Does Peterson say to “Mimick” nature? I was under the impression he merely pointed out the overlaps in human behavior to those of our animal predecessors, and that hierarchical structures are built into our DNA.
And we see this, as you point out, with racial hierarchies throughout history. This isn’t to say it’s “justified,” but rather it shows how tethered we are to our more primitive, tribal inclinations.
And the fact that you take issue with the concept that “smart, hardworking people are the most likely to succeed,” speaks volumes.
Yes, income inequality is an issue, however, half of all billionaires are self-made. That fact alone lends credibility to Peterson’s glaringly obvious point.
And how does talking of the superiority of Western Culture make him a white nationalist? It’s the West taking in the most refugees, it’s the West that’s given women the most rights in human history, and it’s the West where we have the freedom to criticize people without fear of reprisal or worse, a fatwah.
The West IS the best, no matter what skin colour you are. That’s the point. If you disagree, where’s better? Honestly, if we cannot have pride about the West and the values which emerge from it, what can we be proud about?
Would you rather that only 2% of our population is made of migrants, like Japan? Or would you rather live in the Middle East or Africa? Take your pick.
Peterson is spot on about the left weaponizing compassion. Take Islamophobia, Black Lives Matter, or the recent Transgender movement.
If you criticize the barbaric and patriarchal practices of Islam, you’re suddenly bigoted toward all Muslims in the eyes of the left.
If you point to the fact that Michael Brown was found guilty by Eric Holder and a majority-black justice department, and that the larger issue isn’t police brutality but black-on-black violence, you’re called a racist.
If you point to the fact that men and women are distinct from one another in many ways, you’re a transphobe. The leftist agenda is being pushed by faux-sanctimony used to silence dissenters.
“Peterson’s androcentric language and influence could readily be used to weaponize male supremacy.”
What does this even mean? Do you have examples of Peterson claiming that men are superior to women? The enforced monogamy point is moot as it doesn’t claim that men are superior, but rather that when monogamy falls apart, larger issues emerge.
“Can men and women work together in the workplace?” He later added, “How about no makeup in the workplace?”
What is your qualm with this comment? Actually unpack what he’s saying. In many professions, men typically wear suits to work, which is effectively a uniform — that is, they dress uniformly.
Meanwhile, women will wear heels, lipstick, and makeup; all tools designed to sexually attract males. Now, why is sexual attraction a goal in the workplace? This is a valid question. Men and women working together is a new phenomenon, and given the #MeToo movement, it seems optimal that we remove sexual tensions from the workplace. This may involve women not dressing themselves up. This isn’t a dictum or an immutable law that Peterson’s espousing, but rather a question that warrants an answer.
And lastly, of course, we have toxic masculinity. What exactly IS toxic masculinity? And what is toxic femininity?