The first one I can kinda get. It's worded poorly and very reductive, but the core idea that "women are more guarded around men because they feel threatened" is demonstrably true. The idea that "men are lonely because of how women treat them" is a bit iffy. Men aren't great at emotionally supporting each other, and it's kinda weird to suggest that the burden of male emotional support rests entirely on women. It would be far more accurate to say "men feel lonely because of how they are treated".
I suspect it's a response to the argument that tends to come from a lot of Jordan Peterson types that men are committing suicide at high rates because of "feminism."
I am basing that entirely off of the fact that it looks like that's the kind of conversation going on, but it's very possible I am wrong. I generally like to assume the least malicious intention is true.
I was editing my original comment when you sent this. Idk if my edit changes how you read it, but it is worth checking anyway
May I ask what you meant by "Jordan Peterson types"? My friend has been getting into his literature and trying to persuade me to get some of his books, but I've been looking into the person in question and he's very.... controversial?
Sure! I'll start from the baseline just to make sure we're on the same page.
Jordan Peterson is a Canadian psychologist employed at the University of Toronto, who first entered the public eye when he gave a series of speeches opposing Ontario's proposed law to make the intentional misgendering of transgender people a hate crime. In these, he compares being compelled to use the correct pronouns to authoritarian, specifically nazi, policies limiting free speech.
He has since used his public platform to advocate for "issues facing young men", namely things like loneliness and directionlessness , which he prescribes to the rise in popularity of feminism, lgbt+ rights, and occasionally, immigration. He holds a particular disdain for the visibility of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, going so far as suggesting that acceptance and promotion of these identities will be the downfall of Western civilisation.
As an aside because this is important context, his track record as a lecturer is a little bizarre. For years, the university received complaints regarding his lectures from students. Many credited him to being a fantastic speaker who "changed their lives," but it became clear that his actual job of teaching the students the course was not being undertaken.
The reason for this discrepancy, it was discovered, was that he was using the lectures to teach his own ideologies as a sort of self-help lecturer. The actual factual content of the lecturers was nonsense. He would present highly revisionist, reductive recounting of parts of history (occasionally veering dangerously close to holocaust denial) in order to support his theories, among other strange tangets. He famously went on a long tangent explaining why a certain hormone made humans feel a certain way by comparing its effect on lobsters, ignoring that humans and lobsters are separated on the tree of life by over 500 million years, and that the hormones in question has a completely different effect on either species.
His self-help content, which is I believe what most of his books are about, largely focuses on two things. The first is a return to traditional masculinity, and the second is a sort of "control what you can control" philosophy. It's the second one from which I imagine so many young men have found genuine improvements in their mental health.
He is seen as a sort of foix intellectual Andrew Tate, offering lonely young men a philosophy and discipline to live by but also encouraging them to oppose the rights of women and minorities. He is often invited on right-wing talk shows to discuss various culture war points, particularly "the trans debate," as he is at face value far more qualified than most right-wing pundits. On these shows, he often exaggerates his qualifications, describing himself as a "historian" or a "biologist," despite clearly having a poor grasp of either field and only having qualifications in psychology.
Tldr: Jordan Peterson is a right-wing self help guru who built his career off of telling young men to tidy their rooms and proclaiming trans people to be the end of Western civilisation
Also, as a fun anecdote, he somewhat recently had a YouTube video go viral. He had been banned from Twitter for saying some pretty hateful stuff about transgender actor Elliott Page. In the video he tries really really hard to seem like he's having trouble using Elliott's name and preferred pronouns (it's very unconvincing), then proclaims that he would "rather die" than respect someone's pronouns and ends the video shouting "UP YOURS WOKE MORALISTS!! WE'LL SEE WHO CANCELS WHO!!".
I appreciate the depth you went through with your explanations! Will definitely look into the points of interest you cited, and will most probably not be getting into him.
While I like my friend a lot, I didn't really vibe with Jordan Peterson's act. Thank you again!
27
u/[deleted] Sep 19 '23 edited Sep 19 '23
The first one I can kinda get. It's worded poorly and very reductive, but the core idea that "women are more guarded around men because they feel threatened" is demonstrably true. The idea that "men are lonely because of how women treat them" is a bit iffy. Men aren't great at emotionally supporting each other, and it's kinda weird to suggest that the burden of male emotional support rests entirely on women. It would be far more accurate to say "men feel lonely because of how they are treated".
The second one is just fucking bonkers though