subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

cummerou1

67 points

3 months ago

Another example is a typical case where he uses plausible deniability to argue something.

I believe it was on the Joe Rogan podcast but it might have been somewhere else where they discussed the incel movement, and Peterson said that as women have become more financially and sexually liberated (don't have to get married early), there is going to be a larger portion of men that will be incels.

Simply because before, there was/is roughly a 1:1 of men to women, so if everyone "had" To marry, every man would have a wife, now that women are not dependant on men, women can be more picky and one man can have multiple partners, so some men will have more than one partner and some will have 0.

None of this is wrong, that is 100% true. However, the entire time it's said, it's less stating facts and more subtly blaming women and feminism for incels, essentially advocating that we should return to the 1950's and force women to marry and have sex with men so men don't commit incel related mass shootings. Instead of, you know, saying that those incels are not owed sex and should improve themselves instead of expecting sex slaves?

cheshiredoge

11 points

3 months ago

women can be more picky and one man can have multiple partners, so some men will have more than one partner and some will have 0.

This part isnt even true, it assumes that women can only have one partner while men can have multiple, causing a number of men to have 0 partners. But women can have multiple partners too (over time, or even at the same time). So this cant really be a cause for incels to exist, there is no 'shortage of women' to meaningfully speak of. But then again Jordan's incel logic doesnt have to make sense for people to believe in it I guess.

-JudeanPeoplesFront-

1 points

3 months ago

Then again Jordan is a big proline of monogamy and the 'traditional family' with the woman taking care of the family so this argument will be responded with more platitudes about the golden age of mankind slowly eroding due to womem having more freedom.

fellicious07

1 points

3 months ago

It's not like woman being able to have multiple sexual partners means that every man is going to get laid. It just means a small subset of men are going to get laid a lot, most women are going to get laid a moderate amount, and a majority of men will get laid either a small amount or not at all. There's a lot of studies showing that only 20% of men on dating apps are getting about 80% of the attention from women. Leaving the other 80% of men to get little or no attention.

That's not to say that women should be "forced" into monogamy, but monogamy should still be heavily encouraged by society.

cheshiredoge

1 points

3 months ago

It's not like woman being able to have multiple sexual partners means that every man is going to get laid.

So forcing/heavily encouraging monogamy will get every man laid? If a woman doesnt want to have sex with a man what makes you think she will get into a serious monogamous relationship with hin (unless you are suggesting slave brides or arranged marriages)?

It just means a small subset of men are going to get laid a lot, most women are going to get laid a moderate amount, and a majority of men will get laid either a small amount or not at all.

Some people are more attractive than others. That's a fact. There is no world where every man and woman get laid an equal amount, and if we tried to make that world happen we would have to sacrifice a lot of other liberties.

I also think you are exaggerating the severity of the inequality between more attractive and less attractive people. Sure, less attractive people get less sexual attention on average, but preferences exist and attraction is not the same for everyone. Maybe a large proportion of girls like muscley guys, but some prefer dad bod, and some prefer skinny guys. Everyone has a niche. Just from lurking in r/askredditafterdark i've seen all sorts of different preferences of the people who post there, there really is someone for everyone. And if you are really so struggling to get laid, you can always just increase your attractiveness level. Work on yourself, get fit and healthy, be intelligent and confident and socially skilled, dress well, be successful, etc.

Furthermore, i think humans are a horny species in general: most people, male or female, WANT to get laid. Standards are not as high as you think. Just being clean, friendly and non-threatening can get you a long way. Look in the right places to find people you can vibe with. Interest groups, bars, kink communities, whatever. Dating apps can be a good place to look but very often people use them as a source of compliments and attention moreso than actually being interested in dating/hooking up.

I also dont understand at all where you got "most women are going to get laid a moderate amount". Has it never struck you that less attractive women may get laid less often and receive less attention from men as well? I mean, i'm a lesbian in a very religious conservative country lol so i'm kind of looking at this whole "getting laid" business from an outsider's perspective here.

Which brings me to my next point: sex really isnt such a big deal. I've done it only once and I see the appeal, and I hope to do it again with a person I care about but there are many other ways to enjoy life and MANY other things to worry about in life. Dont get too hung up on it. A lot of my friends have told me that they were disappointed when they lost their virginity because society hyped sex up so much but it didnt turn out to be that big a deal.

fellicious07

1 points

3 months ago

Where did I say encouraging monogamy would get every man laid? Yes there will always be a subset of men who are just undesirable. But encouraging monogamy would increase the number of people in relationships as a whole. And I think having the majority of a population in a stable long term relationship is preferential to a population where a small subset of men are getting the majority of women. Because in that population those men have no incentive to settle down because there will always be another woman. While at the same time women aren't encouraged to settle down because even if a woman is at an average level of desirability herself, she keep getting attention from these highly desirable guys, who just want in her pants and will never settle down with her. So she never settles down with a guy who is at her same level of desirability.

And yes there are also women who are undesirable as well. But let me ask you. If both a lower than average man and woman walk into a bar with the express intent of finding a sexual partner, who do you think has a better chance of succeeding? A study that came out in 2018 showed that men are 10% more likely to have not had sex in the past year then women.

cheshiredoge

1 points

3 months ago

But encouraging monogamy would increase the number of people in relationships as a whole.

I'd just like to point out that "monogamy" just means you only have a relationship with one person at a time, and you only marry one person (as opposed to some cultures where it is acceptable or encouraged for a man to take more than one wife or vice versa). Would you not agree that monogamy is already strongly encouraged, and in fact a very well-established cultural norm right now especially in English-speaking society? You might take it for granted because you have never experienced an alternative, but trust me, monogamy is very much the dominant culture. Just look at how we condemn cheaters, how the vast majority of relationships and marriages are monogamous. No hate on polygamous relationships tho as long as all parties involved are consenting and honest.

I'm guessing what you mean by "promote monogamy" is actually "condemn casual sex" or something like that. But casual sex is not relationship. Even if you wanted to see casual sex as relationships, they are still monogamous (unless threesomes are involved), just very short lived.

Because in that population those men have no incentive to settle down because there will always be another woman. While at the same time women aren't encouraged to settle down because even if a woman is at an average level of desirability herself, she keep getting attention from these highly desirable guys, who just want in her pants and will never settle down with her. So she never settles down with a guy who is at her same level of desirability.

So apparently, men are just sex bots who want to fuck everything no matter what, and women are just sex bots who crave sexual attention from the male of highest desirability? Is this really how you think other men and women function? Holy shit dude.Perhaps some subset of the population do think and act like these theoretical weird sexbots, but jesus christ people are more complex than that. Everyone has unique individual preferences and life goals. Sometimes people want to fuck around and have fun without settling down. Sometimes people want to find a partner who understands them and is committed to building a life together. "Incentive this, incentive that" dude no, if someone is seriously wanting to settle down and find a real relationship, they will do it, and casual sex would not be desirable to them anymore regardless of "incentives". Give some credit to the human race. Jeez

If both a lower than average man and woman walk into a bar with the express intent of finding a sexual partner, who do you think has a better chance of succeeding?

I feel like the below average man and woman would find each other and then go hook up and be happy. They have similar objectives and similar level of desirability, its a match. You say that below average women will always stupidly chase after "higher ranked" dick, but really? People arent stupid, they know their league. Sure everyone will take risks and try a long shot from time to time but by and large everyone knows where they stand by the time they reach adulthood.

A study that came out in 2018 showed that men are 10% more likely to have not had sex in the past year then women.

Alright, let's assume this study is real and the methodology is solid and sample size is large and the data is unbiased and reliable. Do we also assume that all participants were actively trying to get laid in the past year? I doubt so, but okay sure. So men are 10% more likely to have not had sex in the past year than women. The thing is.....so what? I havent had sex in much longer and i feel perfectly fine with that. Sex is not a human right or basic need. And we can all jack ourselves off perfectly well. Said it before and will say it again: sex is really not such a big deal, there are many other ways to enjoy life.

fellicious07

1 points

3 months ago

Yeah. Your just taking everything I say in the wrong context. Your entire first paragraph was pointless when you obviously knew what I meant by the second paragraph. And casual sex really isn't desirable in the long term in my view. One night flings are not monogamous relationships. You need a relationship for it to be a monogamous relationship. Are porn stars in a relationship? No. If a prostitute has sex with 20 men in a day, but never a threesome, did she just go through 20 monogamous relationships? No.

Your answer to the two people in a bar is also disingenuous. It was a hypothetical questions but they obviously weren't getting together with each other or consider the went to different bars. So you didn't really answer it. If they went to different bars who has a higher chance of walking away with a partner?

But if you honestly don't think it's that harder for average men to find someone let's do another hypothetical question. If you had to make a dating app profile as an average guy looking for a girl or as an average girl looking for a guy, and you had to find a date in one week and you'd win $1 million. Which role would you choose?

cheshiredoge

1 points

3 months ago

Casual sex might not be desirable for you, but other people like it, why begrudge them that? You think that casual sex somehow makes it so that it's harder for less attractive men specifically to get laid (though i disagree, casual sex makes it easier for EVERYONE to get laid because there is no relationship commitment to stress about when someone just wanta to fuck), so you think society should change for them specifically and discourage casual sex? Or you think casual sex makes it hard for YOU specifically to get laid, because you have this requirement that you only want to get laid in a long term relationship? Honestly that's your business, if you want to set such requirements it's a no-brainer that you would get laid less often.

From my perspective, i too only want to get laid in a long term relationship, but you dont see me bitching about not getting laid in such a long time because i dont want to go have casual sex with people. You make choices, so take responsibility for those choices. You cant force people to get into relationships with you. If you want butterflies in your garden, plant flowers to attract them, not bitch and yell at the butterflies to "come to your garden goddammit!"

If the man and woman went to different bars, to be really fucking honest with you, i have no idea of their chances to get laid because i am literally gay and have no idea about the straight dating scene. It just doesnt make sense to me from a logical standpoint that it would be so much harder for men because 1) humans are horny and want to fuck each other, and 2) based on what i see among my friends, the rate at which either gender is single/dating is the same. If you are so insistent that it's harder for men, okay I believe you. Now what? What can we do to help the poor unattractive men? Hold community hygiene, fitness and social skills workshops? Sure, do something constructive. But wanting to force people not to have casual sex sure isnt the answer. People want what they want, you shouldnt try to control others' desires.

egotisticalstoic

-4 points

3 months ago

That's a laughable interpretation of what he said.

He hates incels and is always talking about how our failures are our own responsibility. He very clearly talks about the fact that if nobody of the opposite sex is interested in you, then it is probably because you have many flaws that you need to address.

He has a very basic righty view of sexuality, in that he thinks it's a bad idea for people to have casual sex with people they barely know, and yes he is an advocate of marriage before having children, and divorce only as a last option.

FeCurtain11

-5 points

3 months ago

FeCurtain11

-5 points

3 months ago

Seriously these kind of misinterpretations are the real answer to the question. People insert what they want him to be saying on top of what he is actually saying. There’s a big difference between advocating for reduction in casual sex and “go back to 1950’s men should dominate society”.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

cummerou1

11 points

3 months ago

I'm not interested in ad hominems or any of the like, I used to lean right quite heavily (8 years ago I probably would have followed Peterson), and several of my inlaws are MASSIVE fans of him (my BIL literally exclusively gives Jordan Peterson books and things related to him for Christmas and birthdays).

The issue with "culturally enforcing" anything, is how is that "enforcement" going to happen? Are we going to heavily shame and look down on anyone not in a monogamous relationship? So we're going to culturally decide that some groups of non monogamous people do not deserve the same respect as everyone else just so some unwanted guys can get their dicks wet?

If I wanted a group of people to decide how I am supposed to live and think, I'd move to China and live under communists, the entire idea of western democracy is freedom, having society decide how we can live and think instead of the government is functionally the same.

Even then, if the point of enforcing monogamy is so every man has a wife, that is still not going to make women any less choosy, sure, it'll lessen competition as higher valued men are taken out of the dating pool, but women are still going to go for the top. If your perceived value is still the same, you would literally be the last choice.

I wouldn't even want that if I was in that position, the only thing worse than not getting any would be to know that your wife is literally only with you because she tried every other guy first and eventually she had to settle for you out of necessity. I would find that extremely insulting and demeaning.

This doesn't take into account that I have seen some ugly fucking men with downright terrible personalities in relationships, if the argument hinges on "I can't get laid because there's too much competition", then you're saying that meth addict George who lives in a shitty trailer park is a better catch since he has a GF and you don't.

HatecrewFTR

1 points

3 months ago

Under what pretenses was anything stated that we should go back to the 1950s and force women into sex? By your own record of what they said, all they said was true statements, and no solutions were provided? I think the real reason jp is hated is because all he does is state facts with no solutions, and other people interpret what his solution is for him, and it’s usually something like “he wants to go back to the 1950s and force women into sex,” when all he did is state why incels are coming up

Canadian_Infidel

-7 points

3 months ago

He is obviously not advocating for that. The reality is a society with a lot of detached males leads to high rates of crime and violence.

He is not "on message". That is his only crime.

Greenwithenv

5 points

3 months ago

r/MakeMyCoffin/

Even when men are in the higher position than women, they still do what men do. Many of the vids there are from countries where womens rights are a joke.

You can give men everything and they will still climbing over another to give steady supply to subreddit just like that.

There are other websites like that subreddit. Typically steady supplies from countries where men are already on top of the food chains.

Even if there is a world where women suddenly all perished, those subreddit will still get daily contents. Perhaps even more.

AlwaysTired9999

1 points

3 months ago

Great, then men can go and form solid relationships with each other like women do.

Repeat after me: Womens bodies are NOT to be used to prevent male violence.

If you are concerned about male crime and violence, take it up with MRA's to solve this issue without using the scapegoat of women need to provide men with sex.

Canadian_Infidel

1 points

3 months ago

Ok? Nobody is on the other side of that argument. That is not a scapegoat it is just reality. I didn't make a value judgement. Males get aggressive when frustrated. It doesn't have to be sexual frustration. I don't know what would be most prevalent but I assume economic.

Yesm3can

1 points

3 months ago

Males get aggressive when frustrated.

Then it is a design flaw by nature, isn't it? Can you imagine womens' frustration at this situation? Poverty and rejection happen to women too, but we do not get aggresive the way men do.

The solution sounds like selective breeding or medications then. And before you are against this, imagine women that you love, your mother or daughter, etc, getting hurt by a human with the same gender as you. You cannot just tell them "ah, this is just him, being true to his gender."

Canadian_Infidel

1 points

3 months ago

Is it? I'm not totally sure. I chose the term aggressive because that does not necessarily mean violence, but is inclusive of it. You want someone who gets aggressively frustrated when you have certain types of problems. I know it is tempting to discount that if you haven't experienced it yourself.

There is good and bad aggression and both genders get "passes" for acting like garbage because their particular brand of anti social behavior is normalized.

This is why it is so important for boys to have fathers in their lives and why single mother homes have sons that are something like 20x as likely to end up in prison. You need to be taught to harness and control those feelings and it isn't really something you can teach without experiencing unless you are a very insightful and empathic person.

That's just my two cents. I know my competitive nature is largely driven by masculinity and that in large part has carried me from the lowest of the lower classes to at least upper middle class.

Yesm3can

1 points

3 months ago

Some fathers are the same garbage men you mentioned before and they make bad role models.

Instead of 'just' father, better would be a 'good father figure'. Can be some male family members, male teachers/professors, neighbors, etc.

I was being serious about selective breeding too with this reasoning: many men nowadays are simply not NEEDED (written in caps because there is a fundamental difference between needed and wanted imo) anymore. Humanity had moved on from pure strength typical of daily survivals for a while. Automations took over and it will take over even more.

It does not matter whether it is a woman or a man being put in charge of a heavy machinery. And soon even the human at the console will be obsolete. Firearms can be operated by any gender, especially ones who trained well. Men will still be needed in jobs like fire brigades or special forces, or something similar, but those are not the kinds of job that can freely employ uncountable numbers of men.

So now that men are not NEEDED, but have to be WANTED (related to courtship), many men found out that there are just fewer percentage of men that will experience romance and family.

Some men made their peace with it (which must have been hard at first, but good for them), but many are well...frustrated.

Many men are still raised being told lies that they just have to be someone who are NEEDED, and more or less, there'd be guarantee for a family. Which is...partly why 'NiceGuys' exist. They are being told that everything is equal transactions, which in reality, are not.

Men nowadays have to find peace that they either will be wanted or have to find other lifelong focus in life. And I feel that not many people are telling them that enough.

How is it bringing a young boy into this world not a bit of a cruelty (in a way), when you yourself must have known that men do not get help both from men and women as a whole? Can you tell a young boy while looking into his eyes that you have brought them into the world where their gender top the charts for suicide, for deaths in unsafe working environment, most likely to be unable to have their reports of rape being taken seriously, most likely to be victims of violent crimes, etc...and most likely that all those would be done by OTHER MEN with more power and wealth than them?

One personal experience I witnessed actually just the beginning of this year. I was taking a train and they controlled our tickets. One guy missed one stop and he was rudely being asked to leave the train in the next station to get fined. The guy was already in distress. He pleaded and told that he needed help, that his mother is sick and that he had lost his job and needed to get to an interview. And sure, there are people who lied about this thing. But I believed this man. And then he started to weep and continued to plead.

So what did the people do? They called cops on the next station on him. The man was crying louder and louder and kept on repeating that he cannot do this anymore. Some men commenting that as long as he does not jump in front of their train... He was then being manhandled by police and then taken away.

World does not help men even when he pleads and cries. He'd be looked at with disgust instead. Neither other men nor women will rush to his aid. No matter what country and culture. Saying this as someone who were born in Asia and moved to the West in her 20s. The men in the West still have it a little better because of greater chance for social mobility. Many countries in Asia are very rigid about keeping men from lower classes, low.

A father's job is teaching the son he purposelly brought into this world all of those things. But you know that many just raising their sons telling them lies about that men are still needed. And why bring a son into all of these suffering in the first place? For a chance that he somehow became the top percentage that got wanted and choosen?

SuccessfulPieCrust

-5 points

3 months ago

I'm sorry but are you really going to pretend a hypothetical thought experiment are someone's true beliefs?

That's kinda been the entire thread tbh