symbol by alt-right & white supremacy groups ; Jordan seems less concerned with this association—

than his analysis of the princess and the frog, which though psychologically apt, ‘maybe turns into the thing of the highest value- marriage- profound immaturity of our cultures waiting around to find the perfect person for them- the perfection is something you build within a relationship- swear that you won’t run from each other- and engage in a process of mutual transformation as a consequence of telling the truth‘, fails to grasp that Pepe is the frog archetype hijacked- it no longer is a frog who is wise and grows but instead only does what ‘feels good man’. (JP acknowledges this briefly in passing ‘underground comic horror associated with it that I find distasteful‘ but again fails to address it in any meaningful way).

(This video defines the right as ‘the forces of order people who create the norm’ and states they are being marginalised, which the frog symbolises- the supplement then minimalises the political use of these images and dismisses its significance citing benign uses elwsewhete- gaslighting ‘SJW’s that it was only their projection— as if there was no inherent meaning to Pepe at all- ‘he is everything and nothing at the same time’.)

The solution happens inside the chaos. If it’s a very complex problem you have to go far into chaos to find the solution. But there’s always the risk of losing yourself. The thing about dragons- about confronting things that terrify you- is that they can actually eat you.’ -JP

This acute psychological wisdom is lost on himself when he then labels the left chaos ‘LGBTQ etc’ as ‘endless multiplication of identities’, failing to grasp his own wisdom that you need to go into it to find the answer, not to reject the feminine; instead of surrendering, trying to control via ‘masculine’ judgement and order. By claiming the multiplication is indefinite- this shows a lack of trust in the feminine, to go into ‘the belly of the whale’.

JP claims ‘Logos is the most important part of western civilisation’ where logos is the principle of divine reason and creative order; (in Jungian psychology) the principle of reason and judgement, associated with the animus. He fails to grasp this imbalance is the problem SJW’s seek to redress; imbalance like that is not sustainable healthy. Yin and yang as masculine and feminine exist together in equal Balance and harmony, one feeds into the other, healthy humans have both and merely supplement each other as they cycle through both together as a team, of equals. One maybe stronger in the feminine reflection and one may be stronger in the masculine action but both energies are equally valid, important and necessary for human society. The refusal to accept this and surrender full power and control is to be stuck in the developmental phase of the teenage years—which is likely why late teen boys and adult males who have failed to make the transition into manhood resonate so strongly with his message—and it is externalisation, projection. Of blame which prevents this maturation. In this sense, whether he intends it or not, jordan himself is functioning as the archetype devouring mother of which he is so critical, by failing to speak these truths which would alienate his devout followers (it is also a marker of teen maturity to look for a hero to follow rather than follow your internal guidance).

Tweets animus

Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) believe that female oppression is a myth and that it’s actually males who are oppressed.

(Kimmy Schmidt tweet moments s04e03)
hyperbole that reveals the truth… it seems as if this critique is where the show has been headed all along. It was there from the start.
Females are still strong as hell.
– fights back in the war on men.”
-Masculinity is being criminalized in this country and I want something done did about it.”
– “That’s whose fault it is! Society used to make sense! Nuclear families, straight marriages, white quarterbacks. That’s the world the Reverend was trying to get back to. The bunker was a return to traditional values.”
– a nice guy overlooked by women in the same breath as admitting he gives women unwanted back massages
– Each boy is born with the key inside him to tame his own monster,”

Beyond this are MGTOW who believe ( ‘women are deceptive and will lie to get out of anything just because that’s their nature’ which accordingly to Wikipedia: called “The Four Levels of MGTOW.”

Level 0 – Situational Awareness: the member has “taken the red pill” and embraces the idea that gender equality is a lie and propaganda.
Level 1 – Rejection of Long-Term Relationships: the man rejects long-term relationships but will still partake in short-term relationships and sexual encounters.
Level 2 – Rejection of Short-Term Relationships: the member won’t participate in hook-ups or any form of short-term or sexual relationships.
Level 3 – Economic Disengagement: a member at this stage refuses to earn more money than is necessary for sustaining life. He views the government as tyrannical and is trying to actively drain money from the bureaucrats.
Level 4 – Societal Disengagement: this is as far as a mainstream MGTOW can go. Here the man refuses to interact with society.m

Peterson directly comments on MGTOW (Manosphere twitter links) but fails to grasp how he himself is endorsing the underlying beliefs.

He says:

MGTOW, They’ve had enough of women- have been divorced- don’t have a permanent relationship- don’t share your territory with a woman- don’t share your possession with a woman- don’t stay together long enough to be common law because you’ll be stripped of everything you have. They’ve confused the negative feminine archetype with ‘all women’. [mother wounding-> projection]. You’ve got to ask yourself

‘Maybe if you made the right sacrifices you wouldn’t have so much trouble with women’.

Because the women are telling you what’s wrong with you’.

Yeah jordan, we are.

A final aspect of toxic masculinity:

(This is exactly what Peterson is doing…)

Blaming women for unhappiness, either as an incel or by expecting them to emotionally regulate on behalf of men within a relationship IE emotional labour by female as opposed to self-reflection on feelings of unworthiness;

This is unhealthy and contributes a lot more to incel violence than lack of orgasm inside a vagina.

Men. Need. Feminism.

If you find the feminists movement contrary and vexatious, or you don’t like this article and the media coverage of jordan, I’ll leave you with this: ‘Someone who’s cold, that is, low in agreeableness and high in conscientiousness, will tell you every time. ‘Don’t come whining to me. I don’t care about your hurt feelings. Do your goddamn job or you’re going to be out on the street.’ One might think, ‘Oh that person is being really hard on me.’ Not necessarily. They might have your long term best interest in mind. You’re fortunate if you come across someone who is disagreeable. Not tyrannically disagreeable, but moderately disagreeable and high in conscientiousness because they will whip you into shape. And that’s really helpful. You’ll admire people like that. You won’t be able to help it. You’ll feel like, ‘Oh wow, this person has actually given me good information, even though you will feel like a slug after they have taken you apart.’ -JP.

I can only assume he wouldn’t expect or appreciate that person to be a woman.

Here is a comic to understand emotional labour


This is a collection of critiques placing Jordan Peterson’s more problematic ideas within a scientific, cultural and ideological context. It addresses him holistically as an individual to evaluate his appropriateness as a role model and mentor. There’s a lot to cover; please send refinements or additions. Where possible I have referenced or linked source, given the sheer volume of content this was not alway is possible if I have circled back to ideas from previously viewed JP content. This blog is split into two parts, Part 2 addresses feminism and masculinity in depth).


⁃ 12 rules of life is benign and unproblematic. JP as an activist, political and religious figurehead is less so–his ideas need to be read in a holistic social (not isolated intellectual) context

⁃ Seemingly innocuous ideas can have a problematic thread or undertow, and can be used to endorse or validate violent movements, and these ideas can be spread by a charismatic leader who mixes religious sermon with political claims; life coaching is a Trojan horse for a reactionary political agenda as a replacement for progressive politics

⁃ ‘Cultural marxism’ is not a real threat and not a justification for discrimatory, selfish or violent behaviour (claims of postmodern neomarxist agenda border on paranoia ‘communists plotting to destroy the west’)

⁃ Dominance hierarchy is used to justify maintaining a status quo which benefits JP’s predominantly white privileged male following (caveat being, he is best selling), but also maintains and perpetuates toxic masculinity

⁃ Although he doesn’t explicitly endorse them, JP is paid by incels, religious conservatives and alt right groups, and his viewership is dominantly white males. (Moderates who casually endorse his ideas on twitter are not reflective of his bread and butter).

‘I image him as an over-reaction to an over-reaction. Both are understandable, to a degree; neither should be embraced uncritically.’ –black truths review


Jordan Peterson is a brilliant psychologist and a seemingly open-minded and rational intellectual seeking understanding and meaning. He offers mostly benign, practical, comical and sometimes insightful life and relationship advice, such as spending 90 mins talking with your partner about your life once a week, with 1-2 date nights per week—

—or of always eating breakfast, eating if you’re anxious, avoiding excessive exposure to catastrophic news, or intentionally doing something nice for others once a week if you tend not to be compassionate.

Amongst my favourite of his quotes, ‘The Truth is the antidote to suffering’. I also like ‘I do not think that people can learn unless they admit that they’re wrong’. (These are salient in the context of what follows). His self-authoring suite (29.90) says ‘thinking about where you came from, who you are and where you are going helps you chart a simpler and more rewarding path through life.’ I agree, Jordan. Let’s.

Who is he as a person?

Clinically he may be warm. Ideologically he is cold, and often angry. He’s frustrated. He’s suspicious, cynical and at times bitter. Many of his ideas form a victim-persecuter-rescuer drama triangle.

Ideas are not harmless or distinct from emotional reality. But he knows that. A smart intellect can justify anything. And he does. He claims to be rational. But like anyone, his deeper beliefs are emotionally motivated, conditioned, irrational and unevolved (with his fair share of fears). He is an emotional person—with his intellect in service of rationalising his conservative feelings and desire to possess and control.

What does he do?

He functions outside his scope.

In part this may be due to a tendency to focus on ‘the Grand Narrative’ (especially in reaction to post-modernism), making evidence subservient to ideology.

Humans are not like lobsters at all, biologically speaking. Marine invetabraes often mate polygamamously and change sex/gender:

More specifically, there are 3 clawed lobster species, all north atlantic, and all of them do not have social heirarchy. Lobster are territorial, and solitary. Lobster of both sexes will fight each other like angry warriors, dominance isn’t based on sex, its based on size… They always back down from lobsters they have lost to, regardless of sex, some of this is regulated by dopamine, which Peterson argues creates a depression in lobsters: lobsters don’t get depressed, they only back away from fights they will lose. (More to the point, SSRIs in seawater make crustaceans lose normal, light-avoiding behavior).

He says we diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago, but biologically, chordata (our phylum) and arthropoda (lobsters’ phylum) actually diverged over a billion years ago.

JP has avoided referencing the large primates that live communally, EG bonobos, who have a lot of sex with males and females (pansexual) but only reproduce every 5-6 years. Bonobo community is run by female coalitions solidified by female/female sex, and males inherit social status matriarchally.

The problem is we have bonobo men thinking they’re lobsters.

In line with this, and if we’re going to look at it biologically:

More to the point, the male penis is evolved to remove other men’s cum. The human female ability to orgasm is fairly unique in the animal kingdom and functions for mate selection (as a representation of a males ability to devote himself to tasks that don’t bring him immediate rewards):

Is JP a religious conservative?

He’s incredibly intelligent and knows what not to say to lose an audience. Much of his psychological and self-help advice is well founded in his practice and from biblical wisdom, however as much as he seems a panacea to intellectuals who have eschewed religion for the intellect and rationale, he has simply repackaged the conservative belief system with a more intellectually appealing veneer. He presents ‘right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations’.

In the West, we have been withdrawing from our tradition-, religion- and even nation-centred cultures.”-JP

(This is patriotism. Which is often linked with racism, justifying war, genocide, oppression)

‘Intact heterosexual two-parent families constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.”…

Children do better with two parents and it teaches them relationships are trustworthy- having two people intertwined is stronger than one- deepens life in a way that isn’t possible with fragmentary relationships with different people- marriage is a sacrament because it spiritually and psychologically grows us’.

(I agree with that, actually.)

In one clip ( he eventually answers that yes he is Christian. At another time he says he doesn’t believe god exists but he’s afraid he does. He believes in evolution. He admires Christ and tries to emulate him. But JP often engages in intellectual tomfoolery to avoid directly answering. He says he doesn’t like being asked if he believes in god cos he doesn’t want to be boxed in and I believe that’s likely true ( At times he says that Christianity is how we act not what we believe (which I agree with and in that sense, am Christian) but as with his use of the term ‘marxist’, dilutes the meaning of the term as to make all kind people ‘Christian’. FWIW, apparently he has said he would like to buy a church to hold sermons, and has called the Bible “vital to proper psychological health.”


He defines ‘truth’ in a way that seems self-serving, dishonest and unrealistic, (aka if it serves it human life it is true, this has been rebutted in various YouTube videos link) although in a spiritual sense he may be correct in there being two levels of reality (EG there are Newton’s laws and there are quantum laws).

Why is JP famous? (THE BILL)

The bill he opposed was designed to prevent hate speech relating to transgender people being bashed and killed—which happens. When fighting against trans people’s rights, he made it ostensibly an argument about freedom of speech. However underneath that was thinly veiled conservative judgment wrapped up in the word ‘detest’. ‘I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest’- JP..….

His opposition can be taken in the the context of him saying that ‘believing that gender identity is subjective is as bad as claiming the world is flat’. Peterson has made clear that he disagrees with the premise of transgender identity — that biological sex and gender are independent, calling the assertion “wrong” at a Harvard lecture. In testimony against efforts to provide legal protection trans people in Canada, Peterson called trans identities “social constructionism”. Closely examined this goes beyond denying the experience of transgender people but is also vaguely homophobic. The idea that it was about something other than ‘free speech’ is supported by his wife’s activism against Bill 28, ‘All Families Are Equal Act’ which proposed changing the language in legislation about families from “mother” and “father” to the gender-neutral “parents.”

The text of the Bill itself, readily available via google, contains no mention of gender pronouns whatsoever. the relevant sections of the Canadian Criminal Code are §318 and §319 (below).

‘In order to prove that Bill C-16 risks the kinds of censorship you describe, you have to prove that the refusal to use particular personal pronouns carries a probable risk of physical violence against trans people and the gender-nonconformist;  then, in order to defend the position you began with, you need to demonstrate that this violence is preferable to the curtailing of free pronoun-use.’

‘Peterson is perfectly free to express whatever opinion about trans people he may wish (provided they do not meet the standards of hate speech described below), but in his day-to-day interactions with them, he is bound to behave, to use his word, in a “civilized” fashion. You may claim that this is still an undue limitation on free speech. You may claim that not being able to refer to a black person as “it” is some fundamental encroachment from the “censorious left.” You may argue that society, “Marxist” or otherwise, suffers when we are not able to demean, dehumanize, and humiliate others whenever we feel the need. Yes, if you’d like, you may argue this – best of luck with it.’

It’s hard to appreciate the mindset of someone who looks at the suicide and murder rates among trans people, the obvious and sometimes crippling social burdens they face, and concludes that they chose their identity due to transient fashions. – Black truths of JP.

JP has said he wishes to remove humanities departments (starve them) to cut off “the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults- create a website listing university courses that promote such points of view, calling them “postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes,” again because of the ”murderous doctrine’ and ‘I think disciplines like women’s studies should be defunded,” he said. “We’re causing full time, destructive employment for people who are causing nothing but trouble. What they promote has zero intellectual credibility.” – JP

(This is ironic as philosophy, political science and psychology are humanities subjects; a ‘Bachelor of arts majoring in psychology’ is the same content/faculty as a ‘behavioural/social science’ degree and from a Meta-theory perspective, if free will exists, aka we’re not mechanical cause->effect, psychology can’t be a science, anyway). Hypocritically wanting to remove aspects of education AKA form of sensorship to ideas he finds threatening. The notion that academia is corrupt and evil is right wing and is the same place where flat earthers are borne from. There is no pro-Marxist conspiracy. JP demonises the left and diminishes the risks of the right (EG no access to abortion, white supremacy, no gun control, no protection for vulnerable populations) likewise demonising communism without acknowledging the risks of capitalism (belief in profit leading to slavery, genocide and imperialism). He is concerned with the supposed murderous Marxist doctrine but not with the violence of the alt-right.

‘For Jordan, it appears, not all speech is equal, and not all disruption and violence are equal, either.’ (Article in the star, below).

His approach is authoritarian (in contrast to the left, and to his supposed support of free speech). This is very much a tactic of the right who focus on supposed freedoms (guns, hate speech) while seeking to restrict and control others in significant ways (EG not access abortion).

‘Cultural marxism will censor you’, this is the same ‘red-tide’ fear used as propaganda to justify the Vietnam war, and this fear is the weapon of dictators.

What are his ideas?

JP has baggage verging on obsession with the Cold War and is paranoid that political correctness will lead to naziism. He studied naziism for four decades, and lives in a state of fear and suspicion, intentionally, as he adorns his house with nazi paraphernalia (communist propaganda, execution scenes, soldiers looking noble— ‘a constant reminder of atrocities and oppression’). He follows the intellectual trajectory common among Western right-wingers who imply that belief in egalitarianism leads straight to the guillotine or the Gulag. This mental fixation gives him a warped and distorted world view which leaves his otherwise seemingly sound advice untrustworthy.

As far assertion of post- modernism being ‘marxism in disguise’ (forming the basis of his thesis):

⁃ Marxism was alive and well in Europe in 1961-1967 when seminal post-modern texts were written

⁃ Marxism is not taboo (unless you’re a conservative), influential philosophers alive today are Marxist—and these often have harsh criticisms of post-modernism

⁃ He claims class conflict was replaced with oppressed/oppressor. Rich vs poor is not the only tenant of marxism, otherwise not only are liberals are Marxist, but by this logic any ideology involving group conflict is Marxist, fascists who identify oppressive societal elements are Marxist, and any use of the word becomes meaningless

⁃ Neomarxism =/= postmodernism


⁃ Rather than simply draw parallels between the two, he attributes malicious intent where there is no evidence of it, persecutionary. Uses words like ‘treacherous’ to describe historical thinkers

His critiques of Derrida and focault are factually incorrect

⁃ claims they reject science

⁃ claims that they don’t believe in the individual, when they actually say that ‘the individual subject is not a simple rationally autonomous and transparent being… Must be able to place yourself in a discursive practice’. Derrida said the subject is indispensable but needs to be situated, the issue is ‘Where it comes from, and how it functions’, (which is the question at hand about Peterson, really).

⁃ JP claims they are pro-group: Derrida himself is critical of group alligences not just because they exclude, but because any binary distinction will be sustained by its own negation. And therefore group identities are not set in stone and should be questioned.

– Focoult states identities (EG race, sexuality) are defined by the powers that discriminate against them. Power is the ability to affect society or individuals, and can be good or bad.


and after all that, he says:

Intellectually, his gurus are Jung (who called the Jewish psyche inferior and was initially sympathetic to the Nazis), Campbell (who’s loathing of “Marxist” academics at his college concealed a virulent loathing of Jews and blacks), and his mentor Solzhenitsyn was a zealous Russian expansionist.

Nowhere in his published writings does Peterson reckon with the moral fiascos of his gurus and their political ramifications; he seems unbothered by the fact that thinking of human relations in such terms as dominance and hierarchy connects too easily with such nascent viciousness such as misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He might argue that his maps of meaning aim at helping lost individuals rather than racists, ultra-nationalists, or imperialists. But he can’t plausibly claim, given his oft-expressed hostility to the “murderous equity doctrine” of feminists, and other progressive ideas, that he is above the fray of our ideological and culture wars.”

What do his peers think?

‘I do not know if he is unwilling to learn because of his biases, or if he knows he is wrong and is simply lying. Either way the effect is the same; his attempt to paint marxism and post-modernism as the same makes no sense theoretically but makes sense for his intentions, it functions similarly to a term like cultural marxism, it throws together different ideas into one pile, from marxism Leninism, to critical theory, to post structuralism, to intersectional feminism, labels all of it bad in a single motion, by pretending these different movements have the same origin and intent, one avoids the hard work of actually engaging with the theory and simplifies the world to the point where it can identify a single main enemy which prevents the status quo from being as good as it otherwise would : pure ideology “

Recently a long term friend and colleague of JP wrote:

‘I am alarmed by his now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is.’

In human design terms JP has an open head centre, which no real ideas of its own and isn’t really certain of anything; he acknowledges that’s when he is lecturing he is having a conversation with one person and figuring it out as he goes (link speaking Russell brand- quote). This neans he is capable of channelling beautiful and insightful thoughts, the problem they’d they are filtered through defined ajna with its own theories, concepts and opinions. Someone so open-minded has none of their own consistent ideas to followed as an ideological or philosophical leader, but he does have consistent opinions about a women’s place and marxism and the importance of the bible. (He is also consistently living the ‘juxtaposition cross of possession’- making him controlling of those close to him)

He is full of contradictions. There is no real gospel, it’s all run on sentences and rhetoric that dissolves like candy floss put in water by a raccoon.

His followers cry ‘cherry picking’ but the reality is that his intellectual landscape is so disparate there’s naught to do but cherrypick. If he presented something cohesive and consistent it wouldn’t be the case; as it stands it’s iimpossible for critics to build a rebuttal without the perpetual ‘but in this video he said….’. Hundreds of hours of videos, a 1200+ page monolith publication, 100+ studies…. At some point he negates everything he says, usually in word, but also in implication or action. And if something he says doesn’t go down well, he just issues a blog or interview saying something. When he says it isn’t what he thinks, he isn’t lying: most of his ideas are inconsistent.

In answering questions he is intentionally not concise or direct, to keep religiosity and right wing under wraps. He states appealing facts but doesn’t form a direct cohesive argument. He reframes questions and gives long meandering answers which induce fatigue and function to distract, but also make it very difficult to rebut or criticise him. To understand his beliefs you need to watch multiple clips and piece together his belief system.

What is he fighting for?

Given his derisive demonisation of ‘social justices warriors’ (SJW’s), presumably not social justice.

The basis of ‘left’ ideas such as equal rights, environmental protection, social security safety nets for the disabled, old and misforunate (as anyone could experience tragic loss), individual identity and equality. While some criticisms of the left may be valid (EG the stifling of even slightly different opinions within the left, excessive use of PC or legislation being misused), it doesn’t justify an international backlash (against what is a localised problem i.e. excessive political correctness ) which then targets gender equality and civil rights of vulneraoble populations, and the validity of that particular criticism doesn’t make the underlying/original argument any less true (anymore than people using the bible to justify homophobic invalidates all Christianity) and doesn’t make the converse arguments true (i.e. dominance heirachies and gender inequality is natural and desirable). Likewise, the truth and reasonableness of his psychological advice doesn’t make his more extreme political perspectives true and reasonable.

JP doesn’t identify as alt-right, and yet the bulk majority of his argument is vocally anti-lef. That’s one point that is clear and consistent. He doesn’t accept the conservative label, but there’s left, right and centre and he’s at times violently anti-left. His videos validate conservative men.
‘12 Rules For Life is a fast-acting, short-term analgesic that will make many of his readers feel better temporarily, while failing to address their underlying problem. On the contrary, the book often fuels the very sense of entitled need which, when it goes unsatisfied, causes such pain and outrage.’

In the short term, his self help seems functional, but long term the result is being drip fed what is essentially a right wing, capitalist, religious, conservative, men-above-women rhetoric (his videos are circulated by neo-Nazis and incels). This can function as a form of grooming, especially for young men looking for a sense of acceptance and community ( The dynamic was similar with those who voted for Trump without realising the reality of what he stood for and would do. No one who was paying attention and to taking him seriously was surprised.

“You know your life is useless and meaningless,” Peterson says in his “Advice” video, turning towards the viewer, “you’re full of self-contempt and nihilism.” He doesn’t follow all of this rousing self-hatred with an answer, but rather merely teases at one. “[You] have had enough of that,” he says to a classroom full of men. “Rights, rights, rights, rights…”

(Linguistic analysis shows extensive crossover between trump and ‘mens rights’ communities, see below).

Jordan is fighting to maintain the status quo to keep chaos [aka the feminune] at bay, or so he believes. He is not a free speech warrior. He is a social order warrior.’

The JP demographic has been coined as ‘failson’- young males who capitalism has failed who are looking for someone to blame, as they were told they’re special but it didn’t amount to something. Either the world has short changed them or everything they believe is a lie. So blame, dismissal and minimisations cloaked in intellectual rhetoric feels good. Similarly, an entire country followed Hitler because he gave them hope, because he knew exactly what to say to prey on their insecurities and emotions after WW1.

The JP rhetoric argues for winners and losers, which is problematic on so many levels; the authoritarian worldview naturalises domination (domination is not possible without an inferior who is controlled and suppressed) and reinforces the underlying belief system of young men who feel like losers by convincing them they can be winners. This is just flipping to the other side of the coin without addressing the problem. Ideology like this is about being superior, control, and trampling.

It ties into the same tangled belief system of men who devalue women who reject or challenge them; as women should be ‘conscientious and agreeable’. It reinforces the toxic masculinity idea that men have to be aggressive, including towards others. (JP has behaved this way on social media towards individuals who critiqued him in New York review (add quote); he has since stopped replying directly but instead posts the critiques to his Twitter with a brief sarcastic ad hominim comment, presumably with full understanding his followers will aggressively respond on his behalf, as they have in the past, keeping his hands clean but establishing an hostile environment where journalists and writers are afraid to cover him; he has stated a dark part of himself would enjoy ‘sick my trolls on c4, there’d be nothing but broken windows and riots’). He argues against “softness,” arguing that men have been “pushed too hard to feminize.”

This stems back to Zionist ideas and philosophers such as Sorel who were nostalgic of patriachial societies in Ancient Greece; these hyper-masculinist thinkers saw compassion as a vice and urged insecure men to harden their hearts against the weak (women and minorities) on the grounds that the latter were biologically and culturally inferior.

‘Their goal is to restructure the patriarchy. The patriarchy is Western civilization. And what does restructure mean? That’s easy—it means tear it down”. To Joe Rogan in 2016.

‘Healthy” women want men who “outclass” them in intelligence, dominance and status’ -12 Rules of Life

JP fails to acknowledge that many females are naturally more competitive and disagreeable than many males, and many relationships are an inverse dynamic i.e. an agreeable male with a dominant female. (While the extremes are disparate, the bell curves overlap, see below). There is nothing wrong with this, it is yin and yang and part of reality, but the JP framework says it’s not okay or natural). When the flawed map doesn’t map onto the territory, the result is anger and resentment, and the brunt of the resulting inadequacy is projected onto women. The problem with JP’s philosophy (EG men are dominant women are agreeable) is much like porn culture, it creates and endorses unrealistic expectations that make men feel shame and rage when they do not come true, and as he discusses in his video, generally leads to contempt for women. This is a case of Peterson creating an outcome he purports to avoid.

JP’s advice is also based on shaming men. (“Maybe it’s not the world that’s at fault. Maybe it’s you. You’ve failed to make the mark.”… “if you got yourself together completely, maybe all the suffering would disappear from your life… suffering because we’re not yet what we could be, but at least that’s an answer we have some control over”…. “You have an evil heart — like the person next to you”). Shaming is an unhealthy approach, a form of toxic masculinity (see below); the worldview is problematic in the same way Catholicism induces guilt.

What is his relationship to the feminine?

JP has issues with women. This is mixed in between the platitudes and usually only implicit (EG the vocal tone changes in 12 rules when discussing female cartoon characters, or in interviews about feminists, crazy women, workplace harassment etc).

(-Quoted in the NYtimes)

Culture is symbolically, archetypally, mythically male”

—thus resistance to male dominance is unnatural.

Men represent order, and “Chaos—the unknown—is symbolically associated with the feminine.”

—men resisting the fixed archetypes of male and female, and failing to toughen up, are pathetic losers -> this is toxic masculinity. It also ironic as his wife and her his daughter organise his schedule.

JP states Order is better than chaos. Masculine is order, feminine is chaos. VIS A VIE men are better than women, their way of being is superior and preferable. He says that women are compassionate & caring, and then decries compassion and promotes aggression and competition.

Btw JP: ‘Compassion’ is not the same as a devouring mother archetype. Empathy is not the same as sympathy or pity. Psyc101.

He argues against compassion but conflates that with victimhood, while simultaneously bestowing the same on young men. Drama triangle ideas run through his rhetoric: so-called marginalized people are not really victims at all but are in fact aggressors, enemies, who must be shut down (as are humanities departments), and yet he views men as victims: ‘The masculine spirit is under assault, It’s obvious.” This forms part of his persecution complex. In argument for enforced monogamy, he says ‘Half the men fail [meaning that they don’t procreate]. And no one cares about the men who fail.”… ‘It’s awful. It’s so destructive. It’s so unnecessary. And it’s so sad.

The empathy that he displays for men and boys is limited to them, in an either-or, good guys and bad guys, with no room for anyone else’s concerns, even if in real terms the suffering is marginal in comparison EG their lives are not being threatened, spiritual concerns compared to police brutality, violent harassment, poverty, rape, murder, etc.

When he says ‘nobody cares about men at the bottom‘ he is engaging the victim mentality in a way which is entirely contradictory given his assertions that 1) hierarchies are natural and 2) they’re predicated on competence and 3) his refusal or Marxist class equality and corrective action—not to mention that feminism critique of toxic masculinity would benefit the men at the bottom.

‘Any hierarchy creates winners and losers. The winners are, of course, more likely to justify the hierarchy and the losers more likely to criticize it.” –JP

Is he racist?

Dr. Peterson presented the case for taking personal responsibility over blaming others for one’s personal status in life. The accusation of “white privilege” is a fertile fallacy wrapped in the self-righteous robes of “social justice” as it reduces cultural and social issues down to immutable characteristics as opposed to individual decisions and responsibilities.

Speech at ‘sovereign nations’: link to concise summary

This completely dismisses the cultural context of history and power. White people are not privy to positions of power and affluence due to being any smarter, hard working, or motivated than blacks. However there is a system in place which prevents upward social mobility. Hard work isn’t enough. People are not born to equal opportunity. This excessive focus on the individual to the exclusion of cultural systems and power structures works well for those who the systems benefits and blames those who it doesn’t.

‘Peterson’s message fits perfectly with the prevailing ideology that has driven public-policy debates in North America since the 1980s: People should be able to succeed on their own, without help from the state. This message intentionally erases systemic barriers that perniciously remain and instead demonizes anyone who understands that collective advancement is the key to improvement.’

These trends can change only when people work together and demand improvements, whether it’s locally through community activism, or on a larger scale. But that kind of thinking would put Peterson out of work. Peterson’s logic preys on people already in despair and puts them into a cycle that they cannot improve on their own. He’s creating a cadre of dependent disciples.

It’s here that Peterson must be challenged: not on the logical inconsistencies of his rationale, or the aesthetic manner in which he debates. There are a lot of young men who are in a lot of pain. But we need to link Peterson’s rhetoric to the economic policies that are hurting them and break his individualistic narrative of personal liberation.
Nora Loretto

[Peterson acknowledges this in passing in reference to women doubling the work force- which indeed may have contributed to the requirement for dual incomes…]

In the epitome of privleged ignorance Peterson states that in North America environmental factors such as education and nutrition are controlled for as anyone can access a computer and anyone can eat well if they want to. Tell that to people in the Bronx in a fresh food desert. Pure stupidity given the context of him discussing financial inequality being on a Pareto distribution. He also doesn’t understand that racism makes people more likely to be harmed (disenguously framing and dismissing efforts to improve cyclist safety which will attract a wider range of cyclists than 85% white middle class male as if building more paths is ridiculous pc…).

Some of these ideas on race were well addressed ( in the debate with Stephen fry; some extracts and comments here

On a more superficial level, this is a well-known form of cognitive bias ‘My achievements are due to my personality and my failures are due to circumstances, but others success is due to luck and their failures are due to character flaws’. (Link)

Peterson is tone deaf.

Intelligence, youth, temperament, education, health, athleticism: these are skills and differences. RACE IS NOT. It should not be on this list. He doesn’t get it at all. People have implicit biases about sex and race. Especially in the case of race, there’s no way it can be justified as an actual difference. That’s why it is a discriminatory privilege.

He would have you believe the capitalist lie that anyone can make it if they work hard enough. White people are not shot and incarcerated for being in a backyard. They were not subject to a genocide in Australia. His lobster analogy could lead one to conclude it justifiable that we killed them, seen as were able to dominate them.

JP is a cult leader for conservatives, hyper conservatives and the alt right, as much as he may denounce those labels. His ideas fall in line with their ideology. He’s a belief system match. His ideas and rhetoric works for groups such as neo nazis. He proudly says his support groups are run by PUAs in Toronto—and its obviously why, because the rhetoric matches (negging is problematic as a form of demeaning and devaluing women). This forms a blind spot for him however, where he is otherwise very willing to call rape apologist to Muslim gang rapes:

JP says “no one can talk about” about how the declining birth rate in the west will be catastrophic because of “egalitarianism and diversity”, again watching his words and only implying rather than explicitly stating his meaning.

‘To be clear, Jordan Peterson is not a neo-Nazi, but there’s a reason he’s as popular as he is on the alt-right. You’ll never hear him use the phrase “We must secure a future for our white children”; what you will hear him say is that, while there does appear to be a causal relationship between empowering women and economic growth, we have to consider whether this is good for society, “‘’cause the birth rate is plummeting.” He doesn’t call for a “white ethnostate,” but he does retweet Daily Caller articles with opening lines like: “Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.” Quote-

JP outright denies the reality of racism (to th the extent that racial studies were on the list of subjects HRV wanted defunded). ‘islamophobia is a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons’. Tell that to muslims being abused in the street. Islamophobia leads to discrimination, beatings, and war and is spreading as a form of propaganda. It’s real and it’s racist.


Critiques of Jordan Peterson’s ideas

Videos and clips referenced:

Maps of meaning (relationship advice is one hour in)

Further Reading

 Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps — And What We Can Do About It . This is a popular critique of modern biological sex research.

re: white settlement

Epic sad face.

Paper on Wollongong Aboriginal history: ‘a system whereby you entered upon another’s land only upon invitation or after following due protocol’; Right, so what’s with the common myth that the Aboriginals were wanderers who didn’t claim land? Is that just taught for the purposes of lessening the white responsibility for us stealing their land…..?

This happened.

‘World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow’s Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines’.

60, 000 words. Lots of references. Sounds promising.

1. ‘Milk allergens of various mammalian species cross-react. The greatest homology is among cow’s, sheep’s and goat’s milks protein as Bos (oxen), Ovis (sheep), and Capra (goat) are genera belonging to the Bovidae family of ruminants. Proteins in their milks have less structural similarity with those from the Suidae (pig), Equidae (horse and donkey), and Camelidae (camel and dromedary) families and also from those of humans. The milks of camels and dromedaries (and human milk) do not contain Bos d 5.’

As in, cow, sheep and goats milks (the ones we drink), are most unlike human milk, and make us sick. Unlike pig, horse, donkey, camel and human milk, which we do not drink. And do not make us sick.

2. ‘Caseins are thought to be easily digestible, but they coagulate in an acidic medium (at gastric pH).’

Our stomach is acidic, right? So cows milk coagulates when we drink it? Gross.

3.  ‘Blah blah blah, we apply all these scientific processes to milk by heating and boiling and hydrolysing it and then it won’t make you as sick’.

This seems silly. So much time and effort devoted to figuring out why cows milk makes us sick. Why not devote that energy to getting more women to breastfeed, or researching mastitis in humans instead of cows, for example? Or organising milk sharing… Surely we have better solutions than feeding babies highly processed not-foods?

4. ‘The absence of gut microbiota significantly increases the milk-specific immune response in mice… prevention and treatment of milk allergy through the manipulation of the gastrointestinal flora.’

Right. So, our guts are fucked. And if we fix them, we get less sick.

5. ‘In particular, patients with psychologic disorders may attribute adverse reactions to milk ingestion. Physicians must also make their patients aware that cow’s milk allergy is not a frequent occurrence in adults, that cow’s milk intolerance is widespread and that thus milk allergy may not be the cause of their complaint’.

Mm.. except that the stomach to brain link is well-established. Like, in the myriad of studies on IBS and depression. And didn’t you just write in like, the body of every section of this document, that non-IgE mediated allergies are not well-understood, measured, tested or researched? So how can you say they’re not sick from milk?

6. ‘Adverse reactions to lactose are common, as most of the world population is lactase deficient. Treatment involves limiting the intake of fresh milk to the individually tolerated level.’

7. ‘In many cases, gastrointestinal food allergy remains undiagnosed or is classified as irritable bowel syndrome’

8. ‘Cow’s milk-induced proctocolitis syndrome is a relatively benign disorder resulting in low-grade rectal bleeding (usually flecks of blood) and occasionally mild diarrhea in an otherwise healthy infant.’

Milk makes our babies bellies bleed. Tell me again why we’re still talking about eating it?

9. ‘Cows milk allergy has been reported in 70% of children with chronic constipation.’

‘Claims for high-level evidence studies to clarify the physiological, immunologic, and biochemical relationships between constipation and cows milk allergy are missing’–

?? Huh? But didn’t you just say…

10. ‘Negative Oral Food Challenge expands dietary options and thereby nutrition and quality of life. It is also cost-sparing and reduces the use of special formula’…. ‘avoidance means meeting obstacles unshared by their nonallergic peers, thereby curtailing their quality of life’


11. ‘A negative “remission” challenge ends up with the open reintroduction of cow’s milk and dairy products. This represents for the patient an important step toward a “normal” personal and social life. However, many patients do not of themselves ingest the food and pursue an “unofficial” elimination diet. Reasons include fears of persistence of CMA, recurrent pruritus or nonspecific skin rashes after ingesting milk. After a negative challenge, however, a patient with CMA should not be lost to medical monitoring, to prevent such untoward eliminations’


‘The WAO Special Committee on Food Allergy is supported through unrestricted educational grants from various charities and companies that are representative of the food industry: Danone, Heinz, Ordesa, Nestle Nutrition, Dico-farm, and Invest for Children’.

Fuck this shit. I’m out.


‘The mother will require calcium supplements while on a dairy-free diet’… That should’ve given it away.

Oh, and:

‘In the developed world, other milks can never constitute the treatment of choice for Cow’s Milk Allergy. Camel’s milk can be considered a valid substitute for children after 2 years. Equine milks can be considered as valid CM substitutes, in particular (but not exclusively) for children with delayed-onset CMA’.

Horse milk, anyone?

Man-made foods.

‘A burger made with lab-grown meat will be unveiled for the first time at a London event next month’.

This is just silly. And foolish. And irresponsible. And ill-fated.

Everytime man thinks he can improve on nature, he effs everything up. And this is taking it up a level, to solve a problem using the same means which got us into the current food and health situation. The human, societal and health ramifications of this are likely to be immense. They are unfathomable, and it is highly unlikely they will be constructive. Humans are attempting to negotiate a not negotiable situation: Ownership of the growing of their food.

I understand your desire to reduce animal suffering, and I respect that, but I believe you would be trading it for human suffering in the longterm, and I think that is worse, because it will in turn cause more planetary suffering in general. Sick humans cannot govern a healthy planet. What is happening with factory farming and chronic, preventable disease is not okay. This will, however, create a whole new set of problems, without even necessarily solving the current problems. Everyone won’t accept this. And whatever ‘real’ meat is still farmed, will still be farmed as economically as possible, within a capitalist society. A deeper overhaul is instead required.  This is a band-aid solution. It doesn’t heal anything. I’d prefer to have people either take responsibility for their food (and their health), by growing and killing their own animals for consumption only a few times a week, or be vegetarian or vegan.

Just because it is natural doesn’t mean it’s good, no. Like women dying during childbirth. But is much that is unnatural proved to be good? Or without unforeseen cost and consequence? I am passionate about animal rights, and the environment, but also about human health. Every time science has come up with a way to ‘feed the world, cheaply’ which isn’t for people to take their own responsibility for what the eat, it’s disastrous. Like processed meat causing cancer. Or homogenization and pasteurization contributing to milk allergies and lactose intolerance. Or pesticide use creating deformed babies. Or processed food causing diabetes. Or high fructose corn syrup causing an obesity epidemic and lowered life expectancy. (The list goes on and on…). Science would demand facts, but ‘scientific fact’ ≠ wise. Science only ever sees one segment of a given reality at a time. The ‘facts’ of fact-ory farming created the current environmental and health problems in the first place. (Like, science saying that it would be okay to cramp animals together and use antibiotics to control infection. Or to make them grow unnaturally fast and ‘meaty’, which means with more saturated fat, less omegas and vitamin D, which means more cardiovascular disease). Science gives us the isolated ‘facts’, and reason and ethics give us the decisions. Reason tells me this is not good. Ethics tells me this is not good. We’re creating science fiction monsters.

Humans generally get ill in some shape or form when they eat anything not as nature intended. Our society shows me that. It is ethically wrong not to exercise the cautionary principle. We can’t know the generational effects, and they may be irreversible. It’s unnecessary, and reckless. Humans are missing the point and not learning from their mistakes.  All of the man made foods make people sick. Why would this be any different?

Here’s a better idea.


As in: my friend came round to my house and couldn’t understand why I had a pair of earphones which only partly worked sitting in my to-give-away pile and not in the bin. As in, the man at the Holden dealership washes every car in the lot in any given 2 day period, over the grate in the yard which says ‘drains to ocean’. As in, I went jogging and the bay was bubbly, and the fish shop’s floor bleach was sudsing directly into the harbour. As in, someone gave me a lip balm, I opened it and didn’t like it, and now the second hand shop can’t sell or give it away. Rubbish, as in, my veggies come tied with rubber bands each week (Wanted: loving home for over-flowing jar of various size and coloured elastic).

Clothes with holes in them. Pens, mobile phones, memory cards, cameras and hard-drives that don’t work.
Outdated books. Worn out shoes. Rusty bikes. Broken bamboo strainers. Rusty frypans. Empty jars (for the love of god..)

Old toothbrushes, razors, dental floss. LANDFILL. What else, where else, can they go?

I am in the uncomfortable position of having things I needed or was given, which I no longer need, or can no longer use. They accumulate in a pile, which I end up resignedly throwing in the bin. If I have to.

The empty boxes that rings come in. Bubble wrap. Gourmet plastic bags (you know the ones). Normal plastic bags. Wrapping paper. Mail bags, mail boxes. Styrofoam padding. The twine and ribbon that comes on new clothing. Scraps of material. URGH. Reduce, reuse, recycle, right? Well, HOW? Cos shit is just accumulating.

Community would help. People in other places are buying bubble wrap, and boxes, and elastic bands. Society Fail.

Earlier this month I entered a competition, and (for the first time ever) won. A copy of the e-book by the Hitchhiker Guru Kurt Provost, titled Smiling at Strangers: How to hitchike. To be honest, I didn’t think he could tell me much I didn’t already know first-hand. Even though I had homework to knock over, I idly flicked through it… and ended up reading the whole thing. Kurt Provost has hitched to more continents than I have. He smiles as much as me (or more, if that’s possible), and he loves tahini. So it seemed fitting to review it here at tahinipaste.

This book is basically the book I would have written if I made a ‘how-to’ guide. It contains practical advice: where to stand, how to look, what to wear, who to approach. It tackles attitude, i.e. how to think about it, and intuition, which is crucial. The inclusion of this chapter was the section which reassured me that I could refer novices to the book. Crucial. On the other hand, there were some points of divergence. In a frank manner, the book discussed the drug and alcohol abuse which is commonplace amongst travellers, especially those from the Western World. As someone who has travelled extensively on a limited budget, this bothered me. Travellers get a bad rap in some places, and this could constitute propagation of negative stereotypes. It exists, and is ‘normal’, that doesn’t mean it is right, or to be encouraged. The book is about hitchhiking, not sex drugs and rock and roll. Which leads me to my second point.

Smiling at Strangers features a section titled ‘Female hitchikers’, an ambitious undertaking for a male to pen. To quote the hitch-hiking guru from elsewhere (and this absolutely cracked me up): ‘The amount of times a driver has assured me they knew a perfect hitchhiking spot and then dumped me in the centre of a city, leaving me with a wave and thumbs up as if they’d just left me in hitchhiker paradise‘. Similarly, although he is good-looking, the hitch-hiking guru is not a woman. He can’t possibly know what it is like to be one, and his idea of paradise may end a woman in hell. Again from Kurt,  ‘Miracles happen when I drive’, and my idea of true liberation is for every female to know how that feels. Hitching is one way to open yourself up to miracles, and there is no reason why to not experience that just because you were born a girl. For women even more so than men, hitchhiking can be an experience of stepping outside your usual identity, making yourself anew, and seeing what you are capable of. It can be an opportunity to stand on your own two feet in the most literal way possible. In doing so, you may be challenged to face the darker side of what it may mean to be a woman in today’s society. Face this as soon as possible, hold an awareness of it, and free yourself to embrace the opportunity to experience the light the world has to offer you.

I would take any advice about using fake alibi’s or carrying weapons with a grain of salt. Lying, when someone knows you are lying, could easily make you reek of vulnerability. Why would someone who was secure in themselves lie? Do always be prepared, because luck is when preparation meets opportunity. This extends to facing and accepting the real possibility you may die, or to a lesser extent end up cold, hungry, tired, lost or confused. Are you willing to accept these possibilities? Accept it, and move on. I agree to ‘not carry weapons as I see them as escalating or attracting a negative situation. My most powerful weapon is my mind and how I use it. Always remember, the way you think, speak and act is more powerful than carrying a weapon’, and this is true for the female as much as the male. Additionally, as a woman, I would offer the following additional advice:

1# Don’t drink or take drugs when hitch-hiking. You need to be paying attention.
2# Learn how to say no, Practice saying no.
3# Don’t go out looking for a fight. Stay home if you’re feeling angry at men.
4# Don’t buy into bullshit about you being the weaker, more vulnerable sex.
5# Use the stereotypes about you being the weaker, more vulnerable sex to your advantage. Allow people to feel protective of you.
6# Follow all the other rules laid out by Kurt. Smile. As far as intuition is concerned, you have the upper hand. Utilise.
7# Understand that people will trust you if you trust in yourself.  You are safe to the degree you trust yourself. Have a good close look at your fear and your beliefs. If you are not willing to step up and face up to them, you are not ready to hitch, let alone hitch alone.
8# Be clear on what you want. If someone makes an advance or an insinuation, make it clear you are not interested. Stay calm; do not get upset, frustrated, or confused by someones advances. Assert yourself, if required, do so aggressively. Do not be afraid to be rude or hurt someone’s feelings. At the same time, do not use asserting yourself as an opportunity to become the victim or make the other person into the ‘bad guy’. Take responsibility for maintaining your personal space.
9# Understand that society is structured a certain way, with certain expectations, in certain times and places. You are challenging these, so expect resistance or judgement.
10# Have fun. You will find it easier (and quicker) to hitchhike than a man ever will.

Smiling at Strangers makes an amusing and (sometimes) wise guide to the wannabe hitcher. For some who will never take that first step out into possible rejection, it will make for an enjoyable vicarious experience. Each new time and place I hitch, I am required to step into my own shoes and ask for what I want. Ask, and you shall receive: and so it is with hitch-hiking. You have to be willing to have a brave game face and a sense of humour. You need to be willing to be flexible, adaptive and good-spirited. You need to let the path lead you as much as you make it. As a final note, I want to add that you will find what you need. If you don’t need it, you probably won’t find it. If you can afford to, take the bus.

See the photo that won the comp here, and find the e-book here: