Submitted by newbalancewearer t3_yibnrr in books
Master_Ryan_Rahl t1_iui547q wrote
Reply to comment by newbalancewearer in Anyone who’s read “12 rules for life” by JBP finds it so harsh and unforgiving? by newbalancewearer
I would implore you to be more critical about what you think is good about his videos. He is a confused presenter and does not often make coherent points. I have found that the most common way people 'like' his commentary is by crafting a personal interpretation of it that makes some kind of deeply personal sense out of nonsense.
This is quite literally the same trick of astrology, allowing many people to find personal meaning in a generic description.
whattodo12351 t1_iuipf1a wrote
I looked into JBP as a woman who had not read his books and wasn’t his target demographic, out of curiosity to see if the criticism against him rang true.
The discrepancy between how people on Reddit and in general media portray him, vs how the man actually comes off, was so wide it was honestly fucking disconcerting.
I am, to clarify, NOT stating that public figures shouldn’t be criticized, especially when it comes to educators of mental health, but Peterson rose to fame as someone whose book and general advice helped guide a lot of bitter, misogynistic men who were filled with hate away from the incel-community and towards the road of self-improvement and moral responsibility. He seems to be one of the few people who are actually trying to fix the rising incel issue instead of just pushing the general narrative that makes fun of them, which does nothing but drive these people further into the community. For people to not recognize that but instead just hail him as “an incel king”, which makes him sound like a supporter of it, is so sad to me.
The problem is people who can’t recognize that not everything is for them and as a result seek to discredit and destroy it because they can’t understand that Peterson’s advice is for people who are in a different mental state than them and suffer from different problems. We’re not all one and the same and we’re not all going to find help from the same book or the same philosophy.
sisharil t1_iuiu0n6 wrote
>I am, to clarify, NOT stating that public figures shouldn’t be criticized, especially when it comes to educators of mental health, but Peterson rose to fame as someone whose book and general advice helped guide a lot of bitter, misogynistic men who were filled with hate away from the incel-community and towards the road of self-improvement and moral responsibility.
Here's the thing. He helps them be less self hating and despairing, perhaps, but he does nothing but encourage them to embrace misogyny and other forms of bigotry. He is also a gateway to other even more extreme, self-described fascists like Matt Walsh and the rest of the alt-lite dailywire folks.
FivyAndErn t1_iuj4esk wrote
Exactly, this is the only Peterson point that matters: he uses his half-decent lifestyle advice (which he himself doesn’t follow), as a way to draw disaffected young men towards the alt-right.
One of Peterson’s academic mentors initially thought Peterson was brilliant but became horrified as his career in academia continued, as Peterson was so convinced of his genius that he would never move an inch, and he fetishized actual fascist thought leaders. Jordan Peterson is extremely dangerous as an agent of radicalization
chutton2012 t1_iuj8ih4 wrote
He doesn't encourage people to embrace misogyny... There are a lot of fair criticisms on this thread, but this is perhaps the most off base and blatant hatred by someone who clearly hasn't read him. Which is fine, but don't go around blatantly spreading misinformation simply because you don't like the man.
Genshed t1_iujgnut wrote
Remember what he said about Friedan and "The Feminine Mystique"? If that's enough to fuel his loathing he's at least misogyny-adjacent.
chutton2012 t1_iuju9ko wrote
I would agree with your distaste for that quote, but it’s hardly a view propagated and promoted within his book. Like I said there are many fair criticisms of Jordan Peterson, but acting like he’s leading people towards incelhood and the alt right shows a fundamental misunderstanding between random Jordan Peterson quotes and the actual material written in his books. I’m not defending every aspect of his personality, I also criticize him. But that’s not what he writes and the bash fest for anyone who enjoys his teachings is misguided by the flawed man.
Genshed t1_iujvbct wrote
I don't accuse him of promoting inceldom as such. But he definitely promotes the view that 'sex' is something women have that men are supposed to get from them. As for alt-right, no. He's promoting the paleoconservative views that were current around the time he and I were born. Gender roles that were the product of an industrial/post-industrial economy and society are represented as the natural and inevitable result of immutable human nature.
Jungianism is no more scientific than Freudianism, and depicting women as 'chaos dragons' is not philosophy or psychology.
chutton2012 t1_iujwtc8 wrote
I didn’t say you did, I was replying to someone else to start with. I can disagree with how people in this thread are portraying his ideology while agreeing with many of the (fair) criticisms of the man, some of which you yourself have just presented. But considering I get downvoted even for that I doubt that same level of impartiality exists elsewhere in this discussion. He’s a flawed man, with flawed views, absolutely. But his teachings aren’t nearly as dramatically awful as some people present them as.
sisharil t1_iuk0b9t wrote
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
https://australiabusinessnews.com.au/news/jordan-peterson-asks-wear-makeup-workplace/
In addition to the things covered in these articles, specifically that he believes sexual harassment occurs because women induce men to commit it by wearing sexually provocative makeup in the workplace, he also believes rape within the confines of marriage is acceptable.
chutton2012 t1_iukaevu wrote
He doesn’t say that in 12 rules. I don’t need a summary for a book I’ve actually read. I’m not arguing about whether Jordan Peterson, the person, is good and above criticism. Im saying 12 rules is not some misogynistic, alt right creed that exists for incels. I’ve read it, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s fairly innocuous. If you want to criticize things that Jordan Peterson said in interviews you’ll get no argument from me.
sisharil t1_iukb08i wrote
That's fair. However, if someone becomes a fan of his work and looks into more of what he says and supports, they can easily get sucked into the misogyny and bigotry that he supports. That's all I'm saying.
chutton2012 t1_iukbe3k wrote
That’s 100% fair too. I appreciate your rational debate and thank you for showing me some of the things he’s said. I wasn’t aware of that and I completely disagree with those statements.
Master_Ryan_Rahl t1_iujc43k wrote
>away from the incel-community and towards the road of self-improvement and moral responsibility.
No. The man has openly suggested we may need to solve a bunch of social issues with 'enforced monogamy'. He is absolutely not leading men away from being incels.
Think4Yoself t1_iujfmn9 wrote
I don't think enforced monogamy means what you think it means.
Genshed t1_iujhj4t wrote
It means that being a single woman who supports yourself and refrains from marrying should be socially discouraged.
The society Peterson advocates is the one we used to have in the United States, in which divorce was rare and shameful. A woman was almost required to be married and have children to be respected and admired.
That's what 'socially enforced monogamy' means in practical terms.
Think4Yoself t1_iujin3s wrote
No it doesn't. Not even close. In practical terms it means that a person should be discouraged or prohibited from having multiple partners. Enforced monogamy has nothing to do with married vs unmarried, it's about monogamy vs polygamy.
Master_Ryan_Rahl t1_iujh0jx wrote
Give your take then.
Think4Yoself t1_iujhjpn wrote
Enforced monogamy is a term from anthropology and sociology. It means a society or culture that doesn't allow for plural marriages. The Western world practices enforced monogamy. It is illegal for a man in the United States to have three wives.
Now let's here yours.
Master_Ryan_Rahl t1_iujms9l wrote
How do you think that applies to how he uses the phrase? He uses it in a context that would prescribe enforced monogamy to western society, as in we do not currently have it as a strong norm.
I think Peterson is often a deeply reactionary thinking person with sympathies to old modes of thought that comfort him. This situation is an example. When hes asked about modern dating and mens issues he uses this term and people hearing it take the meaning to be distributing women to men in a sort of effort to tame them. Speaking of women as a resources to better utilize. Now im unsympathetic to the calls that this is unfair to him because i think hes a poor communicator and hides in ambiguity and unclear speaking all the time.
So again, if you can explain why he prescribes a norm you say already rules, then maybe there can be some clarity here.
Think4Yoself t1_iujqgbp wrote
He used the phrase in one New York Times interview where the interviewed deliberately took it out of context as part of a hit piece and it led to this position that you are trying to attribute to him that not only does he not have, but no reasonable person has. Do you honestly think that Jordan Peterson believes young women should be forced into relationships with the most pathetic men our society has produced? How would this hypothetically be enforced? Under threat of murder or threat or imprisonment? Seriously? Peterson has made very clear in several interviews his opinion of incels and it basically boils down to "if all the women reject you, all the women aren't wrong to do so".
The point he was making, and it's irrefutably true and has been well established for more than a century is that societies with culturally enforced monogamy are significantly less violent than those without it. In cultures where the most successful men can't have harems, and where cheating on your spouse is considered immoral, less disaffected young men are produced and less violence occurs. That is a good thing and if a better approach exists, we aren't aware of it.
I also noticed that you never actually provided your definition of enforced monogamy like I requested. Are you going to do so now or are you going to admit that I was correct and you didn't actually know what the term meant when you used it?
[deleted] t1_iujuxrp wrote
[removed]
SlickMouthedFool t1_iuiwuce wrote
You need to have more discerning tastes when judging literature, you are currently defending a man who spews Neo Nazi talking points, pretending that we just dont "understand" his philosophy.
The man believes White Supremacy and Patriarchy aren't real...the man has openly promoted forced monogamy as an answer to inceldom.
> He seems to be one of the few people who are actually trying to fix the rising incel issue
No he's fucking not.
Lying to these men, telling them that feminists are the problem is NOT HELPING THEM, he's fucking feeding into their delusions.
He is making them worse, making them angrier, reinforcing their darkest prejudices.
What the absolute fuck are you talking about?
HELPING these me would be unpacking their prejudices....trying to reintegrate them to reality...getting them to understand that women and modernity aren't their enemies.
A therapist is what these men need! Not someone who openly engages with their conspiracies and prejudices!
There's one Neo Nazi thing that JP ALWAYS does.
He always talks about the "unproductive 10%" or even trans people, like their very existence and visibility are an existential threat to western society.
....but he always stops short of giving a solution to the "problem" of these people...he gets to the precipice of calling for violence, then takes a step back and says "we just need to be talking about this...no one is talking about it."
He's a Nazi, wrapped in a film of self-help pop-psychology.
I refuse to beleive you posted this entire thread without even looking into his comments about trans people, forced monogamy, or the unproductive 10%.
What is your fucking goal here?
SectorEducational460 t1_iuia457 wrote
Peterson is the male version of astrology for a lot of the manosphere
ObscureMemes69420 t1_iuihkw4 wrote
Did you read the book? Its literally extrapolations of basic common sense self-help tips...
I think you are conflating JBP the man and confusing it with the image of JBP put out by the media to form really misguided opinions about his self-help book. I would recommend maybe actually reading the book or maybe, you know, having an open mind. You dont have to like it but what you are saying here is straight up just not factually correct.
Not only that, but you are actively trying to tell someone what they should and shouldn't read, which isn't very tolerant of you.
SectorEducational460 t1_iuiiii8 wrote
Dude, I will treat the dude as the conman every self help book should be treated as. Trash meant for people with low self confidence, desperate to look for meaning in the meaningless. Also as per every Peterson fan. Telling me to hear the thousands of lectures because of course I didn't understand. I read the books and pirated them because I'm sure as hell will make sure he doesn't get even a cent out of me. Not sure I am getting down voted by Peterson fan or astrology fans. Either way downvote me for either. It's worth it. Also maps of meaning wasn't self help. Edit: also at least make your response unique instead of a copy paste you have been putting throughout the thread.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments