Jordan Peterson

[callentournies]

Everyone is played

[Goodspeed]

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

Surprised pikachu face - pack it up everyone.

Seriously these arguments are very dumb and you should feel bad. Misogynists marry all the time, obviously, and thinking they don't shows a lack of understanding of basic psychology, which I guess might be explained by consuming content made by Peterson.
You know parents don't actually get a say about the gender of their child?
Psychology is a female-dominated field so of course his students are mostly female. I once studied psych and my class was 80% female.

I have no opinion on Peterson being a misogynist or not. All I really know is he has shit taste in movies calling "Free guy" perfect. Just saying your arguments are shit

[JKProwler]

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

Surprised pikachu face - pack it up everyone.

Seriously these arguments are very dumb and you should feel bad. Misogynists marry all the time, obviously, and thinking they don't shows a lack of understanding of basic psychology, which I guess might be explained by consuming content made by Peterson.
You know parents don't actually get a say about the gender of their child?
Psychology is a female-dominated field so of course his students are mostly female. I once studied psych and my class was 80% female.

I have no opinion on Peterson being a misogynist or not. All I really know is he has shit taste in movies calling "Free guy" perfect. Just saying your arguments are shit

My arguments are shit? There has been no evidence to prove his a misogynist. At best you can say his views on women are leaning towards traditional / conservative.

Since you are a bit slow to understand my point...let me say it this way...if someone claims that you are a mysogonist and a white supremacist, with no proof, should we just blindly accept it?

The burden of proof should be on ppl making the claim. I'm stating the facts about his family status and his career which does not align with a typical misogynist character.

Hope you can get that thru your head

I don't want to go back and forward with someone who can't even grasp this simple concept

[Goodspeed]

There has been no evidence to prove his a misogynist. At best you can say his views on women are leaning towards traditional / conservative.

Since you are a bit slow to understand my point...let me say it this way...if someone claims that you are a mysogonist and a white supremacist, with no proof, should we just blindly accept it?

The burden of proof should be on ppl making the claim.

I'm not sure how you think any of this is a response to my post.

I'm stating the facts about his family status and his career which does not align with a typical misogynist character.

What you seem to misunderstand is that it aligns just fine, or rather that it indicates nothing either way. So specifically your arguments against the claim that he's a misogynist are shit. I haven't and don't intend to provide any arguments for because I don't really know him.

[JKProwler]

There has been no evidence to prove his a misogynist. At best you can say his views on women are leaning towards traditional / conservative.

Since you are a bit slow to understand my point...let me say it this way...if someone claims that you are a mysogonist and a white supremacist, with no proof, should we just blindly accept it?

The burden of proof should be on ppl making the claim.

I'm not sure how you think any of this is a response to my post.

I'm stating the facts about his family status and his career which does not align with a typical misogynist character.

What you seem to misunderstand is that it aligns just fine, or rather that it indicates nothing either way. So specifically your arguments against the claim that he's a misogynist are shit. I haven't and don't intend to provide any arguments for because I don't really know him.

I didn't misunderstand anything.

Most misogynist or male chauvinist have a tendency to go thru multiple partners and have multiple stories how mistreated from there ex partners.

There is valid reason to look at there family status and career to look for these tell tale signs. This is common sense.

[Goodspeed]

The length of his marriage is at best a very mild indication. Particularly the daughter and class composition arguments are ridiculous.

To examine whether or not someone is a misogynist it's not at all common sense to me to look at their family status. Personally I'd start by looking at his opinions on women.

[JKProwler]

The length of his marriage is at best a very mild indication; Particularly the daughter and class composition arguments were stupid.
To examine whether or not someone is a misogynist it's not at all common sense to me to look at their family status.

This is my final response to you since it's frustrating that some of these simple concepts are hard for you to grasp.

Typical misogynist don't have long lasting marriages. There is also a lot of stories that leak out for high profile individuals about there mistreatment of women.

For his daughter, read the story about her health battles and the burden it placed on JP and the family.

In regards to the class and the proportion of female to male students....it's important because generally you would have heard some stories from his former students about there treatment, and hence I mentioned about the high reviews from his former students.

Let's leave it here

[Goodspeed]

Obviously I'm not going to read about his daughter's health battle, what does that have to do with anything? You'd expect bad reviews from her, then?

To me these are all such weak indicators you might as well not mention them. And since he has written and talked extensively about the subject, it seems silly to focus on this rather than his actual opinions, which are easy to find. In fact it kind of looks like you're trying to steer the conversation away from that intentionally, which is an indicator the other way.

This is my final response to you since it's frustrating that some of these simple concepts are hard for you to grasp.

I bet this will age well

[helln00]

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

[JKProwler]

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

Instead of taking snippets from Twitter or headlines and rushing into extreme judgements, they should look at the full interview to get proper context



Mind you that interview was in the middle of the #metoo movement that brought both good and bad (mob trials) results.

Here is a couple of clips of peterson talking about marriage and his wife





Yeah this guy is such a misogynist

[evilcheadar]

The SJWs

[Vinyanyérë]

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.

Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

He has 100s of hours of his youtube lectures on YT before his rise in the spotlight, and there has been no clip to support the claims some posters have suggested.

It just shows how loosely ppl attach these type of labels to anybody now that it almost looses its meaning. Ppl say they hate cancel culture, but they can't see that these type of miss classifications is one of the drivers for cancel culture.

You still haven't given a convincing response to harcha. Your argument reads as "if you think that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist, then you have formed your opinion of him based on clickbait news/mainstream news articles".

This is not a good argument. As harcha says, you're committing the same error that you're accusing PatrickLFC of committing - i.e., you're saying that PatrickLFC assigned a number of inaccurate attributes (misogyny, white supremacy) to Jordan Peterson based on incomplete information, but you yourself are now making an assumption about attributes of PatrickLFC based on incomplete information.

As harcha (again) said, you should be asking PatrickLFC why they think Jordan Peterson is a misogynist rather than assuming that it is impossible for him to be a misogynist and then assuming that PatrickLFC's view could not possibly be formed from a reasonable consideration of evidence. Or, as Jordan Peterson would say, "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."

The other reason's it's not a good argument is that there's no standardized definition of misogyny (white supremacy, and to some extent narcissism) that everyone uses and commonly understands when the word is used. Possibly you and PatrickLFC have different definitions of misogyny that lead to the two of you interpreting the same words/actions by Jordan Peterson differently. Perhaps you have similar definitions, but PatrickLFC has seen something Peterson's said that you haven't. You don't know yet because you haven't asked. But you certainly can't assume that you've seen a superset of what PatrickLFC has seen AND that PatrickLFC is using the same definition as you.

don't think Peterson is a misogynist btw (but he does have a lot of extremely bad takes btw)

[JKProwler]

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.

Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

He has 100s of hours of his youtube lectures on YT before his rise in the spotlight, and there has been no clip to support the claims some posters have suggested.

It just shows how loosely ppl attach these type of labels to anybody now that it almost looses its meaning. Ppl say they hate cancel culture, but they can't see that these type of miss classifications is one of the drivers for cancel culture.

You still haven't given a convincing response to harcha. Your argument reads as "if you think that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist, then you have formed your opinion of him based on clickbait news/mainstream news articles".

This is not a good argument. As harcha says, you're committing the same error that you're accusing PatrickLFC of committing - i.e., you're saying that PatrickLFC assigned a number of inaccurate attributes (misogyny, white supremacy) to Jordan Peterson based on incomplete information, but you yourself are now making an assumption about attributes of PatrickLFC based on incomplete information.

As harcha (again) said, you should be asking PatrickLFC why they think Jordan Peterson is a misogynist rather than assuming that it is impossible for him to be a misogynist and then assuming that PatrickLFC's view could not possibly be formed from a reasonable consideration of evidence. Or, as Jordan Peterson would say, "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."

The other reason's it's not a good argument is that there's no standardized definition of misogyny (white supremacy, and to some extent narcissism) that everyone uses and commonly understands when the word is used. Possibly you and PatrickLFC have different definitions of misogyny that lead to the two of you interpreting the same words/actions by Jordan Peterson differently. Perhaps you have similar definitions, but PatrickLFC has seen something Peterson's said that you haven't. You don't know yet because you haven't asked. But you certainly can't assume that you've seen a superset of what PatrickLFC has seen AND that PatrickLFC is using the same definition as you.

don't think Peterson is a misogynist btw (but he does have a lot of extremely bad takes btw)

My response to Patrick could have been nicer or I could have just ignored it.

In terms of making an assumption about Patrick's view about Peterson, this is not the first time I've come across someone with this same extreme view and everytime they have no valid points to back up the extreme view. It's akin to someone saying "the world is flat".

Being called misogyny or white supremacist is extreme, almost in the same level as being called a paedophile.

If Patrick has the incorrect definition of these terms then he should be called out since u should be very careful using these terms to label somebody.

[gibson]

Jordan Peterson is a schmuck. I don’t know or particularly care what else he is, but he is a schmuck and I’ve found that people who hold him in high regard typically have a very narrow view of the world(completely anecdotal btw). Also I doubt that "misogynists have shorter relationships" has any basis in reality, and even if it did happen to be true still wouldn't prove that someone in a long relationship wasn't a misogynist, just that they're less likely to be.

[helln00]

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

Instead of taking snippets from Twitter or headlines and rushing into extreme judgements, they should look at the full interview to get proper context



Mind you that interview was in the middle of the #metoo movement that brought both good and bad (mob trials) results.

Here is a couple of clips of peterson talking about marriage and his wife





Yeah this guy is such a misogynist

I think we have different views of what misogyny means, like goodspeed said before, being a misogynists doesn't need you to hate women or have malice against them, misogynists can hate women but it doesnt need to be. It means (atleast to me) that you have prejudice(ie unfair or unfounded opinion, often of inferior nature) about someone or a group of people.

So the man can love his wife and daughter and treat them with the utmost respect, great. Doesn't mean the things he has said aren't misogynistic and if that is the views that he holds then he would be a misogynist. even the fuller context of that interview as you say it didn't change the things he said, it actually added more things to the list of things he said, he uses even more whataboutisms then I thought, literally saying "what about xxx?" and actually saying "why else would you wear lipstick besides to create a sexual atmosphere in the workplace" which is yikes and definitely a misogynistic view.

Its definitely a kind of misogyny, of that traditionalist view of men should be men and women should be women, but its misogyny. He also has a tendency to speak before he has a idea of what he is speaking about. At the end of that clip you posted, he said that the policies won't work cause they aren't specific enough. But when asked why he said he doesn't know about them well enough and for a guy who likes to talk about individuals, he speaks in generalities alot.

To put a semi-example of another kind of prejudice, my family definitely has some prejudice against what in my country would call rural people and they would say it to these people (since we moved to a rural area) and completely without malice that they are a country bumpkin with no taste and this has actually put someone to tears. There was no malice, they apologised but then they also realised that it was something they said almost reflexively about people from the countryside and it was a prejudice they held against them. Does it make them "whatever the word would be for this", yes, yes it does. Does it mean they can't get past it, no it doesn't, they reflect and change their behaviour.

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

Instead of taking snippets from Twitter or headlines and rushing into extreme judgements, they should look at the full interview to get proper context



Mind you that interview was in the middle of the #metoo movement that brought both good and bad (mob trials) results.

Here is a couple of clips of peterson talking about marriage and his wife





Yeah this guy is such a misogynist

I think we have different views of what misogyny means, like goodspeed said before, being a misogynists doesn't need you to hate women or have malice against them, misogynists can hate women but it doesnt need to be. It means (atleast to me) that you have prejudice(ie unfair or unfounded opinion, often of inferior nature) about someone or a group of people.

So the man can love his wife and daughter and treat them with the utmost respect, great. Doesn't mean the things he has said aren't misogynistic and if that is the views that he holds then he would be a misogynist. even the fuller context of that interview as you say it didn't change the things he said, it actually added more things to the list of things he said, he uses even more whataboutisms then I thought, literally saying "what about xxx?" and actually saying "why else would you wear lipstick besides to create a sexual atmosphere in the workplace" which is yikes and definitely a misogynistic view.

Its definitely a kind of misogyny, of that traditionalist view of men should be men and women should be women, but its misogyny. He also has a tendency to speak before he has a idea of what he is speaking about. At the end of that clip you posted, he said that the policies won't work cause they aren't specific enough. But when asked why he said he doesn't know about them well enough and for a guy who likes to talk about individuals, he speaks in generalities alot.

To put a semi-example of another kind of prejudice, my family definitely has some prejudice against what in my country would call rural people and they would say it to these people (since we moved to a rural area) and completely without malice that they are a country bumpkin with no taste and this has actually put someone to tears. There was no malice, they apologised but then they also realised that it was something they said almost reflexively about people from the countryside and it was a prejudice they held against them. Does it make them "whatever the word would be for this", yes, yes it does. Does it mean they can't get past it, no it doesn't, they reflect and change their behaviour.

The definition of misogyny is the hatred of women or that women are not as good as men.

The definition of white supremacist is the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

If we can change the definition of terms as anyone sees fit, then there is no point in having any discussion about anything really because you can just change definitions whenever you see fit

Regarding the interview, watch until the end to get the context. His never indicated that women should stay at home and men work. WATCH THE WHOLE INTERVIEW DUDE.

Also since when did being a traditionalist become misogynist?

You are basically saying a lot of the Asian culture who generally hold traditional view in terms of men and women relationships are misogynist. That's extremely racist?

[JKProwler]

Jordan Peterson is a schmuck. I don’t know or particularly care what else he is, but he is a schmuck and I’ve found that people who hold him in high regard typically have a very narrow view of the world(completely anecdotal btw). Also I doubt that "misogynists have shorter relationships" has any basis in reality, and even if it did happen to be true still wouldn't prove that someone in a long relationship wasn't a misogynist, just that they're less likely to be.

If there was weak to no evidence to indicate his a mysogonist and a white supremacist from the clips and books his produced....ISNT IT SMART TO LOOK AT HIS FAMILY LIFE AND CAREER TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM?

No one cares if you agree or don't agree with Petersons view....you have the right to disagree with anyone you like.

But people should be careful when extreme labels are placed on individuals and burden of proof should be on the person making the claim and not the other way around.

[gibson]

Jordan Peterson is a schmuck. I don’t know or particularly care what else he is, but he is a schmuck and I’ve found that people who hold him in high regard typically have a very narrow view of the world(completely anecdotal btw). Also I doubt that "misogynists have shorter relationships" has any basis in reality, and even if it did happen to be true still wouldn't prove that someone in a long relationship wasn't a misogynist, just that they're less likely to be.

If there was weak to no evidence to indicate his a mysogonist and a white supremacist from the clips and books his produced....ISNT IT SMART TO LOOK AT HIS FAMILY LIFE AND CAREER TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM?

No, it’s literally the opposite of smart. If there’s little to no evidence to indicate he’s a misogynist or white supremacist I would assume he’s not a misogynist or white supremacist. You don’t have to go further than that. You can’t prove he’s not misogynistic even if his personal relations with woman appear perfect. Bill Cosby has been married since 1964. I assume he’s not a misogynist right? Obviously now we know he is, but if you asked someone in 2010 using your logic they could point to the fact that he’d been married for 40 years, how could he be a misogynist?

Also if someone believes that women only belong in the kitchen, they’re a misogynist btw.

[callentournies]

unironically based but not for your reasons and don’t like my post

[helln00]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

Instead of taking snippets from Twitter or headlines and rushing into extreme judgements, they should look at the full interview to get proper context



Mind you that interview was in the middle of the #metoo movement that brought both good and bad (mob trials) results.

Here is a couple of clips of peterson talking about marriage and his wife





Yeah this guy is such a misogynist

I think we have different views of what misogyny means, like goodspeed said before, being a misogynists doesn't need you to hate women or have malice against them, misogynists can hate women but it doesnt need to be. It means (atleast to me) that you have prejudice(ie unfair or unfounded opinion, often of inferior nature) about someone or a group of people.

So the man can love his wife and daughter and treat them with the utmost respect, great. Doesn't mean the things he has said aren't misogynistic and if that is the views that he holds then he would be a misogynist. even the fuller context of that interview as you say it didn't change the things he said, it actually added more things to the list of things he said, he uses even more whataboutisms then I thought, literally saying "what about xxx?" and actually saying "why else would you wear lipstick besides to create a sexual atmosphere in the workplace" which is yikes and definitely a misogynistic view.

Its definitely a kind of misogyny, of that traditionalist view of men should be men and women should be women, but its misogyny. He also has a tendency to speak before he has a idea of what he is speaking about. At the end of that clip you posted, he said that the policies won't work cause they aren't specific enough. But when asked why he said he doesn't know about them well enough and for a guy who likes to talk about individuals, he speaks in generalities alot.

To put a semi-example of another kind of prejudice, my family definitely has some prejudice against what in my country would call rural people and they would say it to these people (since we moved to a rural area) and completely without malice that they are a country bumpkin with no taste and this has actually put someone to tears. There was no malice, they apologised but then they also realised that it was something they said almost reflexively about people from the countryside and it was a prejudice they held against them. Does it make them "whatever the word would be for this", yes, yes it does. Does it mean they can't get past it, no it doesn't, they reflect and change their behaviour.

The definition of misogyny is the hatred of women or that women are not as good as men.

The definition of white supremacist is the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

If we can change the definition of terms as anyone sees fit, then there is no point in having any discussion about anything really because you can just change definitions whenever you see fit

Regarding the interview, watch until the end to get the context. His never indicated that women should stay at home and men work. WATCH THE WHOLE INTERVIEW DUDE.

Also since when did being a traditionalist become misogynist?

You are basically saying a lot of the Asian culture who generally hold traditional view in terms of men and women relationships are misogynist. That's extremely racist?

That is a view of misogyny and it is valid one but note that there are 2 parts to your definition and they aren't required for each other, you can hate women without thinking about them as inferiors and you can think about women as inferiors without haitng them, they aren't mutally exclusive of one another.

my definition just acknowledges the fact that people can hold unfair and negative views of each other without it being malice and in order to identify that behaviour is not just a matter of hatred but inbuilt beliefs that needs to be changed or addressed. You don't agree with that fine, but to me my definition helps me and others identify what specifics needs to change so that it can be addressed, if you think that is not useful then thats up to you.

On the point of the interview, I never said that this part "that women should stay at home and men work". I don't know where you got the idea that I said that he said that? I was commenting on his views on the workplace, nothing to do with homelife.

and finally are traditionalistic views mysoginistic? yeah a lot of them are, not all but a lot.

Are a lot of asian societies that have traditionalist views misogynistic? hell yeah. You don't need to tell me that I live in a traditionalists asian society, I have seen it with my own eyes and as a person who has broken gender norms of my own society, I know of that non-malice prejudice that people have and that goes both ways cause I am a guy. I have seen my own dad get mocked caused he used to do chores or cook. I have seen friends of mine got punished for behaviours I take for granted cause they are girls.

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

Instead of taking snippets from Twitter or headlines and rushing into extreme judgements, they should look at the full interview to get proper context



Mind you that interview was in the middle of the #metoo movement that brought both good and bad (mob trials) results.

Here is a couple of clips of peterson talking about marriage and his wife





Yeah this guy is such a misogynist

I think we have different views of what misogyny means, like goodspeed said before, being a misogynists doesn't need you to hate women or have malice against them, misogynists can hate women but it doesnt need to be. It means (atleast to me) that you have prejudice(ie unfair or unfounded opinion, often of inferior nature) about someone or a group of people.

So the man can love his wife and daughter and treat them with the utmost respect, great. Doesn't mean the things he has said aren't misogynistic and if that is the views that he holds then he would be a misogynist. even the fuller context of that interview as you say it didn't change the things he said, it actually added more things to the list of things he said, he uses even more whataboutisms then I thought, literally saying "what about xxx?" and actually saying "why else would you wear lipstick besides to create a sexual atmosphere in the workplace" which is yikes and definitely a misogynistic view.

Its definitely a kind of misogyny, of that traditionalist view of men should be men and women should be women, but its misogyny. He also has a tendency to speak before he has a idea of what he is speaking about. At the end of that clip you posted, he said that the policies won't work cause they aren't specific enough. But when asked why he said he doesn't know about them well enough and for a guy who likes to talk about individuals, he speaks in generalities alot.

To put a semi-example of another kind of prejudice, my family definitely has some prejudice against what in my country would call rural people and they would say it to these people (since we moved to a rural area) and completely without malice that they are a country bumpkin with no taste and this has actually put someone to tears. There was no malice, they apologised but then they also realised that it was something they said almost reflexively about people from the countryside and it was a prejudice they held against them. Does it make them "whatever the word would be for this", yes, yes it does. Does it mean they can't get past it, no it doesn't, they reflect and change their behaviour.

The definition of misogyny is the hatred of women or that women are not as good as men.

The definition of white supremacist is the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

If we can change the definition of terms as anyone sees fit, then there is no point in having any discussion about anything really because you can just change definitions whenever you see fit

Regarding the interview, watch until the end to get the context. His never indicated that women should stay at home and men work. WATCH THE WHOLE INTERVIEW DUDE.

Also since when did being a traditionalist become misogynist?

You are basically saying a lot of the Asian culture who generally hold traditional view in terms of men and women relationships are misogynist. That's extremely racist?

That is a view of misogyny and it is valid one but note that there are 2 parts to your definition and they aren't required for each other, you can hate women without thinking about them as inferiors and you can think about women as inferiors without haitng them, they aren't mutally exclusive of one another.

my definition just acknowledges the fact that people can hold unfair and negative views of each other without it being malice and in order to identify that behaviour is not just a matter of hatred but inbuilt beliefs that needs to be changed or addressed. You don't agree with that fine, but to me my definition helps me and others identify what specifics needs to change so that it can be addressed, if you think that is not useful then thats up to you.

On the point of the interview, I never said that this part "that women should stay at home and men work". I don't know where you got the idea that I said that he said that? I was commenting on his views on the workplace, nothing to do with homelife.

and finally are traditionalistic views mysoginistic? yeah a lot of them are, not all but a lot.

Are a lot of asian societies that have traditionalist views misogynistic? hell yeah. You don't need to tell me that I live in a traditionalists asian society, I have seen it with my own eyes and as a person who has broken gender norms of my own society, I know of that non-malice prejudice that people have and that goes both ways cause I am a guy. I have seen my own dad get mocked caused he used to do chores or cook. I have seen friends of mine got punished for behaviours I take for granted cause they are girls.

Placing loose definitions on extreme labels is never a good idea and takes you down a slippery slope.

Labelling people as "white supremacist", "rapists", "misogynist" etc.. just because they may have some subjective views that does not completely align with your views categorises normal people with the extremes.

Any real discussions about certain topics gets shut down automatically because why would anyone converse with somebody you deem is a rapist, white supremacist etc..

Also this indirectly downplays some of the actions of the actual misogynist, white supremacist....because you are now labelling a loving husband who respected women from a previous generation but viewed women staying at home is important to look after the family as the same as someone that have real disdain and clearly no respect for women i.e. R Kelly

In terms of JPs interview about women in workplace....please watch the whole interview to the end. I don't want spell it out for you the context because you basically just viewed the Twitter clip that didn't have the full context

[JKProwler]

Jordan Peterson is a schmuck. I don’t know or particularly care what else he is, but he is a schmuck and I’ve found that people who hold him in high regard typically have a very narrow view of the world(completely anecdotal btw). Also I doubt that "misogynists have shorter relationships" has any basis in reality, and even if it did happen to be true still wouldn't prove that someone in a long relationship wasn't a misogynist, just that they're less likely to be.

If there was weak to no evidence to indicate his a mysogonist and a white supremacist from the clips and books his produced....ISNT IT SMART TO LOOK AT HIS FAMILY LIFE AND CAREER TO FIND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM?

No, it’s literally the opposite of smart. If there’s little to no evidence to indicate he’s a misogynist or white supremacist I would assume he’s not a misogynist or white supremacist. You don’t have to go further than that. You can’t prove he’s not misogynistic even if his personal relations with woman appear perfect. Bill Cosby has been married since 1964. I assume he’s not a misogynist right? Obviously now we know he is, but if you asked someone in 2010 using your logic they could point to the fact that he’d been married for 40 years, how could he be a misogynist?

Also if someone believes that women only belong in the kitchen, they’re a misogynist btw.

*face palm*

You quoted me from my response to another poster and I'm providing you my reasoning of why I did, thinking you read the context of my response to the other poster.

Was it safe for me to assume that...because you know....you actually quoted me?

Regarding Bill Cosby, wasn't there a few women that came forward claiming mis treatment? Or are you just taking some part of my statement about JP to fit your narrative?

[Vinyanyérë]

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.

Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

He has 100s of hours of his youtube lectures on YT before his rise in the spotlight, and there has been no clip to support the claims some posters have suggested.

It just shows how loosely ppl attach these type of labels to anybody now that it almost looses its meaning. Ppl say they hate cancel culture, but they can't see that these type of miss classifications is one of the drivers for cancel culture.

You still haven't given a convincing response to harcha. Your argument reads as "if you think that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist, then you have formed your opinion of him based on clickbait news/mainstream news articles".

This is not a good argument. As harcha says, you're committing the same error that you're accusing PatrickLFC of committing - i.e., you're saying that PatrickLFC assigned a number of inaccurate attributes (misogyny, white supremacy) to Jordan Peterson based on incomplete information, but you yourself are now making an assumption about attributes of PatrickLFC based on incomplete information.

As harcha (again) said, you should be asking PatrickLFC why they think Jordan Peterson is a misogynist rather than assuming that it is impossible for him to be a misogynist and then assuming that PatrickLFC's view could not possibly be formed from a reasonable consideration of evidence. Or, as Jordan Peterson would say, "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."

The other reason's it's not a good argument is that there's no standardized definition of misogyny (white supremacy, and to some extent narcissism) that everyone uses and commonly understands when the word is used. Possibly you and PatrickLFC have different definitions of misogyny that lead to the two of you interpreting the same words/actions by Jordan Peterson differently. Perhaps you have similar definitions, but PatrickLFC has seen something Peterson's said that you haven't. You don't know yet because you haven't asked. But you certainly can't assume that you've seen a superset of what PatrickLFC has seen AND that PatrickLFC is using the same definition as you.

don't think Peterson is a misogynist btw (but he does have a lot of extremely bad takes btw)

My response to Patrick could have been nicer or I could have just ignored it.

In terms of making an assumption about Patrick's view about Peterson, this is not the first time I've come across someone with this same extreme view and everytime they have no valid points to back up the extreme view. It's akin to someone saying "the world is flat".

Being called misogyny or white supremacist is extreme, almost in the same level as being called a paedophile.

If Patrick has the incorrect definition of these terms then he should be called out since u should be very careful using these terms to label somebody.

Saying that this isn't the first time you've come across someone with this view doesn't rebut my (and harcha's) point, it reinforces it. You're saying "a bunch of people who believe X arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y, so PatrickLFC who believes X must also have arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y". This is obviously not a valid chain of reasoning, but even if it was we could apply the same thing the other way: if PatrickLFC has encountered a bunch of people who say things that Jordan Peterson says and are also misogynists, then we'd also be able to conclude that Jordan Peterson, who says things that Jordan Peterson says, is a misogynist.

Also, when I say there's no standardized objective definition of misogyny, that means that PatrickLFC can't be using an "incorrect" definition of it. You could pull out a dictionary and define the word "misogyny" as an attempt to prove some standard definition, but this is ineffective because 1) there are multiple dictionaries and no single one is canonical and 2) dictionaries have a tendency to define words using other words which themselves have unclear meanings, so this just pushes the problem further out. Productive discussions require an agreed set of definitions to work from which you haven't attempted to create.

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.

Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

He has 100s of hours of his youtube lectures on YT before his rise in the spotlight, and there has been no clip to support the claims some posters have suggested.

It just shows how loosely ppl attach these type of labels to anybody now that it almost looses its meaning. Ppl say they hate cancel culture, but they can't see that these type of miss classifications is one of the drivers for cancel culture.

You still haven't given a convincing response to harcha. Your argument reads as "if you think that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist, then you have formed your opinion of him based on clickbait news/mainstream news articles".

This is not a good argument. As harcha says, you're committing the same error that you're accusing PatrickLFC of committing - i.e., you're saying that PatrickLFC assigned a number of inaccurate attributes (misogyny, white supremacy) to Jordan Peterson based on incomplete information, but you yourself are now making an assumption about attributes of PatrickLFC based on incomplete information.

As harcha (again) said, you should be asking PatrickLFC why they think Jordan Peterson is a misogynist rather than assuming that it is impossible for him to be a misogynist and then assuming that PatrickLFC's view could not possibly be formed from a reasonable consideration of evidence. Or, as Jordan Peterson would say, "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."

The other reason's it's not a good argument is that there's no standardized definition of misogyny (white supremacy, and to some extent narcissism) that everyone uses and commonly understands when the word is used. Possibly you and PatrickLFC have different definitions of misogyny that lead to the two of you interpreting the same words/actions by Jordan Peterson differently. Perhaps you have similar definitions, but PatrickLFC has seen something Peterson's said that you haven't. You don't know yet because you haven't asked. But you certainly can't assume that you've seen a superset of what PatrickLFC has seen AND that PatrickLFC is using the same definition as you.

don't think Peterson is a misogynist btw (but he does have a lot of extremely bad takes btw)

My response to Patrick could have been nicer or I could have just ignored it.

In terms of making an assumption about Patrick's view about Peterson, this is not the first time I've come across someone with this same extreme view and everytime they have no valid points to back up the extreme view. It's akin to someone saying "the world is flat".

Being called misogyny or white supremacist is extreme, almost in the same level as being called a paedophile.

If Patrick has the incorrect definition of these terms then he should be called out since u should be very careful using these terms to label somebody.

Saying that this isn't the first time you've come across someone with this view doesn't rebut my (and harcha's) point, it reinforces it. You're saying "a bunch of people who believe X arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y, so PatrickLFC who believes X must also have arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y". This is obviously not a valid chain of reasoning, but even if it was we could apply the same thing the other way: if PatrickLFC has encountered a bunch of people who say things that Jordan Peterson says and are also misogynists, then we'd also be able to conclude that Jordan Peterson, who says things that Jordan Peterson says, is a misogynist.

Also, when I say there's no standardized objective definition of misogyny, that means that PatrickLFC can't be using an "incorrect" definition of it. You could pull out a dictionary and define the word "misogyny" as an attempt to prove some standard definition, but this is ineffective because 1) there are multiple dictionaries and no single one is canonical and 2) dictionaries have a tendency to define words using other words which themselves have unclear meanings, so this just pushes the problem further out. Productive discussions require an agreed set of definitions to work from which you haven't attempted to create.

Sorry I dont have too much time to respond on my phone to 3 different posters at the same time. But read some of my other responses to understand where I'm coming from. I think some of it touches on some of your points.

[helln00]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.
Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

I am just writing this just for the sake of actually putting it on the table, whether you take as an accurate representation of of JP or not is up to you. I just got this from the subreddit that was linked in one of the comments

The misogyny claim
- https://thevarsity.ca/2017/10/08/jordan ... azy-women/
-
- https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-con ... -monogamy/

The views on race and IQ
https://reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/video/4s ... 181/player

just to actually put some meat to there being claims out there and why. Even if him saying these things had intentions or meaning of a different nature, them being his word doesn't bode well.

Instead of taking snippets from Twitter or headlines and rushing into extreme judgements, they should look at the full interview to get proper context



Mind you that interview was in the middle of the #metoo movement that brought both good and bad (mob trials) results.

Here is a couple of clips of peterson talking about marriage and his wife





Yeah this guy is such a misogynist

I think we have different views of what misogyny means, like goodspeed said before, being a misogynists doesn't need you to hate women or have malice against them, misogynists can hate women but it doesnt need to be. It means (atleast to me) that you have prejudice(ie unfair or unfounded opinion, often of inferior nature) about someone or a group of people.

So the man can love his wife and daughter and treat them with the utmost respect, great. Doesn't mean the things he has said aren't misogynistic and if that is the views that he holds then he would be a misogynist. even the fuller context of that interview as you say it didn't change the things he said, it actually added more things to the list of things he said, he uses even more whataboutisms then I thought, literally saying "what about xxx?" and actually saying "why else would you wear lipstick besides to create a sexual atmosphere in the workplace" which is yikes and definitely a misogynistic view.

Its definitely a kind of misogyny, of that traditionalist view of men should be men and women should be women, but its misogyny. He also has a tendency to speak before he has a idea of what he is speaking about. At the end of that clip you posted, he said that the policies won't work cause they aren't specific enough. But when asked why he said he doesn't know about them well enough and for a guy who likes to talk about individuals, he speaks in generalities alot.

To put a semi-example of another kind of prejudice, my family definitely has some prejudice against what in my country would call rural people and they would say it to these people (since we moved to a rural area) and completely without malice that they are a country bumpkin with no taste and this has actually put someone to tears. There was no malice, they apologised but then they also realised that it was something they said almost reflexively about people from the countryside and it was a prejudice they held against them. Does it make them "whatever the word would be for this", yes, yes it does. Does it mean they can't get past it, no it doesn't, they reflect and change their behaviour.

The definition of misogyny is the hatred of women or that women are not as good as men.

The definition of white supremacist is the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

If we can change the definition of terms as anyone sees fit, then there is no point in having any discussion about anything really because you can just change definitions whenever you see fit

Regarding the interview, watch until the end to get the context. His never indicated that women should stay at home and men work. WATCH THE WHOLE INTERVIEW DUDE.

Also since when did being a traditionalist become misogynist?

You are basically saying a lot of the Asian culture who generally hold traditional view in terms of men and women relationships are misogynist. That's extremely racist?

That is a view of misogyny and it is valid one but note that there are 2 parts to your definition and they aren't required for each other, you can hate women without thinking about them as inferiors and you can think about women as inferiors without haitng them, they aren't mutally exclusive of one another.

my definition just acknowledges the fact that people can hold unfair and negative views of each other without it being malice and in order to identify that behaviour is not just a matter of hatred but inbuilt beliefs that needs to be changed or addressed. You don't agree with that fine, but to me my definition helps me and others identify what specifics needs to change so that it can be addressed, if you think that is not useful then thats up to you.

On the point of the interview, I never said that this part "that women should stay at home and men work". I don't know where you got the idea that I said that he said that? I was commenting on his views on the workplace, nothing to do with homelife.

and finally are traditionalistic views mysoginistic? yeah a lot of them are, not all but a lot.

Are a lot of asian societies that have traditionalist views misogynistic? hell yeah. You don't need to tell me that I live in a traditionalists asian society, I have seen it with my own eyes and as a person who has broken gender norms of my own society, I know of that non-malice prejudice that people have and that goes both ways cause I am a guy. I have seen my own dad get mocked caused he used to do chores or cook. I have seen friends of mine got punished for behaviours I take for granted cause they are girls.

Placing loose definitions on extreme labels is never a good idea and takes you down a slippery slope.

Labelling people as "white supremacist", "rapists", "misogynist" etc.. just because they may have some subjective views that does not completely align with your views categorises normal people with the extremes.

Any real discussions about certain topics gets shut down automatically because why would anyone converse with somebody you deem is a rapist, white supremacist etc..

Also this indirectly downplays some of the actions of the actual misogynist, white supremacist....because you are now labelling a loving husband who respected women from a previous generation but viewed women staying at home is important to look after the family as the same as someone that have real disdain and clearly no respect for women i.e. R Kelly

In terms of JPs interview about women in workplace....please watch the whole interview to the end. I don't want spell it out for you the context because you basically just viewed the Twitter clip that didn't have the full context

That is your view and ok, i can see what you mean, you don't want different scales of badness to have the same categorisation, that is a reasonable objection. You view misogyny as the final stage in that categorisation, to me it describe the roots that formulates the basis for that point of view.

And you don't want to have that label on people fine, I frankly don't care. To me any person can have that in them, I have prejudices of my own and ofcourse I like to think that I am not a bad person like R.Kelly but I have views that I have come to revise because I wasnt thinking about them, I work to not be a misogynist. Its not misogynistic to me to have the view that its important to stay home (not necessarily), but it will be misogynistic as it were as you say to generalise it, as you say it doesn't take into account context and then to state that generalise opinion as fact or as though it were true without thinking about it.

And dude, I watched the video you posted, when I first wrote. it doesn't add anything, if anything it slightly lowers my opinion of him cause he was very awkward, rambly and went on whataboutisms a bit, and by the end he even admitted he didn't know much about the policies that he critised when asked why he thought they were vague.

edit: he was also very hesitant to actually develop the ideas he had further and doesn't delve into the end point of his logic, which feels very weak.