Jordan Peterson gets quite upset when he is accused of being sexist and misogynist. Unfortunately, his latest response in the ongoing series of debates over whether he is the reincarnation of Nietzsche or merely the latest in a long line of privileged provocateurs claiming the mantle of ‘radical’ while committing themselves to defending conservative social orders suggests that he is definitely a sexist.¹
My evidence for this claim is exceedingly simple. Consider the following two brief excerpts, which bookend his response to Kate Manne‘s thoughtful critique of his work:
On June 6, journalist Sean Illing…interviewed Assistant Professor of Philosophy (Cornell Philosophy Department) Dr. Kate Manne (the “feminist philosopher”) (Dr Kate Manne’s Website) about me and my work.
There is nothing the least bit controversial about any of this, unless you are a doctrinaire radical of the sort likely to characterize your ideological indoctrination and lack of familiarity with the relevant psychological and anthropological literature as “feminist philosophy.”
Here is a textbook definition of sexism in action, revealed quite simply, by the use of scare quotes above.
We use scare quotes around terms to indicate suspicion, skepticism, mockery, dismissal, and the like; to use a pair of these is to indicate that the term in question lacks validity or legitimacy of a certain kind–for instance, were I to want to puncture Peterson’s pretensions to be a serious thinker or an intellectual, I would write the following sentence: “The Canadian academic Jordan Peterson imagines he is a ‘serious thinker’; unfortunately, ‘intellectuals’ like him are frequently confused in such self-assessments.”
What has Peterson placed scare quotes around? Around a title that is quite clearly Manne’s to own: feminist philosopher, and around a field of study she has engaged with: feminist philosophy. Manne is a PhD from MIT, and is a tenured (or tenure-track) assistant professor of philosophy at a reputable institution; she has the professional qualifications in academia–of which Peterson is a member, and whose standards he is well aware of, and indeed acknowledges them above–to be called a philosopher. Moreover, she works in a well-established area of political and ethical philosophy; feminist philosophy is an academic field with practitioners, journals, conferences, and ongoing internal debates and external engagements. There is, in short, precisely no good reason to place scare quotes around either of the two terms above.
Now, the charge of sexism: Peterson does not even place scare quotes around the academic fields and academics he despises: Marxism, postmodernists, doctrinaire radicals. He does not place scare quotes around Sean Illing’s title above. He does not place scare quotes around titles and fields when referring to male academics or the fields they work in. His special animus is reserved for a woman philosopher, working in feminist philosophy (a field of study mostly by, about, and for, women.)
This is textbook sexism. Jordan Peterson is a sexist tool.
Note #1: The charge of misogyny will be far more ably laid by Kate Manne herself; but Peterson’s sneering mannerisms, his self-pity, his anger, all indicate to me this man is a misogynist, and a dangerous one at that.
16 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson Is A Sexist Tool”
It doesn’t follow that dissent of the ideology of feminism, as it usually manifests itself in eternal victimhood, mind-reading of some internalized nonsense, and false accusations for those who don’t conform (of which Dr. Manne’s article is a clear example of) to be an indication of contempt of all women, i.e. misogyny. No, anti-feminism is not anti-women’s rights or misogyny.
And his use for scare quotes probably due to his public contempt of modern feminism and the fact that she, who is not a clinical psychologist, called his practice into question based on deliberate misrepresentation as he demonstrated. Maybe he was rude, fine. But anti-women? Come on!
I’m sure you’re a feminist, good for you. But it is fallacious (and arrogant, if I may say) to assume that if someone doesn’t follow that particular ideology must be anti-women.
Kate did not misrepresent Peterson, deliberately or otherwise. She very reasonably challenged his own flatly contradictory, implausible & grossly self-serving description of the way he treated his client. Read KM’s Twitter feed to get clear about this. Also, “contempt of all women” is not an tenable definition of misogyny, as Kate explains at great & convincing length in her book.
OK, I read Dr. Kate’s response. I now see where she’s coming from, so not deliberately, I take that back. (Unfortunately I can’t edit or delete my previous comment!).
I’m sure “The logic of misogyny” is a convincing book, but I should have read it back to back first to understand how Dr. Kate redefines the word. Foolishly, I didn’t realize that the use of the word as it is communicated among English speakers before the book came to being is a naive conception that would be silencing for its victims and depriving them of ability to acquire justified beliefs for its manifestation.
However, the hateful connotation for the one labelled is still communicated to those who haven’t read the book (for misos means hatred in Greek after all), but I presume he is guilty of a crime at least equivalent to misogyny in the English sense of the word deserving that shameful label.
My apologies then. Thank you!
Excellent retort to a bitter article. There can be no such thing as “feminist philosophy.” There is only philosophy, that’s it. Some men are philosophers, some women are philosophers. Feminists are not philosophers, they are typically shy of the truth and real knowledge seeking. Being critical of feminists is a stance which favors and supports women.
Maurice Kiely, You are clearly a misogynist. If there are men’s rights, of course there is feminism. If there are philosophers men and women there are all kind of philosophers, such as Marxist philosophers, Mao philosophers, philosophers of enlightenment, Victorian philosophers, Western philosophers, and all sorts of philosophers, including feminist philosophers. Women have always excluded from history by you guys. All the time. Men are short-sighted and selfish and fussy!!!
If feminism for you is simply an ideology, then what about masculinity and men’s rights? Is feminism simply anti-men? Then what about men’s rights? Are men’s rights in your view simply anti-woman? Your view is clearly a mis-demonstration both about men’s rights and feminism. Are men’s rights anti-feminist? Should men’s rights be held so high that men’s rights are always taken for granted, and consequently women’s rights subject to mere victimhood and your contempt toward feminism? Why is that men’s rights never a stance of victimhood and should then altogether be sneered like feminism? This is something here. We call it misogyny. While you criticize Jordan Peterson, you are committing yourself to misogyny. If one has to be be a clinical psychologist to talk about feminism correctly, then no body and no man should talk about men’s rights. Because men are not clinical psychologists. Showing comtempt toward feminism is like showing contempt the idea of men’s rights! If you can criticize the very existence of men’s rights, then you can criticize feminism. After all men and women should all be equal. If you have to criticize feminism, then do the same with the idea of men’s rights. Show respect to feminism, that’s when you respect men as human beings! I find men very resistant against gender equality. They have to show their gender as more superior. That shows in their misrepresentation of feminism. Feminism is a philosophical tradition, just like men’s rights should not be sneered as ideology, ie as men acting like massive dicks. you really have to be able to be equal. Only when you embrace women and feminism wholeheartedly can you truly respect the male gender. Everybody is equal. Give women what you men want for yourselves. Elevate women at all times. That’s how you validate men.
I see much sexism and misogyny in your views. What about men’s rights seen by you as internal nonsense? Feminism is an important consideration of women’s rights. And should be given full credit as you have taken men’s rights as inviolable. You share with women about everything. That’s because men and women are equal. That’s why it’s never necessary to criticize women’s rights and feminism. If you define feminism as simply” as it usually manifests itself in eternal victimhood, mind-reading of some internalized nonsense, and false accusations for those who don’t conform”, that’s a clear indication of your misogyny. And it’s as dangerous as Peterson’s. Today, if women do not conform to the male gender as the superior gender are sneered by men, that’s a sure sign of misogyny. I am not sure about others. But I am sure your views often come from anti-women ones, and of course male superiority is always taken for granted. Only feminism can be challenged but not men’s rights! We never can challenge male superiority, but we do not do the same for the same absolute female superiority. This comes from misogyny. When you conform wholehearted to feminism, then you are able to see men’s rights in a objective view. Otherwise, you are going to be always biased by me as a man, therefore feminism is nonsense. You are not different from Peterson.
Peterson is a moron.
I can’t believe someone is comparing him in a positive sense to Nietzsche.
I have difficulty believing that Peterson even hold a degree, from what I’ve heard of him , beyond charlatanism.
. It is plain to me and I even put a post about it a little while ago that he plane does not understand what he’s talking about and he’s promoting a sensibility of philosophy that is ultimately superficial but more just completely misunderstanding of the area.
Damn. We got to stop giving this guy space free Publis city.
I agree entirely. I’d ignored him for a very long time, and then this latest bout of exposure just seemed to demand some kind of response. I’ve a feeling he craves intellectual acceptance from the academy beyond his troll acolytes online, so I felt like administering a little cuffing about the ears. A well justified one, I may add.
Cuffing on the ears. So great. 😄
Yes. it’s as clear as diamonds he is an misogynistic sexist and an extremely seethingly angry one. If you watch and compare his body language when men vs women challenge his statements it’s so blatantly visual. the anger is seething inside him.
Yes Jack I am glad you noticed. He is a real tight spring that guy. He cannot communicate with women very well. I do think he has some kind of mental illness or personality disorder or perhaps some sociopathic tendencies that he has to keep under wraps before he commits mass murder. But of course that could not possibly be true because he’s a clinical psychologist you know! Besides, he wouldn’t be so angry if everyone just did what he told them to do. Except how can he control those “crazy women” if he can’t hit them? He can at least hit men who make him angry, waving his lobster claw in the air, asserting his dominance. Stand up straight young men and take your rightful place in the world as the dominant humans. Defeat those dragons (pesky feminists)who have taken over YOUR world. They took over while you were being too lazy to even clean your bedrooms! They are organised and crazy!
Yeah Prof. Drivel thinks Donald Trump is a feminist, Murdoch is a feminist, Putin, yeah he’s one too, Zuckerberg, and women have taken over all the : universities, courts, parliaments, armies, , etc etc etc. yeah, feminists are running the world. Help me…..I can see it and it’s scaaaaary……..I need my mummy………oh…shit…wait, mummy’s a woman. I must hate my mum, there I said it…feels so good. Everyone back to what you were doing, nothing to see here, all better now.
Sorry for the rambling bit it feels so good.
Reading this as a common-sense member of the public I am rather amazed at the low standard of replies, petty bitterness, and confusion even in spelling I quote Landzek: “It is plain to me and I even put a post about it a little while ago that he plane (sic) does not understand what he’s talking about.” Unlike Landsek I understand where Prof Peterson is coming from, and would not consider him even remotely misognistic, to do so is plainly an attempt to stir resentment, which is a standard ploy of Marxists in their tired old desire to reduce everything to a battle between the haves and have nots. Yawn. It is the old lie that leads to everything being a matter of power, when in fact hierarchies in today’s western societies are primarily about competence especially in capitalist economies, and one has only to see how poverty has diminished around the world to see the universal benefits.
When do men not stir resentment? Men do that all the time in history. We are so used to male violence that male violence never shocks us. Poverty is everywhere, unless you are blind! .
Lol. You chose one ideology over another and pretend not to see the bitterness of Peterson himself and his followers, as well as their lack of basic education. There is only one type of person who doesn’t see misogynism in Peterson: another misogynist. It is so obvious and in your face that there is no way to miss it, unless you also suffer from (or should I rather say enjoy?) it.
He is not just a misogynist, he is a raging and seething one at that. Repeatedly calling women who dare disagree with or criticize him “crazy” or “harpies”, bemoaning that he can’t hit women to “control” them. Calling for “enforced monogamy”, because apparently women are not full human beings, but are to serve as pacifiers for violent men. He is a complete lunatic.
“hierarchies in today’s western societies are primarily about competence especially in capitalist economies” Ahahahaha. Oh, lord, how delusional and uneducated!
Jordan Peterson hates successful women. The core of his hate is any woman who is a stand alone maverick , a woman of innovation , those who defy he brainwashing.
His followers are losers looking for excuses , someone to blame for their failures in life. They chose to blame women instead of looking in the mirror.
I have had arguments with his brainwashed bashers on YouTube who insist either women are dependent on government or a male. I’m neither and have worked since high school, just as my brother has. We were taught to fend for ourselves. I was expected to slay my own dragons , not expect anyone to take care of me. It seems the independent woman is the most hated, she is secure financially and doesn’t need these insecure JP followers to dominate over her.