Main Edition
US
FR
Motherly: Jordan Peterson. Credit: Don Arnold/WireImage
For all that he’s regarded in some quarters as the house philosopher of male supremacy, Jordan Peterson is quite a vulnerable figure —and admirably honest about that vulnerability in talking about his depression, his feelings of powerlessness, his care for his daughter. He’s translated that honesty into a public persona that reaches directly to thousands upon thousands of young men (the female Peterson fan is not unheard of, but she’s unusual) and helped them articulate their own dissatisfactions with the kinds of masculinity on offer.
This following has made him into a global superstar psychologist and theologian. There’s no one else quite like him — some people have even started wondering why he doesn’t have a female equivalent. This singularity is a lot for any one man to carry without some weirdness getting in, and now Peterson is on the cusp of a comeback, with a new book on its way, it seems like a good time to reckon with just how weird things have got.
There’s the all-beef diet, developed by his daughter and then adopted by him, with enthusiastic testimony about its cure-all powers. Then there is the claim he was once kept awake for 25 days by accidentally consuming some vinegar (a sad downside, apparently, of the all-beef diet). More troublingly, there are the eight days he spent in a medically-induced coma in Russia earlier this year to treat a “physical dependence” on tranquilisers.
More curious is the fact that he became the world’s most significant public intellectual, having published precisely one academic book 18 years ago — a book which contains more pictures of dragons than legible sentences. (I’m not joking about the dragons.) In this book (Maps of Meaning) he describes going to a maximum security prison dressed in “long wool cape, circa 1890, which I had bought in Portugal, and a pair of tall leather boots”. Unsurprisingly, the get-up attracts attention, and Peterson finds himself “surrounded by shoddy men, some of whom were extremely large and tough-looking”.
Extraordinarily, he has ascended to the position of the liberal Left’s number one enemy. When Penguin announced that it would be publishing a sequel to his wildly successful 2018 self-help manual Twelve Rules for Life (to be called Beyond Order: Twelve More Rules for Life), some members of staff were so distraught that they cried.
Even weirder, the staff seemed to think that leaking this information would be persuasive. (Peterson’s own position on crying, from Twelve Rules, is this: “Anger-crying is often an act of dominance, and should be dealt with as such.”) But that’s still not the weirdest thing. Is it that people think he’s not just “an icon of hate speech” but also stupid? He might seem absurd; but he’s not stupid.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribenow you’re just making things up. At no point has he ever claimed “male superiority,” whatever that is. It’s amazing how a guy can have a YouTube channel full of classroom lectures, the 12 Rules book, a host of interviews that can be seen online, yet there are those who say “ignore the words you hear, THIS is what he really means.”
This was like reading the Newman interview, whose lasting mark is her continually repeating “so what you’re really saying is….” No what he’s really saying is what he just said.
Well said.
So what you’re saying is…
Pathetic isn’t it?
I wish I had counted from the start of this interview how often she said, ‘So what you’re saying is . . . ‘ and she was wrong nearly every time!
No, EVERY time…
Yes, Ditum has a very superficial understanding of Peterson’s views on order and chaos. He has said, many times, that when order dominates chaos, the result is tyranny whereas when chaos dominates order, nothing works. Hence the need for an eternal and productive tension between the two.
I know – so how come women are so obsessed with tidying up all the time? 😉
Perhaps because they are married to men who haven’t internalised the “clean your room” message JP is delivering?
If you saw how my wife reacts to my personal spaces, you’ll realize the exact opposite is true.
We all see and hear through a lens.
I’m not challenging your assessment of the Newman interview; it was a train wreck.
But ‘one outclassed interviewer doth butter no parsnips’ as they say. I’ve seen him challenged more effectively elsewhere.
I like his lectures and I read his books but I do think he’s chauvinistic / traditional in his views on gender (male / female). He does an amazing job of skating very close to the edge and I’d love to have a debate with him just to see whether he’s owning his ‘truth’ or whether he’s making his views palatable to the progressive atmosphere we find ourselves in!
I don’t care if he’s a chauvinist or a traditionalist (chose your benevolent adjective), because how can we have a debate without different perspectives? The implied sexism of some of his statements doesn’t make me reject everything he has to say…he’s a clever bloke and has some good insights. His perspectives on Socialism has changed my world view and I will be forever grateful.
I do think he owes us his ‘truth’ if only because he bangs on about it so much! I’m not completely convinced that we’ve heard it yet though …!
If you wanted to know what the real JP is like, it would be more illuminating to have a chat with his wife and daughter. Quite probably he is a bit traditional in his thinking. That doesn’t explain though why he provokes so fierce a reaction in people who are happy to ignore the honour killings and FGM occurring in their country.
Hmm. Men through the ages have dragged their compliant wifeys out of the kitchen to advocate that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote / work / own property etc. That doesn’t mean that they prove a point or that they know ‘what all women want’ – they marry these men because their values align or they are suffering from patriarchal Stockholm Syndrome. Women conditioned to accept the burka will also advocate it. It’s a weak argument. I would expect no other reaction from his wife and daughter than glowing accolades about his respect for women. He’s a nice bloke. Doesn’t prove a thing.
But I completely agree…. the lefty-loons throw the baby out with the bathwater when they reject Peterson. I think we should be wary of his cult following amongst some men as well though – my worry is that they hero worship him for what he implies, as much as for what he honestly states. His book 12 Rules if full of chauvinistic ‘innuendo’…that’s just a fact. I don’t think any interviewer has successfully dug into that… partly because the man is an absolute genius when it comes to debate.
I’m still left wondering if he’d like me as much in a trouser suit running my own company, as in a pretty floral dress baking cakes? This is important because I suck at baking cakes and I prefer wearing trousers ;/
His arguments are based on generalities, not on individuals. He’s always said that individuals can do whatever they want including transition. He calls people by their preferred pronouns but he doesn’t believe the government has the right to force compelled speech for any reason. also he points out that no man had the right to vote until just a couple hundred years ago. As well humanity has lived in abject poverty for all of human history except for the last couple hundred years. And that neither sex could survive on their own and had to work together to survive in such brutal conditions. Also how is it that men have any privilege when for all of history they are 90% of all violent crime victims as well as 99% victims of all war death and maiming. Doesn’t sound like privilege to me. I will also note here that men make up 40% of all violent sexual crime victims and when you include the prisons in that number they make up more than half. Not to mention men are way less likely to admit to being sexually assaulted. So it’s actually very likely they make up an even higher percentage. These are all USA-based statistics from the FBI crime tracking database.
But its not women raping or murdering men its other men
That wouldn’t have nothing to do with unskilful and inadequate mothers’ contribution to the seemingly eternal war of the sexes would it?
We are here dealing with a very shallow view of something called ‘depth’ psychology; when we look across the surface of a calm body of water we tend to see only reflections. In order to experience the reality of the teeming depths of the ocean we have to plunge below the surface.
In order to navigate these deeps of the unconscious we need a good scuba set of Jungian principles along with the other significant psychologists as well as a certain level of self awareness and an objective appreciation of one’s own preconceptions, prejudice and ignorance.
And it’s not women joining the police or army to stop the small minority if criminal men, it’s predominantly men.Funny though how less palatable the regularly used line above becomes if you replace “men” with “black men” (far more likely to rape than average men) or “muslim men” (pretty much the only group that does mass scale rape gangs in the UK)
Sorry, but That’s irrelevant. The men being attacked are just as much victims as the women. Just because they may be attacked by other men isn’t some kind of justification. That’s victim blaming.
Nor is it true that women don’t rape or murder men. Over 400 women have been convicted in the States for the sexual abuse of young boys in the school system alone. Women also instigate 50% of domestic violence, and 38% of victims are men.
It’s also not women doing the most dangerous (but very necessary) and dirty jobs. It’s also not women putting themselves in harm’s way and even willing to loose their very lives in order to protect those less physically strong than they are.
And why does no one talk about toxic femininity? It was not the boys who surrounded me in a circle when I was 8, each one in turn pointing out a particular thing about me that was “soo wieerd”, all of them agreeing with each other. It is not boys who engage in all manner of social drama and constantly changing alliances. Boys just got into a fight and by that things are settled, sometimes even ending up friends. Simple and uncomplicated.
If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape (and believe me, to my shock and disbelief, I have found out there are women who do that) his whole life is affected, even ruined, even if he is found innocent, because even then there will always be doubt in people’s minds.
Women have also been known to deliberately use their emotions (not to be confused with genuine crying) or their sexuality to manipulate people, particularly men.
There is a lot more I could say about examples of toxic femininity. But I hope you get the idea that women are not superior to men and that men are not the only ones who can be “toxic”.
Yes, as recently as the 50’s & 60’s (as my Mother had said) Women had very little to no Choice, or Voice in this World/Country… One got married and had children, even if that was the last thing they wanted.
How Terrible for my Mother’s generation. My Mom is 91, with a better memory than me! She went further and stated that “they” [Men AND Other Women] actually seemed to have a way of making (at least) most women ‘believe’ that marriage and kids were what All (normal) women wanted. And, Who wants to be abnormal? Right?” She added, “Thank Goodness THAT ended.”
I asked her if SHE wanted marriage and kids, Truly? She was honest and said “Honey, I Iove You Kids, and my Grandchildren, etc., but no, I wanted to go on after College and pursue a career and Graduate study in Journalism.” I said ‘I’m sorry that you didn’t get to do those things Mom, but I’m really glad that You’re my Mom…’ She smiled a d said “Ditto, Honey, Ditto!”
~Best, Dr. J.
P.S. When I explained to her that ‘Men are Order & Women are Chaos, etc.’ She responded with “Right David, Right… And, That’s What I used to say to your Father, A Lot!”
LU Mom!
Every day at 6am my dad wakes to walk his dogs down the same path, at 7:15 he comes home to give them both a treat and then starts his day. At 4pm he takes a shower and at 6 eats dinner. Is in bed by 8pm and asleep by 10. My mother on the other hand will decide to take a road trip on a whim and drag him along because she wants to. Growing up it was her who made the spontaneous trips or bought something big for fun. It would always fluster my dad to have his routine disrupted which was rather funny. Thats how I view the whole order and chaos.
You had a balanced upbringing….morals & values for you as an individual to follow …taking from each…..you were/are a very privileged person (nothing to do with race…. there’s only one race … humanity)….my parents were very similar…I really miss their wisdom….but feel their presence almost guiding me still…one loveðŸ™
Strange how the moms and grandmoms never dreamt of working in a mine, or the drudgery of a factory, or spend months in a damp trench before being shot down by machine guns.
You know, all the stuff the dads and Granddads were expected to do, and nobody asked them if they would have preferred to stay and home with their families
Let’s not forget there is never any choice about who gets to grow babies, get them out of our bodies safely and then feed them from our own bodies; following natures schedule it would be an average of two years of breastfeeding each child. I am very grateful that men do so much work protecting us all. Its just that these sex based differences make both sexes heroic. Statistics have shown for example that women are much more successful at keeping newborns and small children safe, so we all do our part in the reproduction and survival of humanity.
Is it possible that the ideals in the book appear to be chauvinistic only because he’s a man? (Because They are not gender exclusive and it’s never expressed that this is only a set of ideas that will only help men) I’ve read the book a few times through (book club) and it just doesn’t trigger a bit of worry (for me) as to any sort of exclusive malevolence about or toward one sex or another.
I do think it’s difficult to just read his book though and not have a deeper knowledge of his body of work…if people do that they generally end up (not unlike the author of this piece) characterizing him as some sort of misogynist…which is pretty much (as far as we know from his lectures and writings and Q n A’s basically his public persona) not true…if anything he’s showing both sexes (all sexes really) how to navigate life in general (against both excessive order and excessive chaos) and gives equal blame to all who shrug their responsibilities.
basing knowledge on archetypes I find this a very truncated reading of how dominant themes in western civilisation plays out. At best its socially weightless but a super coherent story to read. He continues the reductionism in a different way through the first 12 Rules. Again a very good read. Easy to read and seductive. Truncation is seductive and so is ideology which he rails against a good bit. Not sure I understand how he rails against ideology as much as he does. Firstly, I think he doesn’t believe his fairly precise argumentative style comes loaded with any ideology and to me if this charge holds up, and not that I am against ideology, how could anyone flatly reject ideology – what would we be left with exactly – I would say we would be rudderless without the ideations that permeate and are enacted in our personality styles. More recently his turn to neuroscience as a way of grasping social stratification is wrong-headed. Way too much leveraged in that tight formulation.
I agree. Let’s face it, anyone who disagrees with even a tiny part of the total logic failure that characterizes modern feminism is branded a misogynist. If you’re a woman like I am who has dissenting views, the feminists claim that you’ve internalised this misogyny. It’s a closed loop. In my experience they don’t much like the idea of free speech when challenged and like to resort to ad hominim arguments when you disagree with them. They can’t see any sensible discussions through because so many of their points their points can’t be substantiated. It’s no wonder that JP has such a following because his very reasonable points are branded “controversial” purely because they question feminist thought. I feel JP’s lectures and writing have far more to offer both men and women than Ditum selectively describes and that it’s sad that they willfully misinterpret them as misogynist just because they challenge feminist “logic”.
Well said Ruth, thank you.
“Total Logic Failure” TLF. Excellent.
I will remember that phrase for future use when I engage in critique of social justice assertions.
In his book and in several podcast discussion he explains how some of the work in his clinical practise has been dedicated to helping high tier professional women to maximise their success in the business world. I would therefore contribute that he would be very happy for you and wish you the highest level of success you were able to achieve based on your abilities.
The last line sums up women’s “equality”
It’s all about being liked, or “running your own company”
99.99% of men don’t run companies. They earn a living, mostly under tough circumstances, to support their families.
Strangely enough, haven’t come across too many professional, college educated women who come out of college and marry a man with no income or degree.
It’s curious how you expect to be able to penetrate the facade of a man who is ‘an absolute genius when it comes to debate’, but feel incapable of telling whether his wife’s and daughter’s glowing accolades are sincerely meant. Perhaps it’s because you have no interest in trying. You prefer to adopt the posture of a Witchfinder General. If wife and daughter say that Peterson is a monster you will believe them; if they say that he is the kindest man they know, you won’t believe a word of it.
‘His book 12 Rules if full of chauvinistic ‘innuendo’…that’s just a fact.’ No, it’s not a fact , it’s your subjective interpretation.
Sarah, you are so condescending – patriarchal Stockholm Syndrome *scoff*. Apparently you don’t know what ‘all women want’ either. As it turns out, I am the traditional one in my marriage, and my husband does whatever he thinks will make his goddess of a wife happy.
There is a natural order to things and it has ever been thus, no matter how much we like to pontificate on how it should work in our estimations. There is a natural order, based on sex, the having of a womb that can support life, breasts that can produce nourishment for offspring, hormones that regulate the cycles responsible for this process. It’s called being a woman. You cannot escape biology – at least not until such time that we grow offspring in amniotic tanks rather than how nature intended.
Could women have been treated better over the ages? Well duh! He isn’t talking about other cultures than what is generally referred to as those with ‘western values’. Conflating Islamic culture with Western culture is disingenuous. He is talking about where we are now, on this day, in the West. Not about what others might do in their more archaic cultures.
Point to one place in 12 Rules where he uses the chauvinistic ‘inuendo’ to which you refer. Seems to me that you are writing your own inadequacies and fears into what he says, just like the author of this piece.
What he says doesn’t diminish me at all because I am confident in and love my role as a traditional woman and wife. That you refer to other women as ‘wifey’ is telling. It is kind of like what people do with Trump supporters or Brexit voters … well you must not be very bright if …
To suggest that his wife an daughter are ‘conditioned’ is grotesque. What would you say about me then? Doesn’t quite fit your stereotype, does it? Aah, always the unicorn.
Your supposed interchangeability between the terms “chauvinistic” and “traditional” shows your lack of understanding, or at least nuance, to the many varieties of what it means to be “traditional”. I have not, as of yet, seen any evidence that he is chauvinistic in any way shape or form, but he does seem to be traditional in many ways. And traditional is a beautiful thing when the traditions are beautiful, as many traditions most certainly are. I think you need some reflection and historical study in what it actually means to be traditional, and whether or not you can just flippantly write it off as an outdated mode of existence surpassed by our modern philosophical brilliance (read arrogance).
@unherdlimited-d166d6ef19f213edeece16fd1f0db8be:disqus I agree with Ray. You seem to think that ‘traditional’ is by default chauvinistic, and I beg to differ. I am a thoroughly modern, uni educated, secular woman and couldn’t be more traditional.
You are indeed flippant in your dismissal of ‘traditional’ values. Just because some traditions have rightfully been turfed out, doesn’t mean that traditionalism in the round should be. And that is why I ‘get’ Peterson and don’t find him chauvinistic at all.
Most of the ills in society these days stem from progressive attitudes that loudly and flippantly shout down traditions that actually brought some stability to our societies. Like the ‘stay-at-home-mum. Progressivism and feminism have sidelined and devalued what many women still find meaningful. All kinds of research has shown that children with SAHMs have better outcomes, but that natural work of women (and yes I did just say that) has been made into a dirty word by progressives and feminists.
Traditional roles for men and women are still a thing, and people dislike Peterson for pointing out what to normal, rational people is blatantly self-evident. It smacks of the Emperor’s New Clothes.
For my 2p worth: JP is laughably out of date. I thought it was a spoof podcast I was listening to.It seems to me that he has largely brought ‘insight’ to people who are new to the self-help and how the mind works scene.Spend your time on Stephen Covey, Daniel Kahneman, Bene Brown, Malcolm Gladwell (deliberately given popular authors). Even popular weekly magazines on the shelf at Tesco will offer better insight and understanding, and they won’t deliberately obfuscate – unlike JP.Sure, it’s great that masses of young men are now tapping into self awareness and reflection. Can only hope that they will grow and move on from JP.
Exactly right!
I can only assume you haven’t watched the whole Peterson Newman interview if you don’t think there was a clear winner or killer blow. Unless the purpose of interviewing is to purposefully misinterpreted what someone says and then get flummoxed when their explanation of what they actually do literally leaves you with no more misconceived preconceptions or misinterpretations. ‘Gotcha’
Quite. I was only vaguely aware of Peterson before that interview – and most of what I heard was negative hearsay. I was actually fairly keen on Cathy Newman as a reporter.
The interview was an utter embarrassment for Newman. She is now far more famous than she ever was and not in a good way – entirely off the back of that.
She was absolutely awful! I went and checked out the interview on YouTube. Had to stop listening halfway through because it was getting ridiculous”¦ She was like a caricature of a gotcha interviewer. So disappointing.
I thought at any moment she was going to break out with “so what you’re really saying is that the Queen is just an old tart???”
If you stopped half way through you missed the best bits!
Exactly!! Maybe they didn’t understand what Jordan was actually saying in the interview. That’s the only way they could ever believe Cathy won.
An interview in which the interviewer ends up saying to a clinical psychologist, without irony or sarcasm, “let me get this straight – you’re saying we should organise our society along the lines of the lobsters?”
I mean there wasn’t even a killer blow in that interview it’s true, that implies some sort of lawyerly debate. It was more like watching someone on drugs drop hammers on their own feet constantly for 30 minutes.
The article is pretty decent, at least I learned some things reading it, but that particular line claiming Newman vs Peterson was some kind of ambiguous draw is just totally out of whack. Is the author a fellow traveller, perhaps? I still don’t understand why C4 put that video online unless somehow Peterson got them to sign a contract requiring it, as it made their entire news operation look like it was run by 15 year olds.
The return of Peterson also unhappily means dishonest writers churning out more idiotic articles misinterpreting him and his ideas. I wonder if Sarah Ditum has even read 12 Rules for Life. Peterson explains early on in the book that the representation of order and chaos as male and female is ancient and from Taoist philosophy. The symbol of Yin and Yang is a representation of two interlocked dragons, one black, female, chaos, the other white, male, order, each with an opposing dot for an eye, representing the possibility of transformation, a declaration that nothing is so certain that it cannot change. Nothing maybe other than the dull ideologically addled minds of activist journalists.
You beat me to it. Was going to say the same. Peterson does not suggest as the author claims that Order should dominate Chaos, but that there needs to be a balance between Order and Chaos. And that is the best place to be.
The subtitle “an antidote to chaos” is there because Peterson believes that in our present times chaos is dominanting order not the other way around. Other times may suffer the opposite malady.
….hmmmm. So no human wisdom from the Tao at all then Sarah?
Straw man defence…. that all you got?
….surely that’s strawperson Sarah?
I am sick and tired of this gendered straw binary!
You make quite an assertion there, ‘…like he wants you to.’ Hmm, you know that?
It rather undermines your point. I think the root of all of this is his belief, which I share, that ‘maleness’ is out of hand. Men have forgotten their true role in life, which is strength mixed with humility, caring mixed with ferocity (not anger) when threatened, and being accountable for their behaviour.
There is too much toxic masculinity on display in sport, media and politics. True men don’t need to shout or fight, or threaten everyone, or carry guns (wave willies). It is no coincidence that Trump has been mocked for the totally unsubstantiated smallness of his member. It’s a code, albeit an unwitting one, for him being not a whole man. He’s been described as a man child. Yet he is (almost was) the most powerful ‘man’ on the planet. What brought us here?
I don’t believe Peterson would have had such an impact if he operated in the rather cartoonish way you describe. We’re all free to judge/criticise but I believe his point is that if men are taking a wrong turn, it is little wonder if women do too.
Thanks for this. But I wonder if you could help me. I’ve been reading a bit of Lenin recently, and I’m about to start State and Revolution, but to save me the trouble could you quickly glance over Lenin’s whole written work and tell me what he really, really, really means? Because, you know, you know, eh? Thanks again.
Basically, Lenin wished he was a Marxist, because it seemed all scientific, but actually, deep-down, he was a populist, although he couldn’t admit it to himself. There you go, saved you the effort.
Marvellous. Thanks. What a relief. I recently downloaded the 41 volumes his collected works from Bittorrent …
Jeff, you kinda prove the point that Peterson does attract some angry misogynists. The hate literally drips from your writing. Exactly how pissed off are you that I’m smarter than you?Again, Straw man defence…
Sarah Packman,
You kinda demonstrate that JP attracts a lot of uneducated criticism from across the spectrum of angry misogynists to enraged and embittered militant feminists…
Straw man defense to an ad hominem attack.
You seem like the hateful one here, Sarah. He said what he said to make the point, after you referred to an actually deep concept as being just a “stupid analogy”, that you show that you don’t understand the depth and complexity of Peterson’s ideas. Then you automatically *assume* he is an “angry misogynist” who has “hate” that “literally drips from his writing”, and that he is “pissed off” that you “are smarter than” him. His sarcasm seems to me not a result of misogynistic hate but rather a reaction to your hatred of men. You seem so entrenched in this closed feminist ideological loop, that you are not capable of seeing what the man (Peterson) is actually saying. Everything is filtered through and seen through this ideology. It’s one dimensional. I was caught in this loop for a time, 30 years ago, after reading a number of extremely “progressive” books for their time, so I know what I am saying. (These were ideas that ended up being mainstreamed in the last several years). But I am telling you, reality is so much more multidimensional than that. I had a paradigm shift out of this loop as a result of a series of dreams, and other profound experiences that would take too long to get into here. But it was a paradigm shift. Modern feminism is the artificial construct. Modern feminism is the trap.
I think the scholars (and therefore JP) were talking more about the feminine and masculine aspects of each individual’s personality being in balance (or not) and how this impacts on someone’s life, rather than men and women as separate entities who should some how be in balance on a societal level.
I wouldn’t read it so literally. As others have said humans have been putting things into masculine and feminine categories as generalised traits for as long as we know. Look up the pairing of the Goddess Lada and God Lado for a different example from the ying/yang.
I agree, many scholars do. I’m just not convinced that’s the case with 12 Rules.
So are you here wanting someone to convince you, or just to put him down?
Looking for an argument?
Setting fire to straw men?
(Looks like ‘p***s envy’ to me….)
Sarah, are you familiar with Peterson’s series of lectures (available on YouTube) on The Book of Genesis? I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Yes – especially since he is so keen on Jung.
you can like this chaos/order female/male thing, or you can hate it – but it has a very long history. It’s not something cooked up by JP.
good post Susie.
Your premise that women are a single blob of togetherness is distorting your own thinking..if you listened to him without that filter you’ll discover that Peterson, far from having a male dominance agenda, is a champion of women, especially those with self doubts about their abilities..
You say the world is ran by men, but women are basically exclusive in raising children at young ages.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Sarah Packman: You have missed the point in your willingness to perpetuate the war of the sexes.
The point is actually that the Anima is attempting to dominate the Animus, in either sex individually.
Anima personified by Feminism together an emasculated feminised Male sex unfortunately attempts to dominated by adopting a superficial imitation of male attitudes and behaviour rather than developing and asserting the intrinsic powers of the female.
True. I feel that the reason JP has become so popular is because so many of us see through the blatant hypocrisy and sexism of modern feminists who (as you aptly put it) willingly perpetuate the war of the sexes. They misconstrue and points (even when they are actually pro-female, ironically) and resort to ad hominim arguments (just like on this thread, unsurprisingly) when their points are logically debated and found wanting.
Exactly.
“Whether you like it or not, he’s telling us that he feels that feminism is responsible for the chaos we find in the world currently.”
Feminism =/= women
“it’s just a devise that Peterson uses to say what he feels about gender roles without actually saying what he feels about the gender roles.”
How do you know what he thinks? What evidence do you have that he’s hiding his beliefs behind his words?
Well said
I find it incredible that there are so many writers like Ditum who are perfectly happy to expose themselves as ignorant just in order to snipe at Peterson.
Don’t they think it would be a good idea to actually do some research into the man and his ideas and positions?
That was one of my main concerns with 12 Rules i.e. the way in which Peterson used religious dogma to back up his personal world view. So, far from ‘explaining’, I see the following quote more as a ‘justifying’:”Peterson explains early on in the book that the representation of order and chaos as male and female is ancient and from Taoist philosophy. The symbol of Yin and Yang is a representation of two interlocked dragons, one black, female, chaos, the other white, male, order,”There are no female Taoist priests and far from being equal, far Eastern societies are male-orientated with women being treated poorly. So Yin and Yang is simply a pretty picture and a nice idea. Certainly not the reality experienced by women.Secondly, so what? Just because a bunch of men wrote a bunch of things a bunch of years ago, doesn’t make it ‘true’ or ‘accurate’ or ‘real’. I believe in balance between male and female… it’s what I like to call ‘equality’. We don’t have it in many societies in the World… it’s still a man’s world, and you’re still in the top spots. Seriously, listening to some men these days you’d think that the boards of most companies were 80% female.Petersen claims that the reason the World is in such a bad way is that it is out of balance. That some order needs to be restored to the chaos (order being male, chaos being female). He then wraps this rather disturbing opinion up in some harmless sounding truths that no one would argue with such as ‘work hard and tidy your room’. This is a psychological trick – a verbal Trojan horse if you will. He’d be the first to call out anyone else using it…Seriously guys. Just think that through. You’ve been running this cluster f**k for two thousand years. Have you considered that maybe it feels like chaos simply because you’re losing the hegemony that you are familiar with? Are you really suggesting everything is going for a ball of ‘s**t because women have too much influence?p.s. I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he writes though.
…..well actually yes, the female perspective does look like it’s the source of the tyranny of compassion, which is now overwhelming most spheres of public policy, to the point of chaos and decline. And as Boris demonstrates, you don’t have to be a girl to administer it.
Deary me,
you do not want equality. No female or feminist does. You do not want 50% of workers killed to be female. Need I go on? Your thinking on this is chaotic and needs to be balanced out for you. I have done that. Cheers
Incoherent, angry, bitter… straw man argument again.
Some of you guys are putting me off Peterson… I just hope you are not his ‘demographic’. Pretty sure he wouldn’t want you in his fan club.
Incoherent, angry, bitter?
From here that looks like a description of your writing, Sarah Packman.
Not all narcissistic psychopaths are male, nor do they all make it to the top.
Some of them make it their mission to castrate as many men as they can regardless of their merits, or perhaps because of them, out of envy.
Incoherent? To you! The anger and bitterness is yours. Straw man? How? Is that all you got? Stop lying to yourself and the rest of us. Be honest. You do not want 50% of workers killed to be women do you? You do not want women to serve the same time in prison as men for the same actions. You want all the good and none of the bad. Just be honest. You can do it. Good luck.
Sarah, from what I’ve learned about Peterson, thanks to his lecture series on Genesis (where was he years ago, when I sat through those interminable Philosophy lectures at uni, which eventually drove me to switch to Law), I’m not sure that he would want a fan club at all. However, he is clearly intent on helping the less than they could be (every one of us, including himself) to grow. He identifies the path as truth (maybe that needs a
T). Listening to him has deepened and broadened my understanding, of pretty much everything that matters.
I don’t concur with his every inference and conclusion, that would be boring and half asleep. Factor in the sheer entertainment value of his talks. I’m not a fan(atic) but you may paint me grateful and deeply impressed.
” Incoherent, angry, bitter.”
Sarah, your mind-reading gets more ridiculous the poor you push it
“Running this clusterf..k for 2thousand years..”
Should have handed it over to the wimmin around 950b.c. ..would be interesting.
‘Women took priestly roles from the earliest days of organised Taoist religion and Taoist legend has many tales of female deities. Taoism emphasises characteristics that are usually thought of as feminine such as softness and yielding, modesty and non-aggression. It teaches that the weak will overcome the strong.’
https://www.bbc.co.uk/relig….
https://www.google.com/url?…
In reading your comments, I really like the way you think.
” He then wraps this rather disturbing opinion up in some harmless sounding truths that no one would argue with such as ‘work hard and tidy your room’. This is a psychological trick – a verbal Trojan horse if you will. He’d be the first to call out anyone else using it…”
Give up the attempts at mind reading and predicting his behaviour. You can’t do it.
Your attitude towards religious dogma is not rational. I suggest you read Tom Holland’s book, ‘Dominion.’ He is an atheist but can see the influence of religion on our society today.
Yes Lynwen, this quote clarifies:
“Order is not enough. You can’t just be stable, and secure, and unchanging, because there are still vital and important new things to be learned. Nonetheless, chaos can be too much. You can’t long tolerate being swamped and overwhelmed beyond your capacity to cope while you are learning what you still need to know. Thus, you need to place one foot in what you have mastered and understood and the other in what you are currently exploring and mastering. Then you have positioned yourself where the terror of existence is under control and you are secure, but where you are also alert and engaged. That is where there is something new to master and some way that you can be improved. That is where meaning is to be found.”
“• Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
You know, it was that Taoist like thinking that also was a big part of me understanding how men and women can truly relate to each other. It’s such a different paradigm that there is no way to translate or understand it from the prison of what feminism has become. I also started to understand that reality *in my body* as I did Tai Chi. It really became a bodily understanding right along with a conceptual understanding.
It’s no surprise that this author writes for the Guardian.
The left’s answer to Breitbart 🙂
“Watching Cathy Newman interview him for Channel 4 news is like watching someone show up to a knife fight with a pair of safety scissors…Who you think wins depends greatly on who you agreed with at the start, but there’s no Frost/Nixon killer blow here.”
That is truly a bizarre conclusion. Newman was made to look like an unprepared, arrogant and bigoted fool. To see the encounter as one that Newman “won” is simply to be deluded.
Quite. Newman was shown up horribly, as bigoted and stupid.
Peterson? Well, for me his core message is take responsibility for your own life. And given that the notion of personality, long ago abandoned by the Left and now drowned in a Tsunami of Narcissistic victimhood cultivated in our universities, is CORE to a functional society, no wonder he gets so much abuse.
Take responsibility for your own life? Can’t. Won’t. Pathetic.
Absolutely!!!
Some of the best light entertainment I have seen for a long time.
Ms Newman’s discomfiture was sheer nectar.
Sadly she seems to have withdrawn from the conflict.
So much pleasure in seeing her dicomfiture why ? Because she’s a woman?
Not because she’s a woman – because she’s a sanctimonious muppet.
Why automatically go there-that Mark Corby said what what he said because she’s a woman? It’s so automatic for so many women to make it about men thinking wrong things about women. It seems pretty clear that he said what he said because Newman was completely trying to typecast Peterson constantly. It seems so robotic this way of thinking. I’m sorry. I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but it just drives me crazy the way so many women have one track minds.
Exactly – as if the only possible reason any man could disagree with Cathy Newman is because she’s a woman, not because of her clearly selective and bigoted points. JP made her look like a total amateur.
No, because she was ill prepared and outmanoeuvred.
Did you in fact even watch the interview?
Totally agree! If you didn’t see a clear winner, it’s because you started watching the interview hopelessly biased against Peterson.
Just as to see a fighter on the ground bleeding out while holding a pair of safety scissors, and think they might have won is deluded.
I found the interview wholly engaging, when originally viewed. Was my introduction to both Peterson and Newman. At the time, I was aghast at Peterson’s security, adeptness and clarity of thought. I thought Newman came across as someone with an agenda, that was largely subliminal.
When I watched it again, a few months ago, I was struck by how much credit Newman gave to Peterson, as the interview proceeded. Yes, she tried to put words in his mouth, but eventually, he won her over. Watch the body language; they come to an understanding: You (Peterson) know your stuff, don’t you? (Yes, I do; I’m an authentic academic, not a journalist). They start to enjoy the event, laughing together. Newman shifts uncomfortably, but she does shift somewhat (albeit, not much further than: I might get you next time… {zero chance, I think}).
My point is that “feminism” (if that is, put simplistically, what Newman represents) is an ideology — a set of ideas — which Peterson challenges. That’s what got a lot of people excited: Peterson is a “champion” against an ideology which has, with significant merit, dominated the Western cultural discourse for nearly a century or so.
Peterson thought, isn’t taking aim at feminism — it has some merit — he’s actually speaking to men and saying: you don’t have to accept the assumptions that underpin the ideology of feminism…or woke-ness…or cultural marxism etc. And he’s been largely successful. The discourse is becoming more balanced, as this thread shows.
It’s in everyone’s interest to have a good, healthy, sustainable balance between the sexes. And to challenge the lazy assumptions that underpin all ideologies — very few of ideologies are capable of underpinning a healthy, balanced culture and society. So the chaos caused by the disruption of new ideas, eventually becomes the new order and a new chaotic set of ideas enters the fray. Everything comes at a price.
This man-baiting article is not worthy of comment other than to point out that when the author writes
“The female Peterson fan is not unheard of but she’s unusual”,
she is clearly expressing what she would like to believe rather than the truth, a state of denial in which many feminist writers increasingly find themselves.
My college-educated spouse and many of her female friends find Jordan to be extremely insightful. Very much non-PC common sense is what he preaches.
As do I.
I am one such female and I also find JP’s work insightful and non-sexist. The reason he wins every debate he has isn’t just because he’s so intelligent but because the points make sense. Many hours of his lectures are on YouTube and he talks about so much more than gender and identity politics. The feminists could stand to learn a great deal if they actually bothered to listen properly to what he’s saying and not just do that selective-hearing, cherry-picking of information thing they do so well.
The thing is Ruth feminists are rarely interested in expanding their understanding, they have a political aim, they stick with it, and will fight off anything that threatens it, eg, Jordan Peterson.
My wife, a literate 55 year old Feminist is a huge fan of JP. Why? Because he talks sense.
Just saying
Absolutely. Ditum makes out that JP only has a few “unusual” women followers. This is total rubbish. Lots of women feel JP makes sense. Because he does. We aren’t in the minority: Ditum just wishes we were.
Ditto with my 25-year-old girlfriend.
His common sense message is near-universal outside of the slightly brainwashed, or those who are too lazy to actually listen to JP at source and prefer to get their opinions approved by The Guardian before expressing.
He has frequently pointed out the reasonable gender balance of his audiences. Usually in response to the latest unfounded an pointless “explain your appeal to angry, young, alt-right incels, Dr Peterson”
I didn’t realise I was in such an exclusive group until the author told me so. But that’s post modernism for you, I feel it, I want it to be true, so it must be true.
Exactly. Modern feminists don’t let the facts get in the way of their arguments, i.e. that many women see the sense of JP’s points and we are far from an exclusive group.
I too appreciate Jordan Peterson! His thoughts balance out nicely the relentless dogma I hear everywhere. I am personally uncomfortable with the collective claims of victimhood.
The subtitle is ‘eccentric philosopher of male supremacy’. Have you listened to or read any Jordan Peterson? If you have, have you bothered to understand it?
Exactly. One example of many – Peterson’s use of Jung is not “gratuitous”. It pervades much of his work and is central to many of his ideas. (You don’t have to like or agree with Jung. He is not the messiah. But Peterson does not just toss him about as a kind of name dropping.) This author’s view of Peterson is so superficial and full of sarcasm, it is almost embarassing. Rather than say there are more pictures of dragons than coherant sentences, it might be nice to make sure the problem understanding the sentences isn’t with the reader who can’t comprehend them or doesn’t have the patience to do the work to understand them.
Agreed, I find Ditum’s writing superficial – flowery prose in an attempt to appear intelligent.
Ive just heard her discussing student “sex-workers”..a wilting unimpressive voice.
I had the same feeling! I’m 75, love his talks; he’s actually really been a hugh source of inspiration to me personally during this pandemic. Not sure she read his book.
There’s a reason why Peterson talks in the ‘language of existential struggle’. He’s not being pretentious, he’s being genuinely deep and meaningful. He didn’t come up with the concept of feminine/malscumine chaos/order. It is well documented within the history and mythology of many other cultures. Such dualism can be easily understood in evolutionary science too (opposite or contrary forces are often complementary, interconnected, and interdependent within the universe). The word ‘Chaos’ is seen negatively in Western culture but in the East it means Creation, which universally has very feminine and positive connotations. Creation and Order are symbiotic and necessary for life. Although seemingly obvious, this is incredibly profound. He’s not teaching people to be masculine or feminine. In order to be a balanced human being, you have to nurture both qualities equally. Such flitting articles like this are incredibly frustrating and unhelpful and are a sad example of what is so wrong with this epidemic of shallow thinking in our society.
The word “chaos” may not have the same negative connotations in the Eastern tradition where it is synonymous with “creation.” But there’s no way around the fact that Peterson’s book is an “antidote for chaos,” suggesting he is operating under the Western framework where chaos is not a desirable condition. Unless you contend that the book is intended as an antidote to creative energy.
He says the meaningful (in both the feeling and practical reality sense of the word) life is to be found on the border of order and chaos – the Tao or the Way They are both desirable and undesirable, positive and negative.
His new book “Beyond Order” is, I believe, a look at the problem of excess order.
Not at all. The word has a different meaning depending on the context. When he is referring to it in ‘Order and Chaos’ he means within the greater universe and mythology, where as the ‘Chaos’ used in the title, is referring to the mind. Both are an organic growth without structure.
I think it’s just “too much chaos” that is undesirable. Each individual, each culture and society has different limits, but it’s when chaos goes from disruptive / creative / whelming to dystopian / destructive / overwhelming that a new order is required…
Such a lamentable piece.
The shallowness of this piece makes it a standout here at Unherd, where I’ve become used to better. Ditum simply doesn’t know Peterson’s work or positions, cherry-picks a few of the usual apparent oddities out of context (Lobsters, steak eating, etc) from a career of multiple decades and- like so many before, deliberately misrepresents him and his readership at every turn. Like Cathy Newman, Ditum is simply unable and unwilling (afraid?) to engage with what Peterson actually says. Instead we have what reads to me like a petty and malicious schoolgirl spreading ugly rumours about Peterson behind his back. This latest Newman-esque attempt at wilful obfuscation belongs in the Guardian.
I’m struggling to fully understand this article. I’ve never noticed any sexism in Jordan Peterson’s talks +- only common sense.
Quite.
When did we go back to the middle ages? When I was a kid in the 60s I believed there is absolutely no difference between boys and girls. Well, a few biological things, but which are of very little importance regarding your intellect, which is, after all, what distinguishes us from animals. You can be and do anything. Not that I needed to be encouraged. I was a voracious reader and read everything I could get my hands on, including my brothers’ books. I particularly loved the Biggles stories. At the same time I loved the books about Vicky Bar Air Hostess and the girls at Sadlers Wells Ballet. Actually I rather pitied my brothers that they could ONLY enjoy books like Biggles and magazines like Boys’ Own and comics like The Hulk. It was verboten to them to page through a coffee table book with glossy images of ballerinas en pointe.
So with the same innocence still, I enjoyed Jordan Peterson and enjoyed his common sense, thinking it’s high time someone got back to basics. I loved his university lectures which he set up in class, analysing Pinocchio and the dangers of lying, and the story of the dragon in the house which everybody ignored until it became too big for the house. Anyhow, this is the first time I’ve heard that Jordan Peterson is “for Men Only” and a few freakish women. Gosh, what a disappointment.
Absolutely.
“For all that he’s regarded in some quarters as the house philosopher of male supremacy” those quarters being populated exclusively by people unable or unwilling to properly analyse what he says and understand what he means?
“What he’s actually saying here is that he’s going to continue perceiving ” and probably referring ” to people as male or female, depending on how they appear to him. “
Not what he said at all. He objected only to being compelled by legislation to use particular pronouns. If I remember correctly, he has actually once said he was happy to call people what they wanted.
Just one of a number of misrepresentations of Peterson in this article. Not that I’m a massive fan of his, but he is not the right-wing bogeyman people claim he is. I took the trouble to watch a load of his lectures and to read 12 Rules, and he is absolutely not what his enemies want to portray him as.
I also find the glee that many people have taken in Peterson’s own mental health issues extremely distasteful.
Exactly. A ton of willful misrepresentations a la Cathy Newman.
Why are they so threatened by JP?
If you look at Leftist belief systems, one of the main ones is that you are powerless as an individual, and need a collective (aka government) to do things for you. Jordan Peterson threatens that dogma as do black conservatives like Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele and Candace Owens, because they have become successful without a political party ’empowering’ them.
Because their points can’t be substantiated. Cathy Newman was clearly the loser in this debate: Peterson made her look like the bigoted amateur she is. I always find that when someone’s viewpoints can be easily dismantled, they feel very threatened and resort to ad hominim arguments. After all, when you believe in your viewpoint and can defend it, you just stick to your point with no need to feel threatened, get upset or name-call. It’s just adults having a rational debate: no hard feelings. Involve the modern feminists and it all gets very childish very quickly. Which basically means they can’t actually defend their own viewpoints.
You were right in saying that: “Who you think wins depends greatly on who you agreed with at the start”. In this case, what you think of the subject depends greatly on what you thought from the beginning. You cannot help but to expose your own biases -and limitations. Try getting your head around the concept of synthesis and you’ll see how the contradictions that you’re only able to see have indeed been resolved and integrated by a person standing where he is.
Time to drop your safety scissors Sarah, start thinking like an adult and be more responsible of what opinions you throw out to the world when you write in outlets like this.
An outrageously ignorant article. She has not read Peterson at all, and misrepresents him on every. single. point. she alleges about him. It is unforgivable that she should deride him as an academic (one book published 18 years ago)!! – he is a towering academic in his field. He has so many detailed scientifically researched and argued and peer-reviewed academic papers, every one of them showing his mastery of his discipline. And what is particularly egregious is the constant misunderstanding of people like Ditum – as Peterson says in one memorable video “What do I think? It doesn’t MATTER what I think – it’s not me saying that this is so; it is the SCIENCE that is saying this is so. The data is in! It’s all been put to bed! It’s the SCIENCE I’m describing, not my OPINION.” And, by the way, the suggestion that Peterson has a few scatterbrained aberrant female supporters is equally egregious. Look at the comments littered across the internet. He has a HUGE fan-base of mothers, daughters, wives, nieces and aunts. Open your eyes, Sarah Ditum. There is NO doubt about the Newman-Peterson contest. If you think there was a Newman winner in that contest, then you’re in need of serious help.
[delete]
I am sorry to say this, but to have written that sentence means you either know extremely little about Peterson or you’re a liar.
His position is that he would refer to people – and has and does – the way they want, unless he feels that the other person is acting in bad faith.
Secondly, his mentions of the “foundation of western civilisation” and “silent slavery” are entirely in line with his view that no government has the right to dictate which words you will use. A government may say which words you should not use, but not which words you must use.
You may be fine with having a government impose forced speech on you, but Peterson – and I, for that matter – regard it as a form of slavery. It is the kind of enslavement by the state suffered by people in communist countries, where you must always speak of the country as successful, prosperous and populated by happy people.
I Just watched the Newman interview for the first time, she had an agenda and he took her apart. I shall read his book, maybe i will agree with some of what he says maybe not but he seemed to make a lot of sense. If the lefties hate him then i am all ears
Quote ” What he’s actually saying here is that he’s going to continue perceiving ” and probably referring ” to people as male or female, depending on how they appear to him”.
Are you trolling? He is not actually saying that at all. The whole fuss had nothing to do with pronouns. It was about the legislation.
the “what he’s actually saying” is straight out of the Newman interview that is referenced. She must have said a hundred times “so what you’re saying is…” when, in fact, that’s not what he said at all.
He has stated exactly that multiple times. He is not against transgender people at all. What he does say is that if someone looks the part, he’ll use the pronoun of the part, but he will not be compelled to use the other pronoun for a person he deems does not look the part. His criticism of the law is 100% correct. No one should be compelled by governments to lie. His is not a “gender” criticism, it is a legal criticism.
I can see that this article created quite a lot of heat, although I didn’t personally find it particularly ‘anti-Peterson’.
Full disclosure: I consider myself a feminist (small ‘f’) but have educated myself vis a vis Peterson ever since I saw the rabid rantings of the lefty loons on social media. My conclusion? He’s alright.
In my opinion, Peterson is a benevolent kind of traditionalist… I’m purposefully avoiding the term the author chose,’sexist’, because I think it’s too strong. In fact I wish we’d stop bandying about terms like ‘sexist’ and ‘racist’ because anyone with any knowledge of psychology knows that we are ALL sexist / racist / ageists etc. That’s not what’s important. What’s important is whether we disadvantage another human being because of these biased perspectives. Peterson doesn’t say (in anything I’ve read) that women should cover the heads in a bag and walk three feet behind their man, and so I have seen no evidence that he wishes a lack of opportunity upon us. He’s a traditionalist. Probably. He’s married to a traditionalist. Probably. So long as he doesn’t expect me to live that way, I’m okay with that.
I have spent the past diabolical 10 months broadening my perspectives and building my tolerances. Why? Because I can see that some psychopathic billionaires are trying to polorise our society for their own financial gain. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you need to turn off the ‘Stupid Box’ and start reading. As soon as I stopped watching the telly the most amazing thing happened; I became more moderate in my views and way more tolerant of opposing views.
In conclusion, there are some people who think this is a vile article, and as a lover of free speech I think that’s okay. It creates debate. The authors assumptions are exposed. Her own biases hung out on the washing line for all to see. That’s as it should be. Pretty sure Peterson would concur.
Let’s give both Peterson and this author their dues though; they are both very funny at times.
Spot on.
I’ve always thought that the labelling of people as sexist, racist, ageist etc is futile but also cowardly as there is no way to prove to the contrary. Not that it matters, but I agree with your assertions that we all hold these biases and often feel that it is the ‘far/left/progressive/woke’ types who come out with terms such as ‘anti-racist’ almost because of a deep effort to deal with their own hidden racial prejudices.
Interesting times and, yes – the TV is just for idiots who need to be lectured by the money men.
“More curious is that he became the world’s most significant public intellectual having published precisely one book eighteen years ago” according to Dittum.
A quick Google search shows that Peterson has an h score of 51. “h” is a score used in academia to measure the academic achievement of professors. It is based on the number of publications in academic journals over a 20 year period. A score of 20 is average, 30 is good, 40 exceptional. The average h score of Nobel prize winners is 60.
Peterson also has over 11,000 citations in works by other academics, another measure of academic standing.
So Peterson’s reputation as one of the world’s leading academics is not without foundation, in spite of Ms Dittum’s claims to the contrary.
It took 20 seconds for me to find that information on the net.
This raises an important question: why did Dittum not even bother to fact-check her claim? Is it because the facts don’t suit the feminist narrative of Peterson as some kind of crank?
That wouldn’t be surprising, given feminists’ failure to bother with facts in so many other instances, such as domestic violence and the mythical “pay gap”.
No wonder the extreme left is against free speech. It has a habit of revealing that the woke Emperess has no clothes.
What JP communicates to people, not just males btw, has gone right over Sarah Ditum’s head. This is a disappointing pointless piece. Maybe it’s all just too painful and uncomfortable for her to actually listen to what he is saying?
Maybe the Unherd editors are being clever here: why not publish someone who can so neatly expose the emptiness of the opposition’s position? We certainly don’t want to only hear views congruous with our own.
And in today’s world where the views of so many are so baseless and misguided, knowing how many of those folks are out there is also useful to calibrate us on the magnitude of the challenge we face in reversing 50 years of Marxist indoctrination.
Ah, but is Sarah Ditum a co-conspirator or a patsy?
Based on Ditum’s previous articles, my money is on patsy.
Peterson doesn’t suggest Order must defeat Chaos. Only that they must be kept in balance. And he doesn’t pluck the male/order female/chaos out of nowhere. If his examination of mythology is to be swallowed ( and you may or may not wish to) then it is lodged as a historical meme. He doesnt think Order is good and Chaos is bad. Too much order can be a bad thing as much as too much chaos. Another article by a writer who hasn’t done their research.
Who you think wins depends greatly on who you agreed with at the start, but there’s no Frost/Nixon killer blow here.
Cathy Newman blatantly tried to misrepresent all Peterson’s statements, and Peterson, patiently at first but then with understandably growing exasperation, explained that her interpretations are wide of the mark.
Newman was so incapable of correctly understanding what he was saying (or so reluctant to, perhaps for the sake of making the interview more combative), that “Hi Cathy Newman and welcome to the discussion” has become a meme that is deployed whenever anyone in an online discussion gratuitously and blatantly misrepresents another person’s position.
One of Peterson’s points about succeeding in high-profile roles is that it requires people to be very pushy and extremely ambitious, and that these traits are, ON AVERAGE, more prevalent among men. So when Newman boasted that she had to work damned hard to reach the position she was in, Peterson congratulated her! She seemed to have no idea that she was agreeing with Peterson’s proposition: i.e. that men have tended to fill these high-profile roles because reaching that level requires a great deal of determination, even to the point of monomania.
Jordan Peterson: “To men, women have the ability to choose who procreates, and so symbolically represent the force of nature itself.”
Sarah Ditum: “So what you’re saying is, women are literally dirt?”
Brilliant!
To boil down Peterson, his words and lectures, into this superficial flimsy article is to do exactly what the article suggests Peterson does – nothing new. Sarah Ditum does have an interesting point about Peterson manifesting something akin to maternal guidance, but it’s a real shame she didn’t delve into that by taking Peterson more seriously. She had foundations for a really good piece, as opposed to what she has ended up with: a frivolous, contrary article, seizing at spurious, paper-thin conclusions from Peterson’s multi layered thought. And as an aside, referring to his diet as ‘faddy’ is clearly absurd considering it has completely cured his daughter of her very severe auto immune condition – so genetically it made a lot of sense for Jordan to try it. It is also not a diet his daughter conjured up, it is a recommended diet for many auto immune conditions … On the plus side, I did manage to read all the article, so Sarah Ditum can clearly write well.
But you missed the point, the article is not about Peterson himself, but about the popular call for a female Peterson for females, of which we already have 100s. 😉
It doesn’t matter what the purpose of the article might be, all my points are valid when it comes to her simplistic and dubious reflections on and of Peterson. I do get your point, though.
Why is Unherd publishing hateful rants from rabid left-wingers?
I think it’s good Unherd and important that it publishes differences of opinion from left and right. The sadness is that it’s such a feather light and unsubstantiated piece, full of bizarre meritless conclusions.
Well, if we are to measure the opposition’s substance by the likes of Sarah Packman, there’s little value in publishing “differences of opinion”…
This seems a tad strong. You don’t characterise someone you hate as “admirably honest”. And the language is too measured to qualify as a rant.
Hateful rant is indeed an inaccurate description of the article.
“Evidence-free sniping where every attempt at making a point or a joke misses the mark” would be a more accurate description of the article.
His new book isn’t even out yet and the Guardianistas are panicking. Still frail and in recovery from his long illness they are once again lining up to attack him, presumably to try to finish him off before he gets back to full strength. Article after article denouncing him with ever more imaginative and florid insults. Still not back to the several a day level we were treated to a year or two ago but getting there. They sure are worried.
It certainly does seem that Peterson frightens many on the left. His popularity threatens to undermine the progress they have made in enforcing their way of thinking and speaking,.
Absolute nonsense.
I won’t bother deconstructing most of the obvious ad hominem “arguments” here, except to say it’s pretty much the same old same old tripe routinely rolled out by feminists, like Cathy Newman, desperately trying to find some means of attacking Peterson.
But two misunderstandings stand out.
The first is the usual misrepresentation of Peterson’s stance on the trans issue. Peterson has never expressed any hostility towards trans people, nor is he opposing “enshrining gender identity in Canadian law”, as much as his detractors would like to pretend he is.
What he actually said was that he thinks the government has no right to mandate speech, a move which he thinks, correctly, is a form of tyranny, along the lines of 1984. The fact that his detractors never want to debate that issue directly is telling of their true motives.
The second point has to do with the issue of Peterson’s reference to hierarchy in lobsters. The point he made is that hierarchy is not a “social construct”, but one that can be found throughout the animal kingdom; even creatures as far removed from primates as lobsters create hierarchies. He was not suggesting that we ought to arrange our social lives like lobsters: the point is that such hierarchies, in contrast to feminist claims, are natural.
Nowhere does he commit the logical fallacy of asserting that what is natural is desirable, only that we need to be aware of our evolutionary heritage if we are going to surmount it.
The fact that feminist pundits like Ditum need to descend to this kind of misrepresentation concerning Peterson should make all of us much more suspicious of all of their claims.
The lessons about self-reliance would be utterly prosaic, were it not for the fact that there are so many voices claiming that nobody really bears any responsibility for their situation and that everyone is entirely the product of society.
Incorrect again. This is becoming as cringeworthy as Newman’s interview.
In your previous paragraph you concede that Peterson talks of balance between order and chaos. Peterson readily admits that too much order leads to rigidity and a lack of creativity.
Have you really not noticed the trend in recent years to describe masculinity as toxic or problematic? What Peterson is calling for is balance, which means an end to the demonisation of masculinity. It’s got nothing to do with sexism. You have presented no evidence at all that Peterson and his ideas are sexist.
Judging by the appalling standard of the article up to this point, it’s hard to tell if you’re being sexist knowingly or unknowingly.
Fairly typical of some but not all Guardian columnists who decide the outcome and cherrypick the evidence before writing their articles. I suppose that approach might be taken by some as ‘freedom of speech’; it’s just a shame that it so misrepresents the man, not to mention the enormous help he has given both men and women. No he doesn’t fit with the new totalitarianism masquerading as generous egalitarianism, but he does a very fine job at demonstrating the irrational, incoherent, and non evidence-based arguments of the contemporary libertarian Left and their weasely, woke, nonsense.
I expect better from Unherd than an article that fundamentally misconstrues the arguments. If you’re going to throw around the word “sexism”, it would be best to first define it, and then say how Prof Peterson ticks the boxes. This kind of mindless labelling is so tiresome, and I find I just learn nothing from reading articles like this.
Ms Ditum’s article brings to mind C.S. Lewis’ warning against flippancy:
“Flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical. Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny.
Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it.
If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest armour plating against the Enemy that I know, and it is quite free from the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter.
It is a thousand miles away from joy; it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect; and it excites no affection between those who practise it.”
Quite.
“This is a typical bit of Peterson rhetoric. What he’s actually saying
here is that he’s going to continue perceiving ” and probably referring “
to people as male or female, depending on how they appear to him”.
I thought the idiots would have learned from the Cathy Newman debacle that to say ‘what he’s actually saying’ is stupid. What he’s actually saying is what he actually said.
BTW Peterson said he would address any individual in whatever manner they wanted – but he fought against any law that told him how he should address individuals.
Incredibly, Sarah Ditum wrote these words in her article on Jordan Peterson: “What he’s actually saying here is that…”
Also I think there are a lot of female fans of Peterson, if the audience i joined at the Hammersmith Eventim were anything to go by. Maybe 30 per cent.
Welcome aboard Tim, especially so if you’re the Tim Lott that had those excellent discussions with Jordan (“Am I a Christian”) and on Rebel Wisdom “Jordan Peterson, censorship and the left, with novelist Tim Lott”. Both on Youtube
Sarah, like many of the comments so far I am tempted to address your criticism and sarcasm point by point. However lets cut to the chase Peterson through his work seems to have helped tens of thousands of people deal with a fast changing world. How about you?
What a trite, poorly informed and ill-written piece of journalism. You can’t find any ‘legible’ sentences in the book Maps of Meaning – what were you trying to read it under water? As for your ‘unusual female fan’ – according to Dave Rubin, the compere of the recent world tour, about 30% of the audience were women. But the main problem is you make no reference to the hours of available online lectures, classes and papers on philosophy, history and the bible etc. …The debates with Sam Harris, the interviews and discussions with Rogan and the Weinsteins etc. etc. Such ignorance really isn’t the basis to try and launch this sort of would be smart aleck attack.
Here’s an idea for a good YouTube clip: A hour-long interview with JP on one side and Cathy Newman and Sarah Ditum asking the questions on the other. And someone to count the number of times the phrase “So, what you’re really saying is ….” come up Could even run a sweepstake for the winner. I’m in for a fiver.
Cathy Newham came out of the interview with JP so badly as she constantly put words in his mouth and interrupted. Consequently it is foolish to cite that interview and reflects badly on the author of this article amking her look as if she has poor judgement.
“The eccentric philosopher of male supremacy…” is Ms Ditum’s rather poorly substantiated sub-heading opinion before we even get into the body of her equally poorly researched article.
Such articles merely demonstrate a fear of both truth and reality. Things which Ms Ditum seems unacquainted with if this hit piece is anything to go by.
So Sarah, what you’re actually saying is…
What a depressing and silly and showy offy article.
There are lots of female Peterson fans and
!2 Rules for Life is so much more than a ‘self help book’. I could got on but luckily I see that lots of other people are doing that…
As a female who has read a lot of psychology, spirituality, religion, sociology, history, anthropology, mythology and psychology, I found Peterson’s voice a valuable variation on the themes and thoughts others have raised. He manages to weave together themes from all of these genres and he does it extremely well.
If you look in Unherd’s ‘The Post’ there is a much better article on this topic. As I said there, we (I’m a young woman who has followed JP since Bill C16) don’t need a female JP. Girls and women need father figures as much a boys and men do and if, like me, your father was quite distant and could have done with some advice from JP himself then his work is immensely valuable. It has helped me to leave behind my victim mentality and become a better mother to my own children.
I was also reminded in the comments of one female writer (who often bases her work on JPs) who has also had a huge impact on my life. Philosophyofmotherhood dot wordpress dot com has also helped me immensely in my journey through life, but I wouldn’t claim that the author, Ally, is a female JP. She is her own person.
In my opinion, we don’t need another JP; those calling for a female JP need to stop being so sexist and just listen to what he has to say and see if it might apply in some small way to their own lives.
The whole article is just p***s envy.
And then the author let’s fly her ultimate criticism – Peterson is a woman!
Way to expose yourself, love.
Sarah Ditum – I have often learned great things from your writing but this article is as petulant as a 12 year old school girl and grotesquely sexist. Please, some brave warrior or warrioress in these pages, point out the screaming fallacies of this article in almost every paragraph, starting with her accusations of “male supremacy”.
(FYI Sarah, Peterson’s new book illustrates perfectly one of your fallacies: it addresses the danger of too much order, while the former addressed the dangers of too much chaos. Contrary to your shoddy claim, Peterson has always gone into great detail as to why he sees chaos as a feminine archetype and order as a male one, whether you or I agree or not. As obviously an intelligent person, how you missed this is beyond my modest brain.
Please Sarah, learn to read and “re-educate yourself and do better” – as our Woke friends are always telling the likes of Peterson. Have you considered a job at Vice or the Huffington Post?).
A severely disappointed – and slightly amazed – Unherd devotee (and no Jordan P fanboy)
Sorry Sarah but this is drivel of the worst kind which does your hate Peterson campaign no favours. You should have titled it why I hate Jordan Peterson then everyone who does not hate him would not waste their time reading it.
For those who thought from the title this would be about a female equivalent and is bemused why it is just why Sarah hates Peterson, there is this utter nonsense hidden in the middle “the weirdest thing about Jordan Peterson is that he is actually a woman.” which is then contradicted and never justified why the original statement makes some kind of weird sense to weird Sarah.
Anyone who tries to argue that feminists are not irrational, illogical, vindictive man haters would have a really hard time after this.
Peterson makes the case that the root of suffering is embeded into a larger-than-life constant struggle of meaning versus nihilism. That is not pretentiousness from his part as the author is intending to argue. He is basically putting our problems into the important conceptual philosophical framework they deserve. That way the readere are able to articulate more clearly their problems and aim at the correct objectives that lift up Self, as Peterson calls it, as the manifestation of society and individual. EVEN if what he has to say is “prosaic”, it needed to be said in a way that lifts up the spirits of men (and women of course) and, in a way, save the world.
Sarah really didn’t bring her A game to this op-ed. She is better than this. No it wasn’t a banal pronouncement for Peterson to say that he would continue referring to people as male and female, in the context of an authoritarian law put forward by the world’s most famous blackface hobbyist that could send someone to jail for doing that. Peterson wasn’t being melodramatic in saying that this was a form of slavery and opposed to Western civilization. He was just stating the facts. The pity is that there are not more social conservatives in Canada who are willing to take his lead. Peterson is high-strung and I have no intention of following his diet, but I honour and revere him. He is our Canadian Sakharov.
That Newman interview is incredibly entertaining. I felt sorry for her about halfway through, she was in so far over her head. She gave the impression that she knew she was making a fool of herself and decided to just try to bludgeon her way through.
It is clear the writer has little grounding in mythology, psychology, biology and history, hence her misinterpretations of Peterson. The level of ignorance is profound, whether choice or chance.
Does the writer truly not understand the meaning of the lobster stories? They are not ‘just-so,’ but quite the opposite. He cites them as evidence of biological imperatives which are at work in humans as they are at work in lobsters. That is their meaning. Did Sarah miss this because she was so intent upon, somehow, in some small way, ‘cutting Peterson down to size?’ She failed.
While he comes across as black and white, he isn’t. And while he has a very literal way of speaking, this is not what he is saying.
When he talks about masculine and feminine he is not talking about men and women in any ‘written in stone’ sense. He is talking about those qualities, present in all human beings, which, generally, not always, but generally for a variety of reason, separate into more of what is called masculine in males and more of what is called feminine in females. That reality is not sexist. Peterson does not allocate superior or inferior assessments to masculine and feminine qualities, he simply acknowledges their existence and their biological allocation.
Carl Jung talked about these qualities in depth and many have raised the need for the heiros gamos, in each and every one of us, the sacred marriage, which unites our masculine and feminine qualities in a productive union, regardless of whether or not there is more of one than the other in an individual.
I’m sorry but that is nonsense. It was an appalling interview. It was way worse that turning up to a knife fight with a pair of safety scissors, she turned up to a battle of wits completely unarmed.
She went into that interview badly under-prepared, convinced that she had the measure of a man who (she thought) she knew by reputation. She did not listen to anything he was saying, she inserted what she assumed he would have said, out of a general antipathy and a grossly undeserved sense of her own moral superiority..
When an interviewer starts the majority of her questions with “so what you’re saying is….” (or a variant of the same) and the interviewee has to start most answers with “No, that’s not what I’m saying, at all” that is NOT the fault of the interviewee.
It was a news interview that went viral and became a meme precisely because it was such an egregious attempt at misrepresentation. She was caught and called out for it and was exposed as someone with an agenda. She did not want to do her job, which was to elicit interesting and illuminating ideas from a controversial intellectual. She wanted to score points.
It was an object lesson in how not to interview someone and she became a laughing stock. If you knew nothing about either person you’d watch that and see that she could (and possibly should) have ended her career as a serious journalist right there.
This is not a good article. But I quite dislike Jordan Peterson. I find him insidious who is creating a war of the sexes. Just look at this thread. There is Susan, who actually says she likes him but she disagrees with certain things he says and you ripped her apart. (English not my first language, sorry for the simplicity) I read through half of the comments. JP might be intelligent but I do not trust him at all. What I see is a terrified man that his old world with good old values is disappearing. And the huge following must be due to the same fear. I found this article trying to find women who like him and feel that JP talks for them, too. I found another one already, written by a 3o year old mum and the article was about how 3o year old mums love him. Women like me, who do not want to be mums have no place in JP s world. Today I managed to watch 2 videos of JP. He seemed terribly biased and completely uninterested in being understood (why complicate your language like that?) I have spent hours reading the comments after his Twitter rage. I do not find JP a sane person. I think he should sort himself out and simplify his message a bit — but will he be left with anything to say then? Beethoven always said simplicity is best. I don’t believe anyone who takes on the role of a guru and I do not believe anyone who needs to hide in overcomplicated language. I spent quite a lot of time reading Jung, by the way, and I think he would laugh his head off at JP. The only good thing is that some people find Jung because of him. Nighty night.
Very enjoyable. I was wryly amused by my eldest son taking onboard the 12 rules, you have now explained why!
I am a woman and a Jordan Peterson fan. I am also a ‘girl gamer’, so I guess I am a double unicorn.
I love how Sarah writes her own prejudices and insecurities into the things Peterson says – I guess that because she says so they must somehow be true? As noted elsewhere, he has never claimed male superiority, and he is certainly not sexist. Just because he doesn’t pander to lefty wokeness, doesn’t mean he is either.
Sarah claims that his reference to the dichotomy of Order / Chaos being represented by men and women, somehow conjures him thus. Is she a woman? Does she know any ‘real women’? Based on her rhetoric I would say not. Don’t make me explain the nuanced use of language and metaphor to illustrate what is potentially one of the most unstable, explosive, and complicated relationships in the animal kingdom – that of men and women.
Women ARE chaos, and I say that as one (biological and otherwise). I want the menfolk in my life to have some tools to deal with the fraught experience that is women, and Peterson
provides them in the simplest terms. We are mystical, oestrogen-drenched, serpent-tongued harpies most days, driven to make men’s lives an unbearable rollercoaster of giddy euphoria one minute or abject weeping the next.
Seriously, have you seen us? Peterson is certainly not saying that the Chaos/Nature that is women should be dominated. He is saying that men need to mind our sensibilities by being upstanding citizens, in control of themselves and their own lives, un-besmirched by our crazy. What is wrong with that? That is exactly what I want for my menfolk. If you are honest as a woman, you might agree.
It doesn’t diminish women that men are stoically in control of their shit, and I think it is incumbent on we women to help men achieve that even keel. Men are basic creatures, and there is nothing more unsettling to them than female chaos/crazy. I mean, there is a Hot/Crazy matrix for a reason right?
This article is just a re-run of the Newman indaba (Google indaba if you don’t know what that means), masked in an allegedly informed opinion piece. Does Sarah realise that she is manifesting the exact ‘Chaos’ that Peterson refers to? Again, I suspect not. She even goes as far as to tell us how we ‘fans’ see a man that we admire and ‘get’ ““ as our mum. I don’t know if that is a jab at Peterson’s Kermit-esque vocals, it may be, but you know what they say about ad homs … you’ve lost the argument.
As a fellow oestrogen-drenched harpie, I whole heartedly agree. I do think that women would generally be a little less chaotic and crazy if we took on some of Peterson’s advice, which would in turn make life a bit easier for the blokes.
I don’t know why you say he’s decided that this is how things should be. Chaos, or the unknown, is represented as female because, as you acknowledge in the previous paragraph, it gives birth to the new. Peterson didn’t invent the term Mother Nature for example. Ancient cultures gave these things masculine and feminine characteristics. It’s not sexism to note that.
Banal nonsense. You are picking headlines without studying the text. All the ‘Mum stuff’ you refer to is about growing up, taking responsibility, owning emotions, being accountable.
You can call that, with some justification, a ‘feminine’ message, but only in as much as it is asking young men to tone down/disown the toxic masculinity they are surrounded by in sport and media.
A truly strong man owns emotions, is emotional, cries when hurt and is fierce (not angry) when protecting those he loves.
There is much to celebrate in what the man says, should you choose to look for it.
Pretty basic theme in his work that you have missed entirely: if you don’t like yourself how can others like you, if you are not achieving what you want change what you are doing. It all comes from within. Trying to make him about male/female themes or memes is just kind of weird! Can’t you take a man’s word on face value?
This is quite a brilliant article. It’s the first critique I’ve read of Peterson from someone who’s actually read his books and employed some creative critical thinking. I’ve tended to take Peterson’s side in these debates because the criticisms of him from the Authoritarian Left (who are not liberals) are hysterically nonsensical–they won’t even read his books or quote what they find objectionable. When I’ve seen Peterson talk at length on Joe Rogan or wherever, I find him sometimes brilliant, sometimes daft, but never offensive. Yet, I’ve never read his books either, so it was nice to get a sober analysis of what’s in those pages. If Peterson needs to be taken down a notch, it needs to be done in this spirit of journalistic dialogue, not in banning or hectoring him. Thanks for an enlightening and funny read.
I think that if you read 12 rules for life or at least the first chapter and a half (which is about as far as Ditum seems to have got) then you’ll find she still takes a very simplistic and un-nuanced view of his work, so I don’t agree that her critique has employed much critical thinking… Your experience of watching JP on youtube seems to back this up!
Order isn’t meant to dominate chaos, as you put it in the article. Too much order is tyranny, too much chaos is meaninglessness – it’s about finding balance. Men and women can and do embody both concepts, with general trends that are not set in stone.
Wrong!:
What bothers me most about the roots of Peterson’s rise is all of the misinterpretations of what his stance was based upon. In fact, it was free speech at risk and as a human and a Canadian I am proud that he stood up, even though he lost. His point was, just because someone decides they want to be addressed as Miss or Zer or whatever the pronoun of the day may be, doesn’t mean we should be forced to use the title when speaking to them. For example, in my office, no one uses a title. Imagine how weird it would be if one person decided that they should be addressed as Mister X every time we called their name. Well now, by law, we must do that in Canada. It would be ridiculous, but true. So call yourself whatever you want, but don’t force me into the discomfort of having to use that name every time I ask if “X” has gone to lunch! Speech should never be mandated and indeed, some of my freedom was lost with the passing of this bill. Hopefully we will never encounter the need to bend to such a ridiculous request.
“At bottom, what he’s recommending is basic good citizenship.”
No, but nice try.
Yes he is. Basic good citizenship means taking responsibility for your life. A notion now largely abandoned.
This has close to nothing to do with the notion of citizenship, which is only one of the countless ramifications of the individual.
So you say. A citizen with no responsibility for him or herself is no citizen. Simple really. You simply confirm what I say by denying it.
It’s not because x is found in y that y is basically x. Bizarre that this lecture seems to get traction.
Ditum is so funny. And she is right in that she describes my son and grandson to a T. Is it me or is she hinting that JP is really a woman because he is as chaotic as the next man – or woman?
Sarah Ditum never fails to disgrace herself with every article she writes. Keep up the bad work Mrs. Ditum your articles are really amusing.
Trouble with Peterson is that while he is highly flawed and could be rightly criticised, he is a lot smarter than his journalist would-be critics. So they just make themselves look silly.
When you happen to actually know about an area he’s discussing, his apparent erudition is a lot less impressive. It tends to be facile and contain some pretty obvious errors. He basically takes a journalistic approach to knowledge. But you have to know a lot more than any journalist does to see this failing. I just happened to be an academic & know about a particular area he was discussing. It did temper my admiration – but what he does is still impressive. Cathy Newman (no relation) style attacks on him are water off a lobster’s back.
‘Trouble with Peterson is that while he is highly flawed and could be rightly criticised, he is a lot smarter than his journalist would-be critics.’
Over the last 20 years I have come to the conclusion that the average bag of crisps is smarter than the vast majority of so-called journalists. And a lot more useful.
Things are getting weird, yes. This article is decidedly weird and rather incoherent.
This kind of snarky feminist “take” belongs to the Guardian.
JP’s global fame merely highlights the mediocrity of public debate and ever-lower intellectual standards. What a dullard.
I think you’re just trying to wind them up. I am amazed though at the list of angry comments below, one after another. It’s not even that critical an article, imo it’s mainly complimentary with some light mockery of a character who takes himself a bit too seriously.
I’m trying to think who else would get this mob so riled. Not Trump, Farage, Johnson. Thatcher maybe? I wasn’t taking Peterson seriously before I saw all this. But this is cult behaviour writ large. It’s nearly worrying.
Nearly your entire thesis is based on “if men are order and women are chaos, then”¦”
If you actually read 12 Rules, or watched even a cursory hour of his lectures, he makes clear that masculine/feminine do not map to male/female 1:1. There is significant overlap.
This is how we critique the world now: jettison what someone “claims to be seeking”¦” in favor of your pseudo-Freudian analysis where you possess special goggles that allow you to decode the ciphers and determine when “the sexism of Peterson’s worldview is coming through”. I find it strange that followers themselves never seem to possess these goggles, who despite being characterized as a frothing cabal of chauvinists, all seem to reject every one of the claims raised. It’s always the detractors with the special lens, and who are perfectly skilled “ism” and “phobe” hunters, never returning home from a hunt empty handed.
This piece is run-of-the-mill Petersonphobia. It’s like some cheap manufacturer has been making Straw Petersons, selling them to LARPers who then proceed to beat them down, all while knowing they’re not contending with the real thing, but are addicted to the performative delight they get out of knowing some people think they are.
I have a hard time believing you took the time and read Maps of Meaning in its entirety. It’s dense, probably equivalent to 4 or 5 average pieces of literature. But that’s another favorite Peterson slam: “he only had one book before 12 Rules!” As if he couldn’t have rattled off nine or ten 150-pagers to get his “book count” up to please the activists who wouldn’t read them anyway.
It’s the same thing over and over with the Petersonphobes. Vast, sweeping pejoratives like “philosopher of male supremacy” may sound good when you’re having Friday happy hour cocktails with your fellow progressive pals. But not once in any piece of writing, or in his endless hours of lectures available on YouTube, does he advocate for male supremacy. In fact, I could think of several videos off the top of my head where he facetiously refers to men as “useless” and “pathetic”. Never does he speak of women this way, even in jest.
He’s made clear he would use someone’s preferred pronouns if they genuinely requested him to do so. His stance here has always been clear cut for anyone with ears and a working brain: he is against legislated speech.
“He shills eating plans””I have a feeling this statement would have been omitted if he was equally lauding the “benefits” of a vegan diet.
“Being a lifestyle guru is women’s work”. Dave Ramsey, Tony Robbins, Zig Ziglar would beg to differ. Not even sure what this statement means. Talk about sexist. Find me a single instance of Peterson saying something equivalent about men.
At the end of it all, your argument basically hinges on a subjective perception that it’s only moms who lay down the law with their kids”so, you know, therefore, Peterson is like basically a chick, am I right??
Only someone who was raised in a home with an absent or inactive father would come up with an idea like that. And maybe that’s at the root of this whole mess of an article: you running from the fact that Peterson is the father you wish you had. Not fair, right? Doesn’t it stink to be at the receiving end of a pseudo-Freudian analysis of your unconscious biases?
P.S. to use your logic, no one ever recommended getting “beyond” something they thought was good. So in light of his next book, I guess Peterson has switched to female supremacy.
This is wonderful. I have been wondering why Mr JP annoys me so consistently, but there you have it: he’s my long-dead mom, nagging me to clean my room and stand up straight.
It also explains my irritation at the querulous and hectoring tone of voice JP adopts whenever he embarks on yet another endlessly aggrieved but grandiloquent tirade about this or that.
A further source of déjà vue: memories of my iong-gone theologian husband, going on and on about not Jung, but Nietzsche, the Great.
Mystery solved!
Rachel Hollis to me is by far the closest thing to Jordan Peterson that I have ever listened to.
Logical, well read, well spoken, and understands the importance of the individual responsibility over the collective group.
This article is incredibly biased and unfair. This activist has changed Professor Peterson’s words, meanings, and intent. If his name wasn’t in the article, no one would know who she was talking about.
I wish the author of this article would do a debate, interview, or open conversation over a few hours with him. Unedited, uncut, and done on a live stream on his YouTube channel or hers(if she has one).
I’m a JP fan and have read his book. I’m female, I guess I’m unusual for understanding that taking responsibility for your life, your role in society and the part you play in other peoples lives is crucial to having any sort of meaning in your life. JP is also not a male supremacist. Saying this is laughably ignorant. He also doesn’t mean that his book is the antidote to overcoming femininity or women because we represent chaos. Oi vey, there isnt enough time for me to explain this here but please read the book again and try understand what he is saying
Hi Sarah, I’m not an obsessive JP fan and I don’t agree with everything he says but on several occasions here you have employed an inaccurate and mean spirited representation of his book and the message he’s trying to get across with it.
Sarah Ditum this article and your behavior is a disgrace to journalism. You are clearly intelligent and motivated but the only goal I can conclude is you are either pathological to the point of delusion or intentionally making up things you don’t believe as click bait. You simply fabricated a story against a force of true good to make yourself relevant like a parasite. You are less than irrelevant. Shame on you.
There is a real need for intelligent, courageous, and determined women and all that needs to be set right in our society. You insult the real heroes out there who take equal rights seriously and with dignity and class. You have displayed neither.
To the editor who allowed this article to be created and published, shame on you as well. You are unworthy of your profession.
Before criticism comes understanding, but not in this case. The usual tropes, wheeled out once again on the squeeky trolley of resentment.
Lazy stuff.
Sarah Ditum’s essay has raised the ire of many commentators here, and for good reasons, as are listed in the comments. For me, one of the most grievous of the faults in her article is the belittling of Peterson as an academic. She is simply and very plainly WRONG. Peterson’s many distinguished academic papers, his books, his chapters in books, and his countless other pieces of superb academic science, are searchable in the public domain. Ditum has simply ignored the evidence, or she is oblivious to it, which suggests poor research for a journalist. Peterson is constantly dismissed by people who have not listened to what he is actually saying. In the Aspen Institute video entitled “Jordan Peterson: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars” at: https://tinyurl.com/y8l3oxgb – around minute 57:00 – there is an example of how he expresses himself on the matter of some scientifically established data about personality differences between men and women. This is where ““ scandalously and ignorantly ““ many commentators have dismissed him for claims he is alleged to have made about male-female differences: “Peterson says that men are this and women are that,” they say. But they are wrong. He never speaks in that way. He is unerringly accurate and precise in NOT claiming that men are one thing and women are another thing. He is saying that what the SCIENCE tells us, in statistical analyses that have been repeated time and time again in different countries and cultural contexts, is that there is a surprising overlap in similarities between men and women AT THE MEAN. But that is not the point, he reminds us. It is the outliers that are important. Once one looks at the data at three standard deviations out from the mean, then that is where important evidence lies. That is where we will find “an overwhelming preponderance of the over-represented group”. Thus, he says, “one of the reliable differences between men and women cross-culturally is that men are more aggressive than women.” What’s the evidence for that? He answers his own question by saying “Here is one piece of evidence: there are ten times as many men in prison”. He then poses the question: how much more aggressive are men than women? Again, he answers the question very clearly: “The answer is: not very much!” But, he goes on, this is where one needs to know something about statistics. If one draws two people out of a population of 100 ““ one male and one female ““ and if one laid a bet on who was more aggressive, the man or the woman, and if one bet on it being the woman, one would be correct 40% of the time. But, here’s the problem. There are only small differences at the mean, or at the average, of a normal distribution. The real differences occur at the tails of the normal distribution. Who is the most aggressive person out of a hundred? Is that person likely to be a man or a woman? The answer is that he is overwhelmingly likely to be a MAN. That is why men are ten times more likely to be in prison. Not because of social constructionist explanations, Peterson says, but because they are men who are outliers on the normal distribution of aggression. Peterson gives many examples of this at play. And he is very clear about this: it is not his opinion. It is the science, the data, the statistical evidence, that tells us that.
“gratuitous Jung.”
For anyone not impressed by that gratuitous jab, Peterson is a student of Nietzsche and Jung. What were they saying? Briefly that our conceit about our rational minds, not to mention remaking society, comes to ruin against the fact that almost all of our life is run by our unconscious minds, about which we know very little.
The highest and best thing to be is the Sacrificial Hero, who dies on the border of Order and Chaos that others may live.
Who is the Sacrificial Hero? To Jung, he is an “archetype,” something essentially human that we do not know by direct knowledge. Whatever we make think and will, an awful lot of our lives seems to be blindly acting out the “roles” that Nature has set out for us.
To me, this Nietzchean, Jungian, Petersonisn thingy will have to do until someone comes up with a better idea. And that someone will not be Cathy Newman.
It is surprising how many do not understand the message delivered by Jordan Peterson. It seems their comprehension level stalls at the superficial or they have not read his books nor listened to his lectures. Hopefully they will one day take care of this omission.
Peterson is a fraud. I’ve been hooked on Benzo’s and that was the worst withdrawal of my life. He had to be in a coma to endure it? Well that tells you how dramatically he was abusing them. How many years of abuse? What mental illness/trauma caused his underlying anxiety? How will he cope with it now… Sorry but that level of drug use invalidates every word he has ever written advising other people how to life. Every. word. Look for him to spiral and end up with short stays in mental health clinics. This probably will not end well. Probably has trauma issues due to abuse by a female…they all do.
You’re right of course, but I still agree with Peterson. We are all living in the ruins of Feminism whether we acknowledge it or not. If it takes a meat eating weirdo prof to wake us up then that is what it takes.
Gabor Mate is the intellectual we should be listening to. Jordan Peterson is a hack filled rage and isn’t someone who has answers for our world.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adYJm_A2CSM
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
The kind of resentment-drowned article that fuels the fire of the gender wars. We sorely need reasonable women to post articles more often.
Except Oprah, Gwyneth, et al talk too much about regression analysis, the biological underpinnings of social-psychological phenomena, and the literature of dissent in totalitarian regimes. And they formulate too many succinct and trenchant observations, such as “We know when the right goes too far, but there’s no agreement about when the left goes too far.” So, what I’m saying is. . . Jordan Peterson is more fun than they are. He doesn’t demand too much of us. He’s like that kindly fellow in the Brothers Karamazov– you know, the Grand Inquisitor.
For the love of God, Unherd, stop writing ‘anymore’. It’s any more.
Nearly your entire thesis is based on “if men are order and women are chaos, then”¦”
Well, sorry, Bucko, but they aren’t. If you actually read 12 Rules, or watched even a cursory hour or two of his lectures, you’d know this. He makes clear that masculine and feminine do not equate to male and female. There is significant overlap. Your take here is near DOA.
I love this new way of critiquing the world: jettisoning what someone “claims to be seeking”¦” in favor of a pseudo-Freudian analysis where you possess special goggles that allow you to decode the ciphers, hear dog whistles, and determine when “the sexism of Peterson’s worldview is coming through”. I find it strange that followers themselves never seem to possess these goggles, who despite being characterized as a frothing cabal of chauvinists, all seem to reject every single one of the claims raised. It’s always the detractors with the special lens, and are perfectly skilled “ism” and “phobe” hunters, never returning home from a hunt empty handed.
This piece is so run-of-the-mill Petersonphobia. It’s like some cheap, foreign manufacturer stole our IP and has been manufacturing Straw Petersons, selling them to LARPers who then proceed to beat the hell out of them”deep down knowing they’re not contending with the real thing, but addicted to the performative delight they get out of knowing some people think they are.
I have a hard time believing you took the time and read Maps of Meaning in its entirety. It’s an incredibly dense piece of work, probably equivalent to 4 or 5 average pieces of literature. But that’s another favorite Peterson slam: hE oNLy hAd oNE bOoK! before 12 Rules. As if he couldn’t have rattled off 9 or 10 150-pagers to get his “book count” up to please the smooth-brained activists who wouldn’t read them anyway.
It’s the same thing over and over with the Petersonphobes. Vast, sweeping pejoratives like “philosopher of male supremacy” may sound good when you’re having Friday happy hour cocktails with your fellow progressive pals. But not once in any piece of writing, or in his endless hours of lectures available on YouTube, does he advocate for male supremacy. In fact, I could think of several videos off the top of my head where he facetiously refers to men as “useless” and “pathetic”. Never does he speak of women this way, even in jest.
What else”¦
He’s made clear he would use someone’s preferred pronouns if they genuinely requested him to do so. His stance here has always been clear cut for anyone with ears and a working brain: he is against legislated speech.
“Shills eating plans” lol, I have a feeling this statement would have been omitted if he was equally lauding the “benefits” of a vegan diet.
“Being a lifestyle guru is women’s work”. Dave Ramsey, Tony Robbins, Zig Ziglar would beg to differ. Not even sure what this statement means. Talk about sexist. Find me a single instance of Peterson saying something equivalent about men.
I love how at the end of it all, your argument basically hinges on a subjective perception that it’s only moms who lay down the law with their kids, so, you know, therefore, Peterson is like basically a chick, am I right?? Only someone who was raised in a home with an absent or inactive father would come up with an idea like that. And maybe that’s at the root of this whole mess of an article: you running from the fact that Peterson is the father you wish you had. How’s that for an unfair pseudo-Freudian analysis?
P.S. to use your logic, no one ever recommended getting “beyond” something they thought was good. So in light of his next book, I guess Peterson has switched to female supremacy.
A fantastic demonstration of the need to study rules Four, Six, Nine, Ten, and, most crucially, Eight: “Tell the truth… or, at least, don’t lie”.
Thank you @unherdlimited-43995b741edf1135d5651966789d9696:disqus for highlighting (in her earlier comment below) the academic papers the writer neglects to mention; Sarah’s clearly missed quite a trick here, by forgetting to do a simple google check for “Jordan Peterson publications”… which confirms 142 articles that, at last count, have received a combined 9531 citations.
Sarah’s fast & loose style here is consistent with the majority of attempts I’ve seen at belittling Professor Peterson’s activities & achievements. I am entirely open to being proven wrong about him (I keep a scribbled list of questions for which I don’t think Jordan has an answer) but have yet to see anybody turn up to the fight with anything but safety scissors. Helen Lewis did a very convincing job indeed (and yet Sarah chose to mention the C4 trainwreck-of-an-interview instead?).
I am also entirely open to the suggestion of a female counterpart to Jordan; what a waste to have taken a potentially rich seam of debate and served it up with such clumsiness. Anyone fancy having a more rigourous chat about it via Letter?
An interesting article with many points to digest. I think one problem we all have when thinking and writing about such large subjects is the tendency to continually zoom out of the topic into ever larger and larger generalisations. This is compared to the opposite where we zoom in on ever more complexity, subtlety and uncertainty.
Nowadays I prefer food I can chew with both texture, taste and possibly a back story rather than soup or baby food from a tin, jar or via a strainer where all definition has been lost to make it easier to consume.
Just like an infant being weaned, I think we go through the same cycle of learning, growth, experience and practice when we start to think about new ideas. In a similar way to finding all the corners of a jigsaw to define the limit of the domain covered by all the subsequent pieces.
For me most broadcast media outlets supply a range of baby food, whereas the published channels permit a committed consumer to access almost haute cuisine.
One small such morsel that has been raised above and debated below is the Taoist dichotomy: masculine = order = yang = white dragon ll feminine = chaos = yin = black dragon. I believe this concept is intended to demonstrate and reinforce the need for balance in the universe but it seems to get subtexted or summarised into the exact opposite. I think i have found a few more that could be added but I will let you make you own minds up on which side of the balance they belong: strong ll weak, things ll people, facts ll feelings, Microsoft ll Apple, Andy Pandy ll Noddy.
There are women who want more men to develop the maturity to be responsible fathers. Either to be fathers to the children they have conceived or to enter into committed relationships that will provide a home for children. They understand what Peterson is talking about.
There are also women who want to be lied to. They prefer to be told that women can have their first child at 45 and that the probability of having a healthy child is as high as if they had the child at 30. They prefer to be told that the feckless men who abandoned their own children will build a strong economy so that the state can provide them with the resources they need for their children. They want to be told that it is easy to have a career and children as a single mother. These women hate Peterson.
Then their is Peterson’s habit of holding a mirror up to both men and women and pointing out that, if you are incapable of running your own life, you are likely to be incapable of running the country.
It’s difficult to fathom that so many people who write about Jordan Peterson believe that his agenda is about male supremacy. What he is keen promote is that people be more self reliant and he advocates that through self knowledge. He’s a psychologist telling people that life is often tough and unfair. It is. That you may have been dealt a terrible hand in life but that your best hope in life and facing those challenges is to make the best of yourself. That this is life. it’s what gives people meaning and has done throughout history. To play the hand you were dealt as well as it can be played and to the best of your best ability. It may resonate more with young men right now. In the past it would have resonated more with women. I can think of umpteen lyrics expressing the sentiment from a female point of view. Sisters are doing it for themselves” inspired as it was by the sufragette movement.
Stop being a man-child playing computer games in your boxers at 4am. Grow up, take responsibility for your own life, Respect yourself, get a job, work hard, be resilient, aspire.. it will make you happier or at least give you purpose and meaning. That’s not a bad message and if it is then there is something very wrong
I agree for different reasons that Peterson displays what were traditionally (and that adverb is important) feminine qualities. He’s a good listener, he reveals feelings, and is open about his vulnerability. He says that if you look at Sweden, the most liberated society, something like 60 percent of the women there wish to be in helping careers. Now he doesn’t admit that the number might change a lot in ten years. As a teacher and psychologist, he is a nurturer like a good mom. Who else makes an effort to rescue lost right wing boys, saying “so you think I ought to abandon them?”
This author proves every point about chaos that JBP has made. Funny and sad that she has so little self awareness to recognize it.
The amount of intentional dishonesty and exaggeration and her absolute inability to understand the points he makes and look past the simple details in front of her are the perfect example of what’s wrong with the world and what Jordan is trying to help correct.
Sarah Ditum’s essay has raised the ire of many commentators here, and for god reasons, as are listed in the comments. For me, one of the most grievous of the faults in her article is the belittling of Peterson as an academic. She is simply and very plainly WRONG. Peterson’s many distinguished academic papers, his books, his chapters in books, and his countless other pieces of superb academic science, are out in the public domain. Ditum has simply ignored the evidence – a cardinal sin, as Peterson would say. Peterson is constantly dismissed by people who have not listened to what he is actually saying. In the Aspen Institute video entitled “Jordan Peterson: From the Barricades of the Culture Wars” at: https://www.youtube.com/wat… there is an example of how he expresses himself on the matter of some scientifically established data about personality differences between men and women. This is where ““ scandalously and ignorantly ““ many commentators have dismissed him for claims he is alleged to have made about male-female differences: “Peterson says that men are this and women are that.” But they are wrong. He never speaks in that way. He is unerringly accurate and precise in saying NOT that men are one thing and women are another thing. He is saying that what the SCIENCE tells us, in statistical analyses that have been repeated time and time again in different countries and cultural contexts, is that there is a surprising overlap in similarities between men and women AT THE MEAN. But that is not the point, he reminds us. It is the outliers that are important. Once one looks at the data at three standard deviations out from the mean, then that is where important evidence lies. That is where we will find “an overwhelming preponderance of the over-represented group”. Thus, he says, “one of the reliable differences between men and women cross-culturally is that men are more aggressive than women.” What’s the evidence for that? He answers his own question by saying “Here is one piece of evidence: there are ten times as many men in prison”. He then poses the question: how much more aggressive are men than women? Again, he answers the question very clearly: “The answer is: not very much!” But, he goes on, this is where one needs to know something about statistics. If one draws two people out of a population of 100 ““ one male and one female ““ and if one laid a bet on who was more aggressive, the man or the woman, and if one bet on it being the woman, one would be correct 40% of the time. But, here’s the problem. There are only small differences at the mean, or at the average, of a normal distribution. The real differences occur at the tails of the normal distribution. Who is the most aggressive person out of a hundred? Is that person likely to be a man or a woman? The answer is that he is overwhelmingly likely to be a MAN. That is why men are ten times more likely to be in prison. Not because of social constructionist explanations, Peterson says, but because they are men who are outliers on the normal distribution of aggression. Peterson gives many examples of this at play. And he is very clear about this: it is not his opinion. It is the science, the data, the statistical evidence, that tells us that.
Tell me this…. If a cartel came to your door and Harry Styles opened it, would you feel safer with him or a UFC fighter?
Peterson understands that the world is darker and more cruel than you seem to think.
It’s not all soy lattes and lentil curries.
It’s not rainbow clad non-binaries taking down the Cartel, who behead people on a daily basis.
It’s not a gay pride parade dismantling the human trafficking rings.
And when the cruel, harsh world comes knocking on your door, do you want a man who looks at you, shrugs his shoulders and says “I don’t know what to do. Will you take this or shall I?”
Or do you want a man who can take the charge, defend his loved ones and shoulders that responsibility?
As much as the Western Bubble loves to believe in freedom, we forgotten that there are people born in Darkness, ready to take what we have and do unspeakable things for that.
There is no superman, no wonderwoman.
Stop living in fantasy land. Yes, there can be more equality, but by God there should also be more honest recognition. More delegation.
You wouldn’t send the lawyer to do the photocopying. So why are you wanting men to just stand in the corner like a lamp?
I love Jordan Pederson. I only discovered him after my 18 year old son bought his book, 12 rules for life. We need good, strong men. Boys have been put down far too long. Society needs both men and women, but now more than ever, we must support our sons! I have three boys and I’m disheartened how society and particularly education system treats them. There are far more female Dr Pederson fans out there than you realize. He’s not sexist, he’s telling it like it is. Of course life is better and easier when you’re physically attractive and if you try deny that, well, remember this: “you’re the easiest person to lie to”. Open your eyes.
1. Peterson said he wouldn’t allow the government to enforce speech, so basically he never said he wouldn’t call a trans woman ‘she’ he said he wouldn’t be FORCED to at a later date he also said that this should be negotiated individually and not as a group thing
2. He strictly said, many times that excessive order or chaos are equally damaging, so cut this about “need of order dominating caos” they should be balanced like the Yin Yang symbol, plus he only wrote “An antidote for Chaos” because he believed the world was over chaotic, were we in the 1930s he would’ve written “beyond order” first.
3. Pretty “sexist” of you to say lifestyle stuff is “woman’s work”
Perfectly said.
Fairly predictable critique
The article was fairly predictable and I new exectly what was I store for after I read the words male supremacy…
Sarah Ditum, your writing is the worst I’ve seen in a long time. This article has no structure. Random ideas just become run-on sentences, never making a point. You desperately want Peterson to be a male supremacist. He isn’t one. You miss the point of his ideas and still incoherently ramble on.
I think hating him is trendy for leftists, and you’re trying to repeat what you’ve heard recently, without doing any work at all.
The real trend worth noting is that Peterson’s critics are intellectually bankrupt.
The funny thing is Dittum could be seen as a worthy contender for Peterson. But if we use the same critical sense she used against Peterson, her article wouldnt stand a chance for public acceptance.
Situations where he came out with flying colors when the leftist interviewers were constantly trying to stick mal intent to his views, twisting his views, taking his views out of context etc.
Ditum ignored all those and painted Peterson with a broad brush stroke. If someone is to critique Ditum on this article, it cld start something like this:
Ditum acts as the self appointed balancer for the female, taking the effort of intentionally neglecting all the contexts where Petersons viewpoints had come out, and then using her quill to nullify Peterson, by being the great equalizer that the left, demands their followers to be, and then using fear as the rationale for hiding, neglecting, and bending truth.
This whole article sits in the worth because of the usual leftist justification
that everyone should fear that, if the great balancing act of bending the truth is not done, then the society would go violent .
Denigrating Petersons contributions as simple motherly advice of clean your room is the biggest blunder of this article.
Peterson is not famous because he tells you to clean the room or to always tell the truth, he is famous because he wonderfully articulates and dive deep into the reasons why one should do these things.
No mother has done that, at least, not my mother.
In this leftist crazy world of fear-mongering, irrationalities and insane and unjust concepts, Peterson’s Popularity is a resounding testimony of the human being’s craving for Reason.
And since he wonderfully articulates reasons for his viewpoints, he has unparalleled following.
Even a truckload of Orpahs with their cliche dialogues wont stand a chance before that.
Yes, JP can be their Mum, but when Mum makes highly questionable statements about the Holocost or the role of Hitler in our history or presents the data on Scandinavian efforts to encourage women’s participation in positions of leadership as an abysmal failure. I suggest that while it might be helpful that he is offering practical advice to young men about making their beds, some of what JP brings to the table about the world and who is in it is simply not true. Let’s remember that the fact that he can openly weep is something women have been doing forever, and some men, and LGBQT persons.
Well what started as engaging and interesting article, quickly went off the rails into sexism and every other Leftist trope we hear about everything else in life these days.
Rubbish.
“This is a typical bit of Peterson rhetoric. What he’s actually saying here is that he’s going to continue perceiving ” and probably referring ” to people as male or female, depending on how they appear to him.”
Presumably the author watched the Newman ‘interview’ yet employs the same ‘so what you’re saying is’ device as a substitute for the inability to ask an intelligent or relevant question.
Peterson has said many times that he has nothing against people wishing to be addressed by whatever cool-sounding pronoun they can conjure up from a robust turn at Spill and Spell.
He would consider using the pronoun if asked.
His argument was and is against moves by the University of Toronto and Government to compel him, through regulation, to use said pronouns or to suffer punishment for failure to do so.
If Ditum missed such an easily verifiable fact as this. one wonders what value the rest of the piece has.
The person who wrote this article has clearly demonstrated that they have very basic/shallow understanding or Dr. Peterson’s work. To say merely that he describes chaos as the feminine and order as the masculine, is completely underwhelming and does not scratch the surface of what he means by this. If you try to fully understand his work, you will see the reason and logic encapsulated in it. That doesn’t mean you must agree with it, but through understanding it fully you must agree there is perfectly sound reasoning and logic. I am a woman and I fully understand and appreciate Dr. Peterson’s work.
If you want me to read articles, don’t preface them with obvious inaccuracies such as, “
“The eccentric philosopher of male supremacy…”
Very disappointing article. Anyone who’s followed JP for some time knows many if not all of the details surrounding his induced coma in russia. I found the authors off the cuff comment on his all meat diet and the addiction to tranquilizers a display in gross ignorance. I suggest that the author watch the interview hosted by his daughter. That one interview provides far more light on peterson’s life over the past year.
Word to the author – watch the interview before opening your mouth. It’s one of the reasons why many listen to him – The continual, willful, lack of understanding on full display by his detractors reveals a very unattractive facet of the human psyche. Attack his arguments, and leave the strawmen at home.
I don’t completely agree with Jordan Petersen just mostly. He talks common sense and doesn’t seek dominance over anyone except perhaps his debating opposition. On the male/female subject he just points out that there are differences and what we should value is equal opportunity and choice. Women have some major disadvantages in competing head to head with men in some areas; they have babies, they have stronger maternal instinct and less aggression. In any physical activity requiring strength or body mass they immediately have a 10% disadvantage. But why focus where one sex has a natural advantage anyway? Women do many things better than men. Perhaps feminists should stop trying to remove the differences between the sexes and focus on making the best of the differences to have the sexes compliment each other for mutual benefit – ah yes isn’t that what a million years of evolution provided? Equal opportunity yes, uniformity no!
My female partner out competes me on many levels without any “positive” discrimination.
The fact the writer would ever consider Jung’s work ‘gratuitous’ in any way tells you all you need to know, and that’s without even addressing her views on Peterson! I don’t particularly care for his stridency at times myself, but nor do I agree with this characterisation that he is ‘sexist’ in any way, or transphobic when you actually listen to what the man is saying, as opposed to blindly miming ‘blah, blah, blah’ in response as is all too easy to do. This article reads as little more than a bitter, acerbic attack on the man, rather than a considered riposte to his own intellectual stance, but hey: whatever gives you a rise.
A nice try, Sarah Ditum. Such a great effort to produce such a snarky critique of Peterson that goes to such lengths to miss the point. This is just smartassedness disguised as scholarship, a clever take on a subject that you have approached with obvious prejudice, and which will certainly endear you to all those who already agreed with you in the first place. It obviously makes no difference to you what J. Peterson writes or teaches. Why do you pretend that it does?
This comment was not allowed because I used the word “bi*c*y – as in describing a female dog. Are you joking Unherd? Come on, get your algorithm sorted – we’re supposed to be adults here, not 7 year old school children. One rule for me, one for thee…..
Interesting analysis but I think you’ve misunderstood or chosen to go with a stock and shallow interpretation of his work (cue female chip on shoulder) around what he means by ‘chaos’ (ying and yang anyone?). To retort you try to claim he is a mummy. I know a fair few dad’s who do what you so freely adcribe to women. It’s called being a parent.
To Sarah Ditum . Just read your article. I found it unbalanced targeting to undermine and belittle JP. I think you should evaluate JP further listen to the facts he presents and resubmit a revised article.
Peterson didn’t invent the idea that order is masculine and chaos is feminine, symbolically; . He’s explained on multiple occasions and in various settings, if I recall correctly, that that analysis is a historical construct from religious and philosophical texts that he holds in some regard.
Also it’s more than slightly sexist to say that mom’s and women essentially own the idea and the carrying out of telling the world’s sons and young men to be responsible or pick up their litter. Peterson is respected by those who appreciate his work because he avoids the pitfall of this sort which are ultimately hypocritical assertions. I appreciate this was possibly an effort to convey a more neutral stance and make your initial critique (which I think is a generous description of your article that’s a veiled hit piece IMO) more palatable. But I think this is basically a window into how you (as an example of our culture at large) really are a sexist woman who’s perpetuating the accepted principles of today’s society that have “created” JP. … essentially: we feminists and liberals/postmodernists should have no issue w jordan petersons chauvinist views because, really, isn’t Jordan Peterson really very feminine in the way he promotes being a good citizen and doing the right thing… is that intentional irony?
Quite simply ,, I love listening to JP and a feminist is never going to admit he’s right in his approach to life ,, he’s not sexist ,, he says it how it is and explains with efficiency the chaos of the world today ,, especially in gender discussions.
Further,, There is no such thing as true “free speech” in the world today ,, you only need to look at the censorship applied to YouTube ,, Google ,, Facebook and Governments to know that if you tell the truth ,, especially exposing the hidden truths of Governments like the USA Gov ,, you’ll find yourself charged with Treson
I enjoyed the majority of your article. I think you were much more nuanced in your description of JP compared to many others.
I have to say, though, the bit equating the masculine nature of order to “men”, and the feminine nature of chaos to “women” — and then somehow extending that to some underlying message sexist message — falls flat and IMO does your readers a disservice.
These concepts are not original or unique to Dr. Peterson in any way. He’s talking about yin and yang, the two extremes, and the dichotomy between them. Spiritual authors throughout history have used similar groupings into masculine and feminine. Look up “Women Who Run With the Wolves” by Clarissa Pinkola Estes, Ph.d, and then explain again how these concepts are sexist.
Most of his stuff is straight from Carl Jung, combined with some more modern findings on what constitutes a well-adjusted vs unhealthy psychological disposition based on his clinical work.
The weird dragon stuff is reference to myth — again, Carl Jung’s core material, but in digestible format for modern audiences. (Note: Jung’s top proteges were all women in a time when this was unheard of, e.g Marie Louis Von Franz)
He’s certainly not perfect, but the claim of sexism in this article is based on a quite cynical interpretation of his use of “masculine” and “feminine” as references to human gender (and the superiority of one over the other), which is simply incorrect.
No one’s above criticism, certainly not him, but I hope we criticize accurately and in good faith.
It’s quite clear you haven’t read 12 Rules of Life as you would reference specific sentences as to where he symbolises woman as the proverbial Chaos. He doesn’t, ever. And the whole Yin and Yang dichotomy is misrepresented and taken far too literally as versus – strong vs weak, dominant vs submissive, which is not his point at all.
Secondly, if you actually quote the Channel 4 interview correctly you would hear Peterson state, “it’s not a matter of opinion but empirical evidence, or ” it’s not my words but an observation” and then he continuously says back to Newman, “I never said that” and then goes on to correct her. But of course, critics base their arguments on feelings rather than facts and we all know facts don’t care about feelings.
The irony is Kathy Newman is indirectly responsible for introducing millions to Peterson based off her own provocations, not his. Don’t fall into the same claptrap of putting words in Jordan’s mouth that clearly stain your Opinion piece as ignorant interpretations void of demonstrable substance.
Why Rietz and not Reitz?
This is a very silly article haha. It’s like you read what other people who think like you wrote about him, and then wrote your thoughts on that down. Utterly pointless.
Oh, let’s bring up that whole Canadian debunkel again . His stance , which he has made clear on multiple times was … you should not make a law telling me what I have to call you . In various interviews he even said, he has trans students ,and he does call them by their chosen pronouns. The issue comes to play when someone who is just looking for attention (and doesn’t honestly identify as trans ) DEMANDS to be called X pronoun . Plus ,when you start telling people what they have to say , yeah its a violation of free speech .
Also, he got the spotlight for simply suggesting they re-write the bill so it didn’t infringe on free speech, not to step on trans rights
This opinion piece is hard to follow because she is all over the place. Asserting that Peterson is a woman is essentially the author trying to imply that Peterson’s ideas are women’s ideas. If that were true than why haven’t any women come forward and voiced these ideas publically? As I read through this I found subtle jabs at Peterson that made me realize a subtle anger toward Peterson disguised as eloquently as she could to not look angry. Men value organization and purpose. One prime example are the formation of our armed forces. One of which was formed inside a bar amongst other males. Peterson is a male who has a good balance of feminine and masculine traits.
I don’t want to join a “discussion.” I just want to comment how much I disliked this article. I found the author talent’s obviously full of novella potential yet bankrupt of character… and I’m not a fan of Peterson.
Why don’t you actually bother reading his work before criticizing him. Have you even watched a full original clip from him? I think you’d actually learn something of value if you bothered.
Peterson has an equivalent, sort of, ever heard of Suzanne Venker?
http://Www.suzannevenker.com
I just like Jordan Peterson!!! The way his emotions come through as a man; not afraid to show them even on camera!!!! Simply incredibly in Touch with what he is saying… so articulated! I proudly listen to him any day
“When he really gets into his stride, you’ll find him describing “the terror young men feel towards attractive women, who are nature itself,” which I guess means that if you’re a woman and he thinks you’re fit, you might as well be soil, so who knows what’s a compliment anymore.”
What?! Soil?! Okay, lady, I want a hit of whatever it is you’re smoking.
I love this. It also really strengthens my belief that sexist men are in fact terrified of female sexuality and it is therefore they are trying to find some way to dominate instead of understanding the complex nature of it. Control, oh how much easier would that be right?
I saw Peterson on an interview on Swedish television. He proudly asked the journalist Skalan, (who was trying to conceal his terror) “Why should women have professions that deal with science for example if they’re not good at it”. And then he’s not a chauvinist, really, who then would? This kind of rhetoric belongs to fragile men who have no idea how to navigate in a World of emancipated women.
You exemplify perfectly what so many people have said in the comments. You are instantly identifiable, through your comments, as a Peterson-phobic person, and once again you are not bothering to look and listen carefully to what JP is saying (are you perhaps thinking “so what Peterson is saying…”, like Cathy Newman or Sarah Ditum?). There are some giveaway signals for your position. Why insert the word “proudly”, for example, when there is no evidence whatsoever in Peterson exhibiting “pride” in the exchange you describe? And why, indeed, as Peterson asks quite reasonably (THIS is the meaning of what he is saying IN RESPONSE TO SKALAN’S COMMENT) – “if someone is not good at something why should society persist in trying to shoe-horn people into a career in order to satisfy a need for equity of outcome in respect of gender or race or height or left-handedness, etc.” You really need to read some Jordan Peterson. If you can concentrate on what he is actually saying and not what you have decided he is probably saying, you will benefit enormously.
Are these leftists bots typing comments like this. Also do you have a special separate feed in your country for the Swedish show. Cause I watched that interview, Peterson made logically sound arguments and he didnt say anything close to what you are accusing him of saying
Maybe Ms Ditum could read Dr Peterson’s book properly. Hence gaining a true understanding of exactly what he is saying. This article reads like a one sided Cathy Newman interview. Misinterpretation to further a misguided agenda.
Peterson is misunderstood repeatedly because he is perhaps Too intelligent.
It’s obvious that Peterson has a dangerous point. Why else would lefties, feminists, PC advocates and identity politics supporters attack him so relentlessly. Not his points or insights, but always his person. That’s the tactics of the day. If you disagree with us, we will destroy you.
They should have payed more attention to rule 9. Maybe there is something to learn. Or you could – out of respect for people with different experiences than your own – be glad that thousands of people got help to figure out there lives and learn how to be valuable citizens to the benefit of the society, their family and friends and for them selves.
The tolerance only stretches to people with the same views as You. That’s not tolerance in my book.
He associates Chaos with the feminine because both chaos and the feminine are forces of creation.
He associates order with masculine because order is destructive and exclusive.
None of these things are intrinsically good or bad. As mentioned, society is the order which provides both structure and tyranny. Human nature is the chaos which provides both freedom and the dangers of the unknown.
These things are pretty clearly linked if you bother to read with with a neutral mind.
The Kathy Newman debate, by the way, was no decided by whoever you agreed with first. It was decided by Peterson if you understand the rules of even a middle school aged debate.
This article full of empty insinuation from the first sentence.
Femsplaining is just as offensive as mansplaining. To the male ear, the same words can either signify order or chaos, depending on the perceived lived experience of the explainer.
This is sorry excuse for an attack with some weird argumentation. So, Jordan Peterson is a woman, as if that is bad thing. Same trap that leftist fall into when they accuse political competition for being gey, as if that is something bad. There is a song by Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper that describes this article.
I enjoyed reading this (as I do everything from this writer), but I’m fairly sure that the first time I came across the “order is masculine; chaos feminine” meme was in Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae, back in the 1990s day (probably the last time I read something that’s not a novel!) It’s not exactly unapparent within ancient Greek mythos either, is it? So I don’t really see this as a Peterson concept.
I think it’s quite hard to watch the interview with Cathy Newman – I was going to finish “without judging her performance a spectacular failure.” But I think the sentence finishes sufficiently well at “Newman”.
The article is spot-on. If people need a self-help guru, then Peterson is your man (or woman), but sooner or later, you have to leave the nest and stop taking motherly advice.
The whole article seems to be based on the assumption that Peterson wants order (masculinity) to dominate chaos (femininity). After reading his book and watching a few lectures / speeches on YouTube this is not the understanding I have. Maybe the author could have pointed to exactly where he says that. My understanding is that he says order and chaos needs to be balanced (I think he says somewhere that with too much order you get fascism). His criticism is that in the life of many boys growing up the male influence has often be completely removed (single mum parent, all school teachers women etc) and that society as a whole seems to be hostile to men with generalisations such toxic masculinity. So Peterson doesn’t say that anybody should dominate anyone. It seems the author here has a complete different understanding of his work and I’m not sure where you can find this if you read his book without a pre-defined opinion.
This is a pretty thin bit of writing. Damning with faint praise, selectively ridiculing his quirks, and finally trying to make out he’s acting like a woman (and we’ve got plenty of them anyway).
As I see it Peterson is a clever, articulate, well-read clinical psychologist with an evident expertise in human behaviour and some well thought out views on the fallacies of entrenched opinon.
He can see through the flakey arguments of the misogenists and feminists, the left and the right, and all the other polarised and biassed views. And people don’t like it when their frailties and fallacies are exposed, so they squirm, wriggle, and whinge. And blame him.
The point about shouldering as much responsibility as you can bear, in order to be a fully mature adult human, is that it is a counterbalance to the infantilist American insistence on “Freedom” implying the right to be oblivious of any responsibility.
It was another Canadian, Gordon Lightfoot, who made famous the words “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”. But it was an American, Kris Kristofferson who wrote it (not to forget Janis Joplin’s plaintive version).
I think this article makes some reasonable points and I sometimes suspect that Peterson’s chief value lies in the fact that he annoys the SJWs and the leftie media types. I can never really understand why he – or anyone else – bangs on about the sodding bible so much. And I once saw him make a very bizarre reason why women wear make-up. On the other hand, a lot of his work does seem to be based on real science.
A couple of days ago I started to watch a college lecture in which he was incorrect with regard to some details of Solzhenitsyn’s life. He was also somewhat absurdly incorrect with regard to the circumstances, and even date, of Stalin’s death and Kruschev’s succession. This was pretty basic stuff so I stopped watching.
Assuming we heard the same bit, what he said was pretty mainstream and certainly not original. Ideas around make up and sexual mimicry have been around for donkeys years.
It’s even in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/24/dating-body-language-signals
I think the author is simply having a bit of fun with this article. Which is fine because JBP is pretty serious and so is his message. Mikhaila Peterson is blossoming and could become the most obvious JBP for the XX in time…
If only JP had a sense of humour! In other words, I could take him a darn sight more seriously if he wasn’t already so terrifically pompous. A bit of self-relativization wouldn’t do him any harm. Or some doubt about the certainties he arrives at so torturously.
That’s an excellent article. It really unwraps some of the flannel around Peterson.
“which I’m sure I’ve also read on the label of some hemp soap I bought once”. That made me laugh out loud.
I like Peterson. I think he’s a well-intentioned guy with a basically kind message. But he’s been elevated to some kind of guru status by people who seem to confuse verbiage and poetic language with great wisdom.
He reminds me very much of Khalil Gibran or Paolo Coelho, though more honest. I’m not sure the Coelho believes any of his own guff.
‘I mean, no one ever recommended an antidote to something they thought was good.’
No, and nor did anyone have much good to say about a society routinely characterised as being an oppressive tyranny, yet ‘the patriarchy’ is still bandied about rather alot in your circles, Sarah.
“… because if men are order and women are chaos, and order needs to dominate chaos” Wrong! Please do not read symbolic speech just as you read scientific text, because that is vilain. Jordan B. Peterson tells that all society needs both order and chaos. Just like yin and yang. Nowadays western societies reject all limitation of the individuals. Generally speaking, yes, there was the males who were responsible for guarding of boundaries. There is no sexism, there is joungian archetypes. And yes, I am a woman, mother of three, and I like Jordan B. Peterson’s views.
Didn’t have to read the article, just had to look at the title and the author’s picture and you know it’s gonna be male bashing……
This summary is accurate in broad strokes, but towards the end it unravels a bit in my opinion. This is because the author is clearly under the impression that Peterson prescribes order as an antidote to the pathologies of excessive chaos, without considering the pathologies of excessive order.
That is not the case. Peterson considers both chaos and order to be necessary for a balanced life. (The association of one with the male and the other with the female archetype is not a product of his imagination either, but is part of concepts such as the yin and yang.)
The point where meaning is achieved, he says, is at the point between these two. The upcoming sequel to 12 Rules is subtitled “Beyond Order” for this reason: whereas the first book primarily (thought not exclusively) addressed the problems of too much chaos, the second book will address the reverse.
For that matter, Peterson’s major criticism of Protestant Christianity is essentially that it lacks a positive female archetype, which is addressed in Catholicism by the veneration of Mary; he describes this as being essential.
So no, he is not secretly saying that men need to dominate women in order for the world to function properly.
Regarding the simplicity of his practical advice, which the author seems to regard as being somewhat pointlessly dressed up in grandiose terms: that is one way to look at it. If your life is already sorted out and you don’t require further motivation to keep it that way, then you probably won’t get much out of Peterson’s adventures in the realms of the archetypal. This is entirely fair criticism.
However, for those of us who don’t see much point in living for its own sake, contextualizing the mundane day-to-day as part of the greater heroic narrative of humanity provides some needed motivation. Everyone knows that you should clean your room, maintain positive relationships, have a creative hobby, etc., etc. Seeing how it all fits together into something greater than simply keeping time until you’re dead, however, is very helpful.
The conclusion to the article is somewhat tinted by the preceding incorrect characterization of Peterson, but it’s also not altogether wrong. There is some irony in the fact that Peterson, being widely regarded as a somewhat traditional male role model, is a highly-strung wiry fellow with a high-pitched voice, who is also no stranger to crying on camera. If anything, this demonstrates that a constructive mode of masculinity is to be found outside the excessively macho and emotionally repressed model so often (and sometimes, fairly) criticized by feminism as being “toxic.”
Hopefully, if people on various sides of this discussion can stop being so adversarial for a bit, something constructive can yet come out of the ensuing dialog.
dear author, dear sarah ditum – i am male, 50y.o. and a teacher. many of your phrases are dry and biting. well done. : but i find that you have not understood the most basic thing about what peterson does to the male-mind. writing funny and witty about him … okay, thats good. but comparing him to oprah – OMG – (in which field is she an university professor?) that shows that you absolutely have no clue where his strength, his magnetism lies and what lock is unlocked by his key-words and precise thoughts. dear sarah ditum – have you done your homework ? have you asked 25 men about what -why -how…what his thoughts really trigger in the male soul ? i am sure that after asking 25 men (who follow him regularely), about why peterson is “important”, what he “does”, you would never ever again compare him to a talk show host or come up with the unreal idea that the female side of the world might have anything like him. you should watch the youtube clip about : Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson. this woman C. Paglia, she could be a female Peterson, if she ever chose to fill a stadium like him. Please. please believe me – Peterson is different from what we have seen before. dont discredit yourself by comparing him to showbizness actors.- thanx cheers chris
PS: what Peterson really does and unlocks in men : i have left that question deliberately unanswered.
Stephen Fry once said of critics “I looked at something someone else did and said it was sh*t”
I think that just about sums up a lot of Peterson’s critics. He has helped many millions of people transform their lives for the better. His critics found something in one of his books that upset their feminist beliefs. I know who is contributing most to humanity.
I also find that most of his critics seem to think they possess a special ability to intuit what he really means rather than dealing with what he is actually saying. This seems to be prevalent amongst feminism in general. Rather than asking men about themselves they feel the need to tell us what we think and feel about everything; what our real motives are. This is almost universally negative and any attempt to push back will be dismissed as further evidence of our malignant outlook on life.
Is there any proof of the millions whose lives were made better by JP?
There’s certainly plenty that is eccentric about JP, but it’s not really his ideas. The thing is, and I think he would agree, 95% of what he says is not original at all. He is simply making reference to other people’s ideas and research. It’s just that his opponents are so narrowly read.
Ideas which his opponents see as bizarre are often mainstream, or even old hat, but they sit outside the intellectual current most people swim in.
His main contribution has been to open people’s thinking to intellectual traditions outside those they have been brought up to accept as dogma.
Dear Sarah ah didums,
There seems to be a huge lack in your reading. And I doubt that you are aware of that thing we called religion and even less aware of the G-d it encourages us to have a relationship with.
This just smacks of nonsense and self obsession.
Chaos is presented as feminine because the Earth is the Divine Creatrix but she is chaotic. Earth creates all life but also is massively destructive. Females also create life, or appear to and so their association with the Earth was inevitable. Indeed it is only a couple of decades since Goddess feminism, best represented by Gimbutas, was a serious rival to the Marxist form better known today. This association has been made for at least 6000 years and probably much longer. The struggle of humanity has always been and remains, how to tame the awesome but unbridled power of the Earth. I’m amazed that a serious writer would not know this.
Ah! I’ve discovered the anti-dote to Ditum is Jordan Peterson.
Nicely done Sarah, that perfectly encapsulates the man! And to all the Perterson adulators here who feel jilted, read the article again. It’s not an anti-Peterson article, it’s a response to this week’s popular news item that females need a female Peterson, to which Sarah answers, we already have 100s.
Not really – you’ll find this as far back as Euripides at least. So you may not like it, and it may not be true, even symbolically, but he didn’t just decide it.
And there are more than a few hints at this dichotomy in feminist writers who see a masculine sense of order (reason, rationality) as oppressive. Ecofeminism is rife with it.
Hurrah. Someone else notices the laughable absurdity of the Peterson cult.
Not many though. That Jordan Kool-Aid is obviously powerful stuff
Quite true, and something I’ve been struggling to articulate for a while. JP champions manhood, but he does so in a very unmanly, even effeminate, way.This might be hypocritical, I’m not sure. But I think it’s also why he’s so proven so persuasive. He embodies many of the very feminine virtues that his opponents value – neatness, conscientousness, the abiliy to look at an issue from multiple perspectives simultaneously. He can’t be dismissed as just another clueless, boorish man, because he’s so much like a woman.And, not to throw myself a big old MRA-style pity party here, but polite society has, at this point in time, pretty much decided that the female viewpoint is the correct viewpoint. That means that in any debate, men start from a disadvantage – in order for their arguments to be seen as having any merit at all, they have to translate them to a feminine reference frame. That makes JP very powerful, because he has managed to do precisely that, without compromising any of them along the way. He’s able to pull off the contortions of saying, “here’s why, by the standards of womanhood, manhood is a good thing.”That said, he’s pretty much a nut. But the way he argues his nuttery is undeniably impressive and unique.
Aww, you were doing so well until you spoiled it in the last paragraph.
Bernard Levin on Lord Longford: “Everybody asks the wrong question about Lord Longford, viz, is he barmy? The question is not worth asking. Of course he is barmy. What we should be discussing is, is he right?”