Fair enough, I guess, but your commentary on him was very hesitant to condemn something that is obviously antiquated
and completely against free expression.
I am reminded of the article written by Mayim Bialik last year that inspired harsh criticisms of her. She talked about her personal experiences in Hollywood. She was coming from a totally different place than Peterson, but people were also quick to put her in the condoning-sexual-harassment category for statements like:
I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.
Bialik later apologized for her article. I thought her article and the apology both reasonable statements. I thought the harsh criticisms of her entirely unfair. Other women have written similar articles, about taking precautions to protect themselves (such as not going up to a producer’s hotel room for a meeting) and received similar blowback. As Bialik said in her apology, nothing excuses sexual harassment and assault. But many people are quick to engage in black-or-white thinking that makes any kind of dialogue extremely difficult.
Peterson, as noted, was talking about something different: women being hypocrites for wearing makeup. And that is dumb. Wearing makeup is a normal practice by women in our culture. I comb my hair, shave, and sometimes wear a tie in order to look presentable. Engaging - if one wishes to - Peterson on his own terms is the best way to argue, not falling into the “so what you’re saying is…” trap.
No one here may care about him, but he has one of the biggest cults of any commentator I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. He is borderline worshipped by people on the far-right.
Agree cults of personality are disturbing. I think it goes to show the lack of great minds we have today.