Peterson nails Western women

THOUGH JORDAN Peterson rose rapidly to fame almost two years ago, first in Canada where he lives and teaches, I didn’t become a fan until recently, and that’s because his fame is spreading everywhere.

What brought him to public notice was his outspoken opposition to an idiotic Canadian law mandating the use of PC gender pronouns.

Say zhe and zher, or you’re going to jail, baby.

Peterson has published two books. One is The Maps of Meaning, The Architecture of Belief, published in 1999, and the other is 12 Rules for Life, An Antidote to Chaos, published earlier this year.

Peterson, a clinical psychologist and a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, has been on a global speaking tour for some time now.

What makes him so wonderful is (1) he agrees with me, and (2) he brooks no stupidity at all, and will chew you up and spit you out.

The above video is a good taste of Peterson’s mind and mouth.

Topic: western womenfolk.

Left-wingers, brace yourselves!

19 thoughts on “Peterson nails Western women

  1. Sadly (or not) there doesn’t seem to be an idiotic Canadian law criminalizing the use of personal pronouns. At least I can’t find any evidence of it. Once again, if something appears to be too good to be true, it usually is. Most references I find think Prof. Peterson is blowing smoke. For what reason I can only imagine.


    1. Creigh, PS: The law “also adds that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on a person’s gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance for a court to consider when imposing a criminal sentence.”

      “or expression.”

      This can be interpreted very widely, especially in a PC-obsessed nation like Canada.


      1. I saw the reference to C-16. I could read the bill, but until a judge rules on an actual case it would just be my (worthless) opinion on what it means. Most people think that the bill says something like use of pronouns can be a factor in sentencing of other crimes. But then it’s true that almost anything can be a factor in sentencing, in the eyes of a judge. I don’t know about Canada, but here in the U.S. “anything you say can be used against you.”

        Making motivation an issue for the law has its problems, and has to be used carefully. For one thing, it can be hard to prove. But we do use motivation as an issue in murder, for example, where premeditation definitely affects the sentence. But some people are perfectly open about their motivations, which makes a context much clearer. It’s hard for me to have much sympathy for those people.


        1. Creigh: Since we seem to be shifting toward the subject, I oppose so-called “hate crimes” completely. They are nothing more than a tool to do a end run around double jeopardy. If a person murders someone for whatever reason, try that person for murder. If a person cold-cocks someone on the street, even if the thug does it because he doesn’t like the victim’s skin tone, try that person for assault and battery. And so on. Hate crime often is dragged out when there’s not sufficient evidence, it appears, to get a conviction on the actual crime at hand. Absolutely no excuse for the hate-crime category.

          Got yourself a Gravatar, I see. You’re a handsome devil.


    1. Ms. Shoes: A quick glance at that, because that’s all the time I have at the moment, indicates it’s a typical leftist freak-out at the good professor’s good sense.


  2. When will this guy say what he really thinks?

    A large range of topics, including Western women.

    We need tens of thousands like him.


  3. This PC garbage is being forced upon us by our “do as I say and not as I do” groper of a PM.


  4. I love this guy. Thanks, Felipe, for introducing me to him a while back. He is a breath of fresh air in a swamp of PC, stench-filled lunacy.


    1. Mark: Yep, he’s a winner, never fails to entertain in spite of his not seeming to have much of a sense of humor, to put it mildly.

      PC, stench-filled lunacy. I like that.


  5. I love Jordan Peterson as he is a rare “truth teller,” a term that’s overused these days. But it definitely applies to him. And I can corroborate what he says about professional women. I worked in finance and money management for the better part of my career. The people who got ahead were those who were smart and willing to work insane (INSANE) hours. For 20 years, I worked at least 60 hours a week, and pulled many an 80-hour week too. And I had many, many smart, determined female colleagues who almost all dropped out to have families. And once they had families, almost none of them came back. The all realized what I realized in 2012, namely that all that money (and it was an insanely lucrative field) wasn’t worth it after a while. Yeah, it’s great getting the big bonus checks. But really, is your life better because you’re now commuting in a Ferrari? You’re still basically selling your soul, and you can’t get it back. Women were faster to figure this out than men.

    And as you note, it’s tough to argue with Dr. Peterson because he’s incredibly well read, can marshal actual facts like no one else, and his mind isn’t clouded by politics. One of his best videos is a speech he gives on the 12 rules. Look for it on YouTube; it’s well worth watching.


    Kim G
    Redding, CA
    Where we now work too little.


    1. Kim: The feminista notion that women can have “fulfilling careers” and raise a family too is silly. It’s one or the other. They should choose the family. Let the husband bust his butt for money. That’s what they’re there for.


      1. Honestly, I’d love to play house-husband to a guy who wanted to go out and bash his head against the business world. While he was in the office, I could be remodeling a fabulous Victorian house. Unfortunately, life has never offered me such an option.


Comments are closed.