Explaining marine invertebrate reproductive strategies to the lobster-obsessed Jordan Peterson

Which I argue is what inevitably happens in such cases. It’s a failure mode built right into the proposed “solution”.

He isn’t an atheist. And his support for a “traditional Christian” (or Jewish) family structure consists of: Be monogamous, don’t make sex your relationship end-goal, make serious commitments and have children. And - “Most women would be happier if they stayed at home raising their children, instead of sitting in a cubicle.” Except for the last part, I don’t see anything controversial about it. The last part would be oppressive - if externally enforced. But he isn’t arguing for that - he just thinks it’s a better mode of being and one that is unfortunately devalued in our culture.

You are making that up.





If you’re running a hospital, there are clearly better and clearly worse surgeons. The same goes for coders, teachers, farmers, engineers and mechanics.

There are fields where it’s very simple to individually measure (sports) and fields where it’s difficult or even impossible (arts) and everything in between. But wherever you rely on results - number of people treated, number of machines built, amount of food grown - you are going to get hierarchies.

1 Like

Really. You believe there is nothing controversial about prescribing the relationship style and sexual behavior of adults?


Why is that an unmitigated good? Especially when it’s women who have to put our bodies on the line, and often put aside all other concerns to raise these families with little to no support or rewards.

What a bunch of misogynistic malarkey. No. Not all women enjoy raising women. How do I know? I’ve talked to lots of women, some of who love being wives and mothers, some who recognize that they don’t, and others who don’t recognize that they don’t, and end up being terrible at it.

There is nothing wrong with raising a family. There IS something wrong with a lack of choices based on what’s between your legs. Fuck all that noise.

Welcome to much of human history (especially in Europe). Now we’ve made different choices where women can decide that they can work or be house wives (most of the time). Again, CHOICES is the point here. People can make choices that they couldn’t make even 60 years ago. You or Peterson don’t get to decide what is best for me or any other women.

He’s wrong. Because it’s not like there was some magical point where all the work women did to raise families was respected. He’s also ignoring the fact that, despite idealizing women in the home only, that it’s barely actually existed in the real world, except among some very elite women. Women (and their labor) have always been marginalized in western culture (at least since the coming of Christianity) and they’ve almost always worked outside the home in some capacity as part of the economic structure of the home.

He’s also choosing to ignore that not all women want that life or are good at it. But I guess, in his mind, they don’t exist as real people.


And some of those are women.


And? Skill does not equal leadership. Many skilled people do not want such responsibilty.

You are making that up.


Bad actors will attempt to pervert any system toward their own ends. “Free” market capitalism is no less immune from this phenomenon than any other system.

A reluctant agnostic, then, but certainly not religious:

Q: Are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?
A: I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist.


As usual, when this brave Speaker of Truths No-One Dares Utter is asked a straightforward question he gets all wishy-washy.

You leave out the part where he discusses gender essentialism, with the male husband being the voice of reason and hard-nosed decision-making (representing “order” in his Jungian view) and with the female wife being the representative of emotion and dealing with the messiness of caregiving (representing “chaos”). He (and, in their own ways, religious fundie and MRA proponents of the same family structure) makes it quite clear who should have the final say when there’s a conflict between the two in order for the family to function effectively, which implies hierarchy (which he further defends with lobsters and other such cherry-picked evidence).

I’ve watched some of his videos on the topic and read interviews with him that discuss it. You’re the one who’s coming across as being unfamiliar with his views and M.O.


I don’t. Those adults live in a society and the society needs to maintain and replicate itself and the “traditional family” model is proven to work well for that.

What I find controversial is the selfish consumer model of family where everyone goes off to do what ever they feel like with no concern for the collective.

Hey, just because I don’t like arthropods, doesn’t mean I want to eat people!

Then again, how delicious are they?


Well, if we’d only stay in our “place” we’d be much happier, yeah? /s


Other models work as well. You’re assuming that the Western, Christian model is the only one that has historically worked, and it’s not even remotely true. In fact, given recent studies about how successful married lesbians are in raising children, we should just let all the lesbians raise our children, because they seem to be much better at it than the “traditional” western Christian model.


Society is maintaining and replicating just fine. There is no shortage of people, there is no crisis.However, if you are interested in social welfare, there are also all kinds of families and ways to support each other that do not require taking people’s choices away.

I don’t even know what this means.


It makes more sense if you change: “consumer” to “feminist”; “everyone” to “the wife”; “do whatever they feel like” to “pursue a career”; and “the collective” to “the children and hard-working breadwinner husband.”


But how will women know their places?!? /s


BTW, here’s a sample of Peterson’s “wisdom”:

And here’s a picture to go with it:



I’m kidding! I’m kidding! That last thing you want to do is make the mistake I made and teach them to read at 3 1/2! Next thing you know they will want to show off their ankles and have the right to vote! /s


Silly wimmins! Everyone knows only men are rational to vote! /s


And what is this “traditional family” you speak of? Define it.


Hey, @8080256256? Remember how, rather a few posts ago, I said you need to examine the arbitrary preferences and ideas you’re conflating with objective truth?

These good folk are trying to do that for you, but my oh my are you resisting.

You have a lot of assumptions that need undoing, both about what other people believe, what the world is like, and how rational and accurate you are in parsing both of those. Shame you’re too prideful and invested in your role to see that, though.