Jordan Peterson attacked in The Australian: Jordan Peterson regurgitates discredited male chauvinism of the 1970s. The article’s last para:
Waking up at 35, desperate to have a child, is not a good realisation, as Peterson says. That reasonable point prompted the young man hosting the video to chip in with a charmless insight — that the anxieties of mid-30s women keen to be mothers are known as “baby rabies’’ among “plenty of communities of young men … in the dating scene’’. There is no lack of work for psychologists. But young women are not the ones who most need help.
And now from the comments, working from the first of the Top Comments and then down.
This article is akin to Cathy Newman’s interview of Peterson. It’s taking what Peterson says out of context or is straight-out inaccurate. One of the refreshing things about Peterson is that he’s telling home truths, and bases many or most of his observations on decades of being a treating psychologist of both men and women. What an irony that a female journalist chooses to block the concerns and experience of many women in this rant against him.
Young women entering law, he claims, will find it “very, very demanding, very, very difficult, very, very stressful and very, very competitive. And you’re not going to find the fulfilment of your desire for intimate, close interpersonal relationships’’. How patronising. Isn’t he just telling it like it is and asking of women in particular “is this what you want”?
“In exaggerating the problems that women can expect to face in demanding careers, Peterson casts doubt on their capabilities” He’s neither exaggerating nor casting doubts on capabilities, he is again asking “is this what you want”.
Jordan Petersen has kept his own practice as a clinical psychologist outside his University work and the points he makes are from experience with many women who have come to him in that private practice with problems created by the real-life trials and tribulations he now seeks to point out to those who will listen.
It’s disappointing, but not unexpected, for the article to refer, in a pejorative fashion that the advice of Dr Peterson appeals to “some conservatives” suggesting extreme right-wingers and thus to be ignored. He claims no political position and an interest only in the truth.
@Neil I agree with Peterson – I’m a doctor working 60 hours a week – it is hard, very demanding and very stressful. Having close interpersonal relationships is extremely difficult – luckily my husband is happy to work as a team to raise children and understood the impact my career would have on family life before he married me.
“By the time you’re 40, if you don’t have a family and children you are one lost soul.’’
That’s true, as a generalisation. Obviously some women do not ever want to have kids and live happily without them, but the vast majority eventually realise children are what they want most of all. It’s usually around 35 that it dawns on them they’ve wasted their best years sleeping around with worthless men and obsessing over meaningless work.
This doesn’t affect men as much because there is usually no shortage of younger women willing to date older men, and men remain fertile their whole life. Women, on the other hand, struggle to find a decent partner once they hit 35 and inevitably have to significantly lower their standards. The result is more miserable women, more broken families, more neglected children and more socialism to pay for it all.. Feminism is self-defeating and unfortunately it’s women who usually end up worse off.
You might say Peterson is patronising; I say he is realistic.
Why do people with a left jaundiced view find it so hard to actually listen to what Peterson actually said?
He seems to get a lot of support from women in their 50s and over so you cant speak for them as a group. This is the type of emotive shallow analysis that drives people to Peterson. The contrast between Newman and Peterson was embarrassing and your contribution is almost as insipid as Newman’s was.
One has always to be careful of an article like this…cherry picking without context is dangerous. I have seen a lot of Petersons work and I have rarely heard him say anything that would upset a well grounded woman. That is why his interview with Cathy Newman was such a car crash (for her) She tried on the feminist rant only to be met with sensible well researched answers that she could not deal with.
I don’t find Jordan Peterson patronising. He is realistic and respectful – realistic about the differing natures of men and women and able to recognise, as most feminists do not, that difference does not mean unequal in value.
Sorry Tessa, but I can’t fault a single word that JP says in this video.
I know from personal experience that pursuing a career is hard work, often unsatisfying, always competitive…and it doesn’t come without many sacrifices.
Young women are fed a whole lot of aspirational and unrealistic claptrap, which is all well and good for some, but for others, it simply leads to regret and disappointment.
JP’s video dispels some of the myths that are fed to young women about what’s important in life.
More power to him.
I think the writer must have watched a different video to the one I saw? Either that or she has a problem listening and actually responding to what was said rather than responding to what she wanted him to say!
Classic false arguments being used here.
“Straw man” : she misrepresents what he said so she can tear it down.
“Red herring”: he’s trying to tell girls not to work but to just marry and have kids.
“Argumentum ad hominen”: he is an old-fashioned chauvinist troglodyte so we should abuse him and not hear what he has to say.
He would demolish Tess in a debate.
Tess – this is not a fair analysis of what Peterson has actually said. It is a lazy and biased set of unsupported assumptions.