Peterson has emerged seemingly out of nowhere and caught the latest media trends. For a moment. Most stories are cautiously polite to outwardly complimentary.
A few, however, have chosen to dig in as zealots will, and that has produced reactions like this, at a site called simply Maclean's. It's by a contributor named Tabatha Southey. That's all I know, except what follows is the same type of arrogance, condescension, loathing of non-conformity, intolerance, close mindedness, and general disdain for wrong thinking non-liberals that helped get us Donald Trump.
Running with the new anti-Peterson label ('he's the stupid person's smart man'), Southey goes one extra and decides Peterson really isn't that smart after all. Just a charlatan who knows his base of ignorant, bigoted losers. To that end, he adds a couple syllables to a few choice words and, to any conservative, will suddenly look smart. Of course added to the mix are the usual 'he's against women and minorities (Read: even though I said he's not a neo-Nazi, he really is).
Now, it would be nice if Southy actually interviewed Peterson with that attitude. I have it on good authority that a British journalist named Newman went into an interview with that attitude, and became such a joke that even non-conservative media outlets had to concede the disastrous half hour of ignorance and arrogance on Newman's part.
Note to the Left: simply insisting that it is impossible for even God to make a non liberal not stupid and/or evil might be wearing a little thin. Rush Limbaugh showed the Left for the hypocrites they were when it came to respecting diverse opinions and promoting diversity of values. Donald Trump exposed the Left's willingness to allow violence, destruction, censorship, corruption and even torture and attempted murder to at least be discussed as valid if opposing true evil (that is, non-liberal views). Will Peterson expose the Left even more, and perhaps provoke it to finally admit what many are beginning to realize, that the Left simply wants yet another Leftist authoritarian terror state like we witnessed so many times the last century? We have yet to see.
None of this is to say that Peterson is the next messiah, or walks on water, or raises the dead. It is to say that the Left's typical 'go straight to arrogance, accusation, name calling, and open contempt for the losers who don't conform to the Left' approach has, as of now, hit a wall. And that wall is Jordan Peterson.
Maclean’s is an old and respected Canadian news magazine, founded in 1905. Here is the wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maclean%27sReplyDelete
As for Jordan Peterson, he can deny being a Nazi until his teeth fall out, but his views are entrely consistent with a fascist opinion of women. He teaches that women prefer domineering males and that women want to be passive weaklings. The substance of his opinions belies his denial of the label.
Thanks for the link. I didn't want to pretend as if I had old knowledge about it when, in fact, I hadn't heard of it. I'll look into it.Delete
As for Peterson, no, his views of women are not fascist. They are not liberal feminist, but there is a difference. One of the greatest detriments to modern discourse is the constant insinuation that to not be modernist (or liberal if you prefer), is to somehow be Nazi/Fascist. I think there is a branch of the Right that tilts fascist, don't get me wrong. I also think there is a branch of the Left that tilts Bolshevik. But in between are the Peterson (and other) types who are simply expressing their views, even if they aren't in keeping with the latest.
I see Cathy decided to come here and try to hide her identity as "Karen."Delete
You think she would have learned to deal with reality and not her feelings. Oh well. Next time, "karen" learn from Peterson and tell the truth, not whatever slander you have convinced yourself as true. It'll lead to less mockery.
Fascists believe that women are to be restricted to purely domestic roles and that sll the interesting work in the world is for men. Is this any different from Petersen’s view?ReplyDelete
According to Peterson it is different. That's how Ms. Newman attempted to frame his arguments, and he said straight out that's not what he means. As he said, part of his profession is helping women get ahead in the corporate workplace. That alone suggests he's not insisting that a woman's place is in the home.Delete
Um, yeah it is different from his view. I've watched hours of his content and never heard him saying that. You have any example of him promoting that "fascist" view? Or is this again just a blind assumption you are making? Again, i recommend sticking to the truth.Delete
So what does he say about women in professions? About sex roles? I know he talks at boring legnth about the need for men to be ‘strong’ with women. How does that work out in real life?Delete
He said in the now legendary Channel 4 interview that part of his profession is helping women learn what it takes to get ahead in the corporate world. That alone suggests he's not against women getting ahead in the corporate world. Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.Delete
Why are you asking, Karen? Are you saying you don't know? But you've made accusations as to his views as if you did know. So were you being dishonest about your knowledge then when you accused or dishonest about your knowledge now when you ask?Delete
Let's see here...Delete
On youtube if i search Jordan B Peterson and "sex roles" i get 6,080 results. "Professional women" gives me 2,360 results. Most of these around 10 min or less. Is your attention span that lacking that 10 min is "boring length"?