Pros And Cons Of Patriarchy - Society

2023 Author: Oswald Adamson | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-11-27 12:13

Professor of the University of Toronto, clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is called the guardian of the patriarchy. The "celebrity" and his active supporters argue that in the course of social progress men have been oppressed and deceived, so it is time to restore gender justice. Russian psychologists, authors of Our Psychology, expressed their opinion about the interview with Jordan Peterson, which was conducted by journalist Helen Lewis

Should men dominate?

Here are excerpts from the video interview with Jordan Peterson

Helen Lewis (HL): This is my idea of the patriarchy, which is a system of male dominance in society

Jordan Peterson (DP): Yes, but that's not my understanding of the patriarchy. Why do you think men are dominant?

HL: For example, the fact that men have most of the wealth, women do more unpaid work

DP: Only a small fraction of men. And a huge part of the people who are unhappy are men. Most of the people in prisons are men, most of the homeless are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most of the people who die in war are men. The people who do worse at university are men. Where exactly is dominance? What are you doing? You take a small layer of very successful men and you use it to represent the structure of Western society. There is no logic in this.

HL: But I can also say that most of the victims of violence are women

DP: Terrible things happen to every gender. You can say that, and you will be absolutely right. But this is not proof of the existence of male dominance in modern society. It just goes to show that terrible things happen to everyone, and they do.

HL: But there are almost no cases of female violence against men, for example, and this is asymmetric

DP: Yes, asymmetry happens everywhere. But this does not mean that men have special privileges in modern Western society. The very fact that asymmetry exists has nothing to do with your main argument. This is a concept that people simply accept: "Western society is patriarchy." But this is not the case. It's just a lie. Even if it has a structure of patriarchy to some extent, the basis of this structure is not power. This is competence. This is why our society works. It is only when structure degrades into tyranny that relations between people begin to rely on power. This is not power.

If you call in a plumber who is most likely a man, it’s not because there are gangs of tyrant plumbers who are forcing you to make this choice. And so with all your interactions in our society. You meet people who offer their services. These people are most often members of the broad middle class. And you are looking for the one who will suggest the best option and you can find it. These are not the consequences of domination and tyranny.

Again, our Western culture, which is definitely not ideal, contains an element of tyranny, like all other cultures. But it is the least tyrannical culture that has ever been created. And definitely the least tyrannical of modern cultures. The whole conversation about patriarchy, I think, you have no idea how dangerous and harmful it is!

HL: I don't really know …

DP: Men and women have worked together throughout history to fight off the absolute catastrophe of existence - horrific mortality, perpetual hunger, early death, disease, parenting difficulties. And now you look back into the past and say that men took over women and persecuted them in a tyrannical patriarchy. This is an absolute distortion of history, a terrible idea that you teach young girls. And this is a lie that damages a man's reputation.

Pavel Lukin, psychologist

No gender revolution needed

There is no more destructive situation for science than the one when ideology begins to regulate it. And today the example of the tragic fate of Soviet genetics, which has set the teeth on edge, has every chance of repeating itself now "on a global scale" under the flags of gender ideology.

Already now, few people are embarrassed that the rejection of the dialectic of gender differences in the philosophical sense drives us into a time of deep archaism

After all, the fact that a serious conversation about "gender equality" received "material reinforcement" thanks to such achievements of modern medicine as oral contraception and later - artificial insemination does not in any way negate the fact that it is basically based on the prehistoric idea of the original androgynous the nature of the "first man". Moreover, regardless of how often his supporters use the terminology of psychophysiology or genetics.

In practice, the initial idea of the struggle for "social" equality of men and women is increasingly turning into the idea of psychophysiological equality. And in the short term, this may, for example, make the existence of a problem field of comparative research, which is very productive for modern psychology, within the framework of general, age, differential and other psychologies, “ideologically unacceptable”. And to delegitimize all the luggage of comparative studies of the characteristics of the male and female psyche, accumulated over the past hundred years.

Katerina Demina, practicing consultant psychologist

Take a closer look at facial expressions and gestures

It is very difficult for me to comment on this gentleman's speech: a wave of anger rises in me. Most of his answer is manipulative entanglement, reality denial, substitutions.

“Most of the homeless, prisoners killed in the war are men,” says Jordan Peterson. Was it because women forced them to commit crimes by force? Or started a war? Or, perhaps, there are laws in the world according to which every adult man is obliged to get involved in a drunken fight or steal a car? No?

Then it is more important to talk about the essence of the concept of "patriarchy". For example, that literally until very recently in Europe and America, women did not have the right to go to work, open a separate bank account, or rent an apartment without the written permission of her husband. In my memory, in France, children were considered the "property" of the father, for women it was not only difficult, but impossible to obtain at least joint custody over them, if the father claimed it.

I am amazed at the reaction to this video on social media. "He hit her cool!" "Be sure to watch this brilliant dude smear a stupid journalist!" Even these comments indicate that our society is at the cave level of development. There is no equality in him, no compassion, no concern for a person

There is only a fierce need of a former slave or a raped prisoner to perch on a defeated enemy (even a virtual one) and, dancing on a fresh corpse, mock: “What, ate? Whose took it?"

This is really sad. I can understand when wild teenagers from the ghetto behave this way, who have never heard a good word, all only through battle and force. But when a respectable educated gentleman in an expensive suit with a ski tan confidently and pompously carries medieval nonsense …

It seems that he can barely contain his irritation and anger, look at his facial expressions without a sound. He is in noble indignation: how dare this wretched girl ask him about such vulgar things! Why is she damaging his male reputation?

He wants to say that everything has changed, the dominance of men as a class in the past.

But it is here. It is in his tone, in gestures, in contempt.

Anna Ivanova, psychologist

Looks like slavery

What I can agree with in the words of Jordan Peterson is that patriarchy, as a rigidly hierarchical system, has a negative impact on men too. Yes, it's true - most of the prisoners in any country in the world are men, most of the homeless are men, men are more likely to resort to suicide, men are killed on the battlefield and on the streets.

However, in this discussion, the question is very smoothly bypassed - and because of whom do men go to war and to crimes? Who makes some men trample and kill other men?

I dare to assert that it is the patriarchal system of society that compels us to do this, and nothing else. And until society reconstructs this patriarchal framework, men will continue to suffer

It is important to emphasize that modern Western society can hardly be characterized as tyranny and absolute power of one sex over another. Undoubtedly, women are no longer powerless attachments to real people - men. However, the "asymmetry of oppression" that was voiced in the discussion - it is surprisingly always directed against women, it is worth talking about power, money or rights.

The majority of victims of domestic and sexual violence are women. Most of those employed in the sex industry are women. Most of the world's poor are women, and especially women with children. Discrimination in the labor market - whether because of children or stereotypes of "a woman is incapable" - is a reality today, not the day before yesterday, as Mr. Peterson tries to argue.

And even if we raise the issue of "gangs of plumbers" - we call a plumber and expect that it will be a man, not because men are really more competent, but because they are considered more competent in men's work, not women's. By the way, why plumbers at all?

Why not choose an example with a more attractive profession - programmers, military, financiers? By the way, these are not “gangs”, of course, but “castes”, and it is still difficult for women to break through in these and other elite spheres, they have to overcome the gigantic resistance of men who are against fair competition. They actively use their male privilege to be considered more competent, gifted, capable and effective, which is actively denied in the discussion.

But the most slippery question is, of course, about "cooperation for survival", about the fact that there was historically no absolute domination and tyranny of one sex over another, there was only survival and a common struggle against hunger, hardships and death. If we consider this issue from the position “well, women lived and survived in the end, and even got the opportunity to fight for their rights in the end” - then we can cynically agree, well, yes, “cooperation” was a success.

If we try to look at what happened in the past more objectively and meticulously, we will see that "cooperating" men throughout history have made every effort to ensure that their partners in survival - women - do not have rights, freedoms and equal opportunities.

This is a very strange cooperation, in my opinion, still more similar to slavery

Natalia Ulyanova, candidate of psychological sciences, educational psychologist

Effective manipulator

An excerpt from Jordan Peterson's interview is a typical example of manipulative rhetoric used to create the visible effect of "victory" over an opponent, but in essence it is just a repetition of the same set of cliches. What dishonest practices do we see in this passage?

Substitution of concepts. For example, in response to journalist Helen Lewis's point about the unequal distribution of capital between men and women, Peterson argues that only a small percentage of people on earth have privileges, thereby replacing the problem of gender inequality with the problem of class division. It sounds about the same as if, in response to your complaint about loud noise, a neighbor who threw a night party, would suggest that you first solve the issue with an inoperative elevator: after all, only it makes noise, and the elevator disturbs everyone!

False conclusions. A striking example of manipulation is the response to Helen's remark: "Women are more often victims of violent crimes." “Victims can be of any gender, so you can't talk about the gender nature of the problem.” Despite the fact that the first part of the statement is true, the conclusion from it is deliberately false: if 90% of the victims are women, the gender bias in this problem is obvious.

Using shortcuts. Emotionally loaded labels that a scientist confidently “glues” to his opponent are a typical sign of “black rhetoric”. The words "it's just a lie", "terrible idea" and so on are designed to influence the viewer's perception, but in fact betray the weakness of the speaker's argument.

Disrespect for the opponent. Within a few minutes of the interview, Jordan Peterson interrupted his opponent twice, not letting her finish and leaving no chance to give counter-arguments. In fact, instead of dialogue, we see a monologue filled with aggressive attacks on the girl.