Jordan Peterson Threatened to Sue a Critic for Calling Him a Misogynist

Jordan Peterson Threatened to Sue a Critic for Calling Him a Misogynist

"I’m hoping that the combination of lawsuits will be enough to convince careless university professors and administrators blinded by their own ideology to be much more circumspect in their actions and their words,” Peterson opined in a YouTube video.

The university seized on those comments when it asked a judge to dismiss the case last month, according to a statement printed in The Globe and Mail: “There is inescapable irony in the fact that Peterson, who has come to prominence through vehement advocacy of free speech principles, is bringing a claim for the stated purpose of causing academics and administrators to be more circumspect in their words."

It’s all over twitter. He now has thousands of women calling him a misogynist. That would be funny to watch him try to defend himself in court. What a little bitch. Maybe he needs a "safe space."
Canadian defamation laws are more strict than those in the US, and even that article says:
“I’ve studied authoritarianism for a very long time — for 40 years — and they’re [sic] started by people’s attempts to control the ideological and linguistic territory.”
Defamation is, in many cases, an attempt to silence someone lest they have their reputation ruined. The exact same authoritarianism Peterson is referring to.

And this woman not only defamed him, she seemed to make veiled accusations of professional misconduct:

She told me, uncertainly, that “she thought she might have been raped — five times.” You might note first that she would not have told me this if I had not already gained her trust. No matter.

You claim that I wrote that she had not been subject to sexual assault, in the following manner: “I’d raise an alternative explanation: Maybe she was raped — five times, as she stated — and then was effectively undermined or even gaslit by her therapist. To be clear, I’m not saying that that is what happened. I can’t possibly know, on the basis of what Peterson writes here. But I’d certainly like to know more, and I’m surprised Peterson has not yet been asked about these and similar passages, in which he comes across as highly contemptuous of female clients.”

However, I clearly stated with regard to my client in 12 Rules for Life that the interpretation that she had been raped was also of potential validity but that it was not up to me to make that decision. It was up to her and I was not going to impose any viewpoint on her, but help her explore and determine for herself.

That is defamation, even under US law.
He should probably delete a few YouTube videos and the comments before he tries taking that one to court. 

Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy

"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."

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

"Half the men fail," he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. "And no one cares about the men who fail."
I laugh, because it is absurd.

"You’re laughing about them," he says, giving me a disappointed look. "That’s because you’re female."

Uh…yeah, creepy! What a fucking boob!
Another one Peterson has already roundly addressed:

My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.

It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).

Here’s something intelligent about the issue, written by antiquark2 on reddit (after the NYT piece appeared and produced its tempest in a tea pot): “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy, as opposed to genetic monogamy – evolutionarily-dictated monogamy, which does exist in some species (but does not exist in humans). This distinction has been present in anthropological and scientific literature for decades.”

As antiquark2 points out, “for decades.” My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings. I might also add: anyone serious about decreasing violence against women (or violence in general) might think twice about dismissing the utility of monogamy (and social support for the monogamous tendency) as a means to attain that end.

The author of the NYT article is obviously complete unaware of this. And the alternative to socially inculcated monogamy in nature is that the males fight, often to the death, in competition for mates. Maybe that notion suits misandrists, but without monogamous men, women are also subject to greater danger, as there is no special, protective bond between promiscuous mates.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)