Classic, straight-up misogyny
Sean Illing at Vox talks to feminist philosopher Kate Manne about what’s really so great about Jordan Peterson anyway?
Sean Illing
Peterson has this recurring interest in identifying social hierarchies, which resonates with people who think they’re in danger of losing their privileged position or are resentful about having lost it. This is something you really home in on in your review of his book.
Kate Manne
Yeah. I mean, it’s striking. There’s an interesting moment in the book where Peterson talks about resentment as a “revelatory” emotion that can mean one of two things. One, you feel it because you’re immature, in which case you just need to buck up. Two, you feel resentment because you really are being oppressed or taken advantage of somehow. Your resentment shows you that something needs to change or that you need to assert yourself in relation to other people.
But there is clearly a third possibility. People often feel resentful because they appear, based on historically entrenched social norms, to be getting a bad bargain, when what’s actually happening is that others are getting a somewhat fairer deal. When you’re accustomed to unjust privilege, equality feels like oppression, as the saying goes.
In that third case, some sort of regret- or dislike-based emotion may be reasonable, while resentment is not. If there’s some oversight at the picnic such that I get an extra brownie and someone else gets no brownie, I may feel passionate sorrow as I hand the extra brownie over for transfer, but I really have no business feeling resentment. I have a feeling humans in general aren’t very good at separating those two things.
Sean Illing
I know that Peterson received some criticism recently for endorsing, or appearing to endorse, “enforced monogamy.” To be fair, this is a very particular anthropological term that doesn’t imply that the government is literally forcing people into monogamous relationships, but instead refers to social policies that incentivize monogamy.
What does he actually say about this in the book?
Kate Manne
He said that subsequently, in a New York Times piece, I believe, in response to the point that school shooters are often sexually, romantically, and socially frustrated young men. This suggestion is classic, straight-up misogyny, according to my definition of it.
Peterson has since waffled about what he meant, but I’m mostly interested in how the proposal would naturally be understood by ordinary readers, which leaves little room for charitable interpretation or plausible deniability in this case.
Peterson is very close-mouthed about the prevalence of domestic violence, marital rape, and intimate partner homicide in the context of the idea of enforced monogamy. So if you’re trying to prevent male violence, enforcing heterosexual monogamy seems a remarkably poor way to go about it — as well as obviously infringing on women’s entitlement to orient themselves toward whatever and whomever they wish (other women, multiple partners, and their own projects and ambitions). Monogamous relationships are just one potentially valid option among many, all of which have risks and rewards, costs and benefits.
And given the current state of patriarchal views of women, they probably shouldn’t be enforced, even via social policies.
Dave at We Hunted the Mammoth did an interesting piece a while back on sexual market value and the idea that women should be issued a card with their SMV on it, using parameters to determine such dreamed up by the incel posting this nonsense.
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/04/28/prevent-future-incel-terrorism-by-banning-makeup-forcing-women-to-have-sex-with-creepy-weirdos-creepy-weirdo-suggests/
Whatever Peterson means by his “enforced monogamy” (and I suspect he is being a bit disingenuous, and his ambiguity has the express purpose of deniability), it is no secret what his followers think of that. They should be given women…or at the very least, women should be forced to have sex with them.
And if that isn’t bad enough, there are those who feel women should be in fear of death for choosing their own preferences:
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/06/04/incel-me-commenters-agree-women-should-fear-death-if-they-turn-down-a-guy-for-a-date/
It’s probably nit-picky – or people just home in on different grains of analysis – but getting ticky because people are now getting a somewhat fairer deal and you’re losing privilege does seem fairly described as “you feel it because you’re immature, in which case you just need to buck up.” Distinguishing a third possibility that makes it out as somewhat different because it’s losing some systemic, traditional unfairness that favored you doesn’t seem to be a particularly salient difference.
That said, it’s probably not what Peterson had in mind. Still though – is there something wrong with analyzing the clutching at unearned, unfair accustomed privilege as immaturity? It strikes me as spot-on: here’s a place in your worldview where you’ve never had to grow up. In the case of (e.g.) traditional Muslim men from conservative backgrounds, there’s this spot where they’ve never had to grow past being adolescents with infantile impulse control and preventing them from being driven mad with lust is a burden on women who’ve got to stay covered up. The revelation that adults are expected to keep their hands to themselves and their pants on regardless of the state of other people’s clothing is very much like having to grow up, like confronting immaturity.
Interesting question.
The thing is…it’s genuinely difficult to see (perceive, grasp, notice, realize) things we’ve always not seen (etc) before. Custom is a strong force. On the other hand like most people I’m shocked by things that people don’t notice (but then I think about things I didn’t notice until I did…) because surely the most basic kinds of sympathy ought to kick in.
So I don’t know. Yes people ought to be able to see unearned privilege as just that, but when you grow up in a particular situation it can be very difficult to see around it.
Bad as whats-his-name is, this came as a surprise to me. (May be common knowledge here already.) Kate Manne:
“Peterson’s to me (and my informants’) eyebrow-raising babysitting techniques included holding a two year-old child down until they went limp.”
Apparently this peculiar excuse for a human being gets into dominance displays with toddlers. If you read the comment thread (never read the comment thread) there are plenty who think this is a good idea. Jaw dropped. Dislocated. On floor.
quixote, I was recently involved in a discussion with members of my writer’s group in which at least one of them (a thoroughly Christian woman who writes Christian inspirational poetry that is typical insipid Christian pablum of the nice, moderate Christian variety) expressed the sentiment that children could be whipped with electrical cords and wooden spoons without it being child abuse. She said, and I quote “never spank a child with your hands. Hands are for loving”.
Any child care I have seen that advocates spanking at all says that you must do it with your hands, because you will hurt your hands if you get too hard, and that can help prevent hurting the child too much.
For the record, electrical cords are meant for plugging things in. Wooden spoons are meant for stirring. Children deserve better than a Christian upbringing.