Jordan Peterson, Aggressive Women, and Lessons Learned about the Left

Here’s an interesting video with our public genius and prodigy, Jordan Peterson (it’s only 4-1/2 minutes):

I’m sure that he’s right that aggressive women are more limited violence-wise on how they act and so they tend to inflict damage by reputation destruction, gossip, and innuendo. Men do the same things but they have better recourse to violence and so they include that in their bag of tricks and often threaten or use violence as their outlet for aggression.

The point of this post is to make the case that politics in recent decades has become highly feminized, hasn’t it? Aggressive leftists do this same thing, too. They use these exact tactics in dealing with all the politicians and intellectuals. Obama epitomizes this in that he’s so effete if not effeminate but actually very aggressive and cold-blooded.

I’ve always said that candidate Trump used the tactics of the left against his Republican opponents and then again in the general election against Hillary. He turned their own tables on the left. Scott Adams yesterday pointed out that the original use of the Fake News meme was to attack Trump (I forget by whom). Adams then described how Trump just reached out and took this gun from them and aimed it back at them. His political jiu-jitsu is very competent.

I was talking on the telecon the other day and one of the participants knew Jeff Sessions from his days in Alabama and he told us that Sessions was known as the silent assassin. If that’s male aggression then I hope we see some of that here pretty soon.

BTW, I sure can’t figure out why Trump disparages Sessions so much (it happened again today) without firing him. He should have done it last year.

John Yoo says that Sessions may have done Trump a favor by recusing himself but this makes no sense unless Yoo thinks that Sessions would have 1) appointed a special counsel (this seems very doubtful) and 2) if he did he wouldn’t have appointed a scumbag like Mueller. I really wonder about Yoo sometimes.

6+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

29 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson, Aggressive Women, and Lessons Learned about the Left”

  1. 10 Cents:
    “No, we aren’t aggressive. I will destroy your reputation unless you take that back.”

    This is a succinct way of describing that interview. Well, and that the interviewer was trying to Cathy Newman him: “You’re saying that…” These are tells for cognitive dissonance.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. drlorentz:

    10 Cents:
    “No, we aren’t aggressive. I will destroy your reputation unless you take that back.”

    This is a succinct way of describing that interview. Well, and that the interviewer was trying to Cathy Newman him: “You’re saying that…” These are tells for cognitive dissonance.

    I watched this interview and almost posted till the Rat, Koler, beat me to it. I am not sure if it is in this clip but Jordan Peterson let the interviewer know these are facts and I am quite an expert in this field.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  3. Larry Koler:
    I’m sure that he’s right that aggressive women are more limited violence-wise on how they act and so they tend to inflict damage by reputation destruction, gossip, and innuendo.

    I really enjoyed this post but Jordan’s commentary fails to discriminate between certain socio-economic groups of women. There are plenty of women who fail to limit their aggression to non-violence and this is nothing new.

    Again, another anecdotal from me but I have witnessed a lot of living and I will tell you that I have run out of NYC subways in total fear of groups of African-American women who are openly looking for a fight. I’ve also experienced great kindness and polite behavior from dangerous male gangs. There can be a positive dynamic that happens between the sexes that is not often noted.

    True story:

    I was 23 years old, yupped out in khaki pants, pink button-down, long blonde hair pulled back by a headband and was on my way to Bed-Stuy to attend a co-worker’s party. He had warned me numerous times to travel with another male co-worker (preferably a Caucasian because traveling with a black man would have infuriated the sistahs).

    I ignored his advice and as I was entering the deep heart of Brooklyn all alone on the subway I realized I had make a mistake as I noticed hostile stares from other women. Finally, a young man approached me and said, “Lady, what in the hell are you doing here? You’re about to be jumped and not from my crew.”

    Ah, the innocence and the bravery of the young! I looked at him and said, “I think you’re right. Could you escort me to my friend’s house; I’m supposed to help him with his open house party.” (That was the wrong choice of words to use to say the least.)

    End of story: I arrived at Clay’s apt in the worst neighborhood in NY accompanied by a few members of the Crips. Clay literally screamed when he opened the door and saw me surrounded by my new *companions.* Fortunately, they thought it was as comical as I did and disappeared into the night.

    11+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. Larry Koler:
    The point of this post is to make the case that politics in recent decades has become highly feminized, hasn’t it?

    I’d go further and say that our entire society has become highly feminized.  Politics, as they say, is downstream from culture.

    Aggressive leftists do this same thing, too. They use these exact tactics in dealing with all the politicians and intellectuals. Obama epitomizes this in that he’s so effete if not effeminate but actually very aggressive and cold-blooded.

    I think the term is passive-aggressive, and yes, he is.  That’s probably one reason he was so popular with the taste-makers of the feminized culture.

    I’ve always said that candidate Trump used the tactics of the left against his Republican opponents and then again in the general election against Hillary. He turned their own tables on the left. Scott Adams yesterday pointed out that the original use of the Fake News meme was to attack Trump (I forget by whom). Adams then described how Trump just reached out and took this gun from them and aimed it back at them. His political jiu-jitsu is very competent.

    Interesting observation.  However, I don’t think that Trump simply used the tactics of the left against them, in the sense of using feminine, passive-aggressive tactics.  More like he took their passive-aggressive verbiage and turned it back on them (jiu-jitsu being a good analogy), but in a more masculine form.  This is why his GOP opponents failed to counter him — they’ve grown used to the feminized approach to politics and so were unprepared.

    That’s not to say that Trump is a “man’s man” or anything.  Rather than being feminine passive-aggressive, he’s more of a thin-skinned blowhard who tears others down to build himself up — not an ideal model of masculinity by any stretch.  Having been denied any truly manly politicians, lots of folks settled for an imperfect facsimile in Trump.  We take what we can get.

    I was talking on the telecon the other day and one of the participants knew Jeff Sessions from his days in Alabama and he told us that Sessions was known as the silent assassin. If that’s male aggression then I hope we see some of that here pretty soon.

    “Jeff Sessions” and “male aggression” don’t seem to belong in the same paragraph.  Just sayin’.

    BTW, I sure can’t figure out why Trump disparages Sessions so much (it happened again today) without firing him. He should have done it last year.

    I’ve come to suspect that Trump’s “You’re fired” shtick was just that: shtick.  This is just another example of Trump not being a “man’s man.”  Ideally, he’d either publicly defend his subordinates (even when privately calling them on the carpet) or else fire them outright, not openly disparage them while keeping them on.  Again, we take what we can get.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  5. Interesting post.   I agree with him, mostly.  Women can be very dangerous indeed; very ugly.  Quite manipulative.  Just listen to the femi-nazis.

    The only quibble I have is that younger women today seem to be much more physically aggressive then in the past, or maybe it just seems that way.  Strangely, this  transition towards physical aggressiveness has not* resulted in muted mouths.

    Edit: to add missing word.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  6. EThompson:

    Larry Koler:
    I’m sure that he’s right that aggressive women are more limited violence-wise on how they act and so they tend to inflict damage by reputation destruction, gossip, and innuendo.

    I really enjoyed this post but Jordan’s commentary fails to discriminate between certain socio-economic groups of women. There are plenty of women who fail to limit their aggression to non-violence and this is nothing new.

    Again, another anecdotal from me but I have witnessed a lot of living and I will tell you that I have run out of NYC subways in total fear of groups of African-American women who are openly looking for a fight. I’ve also experienced great kindness and polite behavior from dangerous male gangs. There can be a positive dynamic that happens between the sexes that is not often noted.

    True story:

    I was 23 years old, yupped out in khaki pants, pink button-down, long blonde hair pulled back by a headband and was on my way to Bed-Stuy to attend a co-worker’s party. He had warned me numerous times to travel with another male co-worker (preferably a Caucasian because traveling with a black man would have infuriated the sistahs).

    I ignored his advice and as I was entering the deep heart of Brooklyn all alone on the subway I realized I had make a mistake as I noticed hostile stares from other women. Finally, a young man approached me and said, “Lady, what in the hell are you doing here? You’re about to be jumped and not from my crew.”

    Ah, the innocence and the bravery of the young! I looked at him and said, “I think you’re right. Could you escort me to my friend’s house; I’m supposed to help him with his open house party.” (That was the wrong choice of words to use to say the least.)

    End of story: I arrived at Clay’s apt in the worst neighborhood in NY accompanied by a few members of the Crips. Clay literally screamed when he opened the door and saw me surrounded by my new *companions.* Fortunately, they thought it was as comical as I did and disappeared into the night.

    Holy mackerel!

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  7. Terry Mott:

    Larry Koler:
    The point of this post is to make the case that politics in recent decades has become highly feminized, hasn’t it?

    I’d go further and say that our entire society has become highly feminized.  Politics, as they say, is downstream from culture.

    Agree exactly.

    Aggressive leftists do this same thing, too. They use these exact tactics in dealing with all the politicians and intellectuals. Obama epitomizes this in that he’s so effete if not effeminate but actually very aggressive and cold-blooded.

    I think the term is passive-aggressive, and yes, he is.  That’s probably one reason he was so popular with the taste-makers of the feminized culture.

    I thought of that a bit here. It’s not passive-aggressive. It’s outright direct aggression mostly: reputation destruction, gossip, and innuendo. Passive aggression is pretending one thing and actually withholding from a promise. It’s also lying about one’s true intent to get the upper hand later when the opponent’s guard is down. The attack on an individual’s reputation is the big charge here.

    I’ve always said that candidate Trump used the tactics of the left against his Republican opponents and then again in the general election against Hillary. He turned their own tables on the left. Scott Adams yesterday pointed out that the original use of the Fake News meme was to attack Trump (I forget by whom). Adams then described how Trump just reached out and took this gun from them and aimed it back at them. His political jiu-jitsu is very competent.

    Interesting observation.  However, I don’t think that Trump simply used the tactics of the left against them, in the sense of using feminine, passive-aggressive tactics.  More like he took their passive-aggressive verbiage and turned it back on them (jiu-jitsu being a good analogy), but in a more masculine form.  This is why his GOP opponents failed to counter him — they’ve grown used to the feminized approach to politics and so were unprepared.

    See above.

    That’s not to say that Trump is a “man’s man” or anything.  Rather than being feminine passive-aggressive, he’s more of a thin-skinned blowhard who tears others down to build himself up — not an ideal model of masculinity by any stretch. Having been denied any truly manly politicians, lots of folks settled for an imperfect facsimile in Trump.  We take what we can get.

    Trump goes after a person’s reputation directly and intimately. He’s quite deft, too. He’s not a blowhard — he’s quite calculating and effective.

    I was talking on the telecon the other day and one of the participants knew Jeff Sessions from his days in Alabama and he told us that Sessions was known as the silent assassin. If that’s male aggression then I hope we see some of that here pretty soon.

    “Jeff Sessions” and “male aggression” don’t seem to belong in the same paragraph.  Just sayin’.

    BTW, I sure can’t figure out why Trump disparages Sessions so much (it happened again today) without firing him. He should have done it last year.

    I’ve come to suspect that Trump’s “You’re fired” shtick was just that: shtick.  This is just another example of Trump not being a “man’s man.”  Ideally, he’d either publicly defend his subordinates (even when privately calling them on the carpet) or else fire them outright, not openly disparage them while keeping them on.  Again, we take what we can get.

    If you follow Scott Adams you will see that Trump does what’s called following or pacing. This is a persuasion thingy and also they talk about it in Neuro-Linguistics Programming (NLP). The only thing I can see about how he’s dealing with Sessions is that he’s using these statements to get a read on how we react to his firing of Sessions by saying things that he knows some of us are saying but that not all are yet. I can only guess that he’s trying to gauge when to fire him. Just a guess. But, it does seem to be calculated and I think he’s really upset with Sessions. That part seems to be true.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  8. TempTime:
    Interesting post.   I agree with him, mostly.  Women can be very dangerous indeed; very ugly.  Quite manipulative.  Just listen to the femi-nazis.

    The only quibble I have is that younger women today seem to be much more physically aggressive then in the past, or maybe it just seems that way.  Strangely, this  transition towards physical aggressiveness has resulted in muted mouths.

    I read somewhere that in most domestic disputes that in the majority of cases the woman throws the first punch. I think women do feel more enabled these days and they know they can rely on the government (by using big men) to deal out violence to their spouse or boyfriend.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. Larry Koler:
    I read somewhere that in most domestic disputes that in the majority of cases the woman throws the first punch.

    I’ve read the same thing as well but once again we are getting skewed socio-economic demographics. I’d like to get the full statistical breakdown by class, race, and marital status.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. Larry Koler:

    I thought of that a bit here. It’s not passive-aggressive. It’s outright direct aggression mostly: reputation destruction, gossip, and innuendo. Passive aggression is pretending one thing and actually withholding from a promise. It’s also lying about one’s true intent to get the upper hand later when the opponent’s guard is down. The attack on an individual’s reputation is the big charge here.

    Well, I think that perfectly describes the left’s behavior in general and Obama’s more specifically.  They present themselves as reasonable, compassionate, kind-hearted, even as non-partisans who are only interested in “what works,” while setting up their opponents to be vilified as the opposite of those things.

    Maybe passive-aggressive doesn’t cover everything, but it seems like a big part of their M.O.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. Larry Koler:

    Trump goes after a person’s reputation directly and intimately. He’s quite deft, too. He’s not a blowhard — he’s quite calculating and effective.

    I don’t consider a calculating, effective blowhard to be a contradiction in terms.  Further, you don’t have to be calculating to be good at tearing down an opponent’s reputation.  Some people seem to just have an instinctive gift for effective slander.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  12. Larry Koler:

    If you follow Scott Adams you will see that Trump does what’s called following or pacing. This is a persuasion thingy and also they talk about it in Neuro-Linguistics Programming (NLP). The only thing I can see about how he’s dealing with Sessions is that he’s using these statements to get a read on how we react to his firing of Sessions by saying things that he knows some of us are saying but that not all are yet. I can only guess that he’s trying to gauge when to fire him. Just a guess. But, it does seem to be calculated and I think he’s really upset with Sessions. That part seems to be true.

    Perhaps.

    I haven’t really followed Adams’ disquisitions about Trump that closely, but from what I have read, my gut says that he gives Trump too much credit as a tactician.  I suspect Trump is more of an instinctive public-relations street fighter.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  13. TempTime:
    Interesting post.   I agree with him, mostly.  Women can be very dangerous indeed; very ugly.  Quite manipulative.  Just listen to the femi-nazis.

    The only quibble I have is that younger women today seem to be much more physically aggressive then in the past, or maybe it just seems that way.  Strangely, this  transition towards physical aggressiveness has not* resulted in muted mouths.

    Edit: to add missing word.

    As Glen Reynolds likes to point out, chivalry was a code that included responsibilities placed on both men and women.  Western women have cast off their share of those responsibilities as being sexist rules of the patriarchy, but continue to demand that men live by those rules, and many new ones besides.

    One of those ancient rules is that men don’t hit women, even in the face of behavior much worse than what would get another man’s lights punch out.  If women are becoming more violent, as anecdotes suggest, this will ultimately not turn out well for women.  Pendulums swing both ways, and the higher you push it one way, the farther and faster is its return.

    The men in my generation will just grumble off to our graves, being too well trained in the old rules from our youth.  Perhaps the following generation or two will do likewise, out of cultural inertia.  But I fear for the generations coming of age in the decades to come.

    7+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  14. Thanks, Dime. That full version works.

    Peterson either has the patience of a saint, or is a glutton for punishment, to subject himself to a interview like that.  She was clearly not paying attention to what he said, she was just (1) looking for her next opportunity to interrupt; and (2) seeking to trap him and twist his words.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. Terry Mott:
    If women are becoming more violent, as anecdotes suggest, this will ultimately not turn out well for women.

    As I’ve commented earlier, I don’t perceive this as a problem outside of specific demographics. Interestingly enough, violent female behavior is nothing new. It has been going on for centuries but again, as of now, it remains a very class stratified phenomenon.

    Terry Mott:
    As Glen Reynolds likes to point out, chivalry was a code that included responsibilities placed on both men and women.  Western women have cast off their share of those responsibilities as being sexist rules of the patriarchy, but continue to demand that men live by those rules, and many new ones besides.

    This was a very interesting comment; could you expliques un peu about the responsibilities women may have cast off? I promise this is not a loaded question! I’m genuinely interested because my husband and I put equal amounts of pressure upon one another to contribute to our well-being as a couple.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  16. 10 Cents:

    Cyrano:
    “This video is unavailable.”

    It’s in here. I am not sure where.

    Thanks, Dime. My original video link was dead, saying:

    This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Intelligence Squared (UK) Ltd.

    I put yours up on the top of the post and it’s working for now. Let’s see if it lasts.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  17. Terry Mott:
    my gut says that he gives Trump too much credit as a tactician. I suspect Trump is more of an instinctive public-relations street fighter.

    Both things can be true simultaneously. Indeed, that is Adams’s thesis: that Trump is an instinctive master persuader. One can be an excellent public-relations tactician intuitively. In the political realm, tactics necessarily revolve around public relations.

    Nonetheless, you’re probably right that Adams exaggerates Trump’s skill, whether it’s deliberate or intuitive.

    6+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  18. EThompson:

    Terry Mott:
    If women are becoming more violent, as anecdotes suggest, this will ultimately not turn out well for women.

    As I’ve commented earlier, I don’t perceive this as a problem outside of specific demographics. Interestingly enough, violent female behavior is nothing new. It has been going on for centuries but again, as of now, it remains a very class stratified phenomenon.

    I wonder how much of this class-stratification is due to the “upper” classes nowadays refusing to “preach what they practice.”

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  19. Terry Mott:
    I wonder how much of this class-stratification is due to the “upper” classes nowadays refusing to “preach what they practice.”

    Clarify this a little please.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  20. drlorentz:

    Terry Mott:
    my gut says that he gives Trump too much credit as a tactician. I suspect Trump is more of an instinctive public-relations street fighter.

    Both things can be true simultaneously. Indeed, that is Adams’s thesis: that Trump is an instinctive master persuader. One can be an excellent public-relations tactician intuitively. In the political realm, tactics necessarily revolve around public relations.

    Nonetheless, you’re probably right that Adams exaggerates Trump’s skill, whether it’s deliberate or intuitive.

    The main thing is that NLP and persuasion techniques are all based on what works with humans already. NLP just codifies how the mind works and gives some simple rules to help understand things.

    But, people who learn how to do things aren’t necessarily very good at doing it in real time because they have to run everything through the mental filter of what they’ve learned. It all takes practice to be good and a highly developed intuition is the gift that keeps on giving because it is so adaptive to what is presented.

    Leaders are definitely born but most good leaders are good because of experience. Presidents should be chosen for proven skills in leadership — that means being decisive as possible with the available amount of information. Hand wringers should be done away with. And absentee leaders like Obama should be avoided like the plague.

    Military people are trained in this but are career politicians? Some are — Clinton was, W was, Reagan was, Obama was not.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  21. EThompson:

    Terry Mott:
    As Glen Reynolds likes to point out, chivalry was a code that included responsibilities placed on both men and women.  Western women have cast off their share of those responsibilities as being sexist rules of the patriarchy, but continue to demand that men live by those rules, and many new ones besides.

    This was a very interesting comment; could you expliques un peu about the responsibilities women may have cast off? I promise this is not a loaded question! I’m genuinely interested because my husband and I put equal amounts of pressure upon one another to contribute to our well-being as a couple.

    First off, I’m referring to generalized rules of society, not necessarily rules between a specific couple, which by necessity must be worked out based on the specific personalities involved.

    That said, and not to put too fine a point on it, the old rules roughly called for men to provide for, protect and be faithful to their wives and children, to treat all women with respect and dignity (don’t curse in front of women, give up your seat on the bus, etc.), and to defend women and children, even to the risk of the man’s life (women and children to the lifeboats first, and all that).  It called for women to be chaste, faithful to their husbands, and respectful toward not just their husbands, but men in general.

    These rules were too often violated even in the period when they were widely espoused, but an unrealized ideal doesn’t make the ideal an unworthy goal.

    Feminism teaches that female chastity, faithfulness, and respect for men are not only unnecessary, but actively oppressive.  The rules for men are not as strictly enforced as they once were, but we still regularly see articles written even by leftist women bemoaning the sorry quality of today’s men, showing that the expectations are still there, even if they’re not being met often enough.

    There was some sort of ship mishap a few years ago in the Mediterranean where many of the men on board showed that the old “women and children first” rule was no longer observed.  I (don’t) wonder why.  The old rules are slowly disintegrating, largely because women demanded it, having been convinced by the Left that they were being oppressed.  None of us will like what comes after, I’m afraid.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply