This is a rebuttal from BDMG about my Jordan Peterson post. Visit the BDMG blog here.
I wasn’t really that impressed with his debate, to be honest.
It’s interesting that this comes shortly after seeing Jordan Peterson calling MGTOW “pathetic weasles”, then later qualifying it. I didn’t expect him to go straight for the tradcon single shaming right off the bat here… He has had some good material throughout the years; I hope he’s not becoming a gynocentric one-trick pony of anti-MGTOW now…
The world will always be anti-MGTOW, in the same way the world will always be anti-ginger. MGTOW will always be a tiny minority of men. Moreover, MGTOW are a justifiably hated minority. We can whine about the unfairness of this, but it’s due in large part to the antics of scum like Rob Fedders. It is the natural consequence of our own inability to police our spokesmen.
He says they need to “grow up” because “they have something to offer”… Male utility, male disposability, nothing more. These tradcons think that we’re supposed to be worker bees and nothing more.
Men are hard-wired to compete and succeed. The typical MGTOW who insists this isn’t true inevitably spends all day becoming the best possible player of World of Warcraft that he can be.
I remember arguing with one of these types, who wailed endlessly about his state in life as an incel. He interspersed his complaints with the casual admission that he taught himself multilinear algebra, with the help of MIT Open Courseware. Eventually, he showed me his latest software development project.
“Gee,” I remember saying, at the end of this weird conversation, “I did some of that in graduate school… I could never do it as well as you, and I couldn’t do it at all now…”
Feminists will insist that finding a wimminz and spending the rest of one’s life jumping through her hoops is the pinnacle of masculinity. Who are we to deny this, given what we see around us? It’s better to just admit that most men enjoy being unhappy. It’s also to our advantage to leave such men alone. They fund our society, giving us the opportunity to read books, go out to eat at nice restaurants, and screw trashy women. We also have the opportunity to excel in the field of our choice, without a woman to support. Why should we bother the traditional types, in context?
See here’s the thing: he is seeing part of the problem, he’s accurately seeing a lot of the effects, but he’s acting like a Protestant pastor and putting all of the responsibility on the men for things that have gone wrong. Women are the ones that have changed; this attitude is putting the onus on men to accept women under unacceptable terms, instead of changing the terms back to something acceptable.
The men who accept responsibility for female misbehavior are freeing us up, so that we don’t have to. Do you want to get married to some ball-busting whore? I didn’t think so. Let Joe Blow marry her. He’ll find happiness in slavery, and we’ll be able to have peace in our lives without a wife.
Make no mistake: Joe Blow is Dr. Peterson’s target audience. We’re not ever going to listen to his “man up” calls, and he knows that.
As for the arguments about “trans” shit and the “pay gap”, he knows his material well but he’s not the best debater. He doesn’t seem to know to cut her off a the knees with her sophistry and bullshit. He fought a good defensive fight, but he stayed on defense and she came out without a scratch, in the eyes of someone who doesn’t watch a video, made by and MRA, explaining to them that she lost and why. Not that this is saying much, but for someone who spat out nothing but sophistry, she did a much better job at it than, say, Piers Morgan.
You’re missing the larger point in this debate. This surprises me, given the quality of your contributions.
You can be sure that Mizz Newman did not miss the point. Manginas and male-feminists are born out of a sense of purposelessness and anomie.
Feminism is largely motivated, in men, by a sense of powerlessness. Such men fill their psychic vacuum with “edgy” feminist politics (which has, as a side-attraction, the illusory promise of some third-rate poon with a bluehair.) By telling kids to grow up and assume responsibility, Peterson is denying Newman, and those like her, the male footsoldiers who enforce her mandates.
I think that the reason he is getting so many accolades for this is because its the first time that many people have seen someone even TRY to argue against the gynocracy. It’s better than nothing, but it’s still not worthy of a ringing endorsement, from me anyway.
I can’t really disagree with this. On the upside, he seems to be the only “alt-lite” figurehead who isn’t a total charlatan.
“The world will always be anti-MGTOW, in the same way the world will always be anti-ginger.”
This is hilarious.
“I remember arguing with one of these types, who wailed endlessly about his state in life as an incel.”
Putting aside the term or label “MGTOW,” the problem with a lot of the men who champion it, is that for all their claims to be going their own way and rejecting women, their sense of self-worth as a man is still rooted in their ability to attract and have sex with women they like. I’m speculating here, and I’m obviously excluding men who have been burned in divorce or family court, but it seems much of the angst, anger, and bitterness is rooted in frustration over the fact that women aren’t the way these men envisioned or idealized them to be, and never will be.
The sad thing is, our society has sunk so low that MGTOWs can be pessimistic all the time and frequently hit the bullseye dead center on a specific topic. However, we can spend our lives critiquing everything around us, or we can acknowledge it and incorporate it into how we plan to accomplish our personal goals in life.
The question is, when Peterson speaks of MGTOW, what does he mean? Is he thinking of a whiny incel who spends his days playing video games? Or does that term include men who pursue their life goals without regard for what anyone in a society and culture directly opposed to his interests thinks of how they live their life?
The latter is much more dangerous to society than the former. However, such men are much harder to shame, because they’re not complaining. They’re just doing their thing.
THIS ^^^^^
I frankly have no idea which he (Mr. Peterson) is discussing either.
And I agree one is lol .. & the other is .. dangerous .. & yet impossible to shame (e.g. me).
..
..
Full disclosure .. I am an almost 50 hear old life long (lone wolf) bachelor. Though I have stopped hunting th wimminz for sport & pleasure .. I still know them & their behavor very well.
Boxer I only have one issue on your article ..
You are making the same mistake that ALL PUA / MRA / FEMINIST make.
MGTOW doesn’t have a leader .. nor is it really a movement .. so without a leader how could they police him .. even if they did have a leader .. there are no MGTOW meetings or dues to pay .. so how do you police this so-called leader? It’s not possible is the correct answer.
Now as a life long red-pill bachelor (player) I can say .. & as a man who is now forced into a label (thusly MGTOW) .. it’s important to note I don’t care what other people think .. inside or outside my sphere / zone of per’sway’shun.
My parents couldn’t fix me .. lol .. my church has stopped trying to hook-me-up with every trashy skank hoe churchian womminz that they know or used to know.
Shaming or policing would be a bad choice .. I’d just walk away.
Now I agree that the less than op’poor’tune’is’tic language used by this group is shameful .. because they should be happy they will never be slaves to a womminz .. instead .. The Question is right ..
THIS ^^^^^
There is much butt-hurtness hence the reason for such pathetic examples of happy bachelor’s.
And happy bachelor’s have always been a small percentage of eligible men no-one ever cared.
I don’t mind the label .. I know what people mean .. but I have never had a leader as a bachelor so .. why do people always think MGTOW is a movement & thusly must ha e a leader?
Edit: Boxer cleaned up some html in this comment. Content was untouched.
Dear Brother Honeycomb:
I don’t disagree. It’s impossible for a MGTOW leader to arise. This is by design. I covered that here:
https://v5k2c2.androsphere.net/2017/04/13/angst-mgtow/
Humorous aside: Long ago, a guy named Rob Fedders tried to monetize MGTOW. He claimed to be the founder, and spent years angrily denouncing anyone who didn’t march in lockstep with his goony political views, send him donations, or join his own private club (which failed miserably to attract more than a half-dozen members). I bullycided him off the internet (along with a couple of other people: TFH being one). After he took his toys and went home, I was banned from The Spearhead blog for my troubles.
Anyway, the fact that I point out that we failed to police our spokesmen doesn’t imply that we are able to choose or police our spokesmen. It only entails that MGTOW is destined to be a fringe philosophy forever. With that in mind, we shouldn’t care too much that Dr. Peterson lambastes us. He’s right to do so, in his own way. Provided he doesn’t get legislation passed that forces me to marry some ho’, I have no problem with him.
Best,
Boxer
Oh .. like you criticism is my lifeblood. I live in a world were feelings are left at home or you will be a puddle of goo by 8 am on the 1st day. So Mr. Peterson doesn’t owe anyone an apology for speaking his mind imho.
But .. also like you .. he & others are to be watched so as not to get legislation even started much passed .. in addition if he even supports legislation (re: above) it would be an all hands on deck deployment for all non-married men .. in the meantime .. he’s good entertainment .. especially of late.
I really enjoyed the limited reading time I spent on the spearhead.
I’m certain .. I’d been banned to if I had done any posting at that time as well.
Getting banned can be a big badge of courage. I don’t argue about getting banned .. but I’ll point out there short-falls .. & some can’t or won’t allow that element in their mist.
J4MB .. has been eating a good number of my diqus posts lately .. now to be clear I am not a MRA .. though I appreciate their fighting spirit .. I see it as a scam. I post positive & negative things from time to time. The positive gets through. The negative gets labeled as spam or awaiting further moderation. LOL.
MRA have a high-archy and want money.
They are like the NRA (which I wouldn’t give a penny). They are playing both sides of the fence .. it’s all about power & money. So the fight can never end.
If they ever really solved the problems there would be no need for them afterwards .. i.e. end of the money and time to look for a real job.
I personally am getting a little tired of the taglines “Ben Shapiro destroys feminist in debate” (no, he didn’t) and “Dr. Peterson puts whiny SJW’s in their place” (no, he didn’t). Or “Crowder makes feminist rethink her stances” (really, because I watched the video and didn’t see her change one thing)
I like Dr. Jordon Peterson. I like how he isn’t afraid…..but this does not mean he “destroys” feminists with “logic” because he knows he is already debating / discussing with some of the most irrational and illogical people around. He knows talking to these folks would be like movie about frogs but starring clams.
I like his intellectual honesty. I like a lot of what he has to say….but Dr. Peterson is not the one to “crush” feminists and the like in a debate. Reminds me in the “Atlas Shrugged” novel when Miss Taggart is brought on to an interview on the radio with a hostile “journalist” and despite her intellect. Despite her truth. Despite her skills…the journalist is the one who has the control.
The other side is claiming she “mopped the floor with him”
So…….who’s right? Opinion polls? Viewership and ratings?
Dr. Peterson for the most part should not even bother with this. He has more impact when he posts the videos from his lectures and discussions in his classes.
The Question @ January 28, 2018 at 12:15 pm:
“…it seems much of the angst, anger, and bitterness is rooted in frustration over the fact that women aren.t the way these men envisioned or idealized them to be, and never will be.”
I write it off to hormones. Even when abandoning women is indisputably the right decision, our biology keeps pushing us back. The effort to resist that hardwiring is what causes the angst & anger. Life would be much easier if we were going our own way from tofu.
‘but it seems much of the angst, anger, and bitterness is rooted in frustration over the fact that women aren.t the way these men envisioned or idealized them to be, and never will be. ‘
That’s what happens when you make a creature into a god.
It would be much better for them to accept the fact that women are fallen creatures much like men are and to put their faith, hope, and trust in the Creator.
Because it never fails…the minute a society places sex, fertility, or goddessess as something to worship…the society begins the process of dying.