Category Archives: Jordan Peterson

Get our free weekly email for all the latest cinematic news from our film critic Clarisse LoughreyGet our The Life Cinematic email for free

Olivia Wilde has revealed that Chris Pines terrifying character in her newest movie, Dont Worry Darling, is based on the controversial Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson.

The Wonder Woman actor stars in Wildes forthcoming psychological thriller as Frank, the utopian desert communitys leader.

Pine features alongside Harry Styles and Florence Pugh, who lead the film as a Fifties couple whose idyllic lives are overturned when Pughs Alice uncovers her husbands dark secret when one of the neighbourhood housewives goes missing.

In a recent interview with Interview Magazine, Wilde spoke with fellow actor Maggie Gyllenhaal about the inspiration behind Franks character.

We based that character on this insane man, Jordan Peterson, who is this pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community, Wilde said.

She further explained the incels as a community of disenfranchised, mostly white men, who believe they are entitled to sex from women.

They believe that society has now robbed them that the idea of feminism is working against nature, and that we must be put back into the correct place, Wilde added.

Canadian psychologist and self-described cultural critic Jordan Peterson

(BBC Question Time)

Peterson began receiving widespread recognition in the late 2010s for voicing his controversial opinions, many of which are anti-political correctness.

Wilde continued: This guy Jordan Peterson is someone that legitimises certain aspects of [the incels] movement because hes a former professor, hes an author, he wears a suit, so they feel like this is a real philosophy that should be taken seriously.

The Independent has contacted a representative of Peterson for comment.

Dont Worry Darling is Wildes second feature as a director, following her well-received 2019 teen comedy Booksmart.

As the films release date has neared, however, controversy surrounding the movie has arisen. Read here for a timeline of the behind-the-scenes controversies.

Dont Worry Darling releases in cinemas on 23 September.

More:

Olivia Wilde says Jordan Peterson inspired Chris Pines terrifying ...

1. Jordan Peterson Returns To Twitter, Immediately Demands The Site Censor Anonymous Trolls  Forbes
2. Opinion: Jordan Peterson is Conservative  Houston Press
3. Twitter Reinstates Accounts From Kathy Griffin, Jordan Peterson  Hollywood Reporter
4. Musk lifts Twitter bans for Jordan Peterson, Kathy Griffin and Babylon Bee, says 'no' to Alex Jones  Fox Business
5. Twitter to Restore Suspended Accounts From Next Week, Musk Says  Bloomberg
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

Read more:

Jordan Peterson Returns To Twitter, Immediately Demands The Site Censor Anonymous Trolls - Forbes

I used to know this guy who liked to talk about Egypt. Five minutes in youd think, This dudes dropping knowledge. Ten minutes later youd be searching for the threads. At the hour mark, realizing you havent said one word during his screed about freemasons, pyramids, and the Bush administration, youd desperately seek any possible exit.

Knowledge is worthless without practical application; it becomes, in the words of Alan Watts, a display of spiritual one-upmanship. Not that Jordan Peterson doesnt offer great practical advice. Flipping through my copy of 12 Rules For Life, Ive found a number of profound sentences. The problem is the path getting there. The threads are often frayed.

Then theres the question of temperament. Watching Peterson react to criticism reminds me of aspiring yogis posting long spiritual quotes underneath pictures of themselves posturing.If you challenge a single word they crumble in disbelief. Their fortress of words locks them in rather than opening them up. Amid their garbled messaging about freedom from ego theyve actually wrapped themselves so tightly in it they cant breathewhich is, of course, the basis of yoga.

This was displayed by Peterson when the writer Pankaj Mishra criticized the Canadian professor. Petersonreplied by calling Mishra arrogant and racist, and, after a few moments of Zen reflection, said hed happily slap him. In his book, Petersonwrites, Have some humility. Have some courage. He later warns not to over-estimate your self-knowledge. Yet he seems to excuse himself from this simple wisdom.

Below are five of Petersons more controversial ideas. Some of his sentiments are strong. Sometimes, however, the path to arrival makes you wonder where he was trying to get to in the first place.

There was plenty of deserved blowback when Forbes dubbed Kylie Jenner self-made. The environment youre raised in has a profound effect on both your psychology and opportunities in life. Im not quite sure how this is even a debatable issue, but in Petersons world, it is.White privilege, according to him, doesnt exist.

After listing numerous categorieshealth, wealth, age, economic status, and so onhe calls race and ethnicity post-modernist. He criticizes one womans views on white privilege, discussing how her paper was not peer-reviewed or subjected to critical scrutiny. His own scrutiny transforms white privilege into majority privilege. In China, the Chinese are the dominant race; the culture is built to suit them. And so in America, or Canada, since whites happen to be the majority, the culture is designed to suit them. Whoever the culture is built for is by default privileged; otherwise, the construction would not have been worth it in the first place.

Fair enough. Our gods always look like us. But for someone so insistent about context, its baffling that he overlooked the fact that this experiment of democracy is rooted in the idea of a level playing field. Sure, its mostly lip service, but still aspirational. Peterson claims that Marxists and post-Modernists (who, according to him, strive to attain the ideals of Marxism) oppress us, yet Petersons inability to consider empathy is the true driver of regression. Hes right that we white men dont have to apologize for every sin of our ancestors. Yet to think those sins did not rig the game on the soil we occupy is absurd, semantics aside. True, factor analysis is important. Looking outside of your window might prove a little more relevant in this regard, however.

Peterson uses William Buckley and, more recently, Ben Shapiro as examples of conservative thinkers who have defined clear political boundaries: racial superiority is not an option. The fringe Right does not represent conservative values (though that line is rather blurred in America right now). The problem, Peterson continues, is that the Left doesnt know its boundaries. There is no box stating, youve gone too far.

Peterson is correct: liberalism is destroying itself. One fitting example is the Abolish ICE movement now being towed by 2020 presidential hopefuls. Whats happening on the US-Mexican border is frightening and tragic, at least to those of us who care about human rights. But the agency is responsible for much more than these incidents. The knee-jerk reaction of destroying an agency due to one horrific incident is foolish.

Another example is the backlash Matt Damon received last year when he said, Theres a difference between patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation. The actor even qualified it by stating that both should be confronted. His original sentiment is so obvious that debating it seems ludicrousexactly Petersons point. The willful unconcern for coherence is dangerous, yet many liberals dont seem to be taking it seriously.

Sam Harris has pointed out that the word atheism doesnt appear in his debut book, The End of Faith. That didnt stop the public from labeling him such. Anyone so vociferously attacking the Bible must not believe in God. But as Peterson points out, such a binary choice is unfairyou either believe in God or notbecause the terms are rarely defined. Belief and God are such generic terms attempting to derive meaning is nearly impossible. That said, Petersons explanation of Christs spirit living on, for example, is one of the best argumentsfor a realistic faith Ive come across. Like David Brooks in The Road to Character, Peterson strips away metaphysics to uncover something valuable in religious literature, without turning to blind faith.

Peterson begins this by declaring the devil is in the details, then cites the fact that kids in a family with a father do better than single-parent families. (Speaking of details, interesting that he doesnt state families with a mother.) I believe quite firmly, he continues, that the nuclear family is the smallest, viable human unitfather, mother, child. If you fragment it below that, you end up paying, he continues. He cites Warren Farrell and Jaak Panksepps affective neuroscience. He discusses rough-and-tumble play (based on Panksepps incredible work on rats and the PLAY system.) Fathers and children push each others limits to find out where they are. If juvenile male rats dont tussle you can treat it with Ritalin andwait, was the question?

Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday

Three-and-a-half minutes into this four-and-a-half minute video he finally gets to the gay family, for the first time recalling that yes, women are parents too. Treating gay families in a post-modernist fashion is gerrymandering questions without facing moral responsibilities andlook, heres the continual problem with Peterson. Many children come from broken homes. Often its the father; sometimes its the mother. We have to consider that maybe its simply hard to research long-term data on gay families because its only been about two decades since homosexuals were broadly accepted.

There are plenty of politicians that would gladly overturn gay marriage and homosexual couples adopting children. Peterson misses the most basic, primary, and humane element of this entire conversation: two people in love can do incredible things, including raising children, regardless of gender. Without that love, everything crumbles. The absurdity of the question is only surpassed by the inanity of the response.

Why are women coming forward now, about events that happened 15 or 20 years ago? is the question Peterson is asked. Peterson replies:

Theres been an adolescent insistence since the early sixties that sexual behavior can be rule-free. Now a lot of that was generated as a consequence of the birth control pill, because that was a biological revolution. All of a sudden women can control their reproductive function, in principleWhat does that make women? Because now theyre a new biological entity. And so, its wide open. What are women now? We dont know.

He continues along this line, for another minute, finally asking where one draws the line between sexual invitation and harassment. If that question needs to be asked, Im not sure why hes even pontificating on the topic. Just because you dont know what a woman is doesnt mean they dont. But that might be too much for this fragile ego to handle.

Stay in touch with Derek onFacebookandTwitter.

Read more here:

Jordan Petersons 5 most controversial ideas, explained

A few days ago, I penned an irritated tweet in response to one of the latest happenings on theincreasingly heated culture war front in response to the decision of an actress (actor) named Ellen (Elliot) Page. I am employing this awkward and impossible multiple-naming style becauseit is now apparently mandatory and probably doing it wrong, nonetheless, as youre doing itwrong is the whole point of what has been made mandatory but also to make a point.

I have essentially been banned from Twitter as a consequence. I say banned, althoughtechnically I have been suspended. But the suspension will not be lifted unless I delete thehateful tweet in question, and I would rather die than do that. And hopefully it will not cometo that, although who the hell knows in these increasingly strange days?

What was it that I said that caused such a fuss? And, even more importantly, and complexly,what exactly was it that I said that resulted in the ban? Here is the tweet in question:

Remember when Pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminalphysician.

The response from Twitter:

Violating our rules against hateful conduct. You may not promote violence against, threaten, orharass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender,gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or serious disease.By clicking Delete, you acknowledge that your Tweet violated the Twitter Rules.

If you think weve made a mistake, submit an appeal to us. Please note that should you do so,your account will remain locked while we review your appeal.

Lets take this apart. First, it is clearly the case that I did not promote violence against orthreaten anyone with my missive. So that leaves the arguably lesser sin of harass. Letsassume that was the crime, and, further, harassment on the basis of gender identity. SinceTwitter did not do me the favor of actually specifying my crime, we unfortunately have to guessat why this has occurred and thats actually a big problem in and of itself, and also indicativeof the utter carelessness of the Twitter organization with regard to the propriety of its owncensorial actions. I should at least know exactly what I did wrong if I am required toacknowledge that my Tweet violated the Twitter Rules.

CLICK TO READ MORE DR. JORDAN PETERSON ON DAILYWIRE+

What rules, you sons of bitches?Exactly? Precisely? Because such things matter when the accusations start flying.

So what did I say that might constitute harassment? Many things, hypothetically. Lets beginwith Remember when pride was a sin? Although that is merely a factual statement becauseunder the old rules, applicable even a decade ago, pride was a sin, and had been recognized asperhaps the cardinal sin for thousands of years previously. It still might be regarded asunacceptable to the authoritarian moralists who now insist, for example, that we celebratePride Month (not hour or day or week, but month) and who have literally called it PRIDEMONTH instead of LGBT+ Month. I dont regard PRIDE as a virtue; it has been classicallyregarded as a sin.

I dont see sexual orientation or sexual desire of any sort as something tocelebrate or to take PRIDE in, and what I said was merely a fact. Its possible that I hurtsomeones feelings because I pointed out that PRIDE goes before, for example, a fall, but I dontcare about that, would do it again, and also consider it my duty to warn those who are about tofall into a pit that the path they are on leads suddenly down hill. But that was probably NOT thereason that I was banned from Twitter although, as I said, I am in the position of having toguess.

Next phrase to interrogate: And Ellen Page Now, why did I stop there? Because, in alllikelihood, it was this seemingly innocuous phrase, including the name of a well-known actress(there, Im in trouble again), that likely resulted in my ban. I committed the fatal crime of whathas come to be known in the appalling censorial terminology of the insane activists as dead-naming. Thats the act of referring to someone who has transitioned (another hated piece ofjargon and slogan) by the name, and by inference the gender (really sex) that everyone knewthem by previously and in the case of Ellen/Elliot, that millions of people recognized andknew. So I should have called him/her/they Elliot instead of Ellen, although, as we will discover,that would have made it impossible for me to say what I wanted to and need to say in theremaining phrases. Not that such a problem would bother those who are objecting to myspeech in the first place.

The next phrase is just had her breasts removed. This bit suffers from a very similar problem. Iemployed the forbidden pronoun her when Elliot is now to be regarded as a he, or else. Buttheres a conundrum here, to say the least and not just for me, although I have been bannedbecause of it. Was Elliot/Ellen a she or a he (or Ellen or Elliot) when she or he or they (thatsElliot or Ellen, by the way) had his or her or their breasts removed? If he or she was a he, thenwhy was it necessary to have the mastectomy? And how could those I am writing to makesense of what I was saying if it was his breasts that were removed? Were those male breastsor female breasts that were removed? If they were male breasts, then why were theyremoved? If they were female breasts (and had therefore become objectionable to the degreethat surgery generally reserved for cancer treatment was morally obligatory) then wasnt Elliotstill Ellen and he still she?

How could I possibly have written that sentence in any sensible manner whatsoever whilesimultaneously making my point understandably and not breaking Twitters rules against so-called hateful conduct?And Elliot Page just had his breasts removed?

Was he Elliot then? When, exactly? He was definitely Ellen at some point in the past, or soindicate all his/her/them/their film credits? Will all those have to be reshot, since they employthe hated deadname (that doesnt exist, by the way, that deadname category, except in thecensorial and addled minds of a tiny fraction of insanely narcissistic and increasingly dangeroustrans activists). When precisely was it incumbent on me to switch my terminology in regard toElliot/Ellen so that I was not engaging in hateful conduct? And how can I describe the fact thatsomeone who was once a woman (and really still is) had her breasts cut off becauseshe/he/her/them had fallen prey to a viciously harmful fad without using the appropriate sex-linked pronoun and the real name of the real person to whom this was really done (withher/his/their voluntary but unfortunate acquiescence)?

And so it was impossible to communicate what had happened to my audience without,apparently, running afoul of the impossible and absurd rules that now hypothetically governmorality itself in the days of the degenerated postmodern and Marxist ethos that we must still,no matter how impossible it is, abide by or else.

And, you might object: Ellen/Elliot is an adult (thirty-something) and fully capable of making upher/his/their own mind about such things and she/he/they are welcome from the liberal andthe libertarian position to go to hell in a handbasket as she/he/they see fit. And, fair enough to some degree. But I dont believe it is either merely picayune or inappropriate to point outthat Ellen/Elliot, who is quite a good actor/actress, is also a ritual model for emulation, being astar, with all the privileges and, let us point out, the responsibilities that go along with that.

So, by acquiescing to this surgery, publicizing it and insisting upon the sanctity and moral virtueof his/her/their new expensive, dangerous, and medically-enhanced identity (and byparticipating in the whole identity charade), Ellen/Elliot has undoubtedly enticed many a poor, confused adolescent girl to blame her emergent pubescent self-consciousness, confusion, anddiscomfort on being born in the wrong body and believing that the courageous, self-affirming, and morally admirable route is hormonal treatment, sterilization, subjugation to alifetime of expensive medical complication (how delightfully profitable) and misery. And Ibelieve, firmly, that Ellen/Elliot bears moral culpability for that.

And, finally, with regard to the final phrase criminal physician, I must say that I have hadsome post-coital (so to speak) regrets about that phrase. It is clearly the case that the surgicaloperation performed by the butchers who butchered Elliot/Ellen was legal. So, was it criminalor not? Were the operations undertaken by the fascist physicians who carried out the Nazimedical experiments legal? Yes, under the laws of the time. But were they criminal? Ill leavethat question up to you to answer.

And, further, perhaps it might be objected, What about thedamage done by hypothetically leaving those confused about their identity to dwell in theirconfusion? Arent we morally obliged to intervene? And I would say, NO.Why? Well, first do no harm as the Hippocratic Oath (remember that?) insists. And, second, ithas been a matter of historical consensus that sins of omission are less egregious than sins ofcommission. Thus, leaving someone with gender dysphoria no matter how warranted (andperhaps it is, in a very tiny minority of truly unfortunate cases) to suffer the consequences ofthe theoretical mismatch between soul and body is a less of a risk, ethically, personally, socially, and philosophically than the extremely active interventions that constitute so-called gender-confirming (another hated phrase) surgery.

I might also point out that the trans surgery enterprise is now a $300 million per annum growthindustry (rate of expansion: 15% per year; projected increase by 2027 to $750 million per year).An expanding enterprise in a time of global uncertainty! Time to invest both in the requisitesurgical skills and, perhaps, in any industry associated with this vicious and unconscionable fad,primarily entangling (as such things so often do) the youthful and female. Isnt that a concern,intersectionalists? Not when push comes to shove, or ideology to scalpel. Is that not a truemoral hazard?

And Im not taking down that tweet, or acknowledging that my tweet violated the Twitterrules. Up yours, woke moralists. Well see who cancels who. And I think, as well, that you wokefolks at Twitter, working so hard to improve the world by so carelessly censoring (under themorally superior guise of regulating hate) have no idea what a tangled web youve entangledyourself in. Again. Yet again.

Im really starting to think youre just not that bright.

See more here:

Jordan Peterson: Id Rather Die Than Delete Truthful Tweet For Cancel ...

[ { "name": "Related Stories / Support Us Combo", "component": "11591218", "insertPoint": "4", "requiredCountToDisplay": "4" },{ "name": "Air - Billboard - Inline Content", "component": "11591214", "insertPoint": "2/3", "requiredCountToDisplay": "7" },{ "name": "R1 - Beta - Mobile Only", "component": "12287027", "insertPoint": "8", "requiredCountToDisplay": "8" },{ "name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size 2", "component": "11591215", "insertPoint": "12", "requiredCountToDisplay": "12" },{ "name": "Air - MediumRectangle - Inline Content - Mobile Display Size 2", "component": "11591215", "insertPoint": "4th", "startingPoint": "16", "requiredCountToDisplay": "12" } ]Mens Rights Activists (MRAs) and their near-cousins Incels (involuntary celibates) are what largely make up the anti-feminist part of the internet. These dudes generally spend their time in forums reinforcing misogynistic nonsense and insisting the world would be a better place if women were more submissive to men. However, sometimes they can masquerade as regular, non-toxic potential dating partners. Heres a list of red flags to look out for before putting yourself in a vulnerable position with them.

10. Refers to Women as FemalesThis one has gone pretty mainstream. While not technically inaccurate, females is the preferred nomenclature in most MRA/Incel circles for its dehumanizing aspects. Women are people. Females are breeding stock.

9. Believes Male Essence Can Be LostWhile most common in the no fap (no masturbation) communities, there is a prevalent idea that men and their semen are measured by a finite amount of essence which can be lost. Some MRAs/Incels literally believe that women absorb other mens essences during intercourse, and that having sex with such a woman will somehow overwrite their own genetic code. Pretty much any man who goes on about the importance of his semen is far too wrapped up in manosphere mysticism to trust.

8. Reacts Overdramatically to Changing Date LocationsFor very good reasons, many women like to meet first time dates in places that are public and which feel safe. If you suggest a different spot than the guy youre talking to does, and he completely flies off the handle, youre probably dealing with an MRA/Incel. In addition to the obvious control issues, MRAs/Incels often believe that a woman altering plans is some sort of attempt at emasculation. Delete that persons number immediately.

7. Quotes Jordan PetersonDr. Prof. Jordan B. Peterson is a Canadian psychologist and basically the surrogate father figure for the MRA/Incel crowd. His books and lectures typically paint women as chaotic powers that disrupt the order of men. Hes also gone on record saying the cure for Incel violence is enforced monogamy, so hes not exactly putting great ideas about men-women relations into his followers heads. Similarly

6. Says Masculinity is Under AttackThis is most recently the line put forth by former kickboxer and current person kicked off many internet platforms Andrew Tate, a man who so perfectly encompasses fragile and toxic masculinity that I honestly thought he was a Sacha Baron Cohen parody character mocking the manosphere. The right-wing in many countries at the moment is scrambling to protect a definition of masculinity that is only hard and violent, something that has its roots in fascism, by the way. Its all just a smokescreen for the insecure who dont know what being a man is without archaic patriarchal trappings to shore up their image. Likewise when it comes to dudes who emulate Tate and his teachings, a man who needs a cigar and glass of whiskey constantly on their person to remind you they are a big man is only being held up by props.

5. Uses the Phrase Body CountThis is in reference to how many sexual partners a woman has had. Its meaningless data related to purity culture nonsense which MRAs/Incels use to denigrate women as impure compared to themselves.

4. Wont Shut Up About the Accomplishments of Western CivilizationTheres nothing wrong with an interest in history, but MRAs/Incels usually lionize any civilization descended from the Ancient Greeks to an absurd degree. Leaving aside that large chunks of European history were full of witch hunts and shitting in their own water supply while Eastern civilizations were inventing algebra and building great cities, its mostly just trying to to credit the institutional sexism of centuries past with great discoveries and accomplishments. While I dont recommend engaging these gits, it is fun to say imagine what they could have done if they didnt keep half their population from fully participating!

3. Has Negative Opinions About Piercings, Tattoos, and Colored HairThe punk rock looking feminist is the constant bogeywomen to the MRA/Incel crowd. They dont like it when women do things to their bodies that are not approved by men, usually themselves. If a guy asks why you would do something like this to yourself, run.

2. Brings Up His IQ Without PromptingA core conceit of the MRA/Incel bros is that they are convinced they make decisions based purely on reason while women do so with emotion. An IQ score is a typical way to shore up this idea. Reminder: IQ is mostly meaningless. I took a free online IQ test just a minute ago where I randomly guessed the answers and still got scored in the High Intelligence range because most of these easily available tests exist mostly to boost egos.

1. Claims Previous Women Wouldnt Date Him Because He Was Too NiceThis. Doesnt. Happen. Lots of dudes have confused polite language with being nice, which is why a large proportion of MRAs/Incels talk like they walked out of a Civil War soldiers letter home. Creep questions and misogynistic bullshit remain those things even when you say them with drawing room language. Any woman who told a dude he was too nice to date was almost certainly trying to keep him from becoming a threat to her which he probably was. Rejecting men is sadly a common way for women to get killed.

KEEP THE HOUSTON PRESS FREE...Since we started the Houston Press, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Houston, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.

Jef Rouner (not cis, he/him) is a contributing writer who covers politics, pop culture, social justice, video games, and online behavior. He is often a professional annoyance to the ignorant and hurtful.

Don't Miss Out

Become a member to support the independent voice of Houstonand help keep the future of the Houston Press FREE

View post:

Opinion: MRA and Incel Red Flags - Houston Press

Screenshot: @Grace_Segers/Twitter

Kari Lake, a former local news anchor and current Republican nominee for governor in Arizona, insisted that theres no such thing as toxic masculinity and that the term is a bunch of BS at an event called Black Voices for Kari Lake on Monday, The New Republic reported. At the event, hosted by former NFL player Jack Brewer and wherePower by Kanye West reportedly played as Lake walked on stage, the candidate also made a number of racist dog whistles about Black families, absent fathers, and the necessity of strong fathers for strong women. (The comments notably echoed those of Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker, who as we all know isnt exactly Father of the Year.)

Its pretty funny to hear a Republican candidate in a state grappling with a near-total abortion ban deny the existence of toxic masculinity, while her party embraces candidates like Herschel Walker, who once held a gun to his wifes head, and campaigns with incel king Jordan Peterson and platforms Andrew Tate. Just look around, maam!

Peterson, a manosphere blogger who preaches to young men about their entitlement to sex from and dominance over women, recently spoke at a fundraising event for Pennsylvania Senate candidate (and New Jersey resident) Dr. Oz and Nevada Senate candidate Andrew Laxalt, with Nazi leader Adolf Hitlers car glistening in the background. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), currently in a tight reelection race, has repeatedly lavished praise on Peterson, whose writings talk about human women like animals for conquest. I know hes said some politically incorrect things and the left hates him, so that was OK in my book, Johnson said of Peterson at an event in Green Bay, Wisconsin, last week, in audio obtained by Jezebel.

Peterson, youll recall, advocates for enforced monogamy, and has essentially blamed heightened violence from incelstypically abusive men who feel sexually rejectedon women for not sleeping with the men who incidentally want to kill us. He is, according to Johnson, a smart guy, and, to Oz and Laxalt, someone worthy of featuring at events.

Meanwhile, Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance is a key investor in the conservative YouTube alternative Rumble, which proudly platforms Tate, even after the mens rights influencer has been banned from every other platform for encouraging rape and violence against women as a means to assert male dominance. Tate is being investigated for rape in Romania and was once kicked off Big Brother for beating a woman.

Now, what was that about the concept of toxic masculinity being a bunch of BS?

Of course, despite these prime examples of some of the most visible candidates in her own party embracing the standard-bearers for toxic masculinity, its not as if Lake is bothered by any of this. Lake, mind you, is the same woman whos insisted throughout the campaign trail that God did not create us [women] to be equal to men, He didnt create us to do what the guys do. Other comments in the same vein from Lake include: We conservative women love our men, we dont want to conquer them, we dont want to be equal to them, last June, and, We arent equal to men. Women are different than men, last November. She re-stated all of this at a campaign event just last month.

Lake may be determined to believe toxic masculinity is a feminist sham, as if men arent killing thousands of women each year for telling them no, and the perpetrators of numerous shootings and killings targeting women in recent years (including the Parkland shooter) didnt reference and praise Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger. But maybe Lake will, at some point, concede that some form of toxic femininityexcusing and celebrating awful behaviors from men and actively upholding the patriarchy for her own individual benefitcertainly exists. She need only look in the mirror for a prime example of this.

See the original post:

Arizona Governor Candidate Kari Lake: 'There's No Such Thing as Toxic Masculinity' - Jezebel

Olivia Wilde has responded to claims that she has abandoned her children in the wake of her split from Jason Sudeikis.

Scroll down to find out more

The star has made the transition from actress to director once before with the acclaimed 2019 comedy film Booksmart.

The thriller follows Florence Pugh as Alice, a housewife in the fifties, and her husband Jack, played by Harry Styles. Things begin to unravel for Alice as she discovers what dark secrets Jack is hiding.

However, Pugh spoke out about her thoughts on the raunchy scenes with Styles in an interview with Harpers Bazaar. Despite not being overly impressed with how the character has been portrayed, she admitted this was understandable due to who she was working with.

Obviously, the nature of hiring the most famous pop star in the world, youre going to have conversations like that, she continued. Thats just not what Im going to be discussing because [this movie is] bigger and better than that. And the people who made it are bigger and better than that.

She finally made her first post last week, sharing a trailer minus the s*x scenes along with the blunt caption: Not everyone gets this opportunity Not long now! Only in theatres September 23rd #dontworrydarling.

Now Pugh isnt one to wait until the last minute to promote a movie, especially when she plays the lead.

And Pugh failed to return the favor to Wilde when filming ended back in February 2021, instead, she praised all the COVID-19 nurses and health workers who worked on set ensuring they could carry on filming through the pandemic.

One Twitter user wrote: Florence: sucks that ppl are reducing this film to my s*x scenes with harry, Olivia: female pleasure !!!, cl*t test !!!! good s*x, referring to Wilde constantly leaning into the s*x hype.

Another added: Olivia Wilde needs to stop promoting dwd like its a p*rno. Clearly, Florence isnt okay with it, and Wilde needs to stfu and stop making it all about the s*x scenes.

Others pointed out that as well as failing to mention Wilde in any of her interviews and promotion of the film, she also reposted multiple Instagram posts on her stories congratulating her on her HB cover, all the while ignoring Wildes.

But its not just the movies s*x scenes people are claiming have caused a rift between the 2, its also how Wilde acted while directing the movie that many are alleging rubbed Pugh up the wrong way.

While others think it could be the fact that Pugh was paid just $700,000 as the leading lady, while Styles made a whopping $2.5 million although he only played a supporting role, as previously reported by Showbiz Galore.

We based that character on this insane man, Jordan Peterson, who is this pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community, said Wilde.

Gyllenhaal, however, was not at all familiar with the word.

She added: They believe that society has now robbed them that the idea of feminism is working against nature, and that we must be put back into the correct place.

Many of which are anti-political correctness.

Jordan Peterson responded to Wildes comments

He also added that he hopes Pine does his wardrobe justice in the movie.

He described the movie as: The latest bit of propaganda disseminated by the woke, self-righteous bores and bullies who now dominate Hollywood.

She spoke about her experience of motherhood during an interview for Elle.

Their son Otis is aged 8, and daughter Daisy is 6 years old.

The suggestion is that I have abandoned my role as a mother, she continued.

She said: You know why you dont see me with my kids? Because I dont let them get photographed.

Wilde and Sudeikis share custody of their kids, but it hasnt been the easiest of parenting journeys

Sudeikis said he did not know that this was going to happen and said that he felt great distress at the manner in which service was made, as per The Independent.

The courts declared their home state as California.

For me, it was appalling, but the victims were an 8- and 5-year-old, and thats really sad.

What do you think?

Read the original here:

Olivia Wilde Responds to Claims She 'Abandoned' Her Children - 22 Words

Voyage to the past with Doc Peterson: a time of lobsters and dominance hierarchy, a time of myths and legends and religious texts, a time of bootstrapping and individualism and Jung and curtailing your pretentious nihilism, just clean your damn room and don't be such a whiny loser. A time when men were men and women were women, when there was nothing to get hung about, strawberry fields were forever. Will you enjoy this journey through time & space? Mileage may vary, so here is a handy guide:

1. Are you a young man of an apolitical, libertarian, or conservative bent, one who feels rather adrift in life and the only option you can think of to get out of your rut is to join the military, otherwise you'll be stuck in whatever small town you live in? This is your book. I hope it helps!

2. Are you an ardently political progressive who rejects gender essentialism and binaries in general, and you are considering working in social services or in a field that will make use of your liberal arts degree? This isn't your book. It will infuriate and enrage you, and who has time for that?

3. Are you someone who loves following a person's stream of conscious, all of the digressions, their personality and quirks on full display, a book in which the author is transparent and almost completely unselfconscious about his obsessions? Consider this book. It is, as they say, an experience.

4. Are you very online, identify as leftist or as woke or as an attack helicopter, embrace identity politics and intersectionality, have watched the Peterson of today and are revolted, and you didn't much like him before today either? Avoid this book at all costs, comrade.

My own reaction: there was a lot that I disagreed with, but even more that I appreciated. This was a fascinating and surprisingly enjoyable book, despite my many aggravations.

CAUSA 6/5/22

Peterson is getting way over the top lately, so I thought I'd bump this one up the list and read it before I became more turned off and perhaps predisposed against his book. I want to come to this with a really open mind. I've enjoyed a lot of Doctor How's videos so I hope to see more of that guy, rather than the person I just unfollowed (lol).

RULE 6Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world

"Don't blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don't reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city?"

Peterson starts this chapter by examining the stated motivations of the Columbine killers, ruminates on Goethe and Tolstoy's perspectives on human destructiveness, considers the serial killer Carl Panzram, and provides a couple examples from his practice of people who have withstood and then countered the evils that life has thrown at them. He also spends some time musing on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (and the reader gets a glimpse of Peterson's own fervent anti-communism).

This was a short yet very dense chapter. By starting off his conversation with an examination of the mindset of mass murderers, things get heavy quickly. He positions their attitude, and the attitude of many others who seek to lash back at the world, as the ultimate response of people who want revenge on everyone and everything. People who have seen the evils of the world and/or been subjected personally to those evils, and who respond not simply with apathy, but with nihilistic vengeance: a defiance of God and law and decency, and a mission to prove to everyone that their personal perspective of a burning world is a universal truth. It is a perspective that removes the individual from the equation, the victims of course, but also the individual who is thinking those thoughts and who is killing all those people. Rather than focusing on what they can do to change themselves, their own part of the world and the people in it, they instead seek to give the world their ultimate criticism. They seek to become a symbol of their own rejection of the world, rather than an individual capable of change and capable of creating change. And so they become a judgment upon the world and against life itself, which they consider to be an innately unjust and evil state of being.

There is always a temptation to blame fate, God, luck, how fucked up the world can be, rather than to look inward, at how we and our peers and our family and our community may be complicit. We especially resist examining ourselves and how we engage with the world. As the author says in the next chapter: "the world is revealed... through the template of your values." In this chapter, he provides an example: the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. One can blame fate or nature or even naivete; it is more comfortable than recognizing culpability. Katrina was a natural disaster, but New Orleans's leaders and government chose not to complete improvements to its levee system that were mandated in 1965. Who is to blame - Nature or the corrupt blindness that led to a disastrous lack of preparation?

I think it is easy to (willfully) misunderstand Peterson's point in this chapter. I saw that misunderstanding when watching a video of the author being questioned while on a panel in Australia. The questioner tried to score a point by dismissing this chapter as Peterson telling folks not to be critical of the world unless they're personally perfect. It's like that audience member just read the chapter title and didn't bother reading the actual chapter. The message here is clear: humans should not give in to the evils that impact life, to the urges that lead a person to vengeance and destruction. We instead need to engage in self-examination, we need to ask ourselves how we may have contributed to these catastrophes that sadden or enrage us, and perhaps most importantly, we need to see the evils that we experience as... instructive. These evils represent modes of behavior that we must reject in our own lives. Otherwise, as the clich goes, we have let those bad things and bad occurrences and bad people win. This chapter is not about not being critical, it is about not allowing hopelessness, resentment, and anger to take over our lives. Impossible for me to find fault with the message of this rule.

RULE 11Do not bother children when they are skateboarding

"The spirit that interferes when boys are trying to become men is, therefore, no more friend to woman than it is to man... It negates consciousness. It's antihuman, desirous of failure, jealous, resentful and destructive. No one truly on the side of humanity would ally him or herself with such a thing... And if you think tough men are dangerous, wait until you see what weak men are capable of."

Peterson starts by, yes, talking about kids skateboarding. This was a nice intro with a nice message: let kids be kids, even if they are putting themselves into a little bit of danger, because that is how you allow things like bravery, grit, and resilience to develop. Unfortunately, as the chapter progresses, it became clear to me that this charming preface is solely concerned with skateboarding boys. Heaven forbid girls consider skateboarding!

Anyway, from there Peterson continues on another wild series of what appear to be tangents but are all actually linked musings that together form the moral of Rule 11. (view spoiler)[He revisits his tragic friend Chris and is a bit more empathetic this time; the point of this section is that Chris was always angry at the injustices of the world, and that put him in a kind of personal development stasis as a self-annihilating rebel without a cause. He notes that women are the majority of college students and there are less male college students every year. He argues that patriarchy is less about the oppression of women and more about the attempt of men and women "to free each other from privation, disease, and drudgery"... his primary examples being the two men who created tampons. Words can't describe my mixed feelings in even writing that last sentence LOL. He talks about the Soviet massacre of two million kulaks ("their richest peasants") which was fascinating/horrific new history for me and also I didn't understand the point of including this history. He rakes postmodernist philosopher-king Jacques Derrida over the coals because of Derrida's insistence that there are exclusionary hierarchical structures, and here I thought that was the exact point that Peterson himself was making in prior chapters. He argues that it is actually not power but competence and ability and skill that are the prime determiners of status in well-functioning societies, to which I must ask him to list me examples of such societies. He attacks the idea of equality of outcomes (i.e. "equity") as hollow and unrealistic, and I actually agree with him there. He discusses how aggression is not an inherently negative trait and I also agree. He spends quite a lot of time discussing the archetypal Terrible Mother and her smothering ways and "compassion as a vice" and I got a little sick to my stomach because here he goes again about women and now he's using all the fables and even Disney cartoons as evidence. He talks about men and their aggressive ways of interacting and how that's not bad, and I agree again, but then he literally uses the ancient Charles Atlas ads as evidence that only alpha men genuinely interest women and then he talks about how Lisa on The Simpsons once had a crush on the bully Nelson and (hide spoiler)] I realized that his point across this entire chapter is that boys need to grow up to be manly men because that's basically what women want. Is he wrong?

Let's ask my Inner Gender Essentialist and my Inner Gender Anarchist to both respond!

GENDER ESSENTIALIST MARK:

Peterson makes an interesting point early on about physical competition between girls & boys: it can be seen as admirable for a girl to even try to compete against a boy, whether or not she wins or loses; for a boy, it is suspect if he even competes with a girl in the first place, unless he is playing down to her as an adult would with a child, and if he loses to her, he will suffer a loss of status. This is an uncomfortable point but there is truth there too. As there is truth in his thoughts on the different interaction styles that men and women can have, and in disparities between men and women when it comes to some forms of physical labor.

Well, at least the truth of my own memories of physical competitions that I've seen or been a part of from childhood through college. And the truth of the many straight male-female relationships I've seen over the years. And the truth of how all of my decent, women-supporting, not-misogynist male friends would never be less than a "gentleman" in their treatment of women, in particular their understanding that women should not be talked to in the same way that men talk to each other, nor expected to operate at the same physical level as men when it comes to certain tasks.

And the truth that for many of my empowered female friends, when talking pre-marriage to their queer bachelor friend Mark about the guys they are attracted to, only talked about fit manly men who are rough around the edges as their ideal, and hey that's who they usually ended up marrying. They married my guy friends, who are gentlemen and who are mainly non-collegiate manly alpha types and who, ironically enough, would probably hate everything Jordan Peterson stands for, and yet who are, essentially, the very type of man that Peterson is extolling (and who are, again the irony, quite the opposite of over-educated, not-particularly-manly, ivory tower-dwelling Peterson himself LOL). So is this gender essentialism or is this simply reality for the vast majority of women and men? Do people hate JP because he is telling an uncomfortable truth?

GENDER ANARCHIST MARK:

Okay unlike fucking Gender Essentialist Mark, I'm not going to go on and fucking on. Instead I'm just going to point to one fucking phrase in this fucking fucked-up chapter: "Disney's more recent and deeply propagandistic Frozen." And then I'm going to point to an interview he gave with some magazine all about that phrase, where he says that he hated Frozen because it turns out the supposed hero is a conniving villain who doesn't rescue the heroine, she has to rescue herself and her sister too. So, prince doesn't rescue princess and a moral that girls sometimes gotta take care of each other and how poor nave JP was surprised & horrified at the twist, and all of that was apparently enough to drive this fragile maniac out of his mind. And so he bestowed the label of Deeply Propagandistic to a benign cartoon about female empowerment because Peterson is basically cosplaying Cro-Magnon Man Who Take Care Of Woman and anything that takes him out of his fantasy world of prescribed gender roles is deeply triggering to this poor fucking snowflake and he's just got to let the whole damn world know all about it.

RULE 12Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

"And maybe when you are going for a walk and your head is spinning a cat will show up and if you pay attention to it then you will get a reminder for just fifteen seconds that the wonder of Being might make up for the ineradicable suffering that accompanies it."

Peterson talks about how we must alleviate our suffering by finding inspiration and joy where we can, whether it's in witnessing the strength displayed by someone facing terrible challenges or just appreciating a moment with a friendly cat. He speaks movingly on his daughter's struggles with severe juvenile idiopathic arthritis, on "recognizing that existence and limitation are inextricably linked," and on the awesomeness of cats and dogs.

This chapter's message is timeless and this rule was an appealing way to end the book. (Especially after that prior chapter.) Probably biased here, because this rule is definitely one that governs my own life.

THE OTHER RULES

(view spoiler)[responses to these rules in messages 28-31 below

Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders backRule 2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.Rule 3: Make friends with people who want the best for youRule 4: Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is todayRule 5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.Rule 7: Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)

Rule 8: Tell the truth - or, at least, don't lie"First, a little lie; then, several little lies to prop it up. After that, distorted thinking to avoid the shame that those lies produce, then a few more lies to cover up the consequences of the distorted thinking. Then, most terribly, the transformation of those now necessary lies through practice into automatized, specialized, structural, neurologically instantiated "unconscious" belief and action."

Rule 10: Be precise in your speech. (hide spoiler)]

Jordan Peterson is a person who receives a lot of derision in my world (view spoiler)[ well at least in my online world, although just typing the phrase "my online world" sorta makes me cringe; okay to be precise, people I like or follow or whatever online don't seem to like him - the people in my actual world probably have never heard of him plus they are not big readers anyway, more into talking about music or local politics than talking about things like books let alone pop culture phenomena like Peterson and I've noticed some eyerolls if I mention something I saw on youtube, a place where Peterson pops up a lot, so does tom cardy who is this hilarious lo-fi australian musician that everyone should watch, and so do a lot of cute animal videos, and a lot of Maangchi's cooking videos, and a lot of Key & Peele, oh man my youtube algorithm really gets me - and damn those eyerolls literally happened yesterday and there I thought I was being helpful by mentioning this particular youtuber named ContraPoints, it seemed like a natural fit in the conversation - but the silence and certain eye movements suddenly made me decide to order another round for everyone because hopefully by the time I got back with drinks everyone would have forgotten my apparent social lapse and overall lack of EQ and would have moved on to something super fascinating to me *cough* like the ins & outs of running a cabinet-making business or will schools be opened or not because the kids are getting to be a lot but also it's scary because the kids don't need to be bringing home no corona, although when I did return they weren't talking about that at all because we had been joined by an old friend who we knew from back in the day, and I think her boyfriend, I wonder if they were actually out on a date, if so they certainly could have picked a better venue, and they were all talking about the homeless crisis and local politics and it all sounded very boring so time for a smoke - Graham joined me to bum one but fortunately for him it was my last one, I thought he quit and I do not want to be his enabler, and so he received a well-deserved chiding - but then when I returned a second time the conversation was back to delta variant and seriously that topic just makes me want to put a bullet in my brain so instead of doing that - as I mentioned to them earlier, it would really suck if I died in the near future because I still have a lot of books I just really, really need to read before I die, oh and places to visit, and various dvd boxsets that are still wrapped in plastic; my friends couldn't tell if I was being serious or not, but let me tell you, I was dead serious - so instead of raising gun to head I just made up some excuse about something I had to go do so gotta say goodbye, and the funny thing is that I cut Graham off just as he was about to say the same thing, I know him all too well, but since I got mine out first, and since he's such a courteous guy, I knew that he'd feel he'd have to stick around with that boring conversation for who knows how long; I smiled to myself but also felt sorta bad - Sorry, Graham! - oh now I just got a bite of fear because the last time I did something rude at this exact bar, it precipitated a cold war between the two of us that lasted like 3 years and was a drag for everyone - Jesus Christ, Graham, you cannot hold this one minor infraction against me, please! (hide spoiler)] and that sorta interests me. But what really interests me is how 12 Rules is apparently all about the digressions and tangents, despite the simplicity of the points being made. Totally into that.

Excerpt from:

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos by Jordan B. Peterson - Goodreads

Jordan Peterson, right, and conservative political commentator Charlie Kirk speak with attendees at the 2018 Young Women's Leadership Summit hosted by Turning Point USA at the Hyatt Regency DFW Hotel in Dallas. Peterson's videos appear on Kirk's media site DailyWire+. (Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0)

In June, psychologist Jordan Peterson signed on with the Daily Wire, a self-proclaimed "right-of-center" multimedia site, for which he has already recorded a plethora of video content. One of his most watched DailyWire+ videos thus far is "Message to the Christian Churches." The video was prompted by his growing Christian fanbase, as well as by his own spiritual quest.

A few years ago, a family friend in his late 20s explained why he didn't want to go to Mass with his family on Easter morning. "The priests make the Bible sound so boring," he said. "I cant help but fall asleep during their homilies. I'd go to church if they played clips of Jordan Peterson talking about the Bible instead of having the priest give homilies. At least Peterson makes the Bible relevant."

Peterson's psychological analyses of the Jungian archetypes found in the Bible largely ignore the text's metaphysical and ethical truths. And yet his appeal to young men was part of the reason then Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron pointed to him as an example of how to engage the "nones" (religiously unaffiliated youth) to the U.S. bishops' Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis in June 2019. Soon after, Barron appeared on Peterson's podcast. Though many Catholics were skeptical about Barron engaging so closely with a figure who draws alt-right crowds, others commended him for opening the doors of the church to Peterson, who in the interview admitted he had a desire for faith and admired the Catholic Church.

Peterson's video hardly grasps the essential "message" of Christianity, and runs the risk of reducing it to something that it is not.

I found myself caught somewhere between these two "sides." To Barron's credit, he never indicated that he intended to use Peterson's work itself for evangelization purposes. Rather, he wanted to encourage Catholic pastors and educators to engage with his work despite its ideological nature and lack of total congruence with a Catholic worldview to understand the needs of young people, many of whom find Peterson's videos attractive. And I agree that it's much more effective to engage in a charitable dialogue with people whose ideologies don't fully converge with the church's teachings than to shout them down, downplay the convergences and tell them why they are in the wrong.

But if thats the case, I always wondered why Barron never engaged with Peterson's counterparts on the left, perhaps figures like U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, philosopher Slavoj Zizek, or professor and author Ibram X. Kendi, whose ideological left-wing rhetoric may not overlap perfectly with orthodox Catholic teaching, but does resonate strongly with many "nones" and does indeed converge with Catholic principles in several regards. Barron's videos condemning poststructuralist thought, critical theory and "woke ideology" seem to run contrary to the evangelization method he has been using to engage with ideologues of Peterson's stripe.

Peterson's video message to "the Christian churches," one of his first released after his partnership with Daily Wire, reflects some of the fruits of his dialogue with Barron. Already with more than 1.2 million views (surprisingly only half the amount as his "Message to Muslims"), the video displays Peterson sitting in what one might presume to be a house in the country, with bookshelves and a stack of wooden logs in the background fitting his whole "chadded intellectual" persona. Peterson squints into the teleprompter, as the screen switches periodically between camera angles in an attempt to hold the audience's attention for 11 long minutes of Peterson's pontificating. He proceeds to meld his characteristic Canadian accent with what seems to be his attempt to emulate his boss Ben Shapiro's biting, no-nonsense "wise guy" rhetorical style.

At the 2019 USCCB General Assembly, then Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop Robert E. Barron suggested Jordan Peterson's message might bring religiously unaffiliated, or "nones," particularly young people, back to the Catholic Church. (CNS/Bob Roller)

His tirade targets critics of toxic masculinity nothing groundbreaking to those already familiar with Peterson's videos and praises "traditional" notions of masculinity that uphold heroic virtue, channeling instinctive aggression, and a stoic sense of duty to build up civilization and defend one's family. He sprinkles his diatribe with Daily Wire-isms like: "Wake up, sunshine!" " that old joker Derrida " "In the words of that mass murderer Karl Marx " Peterson's overt ideological flair gives the video a performative edge that renders it almost amusingly entertaining, albeit in an ironic way.

He goes on to tell "the Christian churches" that they should be upholding such masculine ideals and should be actively attempting to attract young men, going as far as suggesting that they put up billboards that read "Young Men Welcome Here!"

He encourages them not to beat young men down for their "toxic tendencies, but rather to sublimate them in a productive way by asking "more from them [and] remind[ing] them who they are You're churches, for god's sake! Quit fighting for social justice, quit saving the bloody planet! Attend to some souls, that's what you're supposed to do, that's your holy duty. Do it NOW before it's too late."

One of Jordan Peterson's most popular DailyWire+ videos is "Message to the Christian Churches." In it, the Canadian psychologist tells "the Christian churches" to uphold "traditional" masculine ideals and place billboards that read "Young Men Welcome Here!" (NCR screenshot/DailyWire+)

Keeping in mind that Peterson is trying to fit into the role of a hyperbolic performative shock jock like his peers at Daily Wire, I'm inclined to take his "message" with a grain of salt. I must admit that Peterson makes points that churches ought to consider (with a grain of salt.) I, like Peterson, question whether what often comes off as an attempt to "neutralize" men's aggressive tendencies is as useful as harnessing, integrating and transforming said tendencies toward virtuous ends. I've noticed that most of my friends who look up to Peterson happen to be working class and are people of color who see him as an alternative to a puritanized vision of masculinity that is more accommodating to bourgeois college-educated elites is something worth taking seriously.

My primary concern has more to do with Peterson's reactionary posturing, which clouds any of the redeemable qualities of his message, which is the same problem facing his colleagues at the Daily Wire such as Shapiro, Candace Owens and Matt Walsh. Not only does their posturing make it difficult for people who disagree to engage with some of the valid points they may make, but its performative, extravagant flair makes it hard to take them seriously.

My other concern has to do with the integrity of his message from a Christian perspective. Petersons emphasis on the value of channeling more "instinctive" manifestations of cis-typical masculine biology and psychology, and on the moral importance of fidelity to one's duties, is not necessarily "anti-Christian." But these virtues in themselves are pagan if they never are transformed by the theological "Christian" virtues of faith, hope and charity.

It seems to me that Peterson misunderstands what is most essential about Christianity. It is not merely a set of moral teachings, ideas or beliefs. It is not an ideology that upholds "traditional values." It is an encounter with a Person, an experience of God's love in the flesh. Surely Jesus himself (as well as the many male saints) embodied the natural masculine virtues that Peterson celebrates. But for Jesus, such virtues were not ends in themselves. Jesus didnt die on the cross out of a sense of manly courage or duty, but out of desire to give himself to humanity out of love.

The Christian notion of a "masculine genius" highlights a particular "mode of giving" (to use the words of Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar) that incorporates certain natural virtues, elevating them to the supernatural ideal to which we are all called: fatherhood and motherhood, which is ultimately a call to love creatively and generate life.

Take St. Joseph as an example. Hardly a "weakling" or a "wimp," nor "toxic" and "aggressive," St. Joseph was the ideal father because he courageously served and sacrificed for his wife and foster son not merely out of a moralistic sense of duty, but as a response to a supernatural calling to love. The summit of masculinity, as demonstrated by figures like St. Joseph, is this kind of paternal love the same for women, in a way that incorporates their unique gifts and virtues.

I concede that developing a sense of duty might be a significant starting point for many men especially ones who don't grow up in stable environments. It may be a stepping stone to understanding God's love for them and their supernatural vocation. But let's not kid ourselves. Peterson's video hardly grasps the essential "message" of Christianity, and runs the risk of reducing it to something that it is not.

You don't need to go to church to be taught how to adhere to your duties and establish order in your life. You can easily pick up a copy of a book by Marcus Aurelius, Nietzsche, Confucius, or a self-help book like Peterson's 12 Rules for Life. For young men who want to understand the fullness of Christian virtue, I'd recommend they instead pick up a copy of Pope Francis' apostolic letter Patris corde ("With a Father's Heart") on the life of St. Joseph.

Enter your email address to receive free newsletters from NCR.

Read more:

Looking for advice on masculinity? Try St. Joseph rather than Jordan Peterson - National Catholic Reporter

Photo: Getty (Getty Images)

Jordan Peterson appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored Wednesday morning,and there was a single bright spot in two of the worst men in the world convening for a televised gab sesh: Peterson, at one point, broke down in tears.

While I cannot judge whether these tears were genuine or not, the red-meat-guzzling alpha male appeared to cry shortly after Morgan asked him about Dont Worry Darling director Olivia Wildes recent comments about him in Interview magazine. In the movie, Frank (Chris Pine), the main antagonist, is the leader of an incel-like cult, and Wilde explained that Frank was inspired by Peterson. We based that character on this insane man, Jordan Peterson, who is this pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community, she told actor Maggie Gyllenhaal in the interview.

Wilde added, Jordan Peterson is someone that legitimizes certain aspects of [incels] movement because hes a former professor, hes an author, he wears a suit, so they feel like this is a real philosophy that should be taken seriously.

This morning, Morgan asked the controversial author for his reaction to these comments: This insane man, this pseudo-intellectual hero to the incel community, incel being these weirdo loner men who are despicable in many waysis that you? Are you the intellectual hero to these people? he said.

Sure, why not, Peterson replied, visibly emotional. People have been after me for a long time, because I have been speaking to young men, what a terrible thing to do. At that moment, he appeared to weep, before continuing, I thought the marginalized were supposed to have a voice?

G/O Media may get a commission

Wheres my tiny violin?

However casually the term incel may be wielded nowadays, incelswho weaponize their own frustrations and entitlement as an excuse to harass and abuse womenare extremely dangerous andbecoming more radical and violent. A new study found members of the most popular incel forumsviewed by 2.6 million people per monthmention the word kill every 37 minutes and the word rape every 29 minutes, and the subjects of their ire are, obviously, women and girls. Incels are largely fueled by the notion that women having rights amounts to mens oppressionand it certainly doesnt help when influential men go on TV and openly weep about how supposedly persecuted men are.

Noting Petersons emotional state at this point in their interview, Morgan asked if Wildes comments had stung him. Peterson called them kind of low-level compared to at least one other much-publicized fictional characterization of him. Last year, he was the muse for Ta-Nehisi Coates portrayal of the Nazi super-villain Red Skull in Coates Captain America comic book. Petersons exact response to this, at the time, was, What the hell? On Wednesday he told Morgan, Once I got painted as Red Skull, you know, a magical super-Nazi, that was kind of the end of the insults. Theres no place past that.

Despite the literal tears in Petersons eyes, he tried to save face by claiming to not be ~triggered~ by Wildes description of him. It didnt really bother me, he said, adding that he quite liked the trailer of the movie, though he hasnt watched it in full yet.

I said, I hope that you know that if I had to be played by someone, I think Chris [Pine] is a very good-looking man, Peterson continued. So that seems alright, you know.

Earlier in the interview, Peterson spoke at length about his frustration with how the demoralized young men whom he inspires are perceived. God, you know, its very difficult to understand how demoralized people are, and certainly many young men are in that category, he said. And you get these casual insults, these incelswhat does it mean? Of men who are characterized as incels, Peterson said theyre just rightfully upset that they dont know how to make themselves attractive to womenhis words, not mine!!

Women, like, be picky. Thats your gift, man. Demand high standards from your man. Fair enough, Peterson said. But all these men who are alienated, its like, theyre lonesome and they dont know what to do and everyone piles abuse on them.

If, as Peterson understands it, all cis, straight men have to fear in life is rejection, that still sounds like a luxury compared to what women are dealing with: being forced to give birth, attacked and disbelieved for reporting abuse, and bombarded by constant online death and rape threats. But, sure, Jordanhave a good cry about how marginalized men are!

Follow this link:

Jordan Peterson Cried Discussing How Dont Worry Darling Incel King ...