I haven't seen a single interview w/him being questioned on capitalism.
It's been brought up briefly in his convos w/Russell Brand & Philip Dodd though in each case the questioner hadn't prepared anything in sufficient depth to get around JBP's minimal precision requirements.
Conversation
has been trying to engage with him on capitalism. E.g. some comments on it here: alexanderblum.net/2018/02/though
1
2
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
capitalism is a great way of doing things, but it explicitly lacks the ability to self-regulate (despite what libertarians think), and if it "wins" by getting rid of or buying up those alternatives which do regulate it, it destroys its own ability to survive.
1
3
It can continue by burning off population. JBP's appeal to men seems simple: men are useless except for war or heavy construction. Women perhaps less likely to strike (at least violently).
Fredrick Jameson says if you want socialism, join the army. He wants everyone in the army.
1
Men are not useless, though. Not even remotely.
We have stamina, emotional resilience and a number of other things far in excess of women (yes, on average).
There is no shortage of onerous tasks outside of war or construction that men are well-adapted to. It's a bait-&-switch.
3
Not sure that we have more emotional resilience than women, or stamina. It's really a definitional question. Women last longer in bad circumstances than men do.
1
2
Fair to you. My position is not that men are inherently physiologically superior, but that we are better adapted to certain tasks (and risk less of our capacity to bear children by incurring harm).
Dirty jobs are ours to take, so that women can choose freely if they want them.
1
I don't mean any condescension towards women by that: I think women can and should choose their own paths.
But I think our role is akin to that of soldiers protecting officers - our role is less valuable, we are expendable, so ideally we should put ourselves in harm's way.
1
I don't think men should be compelled to take that role any more than women should be compelled to have children, but I do think it's a role we slot into naturally.
Just because we can't give birth doesn't mean our only use is violence or hard labor.
Some of my previous respect for Peterson derived from him *seeming* to say something like this, i.e. "be useful to women because they damn well have a tougher job than you as far as nature is concerned."
Evidently, that's not what he meant at all.
One challenge here is the broad generalizations of how men and women “are”, and that any skills / abilities / proclivities humans have must be tossed in one of these two buckets, but never both. Does not compute.
1
2
I agree. I am not objecting to it.
What I am trying to say is that, given the vast majority of women can bear children and, well, no men can, we have some job openings in high-risk-to reproductive-health-fields, even in the event that women could do everything better than us.
1
1
Show replies