Jordan Peterson's Views on Gay Marriage and Child-Rearing Are Dumb



What does he think about ay people raising children?


What does he think about gay marriage?

WHO CARES2! (Electric Boogaloo)?

Stupid reactionary people masquerading as "philosophers" are beyond tedious. Seriously, no one asked you, queen. No one gives a shit what you think about any of it.


@1 counterpoint: he thinks crustaceans are a valid and appropriate model for human behavior


This debate is current and includes some fire between Jordan and Michael Eric Dyson.


I was at the lecture last night, which was dense and a little hard to follow at times, but was exclusively about his ideas on metaphorical/archetypal truth. The crowd was racially diverse for Seattle and at least 40% women. I don’t recall a single thing about politics in the lecture or the questions afterward. I’ve listened to many dozens of hours of his lectures and read his latest book, and I hardly recall anything all that political, though he’s definitely believes in treating people as individuals rather than groups, and he’s a fierce critic of postmodernism/neo-Marxism/identity politics. When he does say something that explicitly touches on politics, it tends to be very dimplomatic, saying that truth comes from a conversation from the left and the right or some such thing, and he’s mentioned many times the importance of a strong safety net for the least fortunate. Truly don’t understand why he’s touched such a nerve with some people, but I can also garantee that every time an obvious disingenuous hit piece like this is published, he gains more admirers


@4: It's a simple way to express how even as advanced as we are, we are still somewhat ruled by the most primitive parts of our evolutionary legacy. Not simple enough for everyone though I guess.

I haven't read a single thing this guy has written and even I can see that.


@7, Of course it's "simple" but it is deployed in a way to make it seem smart and profound and based on scientific reasoning, but there are millions of species on earth that rely on serotonin as a neurotransmitter and they have diverged greatly from their "evolutionary legacy" due to the selective pressure of millions of years of evolution. You could pick any species and use the same rationale to say humans should be more altruistic than competitive or whatever but no one should do that because this is not how comparative biology works. It might function as a metaphor if you want to make a specific point about how you personally think humans should behave but that doesn't make it any less dumb.


“Peterson might be worried about the fates of kids raised by gay couples, but an overwhelming number of other scientists are not”. Actually he isn’t worried- he was giving his perspective to a question and it seems that Rich was bored today and decided to get the old crayons out. It’s doubtful Petersen even cares about gay parents as with gay marriage. As a gay man, I find marriage to be hilariously archaic institution that the gay community so desperately flocks to in an effort feel homogeneous with society. A society whose own rate of divorce is far from exemplary and the basis for the stereotypes seen on television. Maybe instead of Gay Pride it should be “Homogeneous Gay Married Couples” Pride. Or better yet! “Gay Family” Pride. Maybe it will catch on at the Folsom Street Fair. Although I’m not sure the circuit queens who hit all the prides up and down the coast will care for it- but hey - Seattle is a progressive leader and children and marriage are an American institution- and really who wants to be gay and in an institution.


@6, I have to agree, I noticed that many of his harshest critics are people who will admit to never sitting through one of his discussions in full or at least even most of it. They tend to point to short clips of YouTube videos to "destroy" him. The same thing happens to Sam Harris on a pretty regular basis.

But then you need to remember that The Stranger only cares about click bait and identity politics. Nuance is lost on the writers in their attempt to become another Fox News or worse Drudge


@7 - The word "somewhat" is doing a lot of work there.

To invoke a lobster is to arbitrarily pick from an immense range of possible organisms and behaviors merely because of a superficial resemblance to a cultural norm that Peterson admires.

Its a Just So Story - an allegory at best, not evidence of anything.

Some damn commie might say "oh yeah, well what about ants?". What's Peterson to say in response to that other than "but I don't like the lesson that ants teach".



Maybe because he's just another in a very old tradition of hucksters who've used their narrow academic credentials to convince the credulous that he knows more than he actually does about subjects in which he has absolutely no expertise?


@9: He isn't talking about zoology. I imagine he picked a lobster becasue it is such a simple creature, but the actual animal doesn't matter. Which is kind of the entire point.

It's a pretty simple analogy, dude. You intentionally (I hope) misunderstanding it doesn't make you look any better or smarter.


I could be convinced that humans are biologically hard-wired to thrive best when raised in the context of two heterosexual/romantic parents (ie, "the western ideal")...

But if we're going to decide who can and cannot be parents, why not have some nominally objective standard? Plenty of single parents are shithead parents, plenty of stepparents are shithead stepparents, plenty of straight couples are shithead parents, and presumably there are shithead gay parents as well. Why fixate on where a parent sticks their privates when trying to determine if they're fit to raise a child?

Alternatively, we could just say that we have the right to bear children and don't need a government to decide who can or cannot procreate.


@12: I mean, you got it for a second there. Yes, it is an allegory, not any kind of evidence. So stop trying to make it so. It's a jumping off point for a philosophical discussion/point. You may disagree with the end point but this whole "Durr, he thinks lobsters are people!" thing is just dumb.

It's not meant to be science.


@14, Of course the animal matters because all animals have adapted their own set of traits based on the needs of their species. He chose the lobster because they have a social hierarchy that benefits the most dominant males, and he rationalizes this choice because they -- like humans and millions of other organisms on earth -- produce serotonin, but humans are a social species, so comparing human behavior to that of solitary animals simply because they produce some of the same brain chemicals is a gross misuse of science. I understand the analogy, which is why I know it's dumb.



One doesn't need to deeply immerse themselves in Peterson's signature brand of pseudo-intellectual mush to see how full of shite he is; that's pretty much the entire point. The only people poring over his every flatulent utterance are those so desperate for validation that they fall for his vacuous "arguments" (generally comprised of a random assortment of otherwise factual statements carefully constructed so that he can literally draw any conclusion from them he chooses), despite how easily most of them can be debunked. His favorite tactic is encompassed in the "lobster argument": taking a random factoid about a particular species of crustacean that hasn't evolved significantly for literally hundreds of millions of years, and then using it to draw a one-to-one analogy about contemporary human, and more specifically cis-het White male, behavior patterns. He knows absolutely nothing about lobster neurology, and frankly not much more about human neurology, but his standing as a psychologist lends him the credence of authority with his followers. It would be akin to Doctor Phil expounding on the proper techniques for performing organ transplant surgery, and about equally as useless.


@10 - What a refreshing take.


You can see the panic in the loony intersectional left's eye now that the gig is up for them and people are coming to their senses, taking responsibility for their lives. Peterson (I like some of his work, some I don't...because I think for myself) has the far left wetting themselves. It's hilarious. Meanwhile he sells out the Moore twice in 3 months. And does the same across the country and in Australia. Europe is next.

What will the neon dyed weed whacker haircut non binary mental midgets do?

Good to see the younger generation tossing the intersectional left overboard.


These poor persecuted,right-wing "thinkers" (ha ha) have been forced into the "dark web." Places like the "New York Times" op-ed pages and underground venues like the Moore Theatre.

The most important thing to remember about all of this: Racist, sexist and homophobic right wingers are victims from the mean lefties.


it's meant to be science


I don't really get why this guy has touched off a nerve and I think this is really picking him to pieces. THere are cultural differences between genders and races but not for the reasons you're whinging about. If he was on about genetic components, i'd be right there with you but both are social constructs and as long as we have these constructs there will be a need for synthesis to make you whole. It's important to have role models that span both race and gender. End of story.

If he said you had to have both genders as parents, he'd be wrong but he's not saying that. My gay partner and I could raise a male child but I want him to have a positive female influence in his life so he can appreciate a different way of thinking/approaching the challenges in his life. OK?

Demanding that both parents are the primary role models? Heh good luck. I shot 1 out of 2 and I got lucky. I had to find my male role models outside family of origin.


This piece is ironic in the context that Dave Rubin, an openly gay man who’s married to his same sex partner, opened the show, led the Q&A, and endorsed Peterson. Rubin even quipped about “enforced gay monogamy,” which probably rankled a few people who don’t understand comedy.

Now, Mr. Rubin cannot possibly speak for all gay people but it’s incongruous to speculate that Peterson is a homophobe when he’s never spoken against gay marriage; only postulates that same sex couples who be aware of their roles as parents vs saying they’re bad parents; and who has gay allies who are married. Peterson’s also clarified many times that his positions against compelled speech are not transphobic.

Again with the Ouroboros discourse of identity politics. Would the author of thus article consider Rubin to not be “acceptably gay” due to Rubin’s support of Peterson?


would a dumb person write, "Children can be damaged as much or more by a lack of incisive attention as they are by abuse, mental or physical. ... I can recognize such [damaged] children on the street. They are doughy and unfocused and vague. They are leaden and dull instead of golden and bright. They are uncarved blocks, trapped in a perpetual state of waiting-to-be." or, after advising parents use "minimum necessary force" (depening on the kid a glare to whatever (he goes vague after "a swat across the backside")) that they, "Do no let your children do anything that makes you dislike them."? would a dumb think a "no" is meaningful only when there is some bigger bully to coerce compliance to it? would a dumb write assuming all humans are sociopaths? these are questions, i can absolutely say that is true.

@10 i agree marriage is a crock and gay or straight or whomever participates reproduce its toxins but peterson disagrees, especially with kids who he emphatically says do best raised by a mommy and a daddy. you can read about it in his dumb book.


@20: If you want people to think that you are not yet another iteration of the same dopey Troll you're going to have to let go of your weird obsession with haircuts. This is I believe the third time I've seen you use the same description. I mean for someone who "thinks for themselves" you'd think you could come up with new material.
Try harder.


@22 Please watch Eric Weinstein's video about why he came up with the name "Intellectual Dark Web" before spouting out that gibberish.


Peterson likes hierarchy. He likes organization. Cool, cool, that's fine. The problem is that he is particularly attached to hierarchies that place him, as a cis het product of a euro-centric view at the top. Since this organization works nicely for him, and has for centuries for others just like him, he's mistaken that for a universal and objective good.
It's not.
He's going to have to budge on over on the sofa and get the fuck over the fact that people other than cis het white guys want to sit down and organize the cushions in a way that works for them too.


I'm a married (to a female) transsexual female that has raised our son calling us both "Mom."

I know what it was like growing up without a dad. And certainly have witnessed my son's struggles growing up in a home without a dad. It's important boys have males to relate to. I don't think it's a good idea to just dismiss tens of thousands of years of gender dynamics.

We'll see what the long-term impact is on boys and girls growing up in homes with same sex couples. There are much larger numbers these days to sample from. I think the left has been a bit to quick to dismiss the value of same gender dynamic between parent and child.


Not a shred of what I have read from Peterson has came off to me as homophobic, or transphobic.

What do I know though, I'm just a transsexual.


@25 i think it's clear the term "phobe" has been redefined. We're operating on the old modern defintion which meant fear-of/hatred-of. But it's clear that people who wield the term homo/trans-phobic today, in 2018, are using a different meaning: "Someone who doesn't completely agree with my opinion on the subject at hand". Essentially the world is divided into Allies and Phobes.



The only ones "tossing the intersectional left overboard" are the same fragile cis-het whiteboys (read: Peterson's core audience) who have seen the writing on the wall and are now thoroughly wetting themselves at the prospect of having to share the top of the social pyramid they've been desperately clinging to for so long.


JBP's a joke and no one is afraid of him. The Stranger only keeps bringing him up because he's an easy target, and everytime they do like 300 JPB fanboys click on the article to come to his defense in the comments. Which is always entertaining.



The only reason Peterson's star is rising - and will no doubt descend just as quickly - is that he's the current flavor-of-the-month for distressed cis-het white Omegas looking for a savior to tell them they're really the dominant Alpha-males they fervently imagine themselves to be. In a year or so, after most of them have still failed miserably to get a raise or attract a mate, they'll realize just how facile his arguments really are and move on to the next self-proclaimed MRA champion.


@33 Except Petersen has a huge core following of people from all walks of life. Your incessant attempt to portray his followers as nothing but desperate sociopaths is tiring. You also attempted to minimize his credentials in a deceiving way. Petersen is a clinical psychologist whose studies include human neurology. He is in fact knowledgeable and incredibly qualified to speak on such topics.


@11 Buddy, I don't have to contract gonorrhea to know its bad.


I should add that, at the end of his ride, Peterson will not only have amassed a tidy nest-egg to supplement his presumably meager university pension, but will have plenty of material for a nice monograph detailing the credulity of his target study group, which he'll no doubt submit for publication in the Canadian Journal of Psychology.



You mean things like the neurological similarities between lobsters and humans? Or his utterly pathetically failed attempt to conflate the language of C-16 with a self-imagined (and thoroughly nonexistent) censorship of his ability to use certain gender pronouns? Or perhaps you're referring to lazy handwaving tendency to characterize anything that runs against his self-styled "truths" as "cultural Marxism"? Or his annoying penchant for arguing against positions his so-called opponents have in fact never actually taken up against him?

Seriously, when it comes to slippery slopes, Peterson is the rhetorical equivalent of a mile of plastic sheeting unrolled down a hill and covered in Astroglide...


_ "the classical human unit" which he describes as "father, mother, child." _

"Classical"? Since when? The Industrial Revolution? The nuclear family is an emotionally dysfunctional cluster, more suited to hierarchical control. It should be no surprise that it was popular during the 1940s-1950s. He should know this, being a "clinical psychologist" and all.

I thought the "classical human unit" --based on, oh, millions of years of human existence--, was a numerous multigenerational group of related people (father, mother, uncles, aunts, grandparents, siblings, extended family), as well as numerous other non-blood related people in your tribal grouping. THAT is the "classical human unit", according to anthropology and heaps of evidence, both archaeological and present-day.

And what is this "standard society" he so casually alludes to without definition?
You study human societies for a couple semesters and you realize that there is ~no~ "standard society" on this planet, nor has there ever been. And even /less/ so with now over 7 billion people on Earth. More people, more variation, more difference, more uniqueness.

He sounds like some sort of neo-Hegelian conformist who is quite happy to put culture into nice pretty boxes for those afraid of cultural change, and without the skills to communicate.

Fuck that! We need to be fucking intelligent & communicative about how we re-shape our culture today... things that don't work, or trigger violence, or encourage animosity ...need to be discarded.

Everything, every cultural practice from any human culture is on the table, and available for us to share and improve our own culture.


He seems rather boorish and not very bright.


The important thing is people are inured to your intentional misreading and miscategorizing of Peterson, a phenomenon largely laid bare by Cathy Newman in her most significant, most inadvertent journalistic achievement to date; he—with his unlike-minded allies in the defense of Western pluralistic freedom and individual sanctity—will continue to expose the lockstep, fascistic nature and absurdity of modern Leftist “thought.”

Though I’ve got to give grudging respect to this website for continuing to maintain a Comment section, an increasingly rare practice way over there on the port side.


This cuts both ways. I mentioned recently in a thread elsewhere that I personally don't much care for Prof P as he's not good on gays, though my original phrasing was "not great". I received one respectful reply asking why I thought so, and exampled a long speech of his I'd heard in which the difference between straight and gay would have been important, only his manner of never clarifying whether he was speaking exclusively to/about straight people or not gave me the distinct impression that his ideal world would be 100% Wainthropp. The other reply I got began with my being called an irrelevant outlier snowflake and ended with the proclamation that I think the only interesting thing about me is the gender of my partner (actually a rather less polite phrase). I think even my detractors among the assembled company can find that assumption somewhat amusing. It reminded me of Anthony Blanche telling Charles Ryder about how Society had sanctified Lady Marchmain and declared Lord Marchmain a pariah. "And what is the truth? They were married for fifteen years or so and then Lord Marchmain went to the war; he never came back but formed a connection with a highly talented dancer. There are a thousand such cases. She refuses to divorce him because she is so pious. Well, there have been cases of that before. Usually, it arouses sympathy for the adulterer; not for Lord Marchmain though. You would think the old reprobate had tortured her, stolen her patrimony, flung her out of doors, roasted, stuffed and eaten his children, and gone frolicking about wreathed in all the flowers of Sodom and Gomorrah; instead of what?"

Although I really only thought of that passage because it felt as if saying one non-flattering thing about such a person struck his defenders as so criminal, it may be interesting to see if he has the same effect in time on his allies and associates as Lady Marchmain did on the wraiths of various ages and sexes who followed her about, Anthony also telling Charles that Sir Adrian Porson was the greatest, the only poet of his generation, but had been bled dry.

I've even agreed with Prof P on a handful of points, but it is insufficient. It's like the inverse of Miss Austen's quotation about how a fond mother is always rapacious for praise of her child, but she will swallow anything. The Petersonheads will accept any compliment, but will always demand more than most rational people would be willing to allow of anyone.

As for marriage, we'd have been better off with our own, superiour institution, but the Wainthropps weren't having that. It would have been far superiour to Mr Savage's crusade to save OS marriages and turn them all monogamish.

I'll also agree with those who would never think of resorting to the H bomb in this case.


Peterson worries about gay people raising children like worry about rednecks raising them.