He’s being “made fun of” because he’s a misogynist, a sophist, and a hypocrite. The crying is incidental. Less obviously heinous people overwhelmingly receive sympathy in their vulnerability. If I’m getting your argument right you’re saying: “people are mean to men who cry so indeed men shouldn’t cry”. The takeaway is surely, “be less of a dickhead” rather than “cry less”.
Also, I’m not saying men should cry less. I’m just saying that the people who tell men it’s ok to cry are usually the ones who get more bothered when it happens.
I’m going to be generous and assume you haven’t read his work, at least not critically. You should go listen to the episodes of the “behind the bastards” podcast about him or read more or less anything written about him:
The nyt link I couldn’t read because it’s paywalled.
The other link I do agree that he’s wrong about women’s oppression over time and I get that that’s why you call him a misogynist. To me, it seems he’s saying that women’s oppression was due to the constraints of the time period and not the active need of men to want to put women down. While I think he’s wrong I don’t think he hates women or thinks they’re inferior because of it. But the rest of the article is laughable. The reason people reject feminism and wokeness is not because of the need to maintain men in the pedestal of priviledge. It’s because it is hypocritical (tends to cherry pick issues and even subsets of issues) and because they hyperfocus on equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.
You’re throwing out unevidenced, and frankly not very relevant, generalizations again.
Can you honestly not see that a man why literally describes women as inherently chaotic, and men as inherently ordered, who advocates openly for “forced monogamy”, is hateful. If so I guess we have nothing more to say to each other. Just because he dresses it up in flowery language doesn’t make it less repulsive.
Nah the people he grifted were “misguided”. He had all the time in the world to realize the toxic impact he was having on the world, he was intellectually gifted and granted extraordinary power and influence (as a direct consequence of his deliberately reactionary positions he took), at that point you have to be giving a truly naive amount of benefit-of-the-doubt to not conclude malice.
He’s being “made fun of” because he’s a misogynist, a sophist, and a hypocrite. The crying is incidental. Less obviously heinous people overwhelmingly receive sympathy in their vulnerability. If I’m getting your argument right you’re saying: “people are mean to men who cry so indeed men shouldn’t cry”. The takeaway is surely, “be less of a dickhead” rather than “cry less”.
Why is he a misogynist?
Also, I’m not saying men should cry less. I’m just saying that the people who tell men it’s ok to cry are usually the ones who get more bothered when it happens.
Do they? Do you have any evidence of that.
I’m going to be generous and assume you haven’t read his work, at least not critically. You should go listen to the episodes of the “behind the bastards” podcast about him or read more or less anything written about him:
https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-men-drawn-to-jordan-petersons-intellectual-misogyny/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
Edit with non paywalled link
http://archive.today/8bBl4
The nyt link I couldn’t read because it’s paywalled.
The other link I do agree that he’s wrong about women’s oppression over time and I get that that’s why you call him a misogynist. To me, it seems he’s saying that women’s oppression was due to the constraints of the time period and not the active need of men to want to put women down. While I think he’s wrong I don’t think he hates women or thinks they’re inferior because of it. But the rest of the article is laughable. The reason people reject feminism and wokeness is not because of the need to maintain men in the pedestal of priviledge. It’s because it is hypocritical (tends to cherry pick issues and even subsets of issues) and because they hyperfocus on equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.
You’re throwing out unevidenced, and frankly not very relevant, generalizations again.
Can you honestly not see that a man why literally describes women as inherently chaotic, and men as inherently ordered, who advocates openly for “forced monogamy”, is hateful. If so I guess we have nothing more to say to each other. Just because he dresses it up in flowery language doesn’t make it less repulsive.
To me for something to be hateful, there needs to be intent to hurt behind it. In this case I believe he is just wrong and missguided.
But to each person different definitions, I guess.
Nah the people he grifted were “misguided”. He had all the time in the world to realize the toxic impact he was having on the world, he was intellectually gifted and granted extraordinary power and influence (as a direct consequence of his deliberately reactionary positions he took), at that point you have to be giving a truly naive amount of benefit-of-the-doubt to not conclude malice.
Yes yes, everyone famous you disagree is evil. Start making a list.
What?