Categories
a woman is always to blame alt-lite antifeminism crackpottery Dunning–Kruger effect empathy deficit enforced monogamy entitled babies galaxy brain jordan "slappy" peterson men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA

The Majority Report chronicles Jordan Peterson’s increasingly bananas comments about women

Jordan Peterson: U mad, bro?

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!

307 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jason D
Jason D
3 years ago

Its funny only if you believe that men and women care for families equally, which is a societal/biological falsehood. (Although I can see how it fits snugly into your Neo-Marxist utopia where gender is only a construct and their are no biological differences between men and women). I’m married for almost 20 years now and the care for the children is most definitely centred around Mom with myself as a secondary fail-safe. I focus on work while she focuses on family. When our babies were born she took years off while I continued to work, which is the norm for most couples. (although probably not in your hyphenated last name household where daddy drinks soy-lattes and cooks dinner while you take on the world you strong amazon you.) . Its funny when simple truths stare you in the face and yet you still find conspiracy theories of men holding women back in the west. Better get back to your gender studies course before you miss out on another patriarchal conspiracy.

Jason D
Jason D
3 years ago

Your NPC attempts at memes are so adorable, almost clever. Almost.

Cat Mara
Cat Mara
3 years ago

You’re a rube, Jason D. You’re a rube standing in front of Peterson’s Patreon bunco-booth devouring his charlatan’s patter, all the while smugly congratulating yourself on how Really Smart you are compared to the common herd. This empty-headed waffler has been caught again and again coming out with the most egregious bullshit– hell, I just linked to a video where he explicitly states that he thinks that a 1,000+ year old image of human-headed snakes from China is a fucking representation of DNA– but because his garbage comes garnished with a liberal serving of misogyny and right-wing talking-points, so you just gulp it down and bray for seconds like a trained fucking seal.

You’ve been played. All that objectivity, those critical thinking skills you pride yourself on having? They’re not worth anything if you toss them aside when someone plays on your prejudices. What’s that thing your lot are fond of saying? “Facts don’t care about your feelings”? You’d be wise to consider that. But you won’t because, as we’ve established, you’re a rube.

This site sucks
This site sucks
3 years ago

What a garbage article

Viscaria
Viscaria
3 years ago

I love when dudes are like “Uh, actually, women make less money because they choose to??” like that’s the end of the conversation. Why do women choose these less lucrative lifestyles? Do they just hate money? I’m a woman, and I personally like money. It pays for my feminine necessities, like bon bons and lipstick, and can also be used for more frivolous luxuries like the mortgage.

Different lifestyles are not enough on their own to fully explain the pay gap, but they do from part of the picture, absolutely. But that’s half an answer. We need to understand why women and men are making different choices, and if your best answer is shrug women are mysterious agents of chaos, that’s not really good enough.

LindsayIrene
3 years ago

oooooh bio-troofs!!!!!!

“It’s not sexism, men just don’t feel like taking care of kids.” Yeah, that’s a great argument!

(LOL I’ve never even been to college, doofus. I’m a genuine prole and I still can see through the bullshit.)

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

I’m married for almost 20 years now and the care for the children is most definitely centred around Mom with myself as a secondary fail-safe. I focus on work while she focuses on family. When our babies were born she took years off while I continued to work, which is the norm for most couples. (although probably not in your hyphenated last name household where daddy drinks soy-lattes and cooks dinner while you take on the world you strong amazon you.)

“This is just how society works! Except maybe for the parts of society that don’t work that way! Which I disapprove of for no reason given but it’s definitely not sexism, nuh-uh!”

Viscaria
Viscaria
3 years ago

I apologize; I missed the edit window. I see that you do have an answer, and that answer is “biology.” Cool. Do you have some research to back up your assertion that women just innately prefer to spend time in their houses while men (biological fact) like to earn money? Or do you just have your very compelling story about how you and your wife, two (2) people, have chosen to structure your partnership? A story that actually doesn’t say anything about biology?

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

Oh, and am I actually a feminist if my husband doesn’t drink soy lattes and I prefer to do most of the cooking but he’s more kid-friendly than I am?

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

Fools rush in.

Fools rush in indeed.

Welcome to my parlour.

The fact that most of my remaining post was quite erudite meant nothing to you. You only attempt to insult and demean me for having an opinion that differs from yours. How about actually responding to my claims instead of the clever but useless exercise of breaking down my individual quips with neanderthal-like quotes.

I leave this quote in because you said it, but it’s pretty void of any argument beyond “you’re all a bunch of meanies.” In general, we’ve all addressed these things a thousand times over, and the drive-by of Peterson puppets in the previous page didn’t really give us any reason to think that you were worth more than a giggle.

In short? If you dive into a foreign forum, tell everyone “you’re wrong!” with an air of smug superiority, and are then surprised that the response is hostile? Maybe you aren’t as wise as you claim to be.

I can fling reports around as well, how about this one: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205349 . Shows men are worse off than women in a majority of countries across the world including discrimination against men in the more developed ones.

Did you actually read that paper?

Says that men are advantaged in poor economies, and the inverse in wealthy ones.

“Aha!” perhaps you cry, “See, reverse sexism!”

Keep reading, my duckling. They measure “advantage” and “disadvantage” through multiple statistics. The “advantage” women get in developed economies is because those societies don’t invest in preventative health care for men as much as they do for women.

(Feminism actually discusses this! When a feminist talks about toxic masculinity, it includes the masculine reluctance to go to a doctor and take better care of themselves – the insistence that they’re tough enough that they don’t need it.)

Keep reading. This paper uses statistics about self reporting. This isn’t problematic per-se, but it does mean that the results are entangled with a lot of things we would like to disentangle. Specifically, social expectations are uncontrolled.

Keep reading. The various metrics they use will lose resolution as they are combined. If a high bias is detected in one metric, but an opposite bias is detected in another one, instead of this sharp distinction being preserved, both are erased. The researchers even mention this happening, specifically, in Saudi Arabia as an example. This creates an illusion of parity.

Here’s a quote:

It is also clear that education is most often the reason for why women and girls fall behind, whereas men’s disadvantage is largely in a shorter healthy life span in the high and very highly developed nations.

This paper is new to 2019 so hasn’t had time to be sufficiently peer reviewed. Older papers from the same authors seem pretty reliable, though, so it sounds reasonable to take as true provisionally. Gosh, I guess we better start working on reducing that macho streak in men or something. It’s harmful!

In short – your erudition needs some work. Don’t think you can just read an abstract and slap it on the table. Some of us actually do this for a living.

And the gender pay gap does exist but not because of some over-reaching, sinister male conspiracy, but rather on a less-glamourous scale resulting (in part) due to life-style choices focusing on family instead of career. Its pretty simple if you really think about it.

Ugh. Where’s your fucking erudition, Mister D? Or do you mean to say that you’re talking about the wage gap without having read the literature first? All of these talking points were thoroughly addressed – in the 70’s. Scientifically. And statistically. If you want to contest them you’re free to, but you have to actually address them, not ignore them.

Lifestyle choices are culturally influenced. MRAs complain, loudly, about how girls are encouraged more in math and science than men, and how they make up a larger proportion of undergraduate classes. But they don’t complain about how women are winnowed out from those courses at an alarming rate, despite having shown the proclivities of success.

This is the point where you say that women can’t hack the rigours of science or some such nonsense, I suspect. Which is funny, because it’s another baseless claim which has been thoroughly studied by actual science. And – guess what – science don’t agree with you.

Feel free to jump into that shark tank if you like, and I’ll gladly give you a schooling.

(yes that’s a double entendre)

Stop being so goddamn smug and open your eyes and ears to different opinions and consider them carefully. The history of mankind is THOUSANDS of years old and social structures built during it were in place because they worked.

No shit they worked, dummy. We’re still here after all.

Know what else worked? Pooping in the river. Farming by stone sickle. Medicine by daubing honey and bread on wounds. I mean, it wasn’t ideal, but it worked well enough that humanity survived, right? Thrived even.

Or maybe pursuing the good means improving ourselves, and we shouldn’t be content with meagre survival.

Or maybe – just maybe – those systems only worked for the people who were in charge, and they were miserable for everyone else, but those people in charge are the ones who wrote the history books.

Take your pick.

Were now in a massive 50 year old societal experiment where the outcome is unknown and cracks are beginning to show at the seems. (increase in loneliness, family nucleus break-down etc.) Like I said, careful what you wish for as you may not like what you find at the end.

I’m curious, you talk about this fifty year experiment, but you haven’t really defined it. What exactly is it that you’re talking about there?

Not a single one of you smug liberal NPC’s has proven any of JP’s assertions as in-correct in these posts. Its all pathetic jibes and insults aimed at the man who threatens your perfect little Marxist utopia’s. Typical NPC twitter.

(Incorrect is a single word. The dash is superfluous, Mr Erudite.)

We don’t have a marxist utopia, far from it. That’s just a pathetic jibe and insult of your own, though, so I’ll ignore it.

Do you want me to invalidate one of Peterson’s assertions? Do you have a favourite one? I’d like you to supply one, the assertion of his that you feel is strongest. See, I’ve done this before, but every time I’ve done so I’ll be told that I’m cherry-picking. So you can pick the cherry. Which one would you like me to invalidate?

Whats your Sociology professor tell you to write as a comeback to this little CHE jr.? Why is the pay gap not a result of female life-style choices (ie. popping out babies and caring for them for 18 years + all the while working as well.) and inherent biological profession preference, ie. the desire to work with people as opposed to things?

Aheh, that’s a fun little block of text.

See, my duck, in science we can’t just say X is caused by biology or Y is caused by social forces, we have to actually show it to be the case. And it turns out that showing those sorts of things is really, really hard. So we tend to hedge our bets by saying our conclusions are suggestions, and we basically never talk about anything having an inherent biological background unless we’re – you know – actually fucking biologists. In that case we’d want some microbiologists on our side, or something of the sort, because you can’t say “genetics!” unless you can – you know – actually show which genes.

As for the “lifestyle choices”, that gets really complicated and, again, I’m happy to explain it to you if you like, but I’m sort of curious. And interested.

See, I thought this block of text was fun because you’re sneering at sociologists at the beginning, then you’re supporting sociologists in the middle, provided that those sociologists find the conclusions you like. You did it above too – G Stoet et. al. in “A simplified approach to measuring national gender inequality” are doing sociology. You seemed to like them when you thought they were agreeing with you.

Could it be – possibly – that you don’t really care about the science, and just whether it supports your belief? You’ll happily throw it under the bus if it disagrees, but if you think that the abstract gives you some sort of support you’re all for it. That doesn’t suggest that you’re much of a fan of science. How very erudite.

And yes, from the very start of the article (with the meanest/maddest image of Peterson you could possibly find) to the very end its out of context attacks on virtually all his contentious assertions, none of them actually touched upon in any meaningful sense. Hit piece? nah, more like Character assassination of the highest order. You should be ashamed of yourself for such a biased piece of crap article.

This blog is about making fun of bigots. He’s a bigot, we makes fun of him. If you want intellectual takedowns, read the white papers; he’s a scientist after all, you can j –

Oh, wait, he’s got almost no actual scientific publications, mostly just lectures and layman’s books. Maybe – if you’d like to challenge yourself – go to google and search “criticism of Jordan Peterson” ? I bet you could find something there that would give you a reply from Jordie P’s field.

Or, y’know, you could keep up your hero worship because he’s saying things you want to believe anyways.

Anyways, looking forward to your reply! Perhaps try the newfangled technology of paragraphs next time. Great for organizing disorganized thoughts into a coherent whole.

Might even reveal that you can’t corral that incoherent mess into something sensible, though. So be careful. Good for personal development at least.

Toodle!

Jason D.
Jason D.
3 years ago

Lets be clear on one thing, I’m not a “Peterson-Type”. I’m 50 years old and successful in both career and marriage (with 4 children and a happy wife) and HAVEN’T given the man one red-cent. I dont need self-help. I do however see some wisdom in some of his exposition. I have strongly suspected some of his assertions to be true which fly in the face of PC norms nowadays. I am increasingly worried that the left will succeed in dividing our society to the point where it is irreversibly weakened and unable to counter the stronger mono-cultural social-collective giant that is China. Please read the paper and get back to me with your thoughts. Its all I ask for.

Cat Mara
Cat Mara
3 years ago

@Jason D:

Better get back to your gender studies course before you miss out on another patriarchal conspiracy.

Alas, my primary degree is in Electronic Engineering and I also hold an MSc in Software Engineering. I cannot pretend to any qualifications in the esteemed discipline of Gender Studies but I can imagine how an applicant for the Milo Yiannopoulos Privilege Grant might get the two areas of study, as they do with much in life and this world, confused

LindsayIrene
3 years ago

I’m picturing the sea gulls from Finding Nemo yelling, “NPC! Neo-Marxist! Womens’ studies!”

BritterSweet
3 years ago

Lobsters? Not a big fan of those. Why couldn’t we have had a Dungeness crab invasion instead?

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
3 years ago

@Jason D: *seams

Jason D
Jason D
3 years ago

Hey Viscaria,

Wow your world view is going to be rocked:

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-19763-004?doi=1

AND THIS:

https://ifstudies.org/blog/straight-talk-about-sex-differences-in-occupational-choices-and-work-family-tradeoffs

And this:

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

I can get more if you want. Read, digest and get back to me if you still think its bullcrap.

And for your information , Sweden is the ultimate showcase for true gender equality and the GROWING gap between the choices genders make in their respective favoured jobs. Yes, thats right, more women are enrolling in socially based work environments given the choice and more men are choosing the STEM fields. Its the gender-equality paradox and it PROVES all that I’ve said above and all that you find so distasteful in it because it doesnt fit snugly into your little Neo-Marxist utopia. Sorry NPC# 10994, You wont have much to say after this.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
3 years ago

Jason D wrote:

Its all pathetic jibes and insults aimed at the man who threatens your perfect little Marxist utopia’s.

and

Although I can see how it fits snugly into your Neo-Marxist utopia where gender is only a construct and their are no biological differences between men and women

What country do you think most of the commenters here live in?

And, more importantly, what definition of “Marxist” are you using? Because it sure as hell ain’t the actual one:

Merriam-Webster definition:

Marxism [noun]

Marx·​ism | \ˈmärk-ˌsi-zəm

the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx

especially: a theory and practice of socialism (see socialism sense 3) including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

You’re not just a crappy writer, you’re also a dumbfuck.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
3 years ago

I notice that you completely ignored Scildfreja, @Jason D. Hmmm… I wonder why that is….

HMMMMMM…..

comment image

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

Oh gosh, more papers! Is it Christmas again?

You hold tight, @Jason Dee, I’ll do some reading and get back to you. Everyone else: I’m taking bets on how many of these links actually support his position!

Viscaria
Viscaria
3 years ago

Dude, I haven’t been ROCKED THAT HARD in years! WhooOOOOOOOOOaaa!

I don’t want to spend $12 for the study, but the abstract you linked to doesn’t mention biological factors at all. It does include this line, for interest’s sake.

Application of some item development strategies can substantially reduce sex differences.

The blog post you linked does suggest sex differences are biological in nature, but doesn’t explain why that’s a more compelling explanation than any other.

The article discussing a study that you linked does not suggest biology is the underlying cause of the fewer female STEM grads in countries with greater gender equality.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
3 years ago

Rhuu wrote:

I notice that you completely ignored Scildfreja, @Jason D. Hmmm… I wonder why that is….

Yeah, these types always know, deep down inside, that they’re completely full of shit, and they try so hard to avoid engaging with people who obviously know what they’re talking about.

I’ve found that if you throw a few insults at them first, they’re far more likely to respond; then, once they’re hooked, you can bust out the knowledge and watch them suddenly stop responding to your posts.

It’s a guilty kind of fun to make the stupid little puppets dance….

Scildfreja’s a much better person than me, because she doesn’t indulge in those petty games.

Jason D
Jason D
3 years ago

LOL, some of you apparently have time to write grammatically correct novellas in response to my casual little quips. I care could less aboot Gramer or spelingg you pedantic little twates. The information to refute some of your sad beliefs is out there if you are interested in truth. JP backs up all he says with study after study (carefully referenced) if you care to follow it up. I’m going to leave you sad little Neo-Marxists in your pleasant liberal echo-chamber. Please learn Chinese as they will be your new over-lords in about 20-30 years as you folks weaken and emasculate what was once the greatest civilization in the history of the known world. I hope I’m wrong but they do say the next century is Chinese and I hope we survive the lefts attempts to divide/weaken us both by gender and class. iIhope some of you girls can understand and cherish the art of war cuz ya’ll are gonna need it.

Here’s some gems for you to help explode some of your cherished, albeit ill-informed, ideologically driven views:

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0017364

So long, good luck in your Amazon Utopia!

Viscaria
Viscaria
3 years ago

Jason D could own us all and answer our every argument, but sadly he must now return to his home planet. ? We will never receive his bountiful wisdom.

Perhaps if he had stayed longer, he might have explained to us why careers with a greater percentage of men pay better in the first place, or why the important childcare work his own wife performs is unpaid. Unfortunately, that knowledge leaves with him.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
3 years ago

Shorter Jason D:

“I know that I’m utterly incapable of rebutting any of your criticisms of either Peterson’s claims or my own, so I’m going to pretend that I won and flounce off.

“Also, I know that I’m utterly incapable of writing well, so I’m going to intentionally make my writing errors worse so I can pretend that they don’t matter, and that if I were willing to spend a few more minutes of my precious, precious time on my writing, it would be totes perfect.”

Newt
Newt
3 years ago

Ah yes, sorry to have mis-spelled a word.

I’ll only accept your apology if you try harder in future.

I love how horribly pedantic people such as yourself point to it as some sort of denigration exercise.

These kind of mistakes are understandable, and only worth pointing out when the writer has an inflated of opinion of themself. You call it “pedantic”, I call it “rigorous”. Such rigour would be useful when, say, linking to a study that you think delivers an awesome truthbomb — you could read the whole of the abstract and see if it actually backs up your assumptions.

individual quips

“quip: a clever, usually taunting remark”. So you’re reminding readers that you think you’re witty. Combined with your later “NPC” jibes, it also suggests that you’re not here in good faith. Next time, could you make it clear which parts of your post are serious (and deserve a response) and which parts are intellectual trolling (and should be laughed at)?

neanderthal-like quotes

I summarised your own words, to show how you weren’t saying anything new or inciteful. If you think the result is “neanderthal-like”, you should think more about what you’re saying, as well as how you say it.

%d bloggers like this: