By David Futrelle
I ran across this Tweet this morning from an intrepid Jordan Peterson debunker on Twitter and, well, it’s pretty much spot on:
https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1083015376022224896
For evidence of this, we need look no further than some of the off-the-cuff comments about birth control and the allegedly scary consequences of women controlling their own sexuality that Peterson recently made to a small audience that included, among others, Charlie Kirk, “Bumble Jack” Posobiec, and weirdo MAGA couple Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle at Turning Point USA’s annual Student Action Summit.
As Sam Seder points out in this clip from his Majority Report show, Peterson seems to be pushing the idea that what he sees as feminists’ preoccupation with sexual consent is basically a left-wing “sexual taboo” roughly equivalent to the right-wing “taboo” against gay sex. (Peterson being Peterson, he doesn’t quite come out and say this outright.)
Sam has been taking on Peterson’s nonsense for some time. Here’s another video in which Sam discusses a Peterson appearance on the Joe Rogan show in which Rogan, an oddball in his own right but still pretty sharp, gobsmacks the Canadian beef-eater by pointing out a very basic issue with his promotion of “enforced monogamy.”
While Peterson’s utterances do seem to be getting weirder by the day, he’s been saying awful crap about the often fraught relationship between women and men for years. And for a time, during a sort of pickup artist phase, he did so dressed like a 1930s gangster.
Sam’s got a video on that, too.
And this guy is seen as a leading light in the “intellectual dark web.” It’s really a testament to how fucked up this political moment is that a cornball weirdo like Peterson is taken seriously by anyone at all, much less the adoring throngs that attend his talks and watch his videos and buy his books.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/tbt.gif
I know, right?
It’s kind of like saying that the grocery store is stealing your money whenever you buy groceries. Do these stupid little fucks think the government doesn’t do anything? Or that everything it does, it does for free – and the people who work for the government are just volunteering? Lockheed develops and donates all of those planes the US military uses pro bono, natch!
How the hell are people that dumb capable of using a keyboard?
@ Gaebolga
Could we not use term, please? There are plenty of things we can call a follower of Jorden Peterson than a term about sexual abuse.
I know it’s used in other spaces, but i would much rather it wasn’t used here.
Lol, I was gonna dive in with the splitting axe but there ain’t much left but kindling. I see that Video One hasnt’ really been addressed here much, so, @criannon, this is for you!
What JP says is “The conservative types are pushing quite hard, and always have, for the encapsulation of sexual behaviour within a fairly traditional structure, marriage.”
You know, that “one man, one woman, wedding, babies, man works, woman raises children” thing? Can you perhaps see that this framework excludes gay and lesbian people – the “traditional structure” doesn’t allow for non-straight relationships.
You could go into a conservative church and ask them about whether they’d count a gay married couple as being “traditionally married” if you wanted confirmation on this.
It’s true that he doesn’t explicitly say this! It is, however, a natural and necessary outcome of what he’s saying. And since he’s such a smartie-smart, he very clearly understands this implication. That’s why David is justified in his statement suggesting he’s making a statement about non-straight people here.
As for him “not saying anything about rape”, he says that left-types are “insisting that we live in a rape culture.” This sounds to me like it may perhaps be a statement having to do with rape, possibly?
Honestly, for as much as Jordie P fans seem to love him and watch the hundreds of hours of inane babblevid on him that are available, they sure don’t seem to pay much attention to what he’s actually saying.
Anyways, that’s just a single slice, @criannon, my duck! Please swing by any time you like if you want more!
P.S.: your post is full of assertions and tells that you’re being insincere and more interested in attack than truth. If you’d like to deceive us into thinking you’re here for a serious discussion, perhaps consider cutting them out until you’re ready to flounce?
@Rhuu – Sure, no problem. My apologies.
@Gaebolga: <3
@Eddi,
I’m not entirely sure whether you’re sincere, or a talented concerntroll. I’m leaning towards the former, and hope I am right (otherwise the following is entirely redundant).
Has anyone invited Prof. Peterson for a discussion? I don’t think so. That’s not really what this space is about. Essentially, this is a horror-comedy blog that attempts to attack the worst of the internets’ misogyny (the horror) with snarky commentary (the comedy).
Regarding your second set of questions: firstly, progressives v regressive. Brilliant. That is the term I’m using from now on. But no, arguably the “western world” (a term I don’t like – is Morocco less “western” than Germany?) is not as rife with division as is generally presented by either the media or partisans. We are in the midst of a reactionary upheaval, but this should have been expected considering the progressive gains in the last 10-15 years.
I would disagree that in ‘other countries’ people do not understand “modern feminism”. That being said, “modern feminism” should properly be called third wave feminism. i.e. Wave One = the vote (and prohibition for some reason); Wave Two = the idea you seem to have (equal rights, freedom to choose professions, etc.); and Wave Three.
Wave Three started with the premise that much of Wave Two was structured by and for a very specific type of woman. One who is relatively wealthy, university educated, white, heterosexual, straight, and able bodied. This left a lot of women ‘outside’ of who/what ‘feminism’ seemed to care about. They (we?) also wanted to understand why the Second Wave failed to lead to total equality between the genders (in, for example, earning power, division of domestic chores, corporate/social/political leadership etc.). In short, they (we?) wanted to know the why behind the what.
Why, with officially sanctioned equal choice, are women (say, in 1995) not enrolling in equal numbers in law school. Is it
A- because women are incapable or unwilling to go into law; or B-because there are structural impediments which keep women from choosing this career path?
If it is – as we believe – the latter, then these structural impediments need to be examined and dismantled. This comes from two recognitions: first, soft power (i.e. A culture that teaches girls that they should care about their looks first, and their grades second; or a pervasively misogynistic culture on law school campuses leads women to drop out/not apply; or the LSAT is structured in a way that favours a certain gender) is important. Second, simply making legislation that says “you cannot explicitly say ‘girls need not apply'” does not do a lot to break down old-boys’ clubs. So you can see equal opportunities that still lead to unequal results.
Regarding your comments on rape culture, oh boy. Ok, So… no one says you cannot be clumsy around women. Or men. What you can’t (and shouldn’t) do is touch people without their permission. This, however, is not “rape culture” – at least as I understand it (its assault).
Rape culture is the idea that more egregious forms of sexual assault are more easily normalized – easier to ‘forgive’ – in a community that takes less serious forms of sexual assault for granted/as expected from people (men).
So, you’re more likely to grope the passed out girl at a party because you’ve been telling jokes for years where the punchline has something to do with equating the inability to say “no” with consent or worse (she said “No. Don’t. Stop.” so I said “No, don’t stop… Ok” hahaha that girl got raped – Funny!) etc.
Regarding your specific comments: if you touch a woman (anyone) without their permission, this is assault, if you touch someone’s boobs/ass/vagina without their permission, this is sexual assault. The person you are touching should yell “sexual assault”. b/c they are being sexually assaulted and that is not ok. Hugging in offices should also NOT be ok (its a workplace). And no, nothing is allowed besides “can I touch you”. This is how we have always defined assault. This does not, however, need to kill romance.
Guys are free to look a woman in the eye and say “hey, do you, you know, wanna fuck?”. The idea that affirmative consent needs to be cloaked in un-sexy legalese is a myth. I’m not sure what “feelings” it took you so long to understand are, but if you think a woman ‘feels’ like fucking, you can ask her. They are capable of speech (and capable of wanting to fuck).
So… yes, our evolution has inclined us to like fucking. It has also inclined us to be selective with who we fuck. This doesn’t mean that you should assume that someone you want to fuck, also wants to fuck you. Just ask. This is – as you say – how one can “express” themselves. With, like, words. What CAN be done? Ask your partner what they want to be done/do.
Hence: how badly informed are you? I don’t know. Are you a concern troll or sincerely looking for answers?
@Robert,
Yes, the Marching Song of the First Arkansas is wonderful. I have my officer-candidate undergraduate military history students read and do an in-class discussion analysis in the unit on the second half of the American Civil War. I use that exercise to explore the point that while a majority of Union soldiers by 1864 *were* likely fighting to end the institution of slavery, they were absolutely not doing so because they believed in social equality for Black people. (Rather, they just knew by that point that destroying the *institution* of slavery was the best and most direct way to destroy the Confederacy.) Looking at the Marching Song of the First Arkansas is a very vivid way to get them to see, though, that there was *one* group of Union Army troops who were fighting to end slavery but absolutely also *were* fighting for full social and political equality for African-American people: African-American Union soldiers!
For a long time one might hear too”Oh Sojourner Truth wrote that song!” but the evidence is pretty clear it’s from a Union Army officer named Lindley Miller; (see David Walls, “Marching Song of the First Arkansas Colored Regiment: A Contested Attribution,” The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 4 (Winter 2007), 401–421. — for once, Wikipedia is helpful as it actually cites the Walls article in its article on the Marching Song.
I’ve been looking for a good modern recording of it; so far only the ones I can find are solo and more folk-song-y sounding (to me, anyway). That doesn’t sound quite right to me, but maybe I’m too close-minded about that, I don’t know.
One thing that does kind of infuriate me are mid-twentieth-century renditions that took out the verse where they’re basically calling for reparations (“…they will have to give us house-room or the roof will tumble in.) That makes me almost as angry as the last-nineteenth-century people that changed Julia Ward Howe’s words in the Battle Hymn of the Republic from “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free” to “…let us live to make men free”. No. F*** that. They were fighting and dying to destroy slavery and therefore the Confederacy.
Intersectional analysis is a thing, you know, in military history and people like JP fans and the other such types whose drivel David adeptly mocks here love to throw around the whole “oh, we’re masculine but you girls and cucks know nothing of war and such manly things.” Heh. Uh-uh. OK.
Also that, regardless of their feelings about black folks, a lot of them could see perfectly well that they weren’t gonna be getting decent wages while a big segment of the labour force was getting no wages, and they took issue with that. That’s also why there was a lot of ‘Back to Africa” feeling among whites in the Union.
Of course, later on they decided that racism was more important to them and shot the labour movement in the foot rather that let black people join their unions.
They also decided, ultimately, that racism — and specifically institutionalized white supremacy — was more important than holding accountable the perpetrators of the very secession and treason they were willing to die in the hundreds of thousands to destroy. Within 30 years of the end of the Confederacy white supremacy was institutionalized just as firmly as before in the former Confederate states. Sure slavery as it existed before was nominally gone, but certainly not in practice *at all* (c.f. abusing criminal law to re-enslave people). We still live with the legacy of “failed” Reconstruction. [disclaimer: I mean “failed” from the standpoint of the Radical wing of the Republican party of ca. 1865-1877]. No wonder the Civil Rights movement of the 1940s-1970s was called by some historians “the Second Reconstruction”.
@ Eddi –
A discussion inplies the other side has some merit. Peterson does not. You can’t debate him, because *what is he actually saying*? Can you summarise, without telling us we need to watch all of his videos/read his books for the full context?
Also, that is not the purpose of this space. We don’t have to pretend that all sides have value, because the alt-lite and -right have no value.
Why do they make different choices? Why do you think?
Perhaps there are less women in STEM fields because they are subtely discouraged from participation when they are younger.
Perhaps there are fewer women going into certain programs because the university alters their score so they do worse in the entrance exams, like what happened in Japan with medical schools. (It was assuned that training female doctors was a waste because they would quit and have children.)
I can’t speak to the political and social climate of Vietnam, but i do wonder if the amount of women (and other disadvantaged groups) in government? In high levels of business? Starting their own businesses? Working outside of the home?
If that is not equal, why?
Not what rape culture is. Ahhh my phone is messing up, i will finish this after!
I am sincere. I value my life and my words as greatly as I can.
About the legalese:
When I ask “may I touch you?” and the answer is yes, where can I go from here? As far as I know this is the greatest puzzle in life. It could be, but doesn’t have to be, that touching your ear or your hair, your hand or your leg -because I like it- is inappropriate. Yet you tell me it isn’t legalese.
Here is what I do (and fail most of the time; do not hold it against me):
I hold out my hand: she might take it. (conversation) I invite her for coffee: difficulties arise, usually “no, because..”.
When having a drink, (conversation) I try to make her laugh and relax. I may put my hand on her leg. Usually that doesn’t complicate anything except: “people can see that = don’t do it here”. Suddenly I am not sure what I can or can’t do (wether allowed or objected hand-on-leg). (conversation) In most cases, when I say “let’s have sex” returns in .. you guess. (this could be the third time we meet amicably). I might try to kiss her, that basically always fails in public. I might say “you, me, hotel?”. Let me tell you this: finding a woman I like, who is friendly to me, having coffee, agreeing on going with me to a hotel (that is what people do here in Vietnam) seems to me like one-in-a-million. It can be God damn tyresome for a shy guy (trained karate, well spoken, feeling okay about his little-overweight phisique, amazing people’s person).
If you’re a guy: tell me how i can be more successful, or how you feel. Maybe you don’t share my troubles in getting female attention. Why not? Sometimes, to me the highlight in a month is a woman saying “hehe, you’re funny”.
If you’re a woman, please tell me how you feel. How you respond to this game. “why are you so difficult?”. Do you have a reason to say “no” at most turns?
Any man reading this feeling sympthetic please say so. It would greatly diminish my shame of leaving an important detail out: I’m married. The above still holds true.
This is quite relevant to me today! I am not a woman, but I *hate* to be touched by other people unless I want them to touch me. If someone touches me I can feel the sensation on my skin for hours after it happens. Today, in a conversation, chief engineer tapped me on the shoulder, a “normal” friendly gesture? No, for me this is extremely uncomfortable and a violation of my space.
Men, women and non binary people should *all* ask for permission to touch someone all the time in a work environment and other formal environments. It is common courtesy. People have this thing called PERSONAL SPACE and BODILY AUTONOMY. and it is very important that you respect that. Good people respect the personal space of others and apologise if they accidentally violate it. That is courtesy, that is caring.
I was touched at 1700 and I can feel it now still and it is 1911! I am not angry with the man of course, but it is just annoying that society teaches that is okay to tap and touch people to show friendliness when many people like myself are very sensitive to this and will be irritated about it for a long time.
As for sexual assalt and “women yelling rape” if they get touched. Firstlg you are clearly exaggeration, no woman yells rape for just a touch, but they might say you sexually assaulted them because I don’t know MAYBE YOU SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THEM? Why don’t we stop with this bullshit about how men can do nothing now becuase of “women yelling rape” and ask why men (and lots of people actually) think it is perfectly okay, and their entitlement, to violate peoples personal space and bodily autonomy in a work and formal environment? Because it is not their right, it is not necessary for anyone to touch anyone else in a normal routine of work, unless you have their permission.
So stop exaggerating and acting like an asshole and ask yourself the real important question.
This is rape culture (CN: linking an article about the letter that asshat swimmer’s dad wrote about his son, and the outsize consequences for such a short act) – ‘A steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action’: Dad defends Stanford sex offender
Hope is it rape culture? Well, he didn’t do that much, right? Just a short, little thing. How can this ruin his future? (Let’s ignore that this woman now has to deal with this, for her entire future. How will it impact her?)
It is also rape culture, because we all knew how this would turn out. He’s white, and rich. He wasn’t going to get any kind of consequences. We called the outcome, and were not surprised.
(AND THEN HE TRIED TO GET EVEN THAT OVERTURNED.)
Here’s a good explanation of consent. It’s a video comparing it to making a cup of tea.
This is outside the scope of this discussion, but no. Not everyone likes sex, that is a spectrum. Some people are super into it, and some people don’t care, or very much don’t want it. Look into asexuality, and yes, this is a real thing.
No. Rape is usually committed by someone the victim knows. Rape is committed because there are often no consequences for the rapist. Rape is committed because it is normalised in our culture.
You can’t just segment off one section of men and go ‘there are your rapists’, because a lot of this is going to fall into race and class-based divisions, and that shit don’t fly.
I’m going to need you to clarify this, before I dig in. What counts as ‘actual rape’, to you? What type of stories in the main stream media are calling something ‘rape’ that you believe is not?
@Doethreetwoone
Because many were entirely financially dependent on husbands who were prone to drinking up their pay packet and coming home with a bad temper and no money for groceries. Not uncommonly, violence would then come into play when he wanted dinner and there was none.
Eddi,
I’m going to be less polite than the others.
I think you know damn well what consent is and isn’t. I think you know that men who commit sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape know that they have not obtained consent and are not innocently and clumsily making a mive.
I think you are purposely trying to sell the idea that affirmative consent is complicated, difficult and near impossible for men to follow because you just plain don’t believe that women should have bodily autonomy and you don’t believe that men should have to obtain consent.
In other words, you’re a gross rape apologist troll.
On the off chance you’re actually confused, I would just say that if you have any doubt that your partner is consenting to something you’re doing, stop and ask. The worst that could happen is that you don’t get laid. The worse that can happen if you keep doing something without consent, you’re a rapist. Same principle applies if there is a concern that a partner is too intoxicated to consent. This isn’t that hard.
You’re approaching this backwards.
Sex is about what we (each person) likes, not about what’s being offered.
Since you direct this question at women specificly, it’s really shady that you question why we say no. The short answer is: because we’re not fucking interested (pun intended). That’s about it.
But you don’t seem to be addressing us as people with our own interests and desires. You don’t ask what turns us on, or even what makes us say “yes”. All you care is why we say no to most poor menz offering themselves at pur feet. Which you don’t know. You don’t know how many offers I get or how many of those I turn down.
So, no one owes anyone else sex. No one owes you sex. Not even if they like you. Not even if they’re horny. We don’t owe you shit. Not even a chance. You are not owed a chance to try and convince us to have sex with you.
And in return, you don’t owe it to anyone else, either. But you don’t have a problem with that, do you?
I’d very much like to know what your relationship with your wife is like.
God, that “why do you say no at most turns” question is just…
Back when I was young and thin, men were after me all the damn time. I couldn’t walk one measly city block without getting hit on. I had to say no 99.9% of the time. Even if every guy had been attractive to me, there just wasn’t enough time in the day.
Now I’m fat and middle-aged and mostly invisible. It’s so… peaceful.
Also, Eddi, consider the fact that maybe most of the women who turn you down do not turn down most of the offers they get.
Maybe they just turn you down.
Because you’re a manipulative asshole who doesnt’t care about the person, only what you’d like to do to their body, and it shows.
@Eddi
Forgive me, I don’t really feel much sympathetic.
You say you (and by your report, other people “here in Vietnam”) don’t understand “modern feminism” and you are confused by the “modern” concept of consent, yet by your description of your dating experience, the women tell you they’re not interested and you understand perfectly.
So to me it seems like.
You understand consent.
But you really want to have sex.
Even though women don’t want to have sex with you.
So you seem to be looking for some “out”, to justify having sex with a women without her consent.
Because it’s just too tiresome to get her to give consent?
But that would be rape. Even though you’re telling us that’s totally not what rape looks like.
Let’s not go down that road.
I don’t need a reason to say “no”. Not having sex (or not getting my leg felt up, or not being kissed, etc.) is the default. It doesn’t need to be justified.
I do need a reason to say “yes” and if you act this confused and aggrieved about the idea of affirmative consent, then I’m really not surprised you’re not getting any of those.
Oh hey! One of the JBP newcomers actually stuck around to respond. Refreshing!
Looks like we might have scared him away though.
@Dalillama
Fair points. First attempt to articulate the idea that the personal is also political -perhaps? It segues nicely into that idea, in any event.