Jordan Peterson content has taken over this blog, use the search function to find quotes

Q&A quotes + response

[3.04] well…

Oh god the frog has started talking. That voice. Literally jolted me.

[3.24] ‘We’re all subject to bad breaks and terrible luck’

But not systemic oppression, apparently…

We’re all given the sovereign right to organise our state’

Women weren’t always. But that wasn’t oppression?

[3.24] ‘I do believe in this ancient and fundamentally western idea that people are of intrinsic value

Western liberal capitalism… with no social security? No minimum wage? War mongering? The west is built on pointless wars and colonisation involving repeated genocide… capitalism + lobbying creates wars for oil… And you think we made up the concept of valuing human life?? You’re tripping!!

[4.08] woman next to him takes a deep breath and sighs

Hahaha Jordan

[4.20] his minute is long past up and he still hasn’t said anything

[4.44] moderator ‘let me just draw your attention to the last part of your question…’

… which you didn’t answer in any cohesive way

… ‘that young men are needing saving from socialism, globalism and feminism, is there any truth to that in your mind?’

They might need existential saving from the characterisation of the west as an oppressive patriarchy which is an absurb [sic?] proposition, and therefore that any action they may take that are forthright and ambitious, by participating in that system, are by the very nature of the system, destructive. It’s very difficult for me to understand how anybody can be properly motivated if that’s the fundamental view of society and male participation in it. And I don’t buy any of that. I think the idea that the west is fundamentally an oppressive patriarchy is an appalling idea and the notion that the proper way to view history as a battleground between ethnic identities or identities in general or between men and women borders on the pathological, and so maybe it exceeds bordering on the pathological….

Simplying things a bit for the sake of your strawman there, Jordan

[6.00] van… ‘if you’re being sold that it’s feminism or socialism that’s disenfranchising you… it’s been four decades of neoliberalism. It’s neoliberalism that’s smashed communities, made consumption and material acquisition dominant values in society, destroyed the workplace and made jobs insecure, and made our experiences of economy so unstable. If men feel disenfranchised, please let me reassure you that women feel disenfranchised as well because we are all living in this destabilised economy and we are all suffering from that consumer ideology.’

59 seconds. Fucking nails it. Takes a drink of water.

White politician defends the economy. Says Jordan’s book is good. Continues-

‘It’s true feminism hasn’t thrown a bomb and the worst violence could be the violence of the mind’

The worst violence for a while male maybe! Women get raped, beaten and murdered by men. Hence feminism. πŸ™„ FFS (genocides of indigenous peoples or police violence against POC are other forms of violence worse than that ‘of the mind’ afflicting Jordan and Alex)

Men are being told they’re doing the wrong and that they have been doing the wrong thing historically

Yes. Owning women as property is wrong. Men are only told they’re doing the wrong thing when they are dehumanising or abusing women. FFS.

Men today have lost their identity. Feminism has become a movement to overtake masculinity…’

The future is female. Sorry to break it to you.

[8.00] van responds, ‘I’m a feminist, I don’t want that, I don’t hate men’

Nondescript white guy: ‘sure you do. Let’s look at the empirical evidence…’

Thanks for that mate.

It’s boys who are falling behind in school, it’s boys that are falling behind in University, highest rates of youth suicide, it’s a serious issue

How is that feminisms fault?

Consumerism, housing and financial stress, gaming, porn and social media addictions, breakdown of community, mothers overworked, neoliberal disenfranchisement… countless possible explanations, no reason to suspect feminism at the top of the list.

[8.27, fragile white man] ‘There are movements persecuting men in today’s world’

Van says that’s not true..

well, it is. Legal persecution for men who act illegally, like raping and sexually assaulting women. Or abusing positions of power. ‘Held accountable’ can look a lot like persecution to people not used to or unwilling to take responsibility.

[8.38] terri speaks. ‘It’s almost as though we’re talking about a structural issue, and you’re talking about a person issue. People who take personally the idea that we need to change structures are misreading what the complaint is that people have. The issue for me is that these structural rigidity of gender roles is that they hurt men, and they hurt women. They hurt both. They hurt men who want to stay home longer with their kids…. they hurt men [sic] in real physical ways because we do have a problem in this country where women are more likely to be the victims of violence at home, men are more likely to be the victims of violence in public, but in both its men committing the violence by and large. These rigid ideas of masculinity hurt everyone. So when we talk about feminism, when we talk about those structures it’s to create an equality for the benefit of everyone, and to get rid of the things that hold everyone back.’

[9.43] JP: well the first thing I would say is I’m not anti-feminist per se-

BULLSHIT.

-Movement of talent of both sexes into the workplace given the rarity of talent-

(This is a manifestor perspective. Generators are the majority and most of the workforce is about grunt work, not talent).

‘I will stand by my original statement that there’s a brand of more radical feminism that insists that our culture is best characterised as an oppressive patriarchy’

So just acknowledging the patriarchy makes us a radical now??

[10.16] ‘and I think that’s an appalling sociological doctrine and it has very negative sociological effects, and they won’t be limited to men,’

Because being owned as property wasn’t psychologically harmful for women. Because implicit bias, being spoken over, being objectified, having double the workload is not harmful to women. Because the rape advocated in the bible wasn’t harmful to women. Wake up Jordan.

[10.27] ‘if it’s true that there’s something toxic about masculinity per se’

AGAIN Jordan. Toxic is an adjective. It describes the form of the noun. Red chair. Blue chair. It doesn’t mean chairs are inherently their adjective. I thought you were meant to be intelligent!!!!

‘… what that will mean is that as women adopt more masculine roles, traditionally, what is that toxicity suddenly going to go away?’

He’s really struggling. Oh Jordan.

[10.37] Terri: ‘that’s a strawman because no one says there’s anything toxic about masculinity per se. [jordan interrupts incredulously, Terri calmly explains]. ‘It’s a term that is used to describe forms of masculinity that are harmful for men and women. It’s not about masculinity per se. You must know…’

[10.56] Jordan says he read the APA and he knows ‘perfectly well that this is no straw man’

Ah Jordan. πŸ€¦πŸΌβ€β™€οΈ

It’s not only devoted towards the most aggressive ends of masculine behaviour in a much broader… theres a much broader range of accusations that are underlying, that are under the surface than that.’

Masculinity so fragile.

The panel fails to clarify that toxic masculinity as a culture is pervasive as a spectrum, extreme behaviour is born out of problematic cultural norms.

[Catherine]: The deindustrialisation of the West as jobs are exported to the developing world… when you remove from a man the right to stand before his family as a breadwinner… the removal of (especially unskilled) work among young men has a political consequence, and its been washing through the American system since the 1980s, the fraying of the new deal coalition… I don’t entirely agree with Jordan’s analysis but the problem can’t be entirely…

[12.53-13.52] Cate speaks slowly, is interrupted at the minute mark, goes on to speak for another full minute, unapologetically; this is the confidence only someone born and socialised male could have, that their voice will be listened to.

Milo appears on video. Jordan replies sincerely in real time. Moderator points out it was a video and he’s not going to reply. Kinda feel sorry for Jordan.

Jordan says he teaches mainly women for 30 years and he wants people to adopt responsibility in their own lives.

JP has explicitly stated he doesn’t want social change as he thinks change to the status quo is destabilising and dangerous. Therefore this advice to focus on personal responsibility is explicitly directed at what he labels ‘social justice warriors’ aka those interested in improving society, including politically; he has stated that ‘we’ can’t understand the nature of these changes, condescending and paternalistic.

[17.28, question], why aren’t feminists addressing issues such as how fathers don’t get joint or any custody at all?

This is literally the one single way men are structurally disenfranchised by the patriarchy, and it’s trotted out and held against women as if it’s a rebuttal to feminism and their responsibility. FFS. Work on norms for equal division of labour and paid paternal leave, and maybe the courts will start seeing you as caregivers.

Or how so many men commit suicide. Why do so many people disregard this information when seeking to end gender inequality or not even acknowledge that this in in fact a problem’

Toxic masculinity is the reason men commit suicide, clue in. This is also a red herring, women also commit suicide as (or more) often but are just not as successful.

[18.38] van reiterates that in no point in human history were men oppressed for being men. Maybe for being working class or on the basis of ethnicity. Women feminists are straw manned.

She is impassioned. The comments tone changes to dismissing her as crazy because she is a woman using her voice to assert herself.

‘We have democracy, and so the rules around manners have changed, as everyone has a voice, not a narrow… which by the way never included all men…’ [19.03] ‘difficult to get your heads around a new way of behaving and engaging, but it’s necessary, because we are actually a community, we are one society, we all have an equal right to participate’.

She is responding to previous arguments where she was not given talking space. This is misinterpreted by viewers, as she is not directly addressing the question around paternity. Her points are valid though.

[20.09, white politician], feminism has gone too far out of its bounds and is sometimes oppressing men. It is.

Van has lost it, angry and replies sarcastically ‘I’m sorry if we’ve rejected our bounds’

[note: it is an abusive tactic to label reactive abusive behaviour, such as female anger, as crazy, when it is in response to systemic abuse, especially abuse is publicly executed with a calm tone].

White politician continues ‘individualism is the only answer to some of this. Identity politics is on the march, it’s eating away… the idea that we all think and behave the same way, it’s not true.’

[20.58] van: you’re right, it’s not true

It’s a great irony of Jordan that while he is decrying identity politics he is also dividing males and females into inflexible (and apparently inalienable) gender roles and also decrying feminists, social justice warriors, and the ‘radical’ left (by which he likely means not the portion of the left which is radical, but the whole of the left which he sees as synonymous with radical, judging by his above use of adjectives).

Terri coming in with some sanity: the liberal party is down around 17% females, the Labour Party is up around 50%. ‘And that is because we didn’t just acknowledge inequality, we did something about it. We changed the way our rules work, we got more women into parliament. We changed our rules, but no one ever had to use them, because when you change the structures, suddenly women feel like they can run, they’re ready to put their names forward, and that’s what happened. We didn’t need to put it into place in a strict way, because we didn’t need to. We changed the culture by changing the rules.’

[22.50]. Jordan is talking again. Why. Ugggghhhh. ‘There’s equal of opportunity, which we discussed briefly, which I think it an admirable goal. Then there’s equality of outcome, which I think is a impossib- I think it’s a totalitarian impossibility. I think it’s often conflated with equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome of course is the doctrine that every occupation should be occupied by people in precise proportion to portionality in the population… quotas on the base of group identity. So for example in canada, our prime minister, an enlightened soul [sarcasm, Jordan has called centrist traudeau a radical feminist] decided he would make 50% of the cabinet women, despite the fact that 25% of the people who were elected in his cabinet were female. He did not hire the people who were most qualified in his cabinet. And he did that to virtue signal to his base. And it turns out that was a big mistake.’

[26.38] still no one has addressed the suicide/custody argument, but catherine makes a good point ‘I think it’s a lazy term ‘identity politics’. All politics is identity politics. Parties campaign on identity. ‘A party of individual freedom’, that’s an identity, it’s a concept.’

[28.04] question for Jordan Peterson: do you believe stay at home mothers are adequately valued in today’s society?

Jordan replies that when ‘his wife had smalls kids’ and they went out, ‘she was treated with less respect than she would have been had the kids not been with her… ‘Bothersome’… I think we do an awful lot of lying to women in our society’.

Moderator: what sort of lies do you mean Jordan?

That career is the most important thing in life.’

The panel goes on to discuss but this question also goes unanswered and the key here is also: economics. The woman mentioned pressure to return to work. This is the liberal reduction in social security, centrelink punitive policies pushing women to return to work at younger and younger ages. Being a mother is no longer supported by the state as a job. In the most fundamental way, this question is about the unpaid labour of women. In a capitalist society, unless we pay women to raise children, they are being taken advantage of an oppressed. All other work is paid. If Jordan is so enthusiastic about children being at home with their mothers, there is a lot more that needs to be done than just telling 19 year old girls they don’t have to have a career. In a capitalist society, money is power. If women are to be independent and thus equal, they need to not be financially dependent on the fathers of their children. The current way of achieving that leaves a lot to be desired.

[32.27] Alex, the liberal politician, talking sense (just this once). ‘We need policy’. He suggests tax incentives of equal value. Mentions subsidised child care.

[33.30] question: you have a lot of ex-fans, so called ‘ex-lobsters’…

πŸ˜‚ Jordan is going to be devastated to hear about this

…’you talk about individual responsibility for things it’s impossible for individuals to have power over.. the extortionate housing market, things that are well out of our control. I want to know what is your answer to young people facing the really big problems, humanity, like the climate catastrophe, like economic crisis, like the precarious job market. Most of us are never going to be able to afford assets to have responsibility over. What is your advice beyond banal comments like ‘clean your room’?

πŸ™ŒπŸΌπŸ™ŒπŸΌπŸ™ŒπŸΌπŸ”₯😏

He tried to throw her off to avoid having to say he’s a climate change denier.

[35.24] ‘They’re not precarious at all. Do you think your any worse off than your grandparents?

Jordan in his privileged wealth bubble (since birth) isn’t aware of what’s happening in the ground.

She answers ‘I think there are different challenges’. He aggressively repeats ‘do you think you are worse off than your grandparents?’

How can jordan, a psychologist so preoccupied with security and stability, not recognise the housing crisis facing young people? Perhaps the privilege buffer.

Jordan, we can’t put our rooms in order, because we don’t own any.

[36:00] ‘Fundamentally, I’m a psychologist. People can do a tremendous amount of good by looking to their own inadequacies and the things they’re not doing in their own lives and starting to build themselves up as more powerful individuals… capable of expanding their career and their competence… capable of taking their place in the community as effective leaders. Capable of making wise decisions when it comes to making collective political decisions’.

Again not recognising the very real systemic limitations. Doesn’t understand the periodic requirement for change, or the nature of revolution.

[37.17] Moderator ‘do you think collective responsibility overrides individual responsibility in a huge issue like [climate change]?

Jordan: No.

‘I think there are things within their personal purview that are more difficult to deal with and that they’re avoiding, and that generally the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large scale social issues so they look good to their friends and their neighbours’

As someone with a psych degree I wanna say

1. I have seen this phenomena

2. That doesn’t negate the necessity for social change which affects individuals ‘I can’t find a house’, ‘I was raped’, ‘Men speak over me’. These are not detached social issues which don’t affect us directly, individually, personally.

3. Jordie… You’re projecting.

PS. Individual responsibility is not new.

[37.45, catherine] ‘when you can’t meet the rent, and you can’t keep the power on, you make a poor revolutionary’. [sidenote- Gate 49]

‘Whatever will we attempt to impose on the world has to come from some kind of authentic life.’

[39.28, van] ‘we have to recognise we’re not powerless. There is a mass mobilisation against insecure work in this country, and it’s called the trade union movement… the vehicles for change, for you to add your own individual gift to a mass movement, they exist for you’.

The essential question here is ‘do you want change? Van is saying yes. Jordan (throughout his work) says no.

White politician: ‘that sounds like a communist attack on the free market as well.’ Incredulous laughter from catherine. ‘We’ve got people assaulting what makes your life so much better than your grandparents… in neoliberal society we have great benefits at our fingertips… you can do a lot in this society’.

This privilege also relies on oppression.

[34:05] Terri: it’s a bit Ann rand to say that people are altruistic for themselves. It’s not. It’s because people feel deeply deeply passionate about the challenges facing our time. My six year old talked to me about drought and climate change the other day. He’s not doing it to feel better and have his neighbours like him. He’s doing it out of a sense of genuine concern… the ACLU, young people protesting are not doing it because they want to be liked by their neighbours, they’re doing it because they have courage and the commitment to do it. And that’s brave’.

Preach.

[44.26] identity politics and Martin Luther king question…

Oh god. Jordan has started talking about postmodernism and marxism. My will to continue is fading.

[44.50] Blah blah blah… identify people by their group…

what… like biological sex? Go home Jordan

Group guilt to them by their group’

What, like feminists? Clean your room jordan

[jordan seems to have just clarified that marxism isn’t post modernism]

[46.14] Terri makes a reasonable point in a kind and gentle tone that ‘maybe you just believe that representative democracy should actually be representative’

Jordan: ‘should bricklayers have 50% representation?’

Terri: ‘is bricklaying representative democracy?’

This is a common tactic of Jordan’s to change the subject by asking an only partly related but mostly red herring retaliatory question. Possibly also a false equivalence. Didn’t work this time Jordie.

πŸ”₯🦞πŸ”₯

Jordan goes on to essentially state that women should be doing menial tasks instead of going after positions of power… he is totally missing the point, just being obtuse. One reason for the wage gap is primary because more women are in menial and underpaid positions, such as cleaning. And the reason it is a patriarchy is precisely because men are the ones in position of power! It’s not necessarily that those men are not making decisions in women’s interests (though that could be argued), more than the flow on effect at all levels is that women are not considered equal in importance to men. Their voices are spoken over and seen as less important. Implicit bias considers them less competent. Their contribution is not valued equally. Their health issues are underfunded, underresearched, poorly represented. Until recently their basic sanitary products were taxed.

Jordan is always preaching how men built the modern world because they work dangerous jobs. Jordie, the entire civilisation was literally built by women performing the life threatening task of delivering babies FOR FREE. and often under duress, as property, without access to birth control or restriction on abortion. Ridiculous.

Beyond that, a group structure where the identity of the group is put above the merits of the individual IS in place- it’s called implicit bias and structural discrimination- and that’s the whole reason corrective quotas are required! Get a grip Jordan.

Also, ‘why don’t we just have quotas everywhere’ is a straw man. Saying that men are doing bricklaying is a way of referring back to one sex difference that is biological- that men have more muscle strength due to testosterone. This implicitly references Jordan’s viewpoint that the inequality between males and females in justified by sex differences which righteously create rigid gender roles. However, Equal hiring has seen more women entering the dangerous trades, from oil rigs, construction, mechanics in the formula one pit, etc. Perhaps more women would, were it not for the discrimination and harassment they experience.

[incomplete]

savage and enjoyable article:

https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/q-and-a-recap-attention-seekers-take-over-for-trainwreck-tv-20190226-p5107g.html

This article is useful for its definition of toxic masculinity, but falls short on fully rebutting the claim that western society isn’t a patriarchy:

Toxic masculinity describes the indoctrination of all people to accept certain behaviours, talents and personality traits as inherently male or female. This is damaging to all of us. It is responsible for speaking to men about the importance of keeping silent, the expressions of violence as manly, the objectification of women, β€œgroup think” around beauty standards, but most importantly: the right and masculine way of engaging with the world.

Toxic masculinity promotes an apathetic, strong arm pursuit of life, one that does not allow for emotional expression, processing and healing, acceptance and validation of self. This creates a society that is unable to recover from trauma. Men are suffering under these conditions too.

https://newmatilda.com/2019/03/05/dr-jordan-peterson-myth-making-around-toxic-masculinity/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: