undefined | Better HN

0 pointswesammikhail7y ago0 comments

> he fails to give any logical reasons for that claim.

It would take a mere 10 seconds of googling to find the answer to that question as he is literally asked about it every few hours on twitter or in interviews. And every single time he explains it but it seems to fall on deaf ears.

> I understand those who are heavily offended by that viewpoint

I personally don´t understand those people because they are not really listening to the argument. They are selectively hearing what they want to hear. In your "question" there is an embedded assumption that order (masculine) is "good" and chaos (feminine) is "bad". And that´s why people get offended; if they didn´t equate chaos with bad, there would be no reason to get offended. This happens because they are not _actually_ reading Peterson. They are reading what they _think_ someone like Peterson would say but in doing so they miss the point completely.

Peterson argues that chaos in literature is most often presented as feminine (mother nature for instance) and order is presented as masculine most often (God, the heavenly father for instance). At any point in time, order OR chaos can both take hold to varying extreme degrees, which is not good for society. Example: Totalitarian states (extreme order/masculine) are bad, but so is anarchy/chaos and the complete lack of order. Both extreme order and extreme chaos are bad he argues constantly.

Would it be any better if Peterson argued that chaos was masculine and order was feminine? not really, people would still get offended because that´s what people want to be. They don´t actually stop and listen to what is being said, which is unfortunate :/

0 comments

silveroriole7y ago

Perhaps he shouldn’t bother linking order/chaos with gender at all. There are plenty of arguments you could make that order IS feminine - who, in the American viewpoint, traditionally keeps house, tidies up, makes peace, establishes family routine, is someone you come home to every night? And who is a risk-taker, a go-getter, the one who leaves the comfortable routine and embarks on unknown adventures? I know various literary and psychological arguments about feminine chaos (ooh, the undefinable feminine lack and void! Jungian archetypes!), but what Peterson is trying to get at by this feminine chaos/masculine order thing - apart from a truly boring “the middle way is the best” argument that you point out and which clearly doesn’t require a gender linking to make - is completely unclear.

e: incidentally, if any of Peterson’s theory ramblings do appeal, just go and read Freud, Jung, Lacan, Marx, the Bible etc in the original. They are all vastly more interesting, subtle and worthwhile than Peterson’s jumbled, evo-psyched retelling of them.

wesammikhailOP7y ago

> Perhaps he shouldn’t bother linking order/chaos with gender at all.

The point he is making though is that they have traditionally been associated with gender. Just look at any religious art or any art for that matter pre-dating cameras (abstract art took over post the invention of cameras for obvious reasons) and you will find thematic ties to gender. In fact, walk into any church and look at the ceiling, that will show you how the west have thought about this chaos/order duality for 2000 years now.

With that said, is there a way to argue that perhaps feminine is order and masculine is chaos? hell yea. But please note that I wrote "most often", which is also his claim. You could however make the opposite argument and we can have a healthy discussion about the proper metaphorical language space we can use to describe such abstract concepts. But the idea of being offended because gender was used historically is rather nuts. People used what was historically available to them to use in terms of abstract story telling tools. Gender was one of those tools. Getting mad at it is borderline crazy imo.

> but what Peterson is trying to get at by this feminine chaos/masculine order thing - apart from a truly boring “the middle way is the best” argument that you point out and which clearly doesn’t require a gender linking to make - is completely unclear.

It seems to me that you are making the assumption that there IS more to it than that. Which I see no evidence for.

What I don´t really understand is: why really stop? why shouldn´t he link gender with the chaos/order duality? because people get offended? If that is the reason then all of us can say nothing at all. Because I can find a reason to get offended by anything you say. That can´t possibly be a reasonable demand either. How would we ever have any discourse in society if when someone is offended we are all required to be quiet about said thing?

The irony of this whole discussion is that you are demonstrating why Peterson keeps saying that we are slipping into chaos. We are trying to protect everyone who´s offended to the point where society as a whole is slipping toward the Oedipal mother pathology.

silveroriole7y ago

If there’s nothing more to it, what place does it have in a self-help book, or in any book? Why bother saying it? What interest should it hold for me? This continual argument I hear from people that he’s just “describing how things are” seems self-defeating - it makes him sound as boring as someone who goes around saying “the sky is blue, the sun is hot”. Yeah, and? So what? There’s no point engaging with or listening to someone who says “Femininity is linked with chaos. I’m not implying anything by that, and my argument should have no bearing on anything. I’m just saying that’s the way it is.” I don’t believe Peterson IS saying that, though - I think it’s just a convenience for him and most of his fans to be able to claim that he’s said nothing at all except raw falsifiable statements which might be wrong (but if they’re wrong it doesn’t matter anyway because they don’t mean anything). Why bother linking the concepts to gender? Well, it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.

Read the originators of Peterson’s ideas. They certainly thought their statements about gender, archetypes, psychology, etc had deep meaning and informed how things ‘should be’, not merely how they are (of course, simply saying ‘this is how things are’ and nothing else can be an expression of deep conservatism, which is how many interpret Peterson - this is how things are AND YOU CAN’T CHANGE THEM, so just act in accordance with them).

wesammikhailOP7y ago

> Why bother linking the concepts to gender? Well, it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.

You´re missing the point. No one is (or at least I am not) saying that he is merely making a "factual observation" and that´s just that. But you are ASSUMING what his motives are as if you´re some type of mind reader. And of course his motives must be malicious such as "it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.".

The tough part for me to communicate here is how _ironic_ your assumption here is. You are _literally_ doing what Peterson argues is the feminine and chaotic. You are playing the role of the overprotective mother. You will probably hate this but if you really are of an open mind you should watch this and then we can continue our discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50FbeazFkgs

Assuming you actually watched the video above, what I _see_ when I read a post like yours is exactly what Peterson describes in the video. A deep and complex need for "protecting those who are offended from the evil serpent (the offending party - Peterson)". You have already classified him as malicious thing to be dealt with accordingly.

> Read the originators of Peterson’s ideas. They certainly thought their statements about gender, archetypes, psychology, etc had deep meaning and informed how things ‘should be’, not merely how they are (of course, simply saying ‘this is how things are’ and nothing else can be an expression of deep conservatism, which is how many interpret Peterson - this is how things are AND YOU CAN’T CHANGE THEM, so just act in accordance with them).

I´ve read my fair share. And I agree with you. Some things are not set in stone. But a lot of things are - at least for now. So pretending that we´re all like play-dooh is an equally false assumption as the one of the conservatives who believes that all is set in stone.

2 more replies

sridca7y ago

Peterson only describes the masculine perspective on order vs chaos (and therein lies his bias). If you however include the moral and covert domains, order actually becomes feminine, as Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos wrote: [quote]: ‘Women are the carriers of society’s values ... men are deviant in the sense that many of the qualities admired in them are also one’s that society has to regard with disapproval ... Women’s Lib portrays society and morality as a male invention to coerce and punish women ... [yet] women are a virtuous group seeking to impose their moral standards on men’. [endquote].

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

silveroriole7y ago

wesammikhailOP7y ago

> Perhaps he shouldn’t bother linking order/chaos with gender at all.

It seems to me that you are making the assumption that there IS more to it than that. Which I see no evidence for.

silveroriole7y ago

wesammikhailOP7y ago

> Why bother linking the concepts to gender? Well, it looks like the main reason is that it offends people, and some people seem to find that worthwhile in and of itself.

2 more replies

sridca7y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse