The LA Times wants to help.
Hate on Jordan Peterson all you want, but he's tapping into frustration that feminists shouldn't ignore. If feminists don’t like his message, maybe they should offer a better one. https://t.co/BUjWdErO3V (via @latimesopinion) pic.twitter.com/zc65urHbnU
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 1, 2018
Hate on Jordan Peterson all you want, but he’s tapping into frustration that feminists shouldn’t ignore. If feminists don’t like his message, maybe they should offer a better one.
Hmmmyes, and by the same token, hate on Richard Spencer all you want, but he’s tapping into frustration that Black Lives Matter shouldn’t ignore. If BLM activists don’t like his message, maybe they should offer a better one. Hate on “provocative” anti-PC warrior X all you want, but he’s tapping into frustration that progressives shouldn’t ignore. If progressives don’t like his message, maybe they should offer a better one.
It’s a stupid soundbite. It boils down to telling reformers that there are people who don’t like reformers, as if anyone were in any doubt about that. It also assumes none of the reformers have offered a better message, which is ludicrous. No feminist has said anything better than what Jordan Peterson says?
Please.
Comments
12 responses to “Maybe they should”
It’s funny how many people pretend to offer advice to their opponents. And how often that advice seems curiously like it’s actually more helpful to their own side.
We’re told that criticizing Peterson’s bogosity, or Richard Spenser’s racism, or Trump’s corruption, just makes them more appealing to the populace. “That’s how you got Trump in the first place,” they tell us. Criticizing racism just creates more racists supposedly.
We’re also told that we can’t ignore them.
Apparently that just leaves agreement! Funny how that works….
The onus is put upon the objectified group to bridge the gap between their actualities and the consciousness of the oppressor. The true focus of revolutionary change is that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us, and which knows only the oppressors’ tactics, the oppressors’ relationships.
Audre Lorde, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference”
this is just plain pure ignorant bullshit. who wrote that so-called “opinion”? it’s crap. I have a better message. Here it is: SHUT UP.
I’ve got an alternative and I’m not even a feminist:
Man the fuck up, deal with the fact that women are people, and stop worshipping a vapid pillock.
” No feminist has said anything better than what Jordan Peterson says?”
Well, what feminists ask of men is a lot more effort than “stand up straight,” “tidy your room,” and “keep me rich and at the top of the divinely ordained, eternal hierarchy by buying my book, supporting my Patreon and watching my podcasts without thinking too long or hard about what I’m actually saying.” Peterson confirms that they’re already Right about a lot of things and gives them permission to unleash their Inner Lobster without demanding much else of them at all. Descending en masse on the comment sections of those critical of the Lobster in Chief is just added service in Defence of the Faith. That’s gotta be a lot more fun and a whole lot easier than being decent to half the human race.
Cathy Young wrote it. She covers the “feminists should surrender” beat along with Katie Roiphe and Christina Hoff Sommers.
We have. Now go off and read something feminists have written or said over the past several hundred years, and don’t come back until you’ve done you’re homework.
I just noticed something…do you suppose it’s any coincidence that his position is similar to that of The Thinker? (Not exactly, of course, that would be too obvious, maybe even gauche).
As expected from Young, a garbage opinion piece generated in bad faith, but a bit dangerous for her reactionary agenda to bring up. Because there is in fact something “feminism” should be re-evaluating in its own dogma–at least for the soft serve liberal “feminism” that been adopted by the political and activist left. What first brought Peterson notoriety? The pronoun issue. Peterson doesn’t give a shit about misogyny or female erasure, he’s coming from the bog standard God Hates Perverts (except when I do it) mentality of conservatives, but the superficial public just saw someone in academia finally pushing back vociferously against the modern, patently absurd trans ideology. By coddling and preaching this nonsense in defiance of biological reality experienced by everyone every day, liberal feminism and progressive “allies” created an enormous hole in their messaging for cranks like Peterson to exploit.
Most feminists actually have a better message than Peterson, simply by virtue of being coherent.
Look, there are a lot of issues where I disagree with a lot of feminists (as feminists have with each other) – but on each issue there is an argument to be had, there is some evidence being raised by feminists, some counter evidence, some basic logic going on.
There is an argument over sex work, there is the whole trans argument, there is the argument over when censorship is appropriate – and in each of these arguments there are actually points being raised, there is a fundamental coherency going on that you can get ahold of and really disagree with.
With Peterson the second you disagree with him, you get some apologist coming along making some form of the courtier’s reply, wherein we’re just not smart enough to get his point. It is all up to how you interpret what he’s saying his supporters will say.
Really the more I look at Peterson the more he reminds me of the Emperor’s New Clothes, he’s one of the tailors going on about how smart you have to be to even see his cloth, that doesn’t exist.
Meanwhile your average feminist can at the very least, even if you disagree with them, say it straight enough that you don’t have to puzzle it out that you disagree with them. Peterson’s trick essentially is the old religious selling point of weaponised confusion, the whole idea of presenting statements which are utter horseshit on their face as riddles so only the select can get the true meaning.
He’s like a videogame that makes you feel smart, but is actually very simple. The satisfaction of having figured out his “deeper meaning” masking how unsatisfactory that “deeper meaning” really is.
‘Better message’ seems to mean ‘more effective clickbait.’
Rounding up supporters among the Hikikomori of the red states doesn’t appear to require much of a message. Inflame resentment and prop up vanity…success!
Olde Tyme Social Darwinism, evo-pscyh ‘just so stories’ supporting contemporary social institutions, bullying and threatening anyone who doubts or questions. Golly, THAT’S supposed to be a ‘message?’
I’ve been collecting excoriating commentaries about Peterson, and this is one of the best!
https://medium.com/@alexanderdouglas/review-of-jordan-petersons-stupid-lecture-1bcb3f277373