As ubiquitous as the man himself are the frequent mischaracterisations of Jordan Peterson in Left-leaning publications. The latest on offer is from Helen Lewis at the New Statesman. Her attempted takedown seems to scuttle along haphazardly, not failing to mention that he is white and male (yuck) and to demean his followers.

The most telling sentence from Lewis is: ‘But because he’s writing for sad young white men – and their problems are, you know, real problems, not like anorexia or rape or sexual harassment at work – he’s a public intellectual.’


That encapsulates Dr Peterson’s popularity. He is acknowledging and validating the issues that face a number of young men in the Western world when the rest of the intelligentsia are telling them their problems aren’t real because their magical male privilege will get them a good job.

That men have problems in the modern world doesn’t mean that women don’t, and vice versa. And I would not be interested in getting into ‘who has it worse?’ because I believe every human being on the planet suffers in some way. However, men do face problems and that is why Peterson is so popular.

For example, men in the UK aged between 20 and 49 are more likely to die from suicide than any other natural cause; 30,000 more women than men go to university in the UK; in America men account for 93 per cent of workplace deaths; 71 per cent of homeless people in the UK are men.

Why Peterson’s success has led to so much hand-wringing on the Left is because it has thrown a spanner in the works of their view on life. ‘Man has it good, woman has it bad’ – yet Peterson has come along and said: ‘We all struggle’ and this does not compute. To acknowledge his appeal to young, white men would be to acknowledge they need help, which is confusing. Why would they need help when they have their super-duper-mega-white-male privilege?

30 COMMENTS

  1. Peterson hit the nail on the head in the Munk debate when Michael Dyson accused him of being a “mean mad white man”. Peterson demanded that Dyson specify exactly how much Peterson’s “privilege” had contributed to whatever he had gained or accomplished in life. Was it 5%, 10%, 15%, 50%?
    Jordan Peterson is a real hero. He is the academic equivalent of Jacob Rees-Mogg.

  2. Jordan Peterson has stated that he regards the Left as the enemy of civilization so naturally they will seek to take him down any way they can.The question whats in it for woman can be answered realistically that if our civilization goes down they will suffer most.In 1912 when the Titanic went down most of the survivors were women and children as the able bodied men sacrificed themselves .In more recent maritime tragedies the survivors were overwhelmingly young males.Go figger.

    • When did Jordan Peterson state that he regards the left as the enemy of civilization? I’ve heard him say to the contrary. That he believes the left are just as important as the right. Unless you are referring to the far-left whom as well as the far-right, Jordan Peterson has frequently referred to as very damaging to society. If this is the case we need to be careful we dont use left as a blanket term to represent all the left including the far-left. In a recent interview he detailed how the right would not be able to function without the left and vice versa

    • They can try to take him down but it won’t change things. They are the enemy of civilisation and the more they double down the more dissidents and insurgents they will incite.

    • On the Titanic they followed the “Birkenhead Drill”. Developed in the previous century. It was “new” because the existence of substantial number of women and children on a ship had simply never happened previously, apart from slavers. It was culturally specific and it should be no surprise that now there are few Britons on ships (even “British” ones) there is more of a save yourself ethos evident.

  3. The non stop attacks are because Peterson is bold enough to challenge the left’s victim hierarchy, elaborately constructed by identity.
    At root, he says, take responsibility for yourself, don’t be a victim and blame others, it won’t bring you peace.

    • There is a stark and terrible example of this in the near disintegration of African American communities.

  4. “…..The most telling sentence from Lewis is: ‘But because he’s writing for sad young white men….”
    So let’s see Lewis managed to get into the same sentence …
    1) Sad
    2) Young
    3) White

    ….Oh! and “men” of course.

    So this reveals Lewis as a entirely prejudiced lunatic.

  5. A number of MSM and legacy-media outlets have had Peterson in their sights lately, both here and elsewhere in the Anglosphere – misrepresentations, mischaracterisations and downright smears, both of him and those interested in his work.

    But when you get a lot of flak, you know your on target.

    • It’s running at one hit-piece per day now. Yesterday the Statesman, the day before that Hadley Freeman had a go in the Grauniad (and was largely rubbished in the comments) and the day before that it was a load of misrepresenting tripe in the NYT. All the articles are basically ad hom attacks written by people with zero research credentials in psychology (with one previous attempt in the Graun written by a music journalist!). It’s as if this smearing is being done in concert.

  6. ‘But because he’s writing for sad young white men – and their problems are, you know, real problems, not like anorexia or rape or sexual harassment at work – he’s a public intellectual.’

    I suspect the fact that he has something to say that doesn’t rely on misleading statistics, massaged evidence and circular reasoning is probably why he counts as a public intellectual.

    The fact that he can defend his ideas without recourse to shaming, appeals to authority, censorship and misrepresentation probably helps too. As, I imagine, does the lack of snarling, frightened, threatened entitlement which, in the ultimate of ironies (if only they could see it) seems to be the progressive and the feminist stand-by these days.

    Instead of red-faced old fat man wearing a regimental blazer while propping up a bar, when we hear the word “chauvinst” we should instantly see in our mind’s eye a well-off middle-class white feminst whose background includes the right kind of school, the right university and all the right contacts and yet who still thinks she has been “oppressed”.

    Throughout her life, when this person has not achieved what she set out to, she has been encouraged to blame everyone but herself, particularly the “patriarchy”. When she has achieved something, she thinks that not only did she do it entirely on her own but that she would have got much further, if only men and the system hadn’t held her back. When her male peers do well, of course they didn’t deserve it. No matter how hard they worked or how good they are, those men are probably taking up a place that rightly belonged to a woman. And when a man fails, not only does the feminist rejoice, she takes it as a sign that he must have been especially incompetent because he fell even with the whole system supporting him.

    Our public life, journalism in particular, is now packed full of these women and their male enablers. Until recently, they have had the field almost to themselves. This has allowed them to essentially lie. Remember the 6% rape conviction rate that turned out to be closer to 50% or the gender-pay-gap that we were led to believe was like-for-like for as long as anyone would swallow it?

    But now, all of a sudden, the rise of new media has given people tired of being obviously lied to and patronized an alternative. And the media feminists and other orthodox thinkers are outraged. How dare someone point out their deceits and conceits? How dare anyone contradict them?

    Good, the more these intellectually lazy, arrogant and entitled men and women spew hate and lies about people like Peterson, the better. They are doing our work for us

    • Indeed. Some years ago I was oblivious. But that British liking for the underdog pushed me to take an interest in all sorts of people that I came to know through the attempts to rubbish them!

  7. I don’t understand the mentality of people like Helen Lewis.

    Why is Jordan Peterson’s existence such a threat to her? Why can’t she tolerate a book specifically aimed at men, that seems to be well intentioned and benign?

    If it’s not aimed at her, that’s nothing personal. It’s not like she isn’t being catered for.

    • They are so used to everything being about them, it goes against the “natural order” when it isn’t.

      Remember Cathy Newman’s question, prompted by the idea that most of Peterson’s audience was mainly young men: “What’s in it for women?”

      If someone had asked the reverse, “What’s in it for men?”, of an author whose self-help book was popular among women, the press and the commentariat would have branded the interviewer a chauvinist.

      That’s all you need to know really. Cathy Newman is a feminist chauvinist. Helen Lewis is feminist chauvinist.

      Frankly, the type is so ubiquitous within feminism, that to say “feminist chauvinist” is a tautology.

      We need a new term for someone who actually believes in the equality of the sexes.

      • There was a similar question asked of him by Sophie Walker on the wright stuff this week. Ask them why it’s a problem and they can’t answer.

  8. Anorexia a problem?
    It certainly is a sign that one has a severe self-confidence issue, that is all.

      • In the UK it’s impossible for a woman to rape a man, due to rape requiring penetration with a penis. A woman forcing a man to have intercourse is just “Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent”.

        Which is another way of saying that trans-women account for 100% of the women raping men.

    • Men can and do also suffer from anorexia. It is not a women only problem. Men are more liable to commit suicide, and even in these enlightened times, they are still expected to be the main breadwinner in a relationship. They also have to compete in climbing the greasy pole and unlike women have no pc boxes to tick. My daughter set out to be on an equal footing with men career-wise. She had to be well qualified, which she was, and she took every advantage which came her way of ticking the ‘female’ box. Then she found out just how hard it was, having to work long hours, and travelling here and abroad at the drop of a hat. Even though she had all the perks she reckoned it just wasn’t worth it Her husband worked hard in a lab, no perks, he started at 8.00 am and finished at 4.40 pm Mon-Fri. She looked at him and thought ‘who’s the fool here?’

  9. I’m a left liberal and I agree with almost everything Jordan Peterson says. I’m a big fan. I’m not sure why there is so much attacking going on towards the left. I have heard Jordan Peterson frequently talk about the importance of the left, how both left and right are just as important in society. I think his issue is with far-left / far-right mentality. Which are both just as damaging to society.

    • Can you define what you mean by ‘far left / right’ because the current definitions are so woolly as to be meaningless

  10. “Why Peterson’s success has led to so much hand-wringing on the Left is because it has thrown a spanner in the works of their view on life. ‘Man has it good, woman has it bad’ ”

    Indeed. The Leftist views tend to be absolutists. “Capitalism is bad. Inequality is bad. Discrimination is bad. Racism is bad.” And so on.

    Yet if the debate was “Some aspects of Capitalism are not ideal. Unjustifed inequality is bad. Unjustified discrimination is bad. Unjustified racism is bad.” then you might not have such a polarised debate, relying on ad hominem attacks to rubbish the opposition.

  11. Trump, Farage, Rees-Mogg and Peterson.

    They’ve turned the unassailable roller coaster rise of the left into dust. The worm has turned and the socialists and leftist enablers including the msm, especially the BBC don’t like it one bit.

    Thus in their inchoate rage they lash out, becoming more and more ridiculous as they spout their lies and fake news.

    Thanks to the internet we are now privileged to the glaring light of the sunlit uplands of actuality and Peterson is outwitting them all, merely by pressing his point with honesty.

  12. Perhaps the Left ought to realise that slagging off young white men, if it continues, will have consequences.

    Young men especially are capable of violence. If they are needled long enough, this may surface in some way, perhaps in a political movement.

  13. A man’s wife tells him she wants a divorce because she has met another man, They have young children. He leaves and has to live in a rented flat or bedsit because he still has to pay the mortgage on the family home and support his children even though he only sees them at weekends and in school holidays. He gets no help with the cost of a divorce which he probably didn’t want. In the meantime his ex wife moves the new boyfriend into the house for which he still pays and has to tolerate his children living with a stranger. And this is fair? No wonder men have problems and don’t want to get married. Who can blame them?

  14. The Left is afraid of Dr.Peterson and what he has to say because it runs counter to everything they believe and more and more people are taking note of him. They’re scared.

Comments are closed.