'“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” '
I have followed "redpill" MRAs for a long time; this makes him one of them
mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/sty
Conversation
Replying to
If that's a real quote and not journalistic distortion, it's pretty fucking damning.
1
There are some conversation excerpts in that article that seem purposely framed to make him look bad, like the part where he tries to explain how archetypal categories like witches and dragons are meaningful.
3
Granted, he doesn't have a very good grasp on the variety of feminine archetypes other than Mother (based on the many lectures I've watched)
1
1
I'd argue his grasp of Mother is a bit lacking as well, to be honest...
1
1
If anything, Peterson has joined a long-standing tradition of brilliant psychology professors taking their ideas into a wider social context...
... and fucking it up spectacularly.
1
2
A counterpoint:
Quote Tweet
The @NellieBowles piece on @jordanbpeterson tries to portray him as believing
that that the only legitimate role for women in society is in the home. This is a completely false assertion. 1/
Show this thread
2
Nah, my disagreement with Peterson is almost never where the journies get upset. He's said plenty of things about women I found fair & insightful.
While quoted something pretty nasty, I tend to get upset about stuff he says in actual debates or his own published work.
Journalists misrepresenting his words isn't where I got the idea that he has some strange ideas about women. Those came from his own voice.
While I'm no PhD, I also happen to have studied psych long enough to know a lot of the stuff he calls uncontroversial... is controversial.