I’m a huge fan of Dr. Jordan Peterson, the Canadian clinical psychologist who kicked off an important debate about the power of states to compel speech. Canadian politicians recently came up with the hare-brained scheme that the government should pass laws on what citizens can not say, but also on what they must say. The fact that this debate was about transgender pronouns is immaterial. It could have been about anything. All citizens are required to refer to Justin Trudeau as Mama-in-a-Polka-Dot-Handkerchief, and it would be equally absurd.
Peterson’s critics have an ideological and philosophical opposition to the idea of logos, expressed either as logic or dialogue, on the grounds that logos is the tool of the oppressor to hold down the wimmins and brown folks who can’t logic or talk. It is both hilarious and ironic that Peterson, of course, makes no such argument, but his critics do. One side thinks women and non-white, non-European people are stupid. and it’s not Peterson.
Scratch a feminist, find a misogynist.
Scratch a progressive, find a racist.
I have pre-ordered Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, and I am very much looking forward to reading it, and passing it on to my children to read. In fact, I might read it aloud to them. Reading aloud is one of our family’s traditions, beginning with toddler books. We made it through the entire Harry Potter series, The Hunger Games trilogy, The Maze Runner series, the Rule of Three trilogy and now we are reading And Then You’re Dead and discussing the differences between the possible and the probable.
Pretty sure my kids are ready to digest and discuss Petersen.
Unlike the feminist in this video, who offered her mind up like a lamb to the slaughter. This whole exchange is really worth watching, just to see how the average feminist argues.
Charitably, let’s say her misunderstanding of Jordan’s positions is willful and deliberate, although I rather think not. My experience with most feminists is that they think critical thought is the same as arguing in a high school debate class, where techniques like derailing and turning constitute a ‘win’, which feminists then misconstrue as ‘understanding’.
The winning condition for a feminist is never to understand. It is to feel. Angry, avenged, justified, vindicated, outrageous, virtuous – whatever the feeling, that’s how feminists argue. This particular feminist seems oblivious to how patiently Peterson lets her hang herself. At one point she is so flummoxed, she doesn’t know what to feel, and is therefore speechless. “You’ve got me,” she says, almost giddy in Peterson’s power.
Apologies for the icky visual, but if she were hooked up to the kind of vaginal monitoring device Daniel Bergner explores in What Do Women Want: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire, how many people think her arousal indicators would be off the map? Show a woman, even a feminist, images of women submitting to male desire and physical power, and invariable a fresh pair of panties will be needed. Peterson looks like he finds her about as attractive as a rotting bowl of fruit, so we can expect a #MeToo harassment accusation fairly shortly, I should imagine.
Enjoy the evisceration.
Lots of love,