By David Futrelle
For your viewing pleasure, a collection of Jordan Peterson’s maybe-not-so-finest moments, as curated by the always entertaining Vic Berger for Super Deluxe.
https://youtu.be/6T47opnLyFw
I’m thinking that socks need to be banned from the workplace for being too sexually suggestive.
I still do not know why this man is taken seriously.
All he has done is paint men as victims…which pretty much debunks his whole “snowflake victim mentality” schtick.
Plus he looks so bored with himself, he’s about ready to nod off.
Haven’t there been times been historically when men wore make up and high heels as well? How would Jordles explain this?
Misandry!!
Omg! “I’ve read PUA’s.” Explains a lot. He has to “reign himself in” when in mixed company. Smh.
Wow it must be really out of context so much so that literally every one of Jordan Peterson’s fans say that regardless of the awful quotes in question.
I think I remember this idiot saying that men are at women’s mercy because when we disagree with other men we can just resort violence but we aren’t allowed to with women.
Feeeeeeeeeeeeemmaaaaaaaalllles!!!!!
Is this that guy who used to be a Feminist but turned to the Dark Side of The Force and wrote that “Myth of Male Power” or am I thinking of another guy?
@SpukiKitty
Another guy. Ferell or something like that.
on topic:
i’ve been accused three times of sexual impropriety
I could only make it halfway through.
the man is literally just continually trying to complain about the fact he can’t act like a club swinging caveman in public.
Update, should’ve checked Dave’s Twitter recent feed because the answer was right there. Warren Farrell, if I ain’t mistaken.
@SpukiKitty
You’re thinking of William Farrell
I look forward to JP’s contributions to the campaign against compulsory high heels ‘n’ make-up dress codes for women. Any day now, I’m sure.
High heels make the pelvis tilt forward! Seriously though, there does seem to be a rage lurking underneath his mild academic demeanor and Kermit The Frog voice.
A politics reporter for NYT was tweeting Peterson’s talk at the Turning Points USA Young Women’s conference.
JP does his usual ramble about postmodernist Marxism ruining western civilisation (proving once again that he knows absolutely nothing about postmodernism or Marxism; for one, these two fields of thought do not tend to get along well). Then he goes all Thatcherite:
He bemoans the fact that women are taught to value careers over raising families, worries about kids being confused by ‘gender fluidity’, and then:
Like PeeVee said, why is he taken seriously – and also, why is he seen as an original and interesting thinker? Okay, I’ll grant that the lobster thing was original (stupid and wildly ignorant, but original). But everything else is just tired old right-wing talking points dressed up in evo-psych. Or am I taking him out of context? 🙂
Women are socially pressured to dress purty and wear make-up. In some professions the absence of it would be considered odd; like PR. It in no way means they’re saying “have at me”; they’re just doing what society expects of them. If society, or your experience of it, says your worth as a woman must be projected through dressing nice and using make-up it does not mean you as person are committing visual crimes by inducing lust unfairly.
And it doesn’t stop even if you don’t dress up.
I read a lot of Quiverful accounts, women who have left a church who grew up home schooled in environments where women were expected to marry young, be home mothers, and have as many kids as they could. Girls were also taught they were lust creatures who could inflame men and they had to wear modest attire. One woman wrote about how hard it was to ride a pushbike in a Little House on the Prairie dress and wore bike shorts under it for comfort. The boys growing up were taught that women were sirens attempting to lure them, you had to marry within the group and you were then in charge of that woman as God intended. That had nothing to do with sexy lures; it was about producing compliant brood mares whose status as a person was secondary to her ho ho and womb capability.
What irks me is how men cannot put themselves in their place. All you have to ask is “would you be a woman if you could?” and they would say no because they wouldn’t have the balls to do it.
Another take on dear Jordan.
Maybe Americans will be lucky and Trump will bar Peterson from entering the US. After all he’s taking rubber chicken circuit gigs from hard working American right wingers.
Quiverfull and similar groups are, at base, motivated as much by white(-Protestant) supremacism as by misogyny. Their answer to so-called “white genocide” (and to secularism, Catholics, and Muslims) is, at least, relatively nonviolent to non-whites (though, not to white women), which is to try to outbreed brown (and non-Protestant) people.
@tim gueguen
But the author didn’t read his books so author didn’t get the full connnnnntttttteeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxxxttttttttt
I love the way that, in order to offer any kind of critique of Peterson, you need to read all his books, watch all of his 100+ hours of lectures and bloviating, listen to every interview, podcast, tweet, etc. that Peterson has ever
farted outmade.But if you want to PRAISE Peterson, then you don’t need to do any of that. Want to consider him the authority on any given topic? You just need to have seen a couple of lobster memes and you’re definitely 100% right about how amazing and fantastic and brillant Peterson is. No need to look any further into what he says! Just throw more money and praise on him!
Why is “context” only important if you have something negative to say?
I am grateful to the Petersonians for making it so easy to resist finding Lobsterology appealing. To me, it’s like a gallon of spring water with a half cup of sewage added. I believe that most of what he’s saying is actually useful, if by no means novel or original. There are positive ideas in much of what he writes.
Then he goes blathering away about snakes, dragons, witches, post-modernist cultural Marxists, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. A shocking, vulgar waste of talent and ability in pursuit of who knows what. I’ve seen a suggestion that Peterson has created a new variation on the theme Male Academic in his 50s Self-Destructs in Public that doesn’t involve female graduate students.
I’m guessing that the women in these meetings were having to rein themselves in quite a bit too. If any of them had punched him in the face, he’d have been sure to tell us about it. So they must have been applying superhuman levels of self-control.
Re: high heels, is he just unaware that they were invented for men, or is he hoping his audience are ignorant of that fact?
High heels ? I can’t believe a man who lives in North America (even a Canadian academic) seems to be oblivious of cowboy boots…
I think the first people to use high heels in the west were male royals and aristocrats. They were’n’t stiletto heels and not super high but thick heels that still made the wearer significantly taller, allowing him to literally look down on the populace.