[silveroriole]

If there’s nothing more to it, what place does it have in a self-help book, or in any book? Why bother saying it? What interest should it hold for me? This continual argument I hear from people that he’s just “describing how things are” seems self-defeating - it makes him sound as boring as someone who goes around saying “the sky is blue, the sun is hot”. Yeah, and? So what? There’s no point engaging with or listening to someone who says “Femininity is linked with chaos. I’m not implying anything by that, and my argument should have no bearing on anything. I’m just saying that’s the way it is.” I don’t believe Peterson IS saying that, though - I think it’s just a convenience for him and most of his fans to be able to claim that he’s said nothing at all except raw falsifiable statements which might be wrong (but if they’re wrong it doesn’t matter anyway because they don’t mean anything). Why bother linking the concepts to gender? Well, it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.

Read the originators of Peterson’s ideas. They certainly thought their statements about gender, archetypes, psychology, etc had deep meaning and informed how things ‘should be’, not merely how they are (of course, simply saying ‘this is how things are’ and nothing else can be an expression of deep conservatism, which is how many interpret Peterson - this is how things are AND YOU CAN’T CHANGE THEM, so just act in accordance with them).

[wesammikhail]

> Why bother linking the concepts to gender? Well, it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.

You´re missing the point. No one is (or at least I am not) saying that he is merely making a "factual observation" and that´s just that. But you are ASSUMING what his motives are as if you´re some type of mind reader. And of course his motives must be malicious such as "it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.".

The tough part for me to communicate here is how _ironic_ your assumption here is. You are _literally_ doing what Peterson argues is the feminine and chaotic. You are playing the role of the overprotective mother. You will probably hate this but if you really are of an open mind you should watch this and then we can continue our discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50FbeazFkgs

Assuming you actually watched the video above, what I _see_ when I read a post like yours is exactly what Peterson describes in the video. A deep and complex need for "protecting those who are offended from the evil serpent (the offending party - Peterson)". You have already classified him as malicious thing to be dealt with accordingly.

> Read the originators of Peterson’s ideas. They certainly thought their statements about gender, archetypes, psychology, etc had deep meaning and informed how things ‘should be’, not merely how they are (of course, simply saying ‘this is how things are’ and nothing else can be an expression of deep conservatism, which is how many interpret Peterson - this is how things are AND YOU CAN’T CHANGE THEM, so just act in accordance with them).

I´ve read my fair share. And I agree with you. Some things are not set in stone. But a lot of things are - at least for now. So pretending that we´re all like play-dooh is an equally false assumption as the one of the conservatives who believes that all is set in stone.

[mercer]

> The tough part for me to communicate here is how _ironic_ your assumption here is. You are _literally_ doing what Peterson argues is the feminine and chaotic. You are playing the role of the overprotective mother.

I don't know if irony is the right word for it, but I find it interesting that you've been arguing that Petersons man-order/woman-chaos is somehow not normative and negative to women, and then go and use 'feminine and chaotic' in a pretty much purely negative way.

What I find more interesting is that this exemplifies what bothers me about Peterson schtick. So much of what he says isn't actually saying all that much, because it's couched in "one could argue that", "I'm just observing x", "an interesting thought" style statements, while at the same time the very choice of statements seem to imply something nonetheless.

The frustrating thing is that I find much of this 'implied' message rather concerning, but it's difficult to talk about because he (and his fans) can deny all of it. Or accuse me of reading too much into his words, vilifying him, etc.

I think this comment expresses my unease with Peterson quite well (the whole thread/discussion is worth reading): https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/8m21kw/i_am_dr_jordan...

And then there's the famouns Contrapoints video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

To be clear, I'm not accusing you personally, of all this, just that your comment reminded me of these thoughts. Furthermore, I ultimately do not know the details of what Peterson believes (I mean, who does?), and if his book and talks help people improve themselves I'm all for that.

[wesammikhail]

> I don't know if irony is the right word for it, but I find it interesting that you've been arguing that Petersons man-order/woman-chaos is somehow not normative and negative to women, and then go and use 'feminine and chaotic' in a pretty much purely negative way.

I could have as easily said the "masculine and orderly" if he was expressing that pattern of behavior. For instance, if he was being a full blown fascist, That´s how I would have replied. The feminine isn´t the "negative". It is the _extreme_ feminine. And likewise, the extreme masculine behavior is equally toxic. Hence the phrase, "toxic masculinity" which I´m pretty sure you´re familiar with. Is that not a thing? or is it just that the masculine is filled with toxicity but the feminine never is? That would be a naive proposition. btw, if you read this as an attack on the "feminine" by the "masculine" then there is no point in this discussion at all. It is the extreme pathological behavior that is the issue, not its symbolic manifestation.

> What I find more interesting is that this exemplifies what bothers me about Peterson schtick. So much of what he says isn't actually saying all that much, because it's couched in "one could argue that", "I'm just observing x", "an interesting thought" style statements, while at the same time the very choice of statements seem to imply something nonetheless. The frustrating thing is that I find much of this 'implied' message rather concerning, but it's difficult to talk about because he (and his fans) can deny all of it. Or accuse me of reading too much into his words, vilifying him, etc.

There need be no implication because he says it out right. Watch the video I linked to and he will say literally what he means. Everyone who dislikes Peterson that I´ve personally talked to always ends up talking about "the implicit evil that he holds behind closed doors". Everyone is suddenly a mind reader. What gives? we don´t do that for others when they talk. And besides, debunk his arguments as they stand. Either the arguments are good or bad. talking about the character or the intent of the person is irrelevant to the merit of the argument itself. Imagine if the most despicable human being (ex. Hitler) said 2+2=4 you wouldn´t go: the math is incorrect because he has "hidden motives". No. The math is correct and he´s a piece of shit. We have to decouple the message from the speaker for obvious reasons.

As for the reddit comment. The author talks about cognitive dissonance when he clearly suffers form a shit ton of it him/herself. It was one incoherent mess.

Look, I understand you, the other commenter and countrapoints (been a long time fan of that channel btw even if I disagree with a lot of what is said there) in that you are justified to feel uneasy. Peterson is _way too careful_ as if he is trying to mask/hide something from us. But the truth is much simpler than that. When you are constantly over the years met with extreme backlash you become very careful. Take the example of "forced monogamy". When Peterson was talking about a historical concept, that was portrayed as if he _wants to_ "distribute women to horny men" - a position no one has ever held. Imagine being exposed to that level of misrepresentation, heckling and hatred. You too, I imagine, would be more careful about what you say in order not to be misrepresented at every turn. Once you put yourself in his shoes you realize that it isn´t that there is an implied hidden agenda but rather the exact opposite. And so far, I have seen 0 evidence to the contrary.

> To be clear, I'm not accusing you personally, of all this, just that your comment reminded me of these thoughts. Furthermore, I ultimately do not know the details of what Peterson believes (I mean, who does?), and if his book and talks help people improve themselves I'm all for that.

Fair enough.

[silveroriole]

I think you may be mixing me up with the original poster of this comment chain. I have only said that linking chaos/order to femininity/masculinity appears to have no point or meaning, not that I’m personally offended by it. In fact I don’t believe the original poster was offended either, and only said that some people are offended. You still haven’t managed to explain, at least to my satisfaction, what the point IS rather than harping on about “offence” you imagine I’ve taken. If your whole argument is that Peterson says they’re linked ‘because that’s how things are most of the time’, that is fine; I just don’t think that in itself is an interesting, original, worthwhile, or entirely correct observation, especially not when his aims are a) to provide self-help and advice or b) to provide a dull “truth is in the middle” argument. It appears, as your comments focus on, to provide much more fruitful grounds for claiming or decrying offence, rather than showing anything interesting about men, women, chaos, order, or anything else. Cheers.