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

Archive for the ‘gotta have faith, tahini paste’ Category

Communism is worse than capitalism; response

‘[JP] sees that communism has lead to lying delusional sadistic murderous groups, and to mysery [sic] at a magnitude largely higher than capitalism’

honestly I don’t even know where to begin…

  • war mongering by America in Iraq and then the Middle East and next Venezuela, entire nations are completely decimated, wars for profit and oil, all that bullshit by America could win any lying competition you wanna throw out
  • then add the death toll of genocides all over the globe by the colonising west, not just genocide but cultural and psychological decimation of native people, in Australia, the Caribbean, all through Asia, continuing today…
  • the west was built on outright slavery, sure that was prior to the 1900s when communist when down, but black people didn’t get the right to vote til recently and are still structurally disenfranchised (even just with voting), with the privatised industrialised for profit prison system (brought to you by capitalism),
  • like there is a lack of recognition of these realities
    • like the state regularly shooting or abusing black people… and as if slavery for black people is somehow less abhorrent than putting a white society in service working for the state… lol and
      working for jobs where people are paid below living wage, that’s like the worst of communism without even getting the idealistic goals…
      people starving in a country because it has a food shortage under communism, how is that worse than people getting scurvy or
      dying of lifestyle disease in fresh food deserts in a country of immeasurable wealth/ massive amounts of food being thrown out while people are homeless and going without meals…
      as if poor farmers in communist Russia were worse off than people in the first world dying because they don’t have access to health care in a wealthy country…
      also pretty sure rampant, unnecessary consumerism under capitalism (inbuilt obselence and a disposable culture because its cheaper to scale up) is what gave us the current ocean & wildlife destruction due to plastics, so add that to the tally…
      oh, and the intentional maintanance of extreme poverty in the third world because the first world is dependant on exploitation of cheap labour and resources to allow for profit… so add all the deaths by starvation/lack of sanitation/child labour in the third world too

    Across time and history, the sum total suffering is easily equal or more.

    It’s easy to project the shadow of humanity into the distant past or ‘over there’ and label it horrific while overlooking horrors closer to home, especially when it is normalised and sold to us as justified… that’s what humans do when shit is going down, they don’t riot because it’s normalised and justified just like it is now… our system is no less barbaric, and that would be obvious were it not for the victim blaming rhetoric ‘poor people are just lazy’, ‘black people are just less competent, they’re predisposed to crime’, etc etc etc…

    The nature of humanity is fundamentally flawed, regardless of economic system, blaming it on communism is a red herring.

    Do you need a man? Response

    Initial thoughts:

    • Women have been shamed with books like ‘women who love too much’
    • Women have been shamed and rejected with cultural labels like ‘needy’ and ‘crazy’ for having emotional needs men couldn’t meet and emotional experiences and depth men couldn’t relate to due to their own emotional suppression
    • As a side note, when men pursue a woman (as in rom coms) it is considered romantic, when women do it is considered desperate, they are treated with scorn and derision (for example, tv show ‘crazy ex girlfriend)
    • Womens healthy neurological attachment needs have been pathologised and labelled codependency
    • Women have been pressured, shamed and expected to marry (female spinsters socially rejected, while bachelors labelled ‘eligible’); it is not a surprise they would rebel against such an uneven social structure
    • Men have chronically let women down (in part due to capitalist pressure and in part due to toxic masculinity); women have given up on being love fully by men and instead turn to women to meet their attachment needs
    • The use of Cathy Newman’s response to Jordan Peterson being characterised as man hating is projection; her anger is reactionary to JP’s denial of systemic abuse and discrimination against women

    One woman states ‘I see men as lower than me. I was very suppressed, so it’s a way for me to get my power back’.

    Another states ‘most women don’t want to need a man. Because the amount of pain we have been through… it resistance, it’s self denial and it’s avoidance’.

    • The use of the Gillette ad being dismissed as man hating and then the man acting like he needs to go elsewhere to ask women their thoughts: women are telling you loud and clear in the ad that you just minimised and dismissed. Don’t cat call and objectify us. Value us as equal humans. Don’t teach boys to shut down emotionally. Develop emotional maturity to match ours. Don’t use violence to solve conflict. Learn to address and resolve conflict healthily.

    What do men expect after centuries of own women as property, and then commodifying and objectifying us, that we will fall at their feet ?

    One woman states ‘improve themselves… in sex’.

    Phallic centric sex is the norm to the extent that the medical literature still denies the reality of female ejaculation. Porn focusses on aggression against women and not on meeting their pleasure needs. Statistics for female orgasm are appalling, where men expect sex to end once they come.

    ‘If I had a single thing for men to work on it would be disconnection. They disconnect from their own hearts. They act more from logic. War… they can disconnect from women’s experience and empathy so that they can have one night stands….

    ‘In men there’s this very stable security, a strength, protection, a forward movement. And what that feels like when a man is in his power is he creates this safe container which allows me to feel this blossoming’ ❤️ ‘which allows me to be in this receptivity, which is really important, because in this state… a female without a man in this world it kinda feels like you have to tense yourself up and become something you’re not… when that containment is absent I notice my anxiety levels go up… I feel like I have to compensate for an energy that I’m lacking’

    • In order for men to contain us they need to embody themselves and be whole… many women come to the (logical) conclusion that if men aren’t going to provide that, (which they generally don’t), then what do they have to offer us? Nothing. We may as well be free than live in containers that crush and devalue, rather than support us.
    • Women’s relationship starts with the fathers. What do we have? 2-3 generations of emotionally or physically absent fathers.

    ‘I don’t think men have to look for masculinity specifically, what I want is for men to start looking for their own unique individual authenticity… if a man stops resisting himself in all these various ways that society has taught him, he will find his own unique authentic divine expression of masculinity. That’s the problem is men are looking outwards thinking it’s something out ‘there’ that they can emulate’.

    • The man in the ad is representative of the fact women feel harassed and pestered. It is representative of what women are saying is their experience. Being heckled. Feeling threatened. Having men make public demonstrations for the purpose of dominance rather than connection.

    ‘What they really want is the real, authentic you’.


    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. 🙄 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-


    -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. 🤦🏼‍♀️

    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’…

    😂 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’?


    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’.


    [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.


    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.


    savage and enjoyable article:

    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, “group 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.

    war on masculinity: JP article excerpts; National post article written by Jordan Peterson

    ‘The American Psychological Association (APA) recently released its Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men…. Make no mistake about it: this document constitutes an all-out assault on masculinity — or, to put it even more bluntly, on men.’

    ‘Yet there is no consensus among psychologists, for example, about the definition, let alone the existence, of, for example, “masculinity ideology.” There is also no agreement that gender exists solely in the form of “roles” that are learned (as opposed to innate) — although all reasonable scientists agree that much of human behaviour, including that related to sex, is learned.

    ‘The authors are claiming that men who socialize their boys in a traditional manner destroy their mental health…’

    ‘The document opens with the claim that “socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health” – a claim derived in no small part from the “research” published by the very people who wrote the guidelines, and one presented, like the definitions, with no indication whatsoever that this claim by no means constitutes anything resemblng established scientific fact.’


    Logic and the red pill: excerpts

    ‘For men, especially insecure and socially dislocated men, the idea of “rationality” can be a kind of comfort blanket. Raised from birth with the stereotype that they are more “analytically intelligent” (in contrast to women, who are “emotionally intelligent”)…

    ‘for the Logic Guys, the purpose of using these words — the sacred, magic words like “logic,” “objectivity,” “reason,” “rationality,” “fact” — is not to invoke the actual concepts themselves. It’s more a kind of incantation, whereby declaring your argument the single “logical” and “rational” one magically makes it so — and by extension, makes you both smart and correct, regardless of the actual rigor or sources of your beliefs.’

    ‘The “redpill” metaphor here is telling, because it implies that obtaining knowledge and arguing well is not a skill that is slowly and indefinitely improved upon, but an achievement to be unlocked in a single moment: once you’ve swallowed the pill, you turn into a smart person, and from then on, all your opinions are correct.’

    .’…the use of the term “the Enlightenment” to refer to an historical period of discovery in philosophy and the sciences — a period that is often referenced by self-identified logic lovers as a sort of single-use power-up by society: first we were all lying around in mud like the serfs in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, then we did the Enlightenment (and by “we,” of course, they mean white European men), and then everything was smart until Marxists and feminists and poststructuralists messed it all up.

    In reality, “the Enlightenment” was composed of a loose, messy assortment of people with very different ideas (you can even include Marx as an Enlightenment philosopher, if you like )…. This does not mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but it does mean that “philosophy had one good school and then stopped being good in the 19th century” is… not a terribly sophisticated take, but one that seems more based in wanting to find a shortcut to superiority than good-faith inquiry.’

    According to his supporters… Ben Shapiro loves facts. Why? Well, because he says he loves facts. He’s not basing his assertions on feelings, and we know this because he says that he isn’t… By insisting on this interpretation of his own character, over and over, buoyed by the idolatrous support of his loyal fans and the snarky titles of his clickbait videos, Shapiro conjures into being an image of himself as The Rational Man. Say the magic words enough times, and the spell will be cast over your audience.’

    Linked article:

    ‘The men interviewed in the piece, once sweet and caring, started changing after going down a rabbit hole of extremist political content on YouTube and involving themselves in radical right-wing online communities. Convinced of their absolute correctness, these men became at first frustrated, then verbally abusive once they realized their female partners did not always agree with their new views. Any dialogue attempted by these men was not made — at least as far as their partners could tell — with the goal of exchanging views and opening themselves to being challenged. Their goal was to assert their beliefs as fact; to teach their partner the truth, as a Christian missionary might put it. Every woman interviewed in the article — including those who were more formally educated than their boyfriends — makes reference to their former partners belittling their intelligence and rationality.’

    Regarding logic in humans:

    Crazy women & aggression; video; followup

    “When men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlying threat of physicality is always there, especially if it’s a real conversation. It keeps the thing civilized to some degree. If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone [for] whom you have absolutely no respect. But I can’t see any way … For example there’s a woman in Toronto who’s been organizing this movement, let’s say, against me and some other people who are going to do a free-speech event. And she managed to organize quite effectively, and she’s quite offensive, you might say. She compared us to Nazis, for example, publicly, using the Swastika, which wasn’t something I was all that fond of. But I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity, because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.”

    Full interview link:

    Interviewer: in a video you said that the problem with those angry women is that since at the end of the argument you cannot fight physically, you can’t really deal with them.

    Peterson: [hhh… laughs and shakes head. High pitch] That’s not what I said. I said that that’s one of the things that keeps conversations between men civil. Women can’t argue with angry women. Women are often bullied by angry women.

    This is a red herring. He has shifted the focus from men being victimised to women being victimised but his focus/blame remains on ‘crazy angry women’ who are out of control due to the supposed lack of threat of violence against them.

    This is likely a projection as Peterson is angry, crazy and a little out of control.

    Interviewer [unphased by mental gymnastics] ‘you said that (and I’m not trying to paraphrase you or put words into your mouth),

    Peterson: [interjects aggressively] you actually you are trying that directly

    Interviewer: it is things that you said. That you cannot deal with those, uh— [crazy hysterical

    Peterson: yes, but [dont try to tell me that you’re not putting words into my mouth]… because you’ve selected what you’re going to ask. You selected it very carefully, with a tremendous amount of forethought. And there’s a purpose for that.


    Peterson’s characterisation of Feminists as crazy can be taken in a long history of female suppression, where those who even spoke in public, let alone rallied against crushing levels of (unpaid) labour at home, or spousal emotional neglect could be institutionalised: NYtimes article with links

    JP sealions with Ian Mcgilchrist: the master and the emissary

    Rough transcript:

    [0.29] IM: Brain hemispheres are unequal and asymmetrical, one of the hemispheres sees more. The master is the right hemisphere. People traditionally think of the left as the one that is dominant. Steep learning curve. The right is more reliable, sees more, understands more, like a high functioning buerocrat. Must not get involved with a certain point of view. Good reason why evolutionarily.

    [1.57] 25% of the entire cortex is inhibitory. Corpus collosum is inhibiting function in the other hemisphere. (He was at Evolutionary psychiatry meeting).

    [3.02] differentiation is very important for two elements to work together. Inhibition is one way of doing that. The two hemispheres are not easily compatible. Different qualities, goals, values.

    [7.46] right hemisphere opens up to possibilities… explores… (left hemisphere grasps, closes down to a certainty)

    (Left is logical. Right is creative. Left is yang, right is yin. Left is order, right is chaos).

    [7.55] IM: I loved in your talk you talked about chaos and order. If I may say so you seem to suggest it would be good, it would better if we could get rid of chaos. Whereas my view is that chaos and order are necessary for one an other And there is a proper balance.

    JP: ‘Yeah okay, yeah, okay, well, okay. That’s a deep a question as you could possibly ask. There’s a central theological issue… you know in genesis the proper environment of humanity is construed a garden… I see that as the optimal balance of chaos and order. Nature flourishes and is prolific, if you add harmony to that. You live in a garden. You’re supposed to tend the garden. Ok So the garden is created. It’s a walled space. Because eden is a walled space. Paradasia a walled garden. As soon as you make a wall, you try to keep what’s outside out. But you can’t because the boundaries between things are permeable. So if you’re going to have reality you’re going to a bounded space you’re going to have a Snake I. The garden. Then the question is what the hell should we do about that. Make the walls that no snake could possibly get in Or allow for the possibility of sneaks but Make yourself strong enough that we could contend with them. There’s answer there that goes straight to the question Why did god allow evil to exist in the world. It’s like Well do you make people safe or strong. And Strong is better. And Safe night not be commensurate with being. It might not be possible to exist and to be safe…

    OMFG god- ten minute mark- this rambling evasive non answer is basically the quintessential Jordan parody! Done by Jordan himself 😑

    The mastery of a topic is evidenced by the ability to express is simply and succinctly. Any year nine English teacher can tell you that.

    the chaos vs order yin yang question migiht be deep but it is not complicated. Jordan is grappling to reconcile his own inner conflict with not being able to accept and integrate the feminine. The Chinese, Jung, many great philosophers, this question has already been answered. Jordan is just an externalisation of the patriarchal society- and the biblical notion- struggling to accept that the feminine is valid and will be integrated and given equal space as we move into the future.

    The answer to the question was ‘yes I did say that, in fact i named my book ‘antidote to chaos’ and claimed order is superior, and obviously I’m wrong’

    He did not answer the question!



    What made Europe happen and made it so creative,” he explained, “is that Christianity was a right-brain religion … translated into a left-brain language [Greek]. So for many centuries you had this view that science and religion are essentially part of the same thing.”

    ‘the left brain is dominant for language. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is implicated more strongly in emotional processing and representing the mental states of others. However, the distinctions aren’t as clear cut as the myth makes out – for instance, the right hemisphere is involved in processing some aspects of language, such as intonation and emphasis.’

    ‘Gazzaniga concluded, based on the interpreter phenomenon and other findings, that the left hemisphere is “inventive and interpreting”, whilst the right brain is “truthful and literal.’