Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[Bob Kelso]

The chaos from femininity talk is particularly off putting. Even as an allegorical device.

Well, he is pretty clear about minimizing that as a symbolic reference, and it's not his own idea. It goes to both Apollo vs. Dionysus, Yin/Yang, and also to the writings of some of the authors he's mentioned a lot, like Jung and Nietzsche.

Except that he continuously references it... Standing behind the notion resolutely. Like in a New York Times article:

”You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else. They’d be transhuman or something. We wouldn’t be able to talk to these new creatures.”

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style...e.amp.html

Even in just normal speak, we can all identify personality traits that we'd acknowledge as generally feminine or masculine, without investing in stereotyping.

For example, I'd say that a caring instinct, especially for small helpless things, is generally a feminine trait-- wouldn't you? That doesn't mean that all women are caring or that no men are caring-- it's just acknowledgment of a pretty easily-observed gender difference overall.

This is not what he’s doing. He didn’t make use of an old symbolistic reference for no reason.

Can I ask you who you think his target audience is? I think it’s blatantly obvious, given enough consideration.

The problem is that some parties will immediately trigger-- talking about how I'm imposing a patriarchal view, or how gender expression is a rainbow, or whatever else their personal world views require hysterical shouting about.

I rarely find myself on the side of the easily triggered, in fact I tend to disagree with the current left about a lot of things. That said, Peterson’s views got a reaction from me and not without reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

Shhh, shh, this thread is for licking the Petehole.  Like, did you even -read- his book, bro? 

In any case, peterson defends and makes excuses for the patriarchy (and other assorted undesirables)..both in his "self help" book and elsewhere.. because he has to, as a traditionalist.  Hell, as a jungian.  There must be Reasons™ and good reasons, for the way in which we've editorialized our existence all this time, otherwise The Tradition is soup sandwich.

But, hey..he has vrry smrt things to say, right?

It looks to me like the so-called oppression of the patriarchy was instead an imperfect collective attempt by men and women, stretching over millennia, to free each other from privation, disease and drudgery. The recent case of Arunachalam Muruganantham provides a salutary example. This man, the “tampon king” of India, became unhappy because his wife had to use dirty rags during her menstrual period. She told him it was either expensive sanitary napkins, or milk for the family. He spent the next fourteen years in a state of insanity, by his neighbours’ judgment, trying to rectify the problem. Even his wife and his mother abandoned him, briefly, terrified as they became of his obsession. When he ran out of female volunteers to test his product, he took to wearing a bladder of pig’s blood as a replacement. I can’t see how this behaviour would have improved his popularity or status. Now his low-cost and locally made napkins are distributed across India, manufactured by women-run self-help groups. His users have been provided with freedom they never previously experienced. In 2014, this high-school dropout was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential “people in the world. I am unwilling to consider personal gain Muruganantham’s primary motivation. Is he part of the patriarchy?.....

The first practical tampon, Tampax, didn’t arrive until the 1930s. It was invented by Dr. Earle Cleveland Haas. He made it of compressed cotton, and designed an applicator from paper tubes. This helped lessen resistance to the products by those “who objected to the self-touching that might otherwise occur. By the early 1940s, 25 percent of women were using them. Thirty years later, it was 70 percent. Now it’s four out of five, with the remainder relying on pads, which are now hyper-absorbent, and held in place by effective adhesives (opposed to the awkwardly placed, bulky, belted, diaper-like sanitary napkins of the 1970s). Did Muruganantham, Simpson and Haas oppress women, or free them? What about Gregory Goodwin Pincus, who invented the birth control pill? In what manner were these practical, enlightened, persistent men part of a constricting patriarchy?

[EgoDeath]

Yea let's all just keep using "the patriarchy" as excuse instead of trying to get our lives together ourselves! I can't get my life together! The patriarchy is holding me back! No it's this godam Presidential administration! No, it's packs of rabid dogs that control most major cities!

Or, you can be a rational person and you might come to the conclusion that:

The patriarchy has and can be a terrible thing that should be challenged, because everyone should have equal rights

Yea, Trump and his administration is a bunch of assholes

Fuck rabid dogs, I chew Big Red anyway

Despite all of this I'm going to get my life together anyway and work on ME.

Just a thought.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yea let's all just keep using "the patriarchy" as excuse instead of trying to get our lives together ourselves! I can't get my life together! The patriarchy is holding me back! No it's this godam Presidential administration! No, it's packs of rabid dogs that control most major cities!

Or, you can be a rational person and you might come to the conclusion that:

The patriarchy has and can be a terrible thing that should be challenged, because everyone should have equal rights

Yea, Trump and his administration is a bunch of assholes

Fuck rabid dogs, I chew Big Red anyway

Despite all of this I'm going to get my life together anyway and work on ME.

Just a thought.

-You- might come to that conclusion...but peterson argues for "so-called oppression"....and hey, wasn't it men that found a way to plug the holes of their domestics! Checkmate, libtards.

Petersons view, more than a little bit contradictory since he doesn't think it's a real thing, is that it's natural and it works and it benefits Teh Ladiez. So stop complaining and bootstrap yourself! The world is too feminized nowadays, donchaknow?

[robvalue]

How can he claim the patriarchy isn't a real thing? It's been caught on video!

[Bob Kelso]

Peterson seems to think that what some call the patriarchy is in fact a meritocracy.

”The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.”

This is from the same article I listed before. An article where the bloke then talks about “forced monogamy” being the cure for incels like Alek Minassian.

---

Again, I ask:

Who do you think his target audience is?

[The Grand Nudger]

It -must- be a meritocracy.  Otherwise the tradition rewards something else.....and he's an entitled nitwit, lol.

[EgoDeath]

Yea let's all just keep using "the patriarchy" as excuse instead of trying to get our lives together ourselves! I can't get my life together! The patriarchy is holding me back! No it's this godam Presidential administration! No, it's packs of rabid dogs that control most major cities!

Or, you can be a rational person and you might come to the conclusion that:

The patriarchy has and can be a terrible thing that should be challenged, because everyone should have equal rights

Yea, Trump and his administration is a bunch of assholes

Fuck rabid dogs, I chew Big Red anyway

Despite all of this I'm going to get my life together anyway and work on ME.

Just a thought.

-You- might come to that conclusion...but peterson argues for "so-called oppression"....and hey, wasn't it men that found a way to plug the holes of their domestics!  Checkmate, libtards.

Petersons view, more than a little bit contradictory since he doesn't think it's a real thing, is that it's natural and it works and it benefits Teh Ladiez.   So stop complaining and bootstrap yourself!  The world is too feminized nowadays, donchaknow?

How does he argue FOR oppression? Please explain.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have access to the same excerpt, quoted in this thread.  Why do you think, when he says.....

It looks to me like the so-called oppression of the patriarchy was instead an imperfect collective attempt by men and women, stretching over millennia, to free each other from privation, disease and drudgery.

....that he means something other than what he chose to write? What do you think? Is it..is that what the so-called oppression of the patriarchy is? Does he make a compelling case by way of tampons and birth control? Just a bunch of folks looking out for each other, trying to help?

More generally, why is it that peterson apologists who constantly argue that everyone misunderstands him can't accept him for what he is, vocally..and self identified as such? He advocates for our traditions. To the extent that our traditions are patriarchal, oppressive, racist, or just generally bigoted, he offers explanation and accomodation. After all..they're natural..and they work (for some values of "work"..and some people, lol). They're truer than true. This is why so and so is archetypal in the first place. To go against that is to risk the downfall of western civ in a fem-commiepocalypse.

That's peterson. That's his book. That's his brand. If we're going to have a discussion about any of those three things..it shouldn't have to be argued in.

[EgoDeath]

You have access to the same excerpt, quoted in this thread.  Why do you think, when he says.....

It looks to me like the so-called oppression of the patriarchy was instead an imperfect collective attempt by men and women, stretching over millennia, to free each other from privation, disease and drudgery.

....that he means something other than what he chose to write?  What do you think?  Is it..is that what the so-called oppression of the patriarchy is?  Does he make a compelling case by way of tampons and birth control?  Just a bunch of folks looking out for each other, trying to help?  

More generally, why is it that peterson apologists who constantly argue that everyone misunderstands him can't accept him for what he is, vocally..and self identified as such?  He advocates for our traditions.  To the extent that our traditions are patriarchal, oppressive, racist, or just generally bigoted, he offers explanation and accomodation.  After all..they're natural..and they work (for some values of "work"..and some people, lol).  They're truer than true.  This is why so and so is archetypal in the first place.  To go against that is to risk the downfall of western civ in a commiepocalypse.

That's peterson.  That's his book.  That's his brand.  If we're going to have a discussion about any of those three things..it shouldn't have to be argued in.

What chapter is this from? Your interpretation of Peterson's words seems presumptuous and pessimistic at best. I DO think Peterson is far too attached to the idea of traditions and romanticizes religion and the uber religious eras of the past far too much. But do I think he is FOR patriarchy? I wouldn't quite say that. I would say he's for a society that finds that balance between order and chaos, as that is what he recommends for individuals interested in self-improvement. (as he clearly states in 12 Rules).

He DOES seem to value order, tradition and authority a little more than I personally do. I find myself too expressive and rebellious to subscribe 100% to that type of thinking. However, YOU seem to be the one assuming he is writing something other than what he is saying.