As with any large-scale social movement, there are valid, or justifiable criticisms of particular elements in modern-day Feminism (e.g. Feminist Epistemology). But it's not clear to me that "criticizing the feminist movement" is meaningful, because the movement itself is not homogeneous. If Peterson had as accurate a pulse on the feminist movement as he claims to have, he would recognize this and perhaps act accordingly. Instead, he delivers "over-the-top hyperbole", i.e., modern feminism as a "murderous equity doctrine". If this isn't "acidic" or "vehement" as I said, I shudder to think what remarks would qualify as such...

I do not think that Maw was using "conservative" in the sense you're thinking. He seems to apply it to right-wing politics in general. — Pneumenon

Not the case within the post you quoted, as evidenced by the fact that I think other forms of right-wing politics are "in-fashion" so to speak.

But it's not clear to me that "criticizing the feminist movement" is meaningful, because the movement itself is not homogeneous. — Maw

Red herring. Very few movements are homogeneous. Your opening post made some general criticisms of right-wing politics, and right-wing politics aren't homogenous, either.

More generally: the "it's not monolithic!" defense is a red herring because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you want to criticize someone for not being specific enough, then make an argument.

Okay, so criticizing the feminist movement makes you "acidic" and "vehement?" — Pneumenon

Yeah, nothing to do with the the 'murderous' quip at all.

Yeah, nothing to do with the the 'murderous' quip at all. — StreetlightX

Calling for someone else's murder is "acidic" and "vehement." Calling someone else "murderous" is not.

I think you're murderously wrong.

Well, you used a somewhat-strong adverb to modify "wrong" there, so clearly you're an unstable firebrand!

Oh I'm acid and vice and all things blithe, but I'm no public intellectual.

*shrug* I'm not a terribly huge fan of Peterson's. But I think the hysterical reaction to some frog-voiced middle-aged psych prof who occasionally criticizes the political left is symptomatic of a wider phenomenon. The guy yells at people to clean their rooms and grumbles about the excesses of the social justice movement, and people act as if he's the Antichrist.

Your opening post made some general criticisms of right-wing politics, and right-wing politics aren't homogenous, either.

More generally: the "it's not monolithic!" defense is a red herring because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you want to criticize someone for not being specific enough, then make an argument — Pneumenon

Perhaps there are statements which are generalized in the OP, but I nevertheless recognize, within the OP, that as a whole, "Right-Wing politics" includes a multitude of views, the aim in my OP was to pinpoint which aspect of right-wing politics is growing in dominance (as distinct from the Never-Trump conservatives within the op-ed pages of NYT). For Peterson, the heterogeneity of modern-day Feminism isn't acknowledged; leading him to craft ridiculous denouncements, like that supporting a global Woman's Rights march leads to a "murderous equity doctrine".

Ironically, your argument is a red herring, because you're distracting from the real issue: is stating that modern feminism is "a murderous equity doctrine" valid criticism, or acidic hyperbole? That's the question I'd like answered. And if not, what would?

is stating that modern feminism is "a murderous equity doctrine" valid criticism, — Maw

Irrelevant, as Peterson never said this. He didn't even directly state what the doctrine was. Herrings within herrings....

I don't think it's surprising at all. Peterson is just about the only person - with maybe the exception of Sam Harris - who stands as a well-recognised and much engaged public intellectual in the Western world right now. And his admonishment to 'clean ones room' is equally an admonishment to not do other things - engage in activism, attempt to change the status quo - and equally cast scorn on those who do. And the issues he deals with, feminism, 'social justice', and so on are bright-light topics that attract huge commentary, and he stands as a bulwark for many as an inspiration for how to approach them. He may be a 'frog-voiced middle-aged psych prof who occasionally criticises the political left', but he is not only that. It takes a great deal of critical neglect to overlook that.

I'm afraid I do not see the link between "get your shit together and take care of yourself" and "SUBMIT TO THE PATRIARCHY WOOF WOOF." I agree that he is famous, though. And there are certainly many incredibly fascinating things you could glean from looking at his popularity and the reasons for it. But he's not the Lord of Mystic Fascism.

The hell do you think was implied when he tweeted this in response to Justin Tredeau? Imagine Peterson answering the very questions he posed, as simply Yes or No answers. What do you honestly think he'd say?

I dunno. Maybe he'd specify which brand of feminism he was criticizing and why. You seem to be making some serious inferential leaps here, without apparent justification.

I'm afraid I do not see the link between "get your shit together and take care of yourself" and "SUBMIT TO THE PATRIARCHY WOOF WOOF." — Pneumenon

No, but then, if you think that caricature is the crux of the issue, then you have a very shallow read of his standing.

Cool! Let's hear an in-depth critique.

Of what exactly? I simply disagreed that Peterson's divisiveness was all that surprising. He gets as good as he gives.

Of what exactly? — StreetlightX

Here are the last two posts:

No, but then, if you think that caricature is the crux of the issue, then you have a very shallow read of his standing — StreetlightX

Cool! Let's hear an in-depth critique. — Pneumenon

And here's the one before that. Want to keep going?

Come now, you needn't dig your heels in like this. You said I had a shallow read of his standing, and I asked for an in-depth explanation.

— Pneumenon

I'm afraid I do not see the link between "get your shit together and take care of yourself" and "SUBMIT TO THE PATRIARCHY WOOF WOOF."

This isn't worth engaging except to point out that it isn't.

You've engaged me for several posts so far. Why the sudden reticence? Your post made some assertions but with no arguments. I'm certain that you have arguments, though, so why not post them? This is a philosophy forum.

You're right. If 'woof woof' is the best you can do, I excuse myself.

That's a pity. I'd hope that a person as well-read as yourself would deign to post his arguments in this thread, if not for my benefit, then for that of the forum. I've enjoyed your posting on this forum and the previous one for years. It's a bit disconcerting that a little lightheartedness is such a turn-off for you. Hope you're alright.

Both in the left and the right there is allways a contest for the leadership role between the moderates and the extrememists. If in the left it previously was a bitter struggle between the socialists and the communists, in the right it was earlier a fight with conservatives and genuine fascists. Today it's the far right views of populist anti-immigration movements who try to push old-school conservatism out from the right here in Europe.

In the US I would say that genuine American conservatism is depicted extremely well in Goldwater-Republicanism, that has deep roots in libertarianism and US history. There is also a difference between this kind of conservatism and the religious-right, which even if conservative in it's values, has more to do with religion than conservatism. Conservatism to be true to it's logical definition has to have a link to earlier times and history. Yet that kind of Republican conservatism is muted today and attacked by the right-wing populists as being RHINOs. First came right wing talk radio, then the unfortunate success of the small cabal called the neocons.

I see it as the dumbing down of political discourse in the US to a lousy talk show. The next stage would be when the politicians themselves will have literally fist fights on Capitol Hill during sessions. Likely we will see that.

Expand on that — Maw

Well I'm almost positive you'll dispute my interpretation (straw man) given the ambiguity of the topic, but my sense is that there's less tolerance among leftists these days towards those who challenge the guiding values underlying our increasingly fast-paced, scientifically-oriented and technology-obsessed world. Proponents of this system appear to be tying their identities in with its continued advancement while those who urge caution are seen as opponents of progress. (and probably racist, sexist, homophobic...)

I trace this general issue of left vs right back to the Enlightenment and the reaction to it in the Counter-Enlightenment. My personal views represent a hybrid of sorts between the sides and while I do appreciate many aspects of the modern project (e.g. increased political equality, advances in science and medicine, etc.) I also think there are some potential drawbacks which were initially articulated by 18th and 19th-century Romantics. I'll hold off on listing those here and get back to my belief that Dems are moving more and more to the left.

Some quick personal examples include: getting blasted for pulling my younger son out of the public school system in favor of a charter school which takes an unconventional approach to education and child development; my wife being made to feel like a complete failure of a woman for choosing to prioritize our children over career goals (I did the same lest anyone assume ours isn't an equal relationship); getting mocked for expressing an openness to insights found in religions; being attacked by a mob (not literally) for white privilege because I criticized aspects of an article which demonized all white people as being incapable of anything other than racism, destruction, evil, etc.

Anecdotal evidence like this may not be convincing but I just don't recall the level of intolerance coming from Dems, especially as related to cultural issues, being anywhere close to what it is today. Not even a decade ago. Incidentally, I originally moved to the political left (significantly) around seventeen years ago, just a few months after joining the RATM message board and engaging in debates with some really sincere and thoughtful posters.

Through those lively exchanges I began to question many of my basic assumptions about economics, patriotism, and other politically-related issues - I was a staunch Republican until then - and began to see things much differently. And while posters did take on issues of racism, sexism, militarism, etc. quite often they did not (to my recollection) focus on my racial and sexual background but treated me with respect and kindness, and they did so despite significant ideological differences. Could that sort of political transformation `happen today? It wouldn't be as likely, I'd say, although I wouldn't place the blame entirely on one side for this.

I'd also point out that within the ranks of those forum members were a surprising number of religious, pro-life anarchists, socialists, and more traditional progressives. Anti-consumerist, pro-family, pro-'spirituality' positions were actually well-respected among many of them just as they would have been within counter-cultural hippies from the 1960's. But within today's neoliberal Democratic party of the Clintons, Obama and Pelosi, those who have reservations about this narrow conception of 'progress' are generally seen as reactionaries ("clinging to their religion"), even among the rank and file members of the party.

The length of this post notwithstanding I feel I left way too much out to prevent misunderstandings - my highly qualified use of the term 'spirituality' for instance - so I'm anticipating criticisms of my views on social conservatism, the trajectory of the Democratic party, and other stuff that would take a lot more time and effort to make clear(er).

There are a lot of things wrong discussed about this discussion, most importantly the perceived notion of any party in the U.S. being “conservative”

I'm not a terribly huge fan of Peterson's. But I think the hysterical reaction to some frog-voiced middle-aged psych prof who occasionally criticizes the political left is symptomatic of a wider phenomenon. The guy yells at people to clean their rooms and grumbles about the excesses of the social justice movement, and people act as if he's the Antichrist. — Pneumenon

This. So much. :up:

Yes, some of the reaction is a little hysterical, but not nearly as hysterical as foaming about women marching for equality as representing "murderousness" or calling BLM far left "terrorists" or worrying that the Dems are heading towards "communism". There's hysterical nuttiness on both sides I think you'll agree, but a few more tin-foil hat Alex-Jones types on the right as far as I can see. And this type of childish buzzword rhetoric just closes down debate. Peterson is as guilty of that as his opponents. (Lately at least—he used to be more sensible).