DISCUSSIONI am trying to understand Jordan Peterson. I think this might be a good link to foster discussion. (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by JeanBroady123

This article from the LA times looks at the popularity Peterson achieves by tapping into the frustrations of young men. It points out that many people are underestimating his influence.


For all its successes, contemporary feminism’s main message to men is not one of equal partnership. Rather, it’s: Repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally — and we still won’t trust you. >

Lets start with this statement. Do you feel this is true?

[–]blushdot1 Star 66 points67 points  (18 children)

Most feminists aren't radical feminists, but the movement has been changing with the fourth wave. Where the radical feminists used to be a minority voice, now they are becoming the majority voice, and it is slowly infecting the more reasonable aspects of feminism.

Instead of pushing social change through helping society see where the remnants of sexism lie, now feminism as a movement is really starting to resemble what Dr. Peterson talks about in his public appearances and lectures.

You see this with the #MeToo movement. A lot of women have faced sexual harassment that has gone unchecked, but now in order to be a true feminist, you must be a victim yourself. Thirteen Reasons Why comes to mind - somewhere near the end of the show there is this really jarring scene where all the female characters talk about how they were raped. That is simply an unreasonable percentage, and it's not a natural scene, but this weird, almost subliminal message that basically implies every woman is a victim and men are the enemy. When you pair this with how men are treated in the show, no man is innocent - they are all harrasers and in som way unredeemable, while every woman is a perfect victim that goes unrecognized because of the patriarchy.

Feminism as a movement really tries to make it seem like the greatest injustice is sexism - therefore, no amount of suffering an individual man faces could ever equate to what an ordinary woman suffers - even if she has never been a victim of clear sexism.

You are starting to see some contentious relationships between Marxism and Feminists, though intersectionality still exists and these different social justice and progressive movements are largely still working together and accepting each other's viewpoints. The primary reason why is because they all essentially view the patriarchy as a white male patriarchy, or, to be more specific, the Western world. This is why they are allies to Islamists with rather sexist views.

However, all these progressive movements, Marxism, Race Groups, and Feminists fundamentally believe that their victimization is the most prominent and the most heartbreaking. To not acknowledge that makes you an enemy.

The patriarchy/western world that all these groups hate includes all white men by default (which is why you mainly see white men reeling from progressivism). However, there are still white male allies on the left, and these are usually Marxists. Interestingly, they too are beginning to reel back from progressive causes, which is why Bernie Sanders happened. They think everything can be solved with Socialism or Communist policies. If you know anything about the US Election from the Democrat side, than you may be aware of the rift that is forming.

Part of Dr. Peterson's argument is that the leftists use to be pro free speech. He rose to fame when he had an interview with a journalist in which she argues that people have the right not to be told something which offends them, but Dr. Peterson argued that she seemed to have no problem offending him - and that's the fundamental rub between liberals and conservatives. Liberals don't want to be offended but are willing to offend oters. However, as they have come into power and influence their views towards free speech has changed. Now it is a crime to not agree with their way of thinking - something like 95% of professors are liberal, for example, and conservative students often face funding issues.

Outside the US, the Western world is increasingly weakening rights of speech, and in the United States you see feminists and other progressives call for laws to limit what can be said to other people and whether or not groups can assemble.

Men fear that soon they will not even be able to make a case for their issues because they will no longer have a voice. For example, just this morning Bill Clinton, who had already gone through a very public trial, was lambasted in the media for not apologizing on air to Monica Lewinksy again (even though the media has a lot to do with her career suffering). Nothing he does will ever be enough for the feminist movement - only his death will be his repentence - even though, by and large, he has been a rather strong feminist ally.

BUT let's not forget Hillary Clinton. She got serious flak from other feminists for staying with her husband and even listing the fact she was a mother/grandmother/whatever feminine thing she said on her twitter profile first before anything else.

I bring these liberal politicians to fore as example because the femininst movement is quickly becoming a hivemind in which they expect perfect obediance and submission from even their female allies... so imagine what they expect of men.

Essentially, they expect the impossible of men and men are starting to realize it. Equal pay? Of course! But when you point out men and women generally are paid the same and it comes down to personal choices, many feminists get upset and expect handouts. This is fundamentally unfair, because as Dr. Peterson points out, gender is not the only identity marker which someone can experience inequality, and is rather an infinite sort of categorization.

This is where intersectionality becomes interesting, but a point in which liberals ignore. Liberals for example, are not individualists - they are collectiveists, and I am going to explain why.

What needs to be done is have a merit based society in order to truly promote equality of opportunity - which is what the Western world largely has - women get paid less largely because of choices they made.

Men will tend to win out in careers for many merit-based or genetic reasons. This means in order for feminists to win their cause, they have to be in a situation which gives them the advantage.

A lot of Jordan's fans and similar speakers have this idea that feminism is really socialism, because it requires a government control of redistribution. However, when you redistribute resources, you are taking away from someone to give to someone else. Unlike charity, however, this may be through force.

Affirmative action is essentially taking opportunity away from men to give to women.

Now, there are certainly times when a woman is a good candidate over a man even if she isn't the best in her field. For example, Apple was criticized for their health app not including period tracking when it was released - if they had talked to a woman (or even a doctor, really) they might have realized they missed something important. So some companies may decide to hire diverse candidates for diverse ideas.

That is very different from hiring someone simply because of government or social pressure to do so. For example, that same company may have a team working on the shuffle algorithm for their music app and not really need diverse perspectives. It would be ridiculous to hire a less qualified applicant simply because they were a woman when a skilled man would be the better call for the team.

So you see where awareness of sexism is really the point of feminism at this part of our history, whereas the all-consuming feminism which is leaving men behind is causing them to suffer unjustly. And not only are they losing opportunities, they are also being treated with a lot of disrespect which is frankly unfair.

They are told they are the problem, rather than part of the solution. People don't like to be left outside.

[–]JeanBroady123[S] 16 points17 points  (12 children)

A lot of women have faced sexual harassment that has gone unchecked, but now in order to be a true feminist, you must be a victim yourself.

I will say I agree with this. I faced sexual harassment and discrimination as a young woman, but I just shook it off as fact of life. I managed to make my way because most men were decent human beings. I did not perceive the whole male species to be bad, just because of a few assholes.

[–]blushdot1 Star 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Yeah. The amount of sexism most women face is either non-existent or rare when compared to the amount of men they encounter on a daily basis. Some women are unlucky, though.

The problem is that feminism is treating every interaction with men as bad. There is even a new term: micro-aggressions. This is basically small insults or dismissiveness. In fact, there is no guarantee that the reason a man ignores you is because of sexism, and science has yet to prove this is a real effect. For example, "Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough" is considered a microaggression.

One more problem Dr. Peterson has identified for his audience is that the left really tends to favor pseudoscience theory. This is something all conservatives have been railing against for some time. The social sciences and humanities are especially rife in this, and something like 70% of papers are never cited.

[–]JeanBroady123[S] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

One more problem Dr. Peterson has identified for his audience is that the left really tends to favor pseudoscience theory.know

I am not familiar with pseudoscience. I am just so lost as to how feminism evolved into this mindset. I was too busy raising kids and being a wife and working full time as a teacher to recognize when the basic ideas of equal recognition for equal work went off the rails. How did it turn into this idea of toxic masculinity?

[–]blushdot1 Star 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Well, some voices in feminism have always been rather antagonistic towards me. We know this because of how they treat transwomen.

Some of the most famous names in feminism, like Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem, had or still have very negative views towards transwomen. Essentially, they view transgender mtf as men who are trying to steal the identity of women, and that they can never understand what women have gone through. I detail this divide on my blog, but I bring this up primarily because no matter what men do, no matter how much they try to understand women, feminists will never accept that men can understand their cause.

If you come to the table assuming the other side can never understand what the other suffers, even abstractly... and essentially view yourself as the most oppressed (even though research proves transgenders suffer far more violence, for instance) than only one thing can be surmised: feminist women view men as the enemy.

[–]lespetiteschoses 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Thanks for linking your blog. I've found this exchange really interesting so will be diving into your posts when I have some time.

[–]JeanBroady123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, I responded to your comment instead of u/blushdot.

[–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I bring this up primarily because no matter what men do, no matter how much they try to understand women, feminists will never accept that men can understand their cause.

Perhaps modern feminists feel this way. I don't feel all women feel this way.

[–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is that feminism is treating every interaction with men as bad. There is even a new term: micro-aggressions. This is basically small insults or dismissiveness.

My God! No wonder men are resentful.

[–][deleted]  (4 children)


    [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Females don't care about male sexual abuse, you only pretend to care

    This is not your place to bitch about women.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)


      [–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      This is a women's space. It's also an anti-feminist space. I don't see why your like for feminism helps your case here. I get to throw a hissy fit on behalf of the women here because I am a moderator. You can continue to argue with me but you will not like the result.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Wow! You have given me way to much food for thought to give you any kid of reply in the next ten minutes. I was asking for insight as to understanding Peterson and you stepped up. Thank you. I have read some things about him that have been most likely taken out of context.

      [–]blushdot1 Star 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      I've watched a lot of videos from him and about him lately, as well as looked into some arguments in favor and against.

      Generally, I think he's got the right message and he's pretty interesting. Interestingly, he's actually a liberal himself and would have voted for Clinton if he had been an American, but is growing increasingly unsettled by progressive policies. He is, essentially, the archetype of the democrat-to-republican voter (though remember, he is Canadian). That's why I think he really taps into the anger a lot of men are facing, because he's not actually the flaming conservative everyone accuses him of being (though I think he has grown increasingly conservative).

      [–]the-snow-monster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This is one of the best explanations of Jordan Peterson I’ve ever read. I even saved your comment. Thank you for writing in to the discussion.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Men will tend to win out in careers for many merit-based or genetic reasons. This means in order for feminists to win their cause, they have to be in a situation which gives them the advantage.

      I was an art student in the late seventies. At that time women were having a very difficult time breaking into the art world. To protest they started the "Guerrilla Girls". Things have changed dramatically. Now women have tremendous opportunity to succeed as an artist.

      [–]DreamBoatGuy25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Part of Dr. Peterson's argument is that the leftists use to be pro free speech.

      These kinds of ideological shifts happen all the time on both sides, though.

      During the Bush years Conservatives were huge victim's rights advocates and never met a accused person that they didn't think should immediately be thrown in prison or worse; gitmo. On the other hand Liberals were staunch defenders of due process, presumption of innocence, and the rights of the accused. Now with the recent cultural shift focusing on women's issues, specifically sexual assault both on and off campus, Liberals are suddenly the victim's rights advocates that think the accused should just be thrown into a hole with barely anything but a brief trial in a college campus kangaroo court and Conservatives are suddenly sympathetic to accused persons.

      All any of this shows is that people are cartoonishly ignorant hypocrites that can't be trusted to run a washing machine let alone a country.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)


      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

      The best way to get a woman to understand how little most men trust most women is to find women who are mothers of sons who are approaching marriage type age.

      I don't have to find one. I am one. My son is getting married in the next six months and I have my doubts about his future wife.

      [–]aftertheafter-party2 Star 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      When I was single, I had women trying to set me up with their sons... who already had girlfriends.

      I had to demonstrate over months & years to my MIL that I was an acceptable match for her son. I understand "the fear," & I really empathize with mothers who have done a great job raising amazing men who want to make sure their sons are marrying women who can be good wives rather than simply marrying girls who are good self-promoters.

      [–]anothdae 12 points13 points  (0 children)

      I don't think Peterson builds an audience upon frustrations of young men.

      I think fairly little of his videos are about that.

      He got popular with the gender pronoun thing.

      I think that a lot of people want to paint him that way (popular with sexually frustrated young men) to discredit what he is saying about everything.

      [–]Blackhawk24791 Star 38 points39 points  (13 children)

      Yes, feminism has never really been about gender equality, it wouldn’t be called feminism if it was.

      The litmus test for me is reversing the genders in any given pro-feminist scenario and asking if women would still accept it. Female-only gyms for example, or car insurers that only cover women. Men make up a significant percentage of domestic abuse victims, and yet the vast majority of domestic abuse shelters are women-only.

      True gender equality requires factoring out gender completely, and aiming for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 7 points8 points  (9 children)

      It is interesting that you point out the number of female spaces only now, when women fought so hard to break into the men only spaces. I was really unhappy when I heard that the boy scouts took on girls. The girls had the option of girl scouts. On the other hand, I totally support allowing young girls and boys to play on the same athletic team, until they are given the opportunity to play for a team of their own sex.

      [–]Blackhawk24791 Star 7 points8 points  (7 children)

      It’s interesting you mention sports teams because popular feminist opinion dictates that women get their own teams so that they can play the sport too. This is in actual fact more sexist and actually belittles women to an extent.

      A genuinely gender-equal solution is that all sports teams are gender neutral and there are no male or female-only variants. If you make the team you make it on merit. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

      There is a lot to be said for meritocracy. People will argue it is sexist, or racist, but it’s actually the ultimate way of determining somebodies worth - as an individual.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      I agree with your idea of equality of opportunity not equality of outcome to a point. Yes there should be equal opportunity for all children. However, there will be children who thrive with that opportunity and children who will fail. As a teacher it didn't take me long to recognize that "No child left behind" amounted to"No child gets ahead."

      [–]StinkyDiaper 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      It’s interesting you mention sports teams because popular feminist opinion dictates that women get their own teams so that they can play the sport too.

      It stretches beyond sports. We have women's chess, women's gaming tournaments, and Girl Scouts. Explain that shit, if men's and women's brains are identical.

      [–]zaze12 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Feminist (or liberals) warp logic for their own benefit. If you seek the logic in their statements you see just hypocrisy or plain madness,but if you know that they just want benefit you see their distorted logic like a tactic to achieve those benefits. So you have women only space=good,men only space=bad or we are equal but we need more women in parliament because for reasons they are better. They lament the non existent wage gap,while ignoring the huge tax gap. And so on. The "Red thread" is not logic,it's gain unearned benefit (from men).

      [–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      If you make the team you make it on merit. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

      Women are not physically equal to men. If this were the case women would not be able to play any sports. There is no law preventing women from competing in men's sports, but they don't because they simply aren't good enough.

      [–]CleburnCO 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Yet, we have women in the Infantry...IE the place where you play a contact sport with the goal of violently killing your opponent. What could possibly go wrong...

      [–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I wouldn’t really describe war as a sport, but I see what you mean.

      Women are smaller and weaker than men, but war is almost never about physical fights anymore. I don’t know for sure, but I think men and women in terms of physical endurance are pretty equal which seems to be what modern day war is more about.

      But Entirely disagree with lowering physical qualifications for female troops. If you need to be able to carry a 200lbs man sometimes in war, and a woman can not do it because she lacks the strength, she should not be allowed to fight along side men. She will literally be risking their lives by being part of their squad.

      [–]LateralThinker133 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I totally support allowing young girls and boys to play on the same athletic team, until they are given the opportunity to play for a team of their own sex.

      The problem is, you find that nowadays there are girls-only teams and mixed-sex teams, but the boys teams are being phased out. That isn't healthy or fair.

      [–]UmbrellalikeWetness 10 points11 points  (2 children)

      I can't speak to if it ever was about gender equality, but here is my current litmus test: if feminism is about gender equality, there should be multiple examples where feminists, as a group, have "done sometime" to aid men in areas where the men are disadvantaged. I don't know of any.

      Now, my position doesn't at all state women SHOULD be attempting to do those things. However, if they are claiming to be all about "equality", then logically it would follow that they would tackle those issues.

      I think it would be much more intellectually honest for feminists to say "we're pro-woman". And again, there's nothing in my opinion that says THAT is a bad thing for them to be.

      Would it make feminists political journey more difficult? Likely. If the end result is accomplished under false or hypocritical pretenses, will there be unintended consequences? Likely, and I think Peterson speaks of some of those consequences unfolding before us.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      I have to admit that I had never heard of first wave, second wave and third wave feminism until I started lurking here. I hate to say that I am on the cusp between first and second wave feminism because readers will dismiss my opinions as that of an old woman. I will say I am rather horrified by some of the behavior and attitudes I see today of women who identify as feminist. That being said, I am also horrified by the attitudes of people who call themselves Christian. So I guess; the times are a changing.

      [–]Ironchar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I had no idea there was a forth wave until now...

      [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 8 points9 points  (6 children)

      I'm going to start by pointing out that every article written about Dr. Peterson so far has been a hit piece, so reading an LA Times article about him is not going to give you an accurate reflection of his views. They're not exactly a reputable publication anymore - if they ever were.

      I think the biggest problem with feminism as a movement is that the Male Dominance Hierarchy is far more effective at culling the weak, crazy, ineffective, and malicious from the herd than the Female Social Matrix is, and because of that feminism has devolved into a shitshow over the past century. If you read up on the original leaders of the women's suffrage movement, they were a lot saner, civil, and well-educated than what began to appear in the 60's. Look at the personal lives of all of the major second-wave feminists. Their lives resemble a Jerry Springer episode mashed up with a Cops! marathon. There's no reason why women should listen to people that so obviously cannot manage their own lives, yet they do - mostly because they're the loudest voices and they've seized control of the mic.

      This is actually why I encourage my wife to post here. Whenever the sane voices like her are relatively quiet (due to having real lives to deal with) the crazy women take advantage of the opening (along with the men too weak to handle TRP) and the quality of discourse drops off a cliff. If you give a few pathological women an inch, they will take something useful, gut it, and wear it like a skin suit.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children)

      reading an LA Times article about him is not going to give you an accurate reflection of his views.

      What would be an objective source to read? I don't want to buy his book. Please don't direct me to a biased right wing publication. They are just as bad as the biased liberal ones.

      [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 3 points4 points  (4 children)

      The best objective source is always the source material itself. The man has hundreds of hours of his college course lectures, interviews, and public lectures up on YouTube. Pick some at random and start watching. I cannot recommend them enough.

      If you want to get an honest hearing of his ideas with an essentially agenda-free interviewer, try one of Joe Rogan's podcasts - he's had JP on 3 or 4 times now. Joe Rogan is somehow as good an interviewer as Terri Gross used to be back before the left collectively lost its mind.

      As far as publications go, you may think there are hundreds of both left-wing and right-wing outlets, but in reality there are 6. There are 6 major media companies that own every major print, radio, TV, and digital platform in the English-speaking world, and they direct the editorial slant of every discussion going on. The idea of a "public discourse" existing on one of these outlets is fantasy.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Thank you for your suggestions. I will do some research.

      [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      I would specifically recommend this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0

      I first watched his interview with Cathy Newman and I found it to be the most obvious representation of how these types of "tough question" interviews have changed from being a genuine search for the truth, into the desire to forcibly create the truth the journalist wants to hear.

      I was interested by Jordan Peterson's statements and the video I have recommended was suggested by Youtube so I decided to watch it - and honestly, it really blew my mind.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      and honestly, it really blew my mind.

      I just listened to over two hours of this video and then my kindle died. It honestly blew my mind too. Thank you for the link. I will finish it and check out other lectures.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Not a problem - glad you found it interesting.

      Aside from his more controversial talks, he does have a whole host of Psychology lectures on there, both on personality and archetypes that are very interesting too.

      [–]strategic_expert 3 points4 points  (8 children)

      Jordan Peterson is an interesting and imperfect character, but I sure do love him very much for similar reasons that I loved Sigmund Freud so much in college.

      I've been following the "anti-SJW's" on YouTube since the GamerGate thing ~2015. The content was very interesting to me for a long time, especially the anti-feminist content. I listened to Honey Badger radio almost everyday there for at least a year I'd say. A lot of it the audience, i.e. youtube comments, on these sorts of videos has sort of completely devolved into just total 'alt-right-type.' However, just because your audience leans a certain way politically does not mean that that is how you want to come across or what you want your audience to take away from your content.

      I didn't hear Jordan Peterson's name until the Bill C16 controversy in 2016. All of the anti-SJW crowd was not only talking about Jordan Peterson because of this, but fawning over him. I didn't understand it and it really annoyed me and so at first I didn't even give him a chance. "He got famous over not wanting to say weird pronouns," I thought. "Big deal!"

      It wasn't until his book 12 Rules for Life came out that I started looking more into him and honestly absolutely fell in love with his lectures. He speaks about everything I've always been interested in but no one has been talking about. He's read all the great philosophers and he's deeply studied history and theology and he just has an open and whimsical way about the way he expresses all of these thoughts he's had over the years into something useful and meaningful.

      I do believe that Jordan Peterson has been a breath of fresh air in this particular community. He teaches people the absolute importance of personal responsibility and he brings meaning into a lot of peoples' lives that they did not necessarily know they were missing in this new atheist era.

      That's really the best gist of Jordan Peterson that I can give you. He's the new Alan Watts/Carl Jung of our time, and a lot of young men have found him on YouTube and I think that's a great thing. As a woman, I find his lectures just as meaningful. You don't need to be of the male gender to appreciate his work.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

      Thank you for your comment. Everything I have read about him has been really negative. I recognize it can't be an accurate assessment. Does he really believe in the idea of enforced monogamy and redistribution of sex as a commodity? Wouldn't that be in opposition to his support of individual responsibility and accomplishment based on hard work?

      [–]girlwithabikeEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      The enforced monogamy thing was way out of context. He believes in traditional marriage. When you have societies with a lot of unmarried young men, it gets volatile. This is true throughout history iirc. Encouraging traditional monogamous marriage is a solution to that problem. He never suggested that everyone marry or that anyone be forced to marry. TRP has mixed feelings about him for these sorts of views, but he's very in line with RPW values IMO

      [–]strategic_expert 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Haha I love this one!

      So all he has done is recognized that monogamy in enforced in our society, throughout our history and evolution as well as today. He does not himself wish to enforce monogamy necessarily. An example would be that it is still seen as immoral to cheat on your spouse. Another example would be the social norm of marriage between two people. These are expressions of enforced monogamy in our society that he has just recognized and acknowledged.

      He has also expressed that monogamy has been shown to be an important part of our society, especially for child rearing.

      But there is no bill or law or ideology or anything like that in which he has promoted or endorsed that would force monogamy upon everyone. That is just silly and funny and he has a good sense of humor about it.

      I highly recommend listening to his lectures. You can "YouTube" 'Jordan Peterson enforced monogamy' and listen to his own words on the topic. He often repeats himself throughout his lectures so there will be many examples of what he is trying to say.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      He has also expressed that monogamy has been shown to be an important part of our society, especially for child rearing.

      I am in full agreement with this. Working to keep a happy marriage is the greatest advantage that parents can give their children.

      [–]strategic_expert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Agreed. Dr. Peterson has actually argued that your children is the sole reason to keep your marriage functional and happy (to the best of your ability of course)

      [–]Abara4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This very interesting article from Quillette as a reply to vox's video on monogamy is a great insight as to why monogamy is healthy for society as a whole as well as for individuals. https://quillette.com/2018/06/07/explaining-monogamy-vox/

      [–]Guywithgirlwithabike2 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The "Enforced Monogamy" bullshit is part of why I mentioned all of the articles being hit pieces. He brought the idea up as a hypothetical to point out problems with the current state of our society, and the phrase was taken out of context to intentionally trigger the most retarded feminists. The interview Vice did had some similar deceptive editing where they tried to claim he was in favor of banning make-up and high heels in the workplace.

      [–]LateralThinker133 Stars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      You don't need to be of the male gender to appreciate his work.

      Nope, you just have to be open to honest intellectual discourse.

      [–]sonder_one 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      Identity politics and equal rights are diametrically opposed.

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      Please explain further.

      [–]LateralThinker133 Stars 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      Identity politics places individuals on a spectrum of oppression and privilege based upon both extrinsic and intrinsic qualities. It doesn't care about merit, just social/genetic identity. It's about taking all of these people of varying levels of privilege and oppression and penalizing the privileged and subsidizing the oppressed until you have equality of outcome. As such, it's also completely Socialist in nature.

      Equal rights are premised on giving everybody the same opportunities under the law. What you do with it is up to you. It's completely meritocratic.

      Equality of Outcome and Equality of Opportunity are diametrically opposed, because you can only control for ONE of the two.

      [–]LateralThinker133 Stars 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      "Repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally — and we still won’t trust you." Lets start with this statement. Do you feel this is true?

      Absolutely. But with good reason. The number of prominent SJW/Feminist men who turn out to be headcases, rapists, and jackasses is astonishing.

      But I simply don't trust Feminists of either gender because the never argue rationally. You can see it anytime an MRA or other activist mentions an area of actual discrimination and gets spat upon.

      My favorite response to Feminists is always to ask, "Show me one place in the states where discrimination against women is codified into law." It's all perception. I can show DOZENS where it is in policy and law against men, but not the reverse. They just change the subject. Or ban you from r/Feminism.

      [–]Honey_Mommy_82 2 points3 points  (3 children)

      I asked my husband about that quote and he vehemently agreed. "Nothing I could do is ever enough for the sin of being male."

      [–]JeanBroady123[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      That is so disheartening. I did not realize the pendulum had swung so far out of wack. I hope it doesn't swing just as far in the other direction and wipe out the advances that women made in last century.

      [–]Honey_Mommy_82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      He's not alone feeling that way, and that's the sad part.

      [–]CleburnCO 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The feminist drive to import a legitimate rape culture will do this quite well. Sweedenstan is getting a full dose of it now and those same feminists told the rape victims to "shut up and don't report it to the police, for the sake of diversity".... Give it time. Feminism will be self correcting via a true violent patriarchy that will put them in burkahs.

      [–][deleted]  (5 children)


      [–][deleted]  (4 children)


        [–][deleted]  (3 children)


          [–][deleted]  (2 children)


            [–][deleted]  (1 child)


              [–]CleburnCO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              Compelled Speech.

              Those words should be the most horrifying thing you read on the internet. With the concept of compelled speech, you don't even have the most basic right- the right to Remain Silent...IE you can't even sit there and do nothing.

              That is what started the issues Peterson is talking about. He was forced, at literal gunpoint, by Police- under penalty of death or imprisonment (by law) if he refuses, to say words that he did not wish to say.

              The government has no right to compel speech. It is abhorrent to a free society. No law should be able to compel speech or labor.

              That is the reality of modern leftism...it hides behind sympathetic victims- minority groups, feminism, and so on...but the actual movement is not about helping those groups...it is about government enforcement of leftism. Compelled speech is palatable to some when it is for their pet cause. Would it taste so sweet if it were done by the opposition? The things that seemed so great when Obama did it...now seem so.....when Trump does it?

              The Peterson lesson is simple- Hold your freedom and your rights close. Defend them. Do not empower the government or that power will be used against you down the road. A government that can do for you, will do to you.

              [–]Nessunolosa 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              Is Jordan Peterson even actually RP? I listened to a lot of his recent interviews and I am not convinced. He seems to be a contrarian above all else.

              [–]CleburnCO 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              They try to paint him as right wing, whatever... He is not right wing or even conservative. He is just logical, in the sense that a mathematician will tell you your math is wrong.

              He is functionally a societal mathematician telling people that their math doesn't work.

              They look for ways to tell him he is wrong...but they can't argue the math...so they call him names.

              It's blatantly obvious that he knows what he is talking about, so arguing fact with him won't work...thus, emotive insults.

              "You just hate women/minorities/kids/insert group here"

              [–]JeanBroady123[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

              I too am not seeing the connection between his ideas and the RP, but I have only listened to one of his lectures so I can't make a judgement. I do intend to listen to more of his lectures. I really was surprised to agree with a lot of his reasoning, however there is still a skeptical part of me. I respect him at this point.

              [–]UmbrellalikeWetness -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

              I'm can only guess that as ALL the replies so far have been deleted, that anything near "yes" to your question is getting down voted/deleted. Ironically, this behavior would likely support the argument Peterson is making.

              [–]JeanBroady123[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

              No no no. You misunderstand. The comments deleted were between me and the mod. I didn't know what i was doing in regards to posting the link. She filled me in and then deleted our conversation.

              [–]UmbrellalikeWetness 2 points3 points  (1 child)

              Ahh! It sure looked bad. ;)