Mirage of manhood: myths and misguided beliefs

Photograph of Dr Jordan B. Peterson by Shane Bart Balkowitsch with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Image edited with background photo by Laker from Pexels

Aidan Monks exposes Jordan Peterson’s toxic brand of masculinity

In 2018, Nathan J. Robinson, an English American journalist, published a piece in Current Affairs magazine called The Intellectual We Deserve. Its subject was the state of the public intellectual, taking Jordan Peterson as its target of attack.

Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and author, was most relevant in 2017-18. He published his self-help guide, 12 Rules for Life, to rescue the 2010s from a ‘crisis of masculinity’.

During this time, he also broke the internet with hostile, ignorant rhetoric about trans rights in Canada. He falsely claimed that Bill C-16 , an amendment to its human rights laws protecting transgender or gender-diverse Canadians, would have severe consequences.

Robinson’s article exposed the way Peterson convinces his listeners of his depth despite having “almost nothing of value to say”. Despite his efforts Robinson failed to debunk Peterson: the disgraced clinical psychologist remains respected, defended, and his archaic principles of ‘manhood’ and ‘masculinity’ are still upheld by thousands. He continues to revel in his prophet-like status among young men.

Besides Peterson’s infamous views on trans rights, gender equality, climate change and Islam, one of the first instances my teenage self realised his flaws was hearing his perspective on North American education.

Cultural Marxism, popularised by Jordan Peterson, originated from neo-Nazi fabrications about Jewish control of education

He maintains that the education system is flooded with postmodernists and “cultural Marxists” who support things he doesn’t, such as studying gender theory on their college courses.

Having chatted about this to academics who have worked in the American and Canadian systems, the winning response has to go to: “Is he fucking crazy?” Even at age 16, I knew how right-wing the education system in a vast number of ‘Western’ democracies is.

I also discovered the term “cultural Marxist” evolved from neo-Nazi fabrications about Jewish influence over education, which certainly fits Peterson’s profile nowadays. He’s just interviewed Tommy Robinson (yes, that one) on his ‘elevated’ podcast series.

I’ve previously written for Exposure about the attraction of Peterson to young men, as well as grifters like Andrew Tate who peddle equally extreme ideas, if lacking some subtlety. Where Peterson says something about women being inherently nurturing or passive, Tate will say they are subordinate to male dominance: the common denominator is an interpretation of masculinity as power, and power as virtue. The sentiment is identical.

These ideas about traditional gender roles, rooted by and large in pseudoscientific claims about biological personality traits, infer that woman lack empowerment due to some genetic disposition, and this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. And, if something is ‘natural’, they argue, surely it must be right or good.

Peterson markets as ‘masculine’ traits by similarly invoking nature. Men are naturally aggressive, competent and dominant. This is the ‘crisis’ he is referring to: men have deviated from these standards recently, as if once upon a time all men were homogenous.

This neo-conservative view on masculinity is regressive, as it disallows weakness or vulnerability.

Peterson recalls mythologies that cast men as warlike, courageous killers and, therefore, everyone who doesn’t have these traits isn’t masculine and thus deficient. Superficially, it makes total sense why Peterson appeals to frat boys or Yuppies who are moulded to their toxic surroundings; with Peterson’s arguments and pseudo-intellectual toolkit they can justify the worst kinds of behaviour.

I can think of dozens of men who aren’t ‘competent’ in the way Peterson stresses, but would that make them less manly? What does competent even mean, and who decides? This neo-conservative take on masculinity is regressive in lots of ways, but perhaps most of all since it does not permit weakness or vulnerability.

Infatuation with Peterson’s brand of masculinity is corrosive: it not only threatens women and girls, it also stunts emotional development and erodes empathy. Disconnected teenage boys may be drawn to figures who validate them, who can then manipulate and feed them with prejudice. This need for validation can be seen as ignorant confusion. However, the infatuation many adult men have with Peterson and his far-right teachings amounts to repression at best and sadism at worst.

Nathan Robinson describes the intellectual landscape of the 21st century as ‘impoverished’ and in my view he’s right. What we lack in critical thinking  we make up for in blind devotion to those who claim to think for us, while profiting from our ignorance. In other words, Peterson is symptomatic of our ignorance. We cannot let this continue, especially in a world where misinformation so easily spreads.

I have been a confused and devoted teenager. The only lesson I can peddle for boys growing up in the digital shadow of Peterson and the assault on reason he represents, is one which he himself, ironically, preaches: Read More!

Here is some reading I would highly recommend:

• The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love by bell hooks
• Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson by Ben Burgis, Conrad Hamilton, Matthew McManus and Marion Trejo
• Men Who Hate Women: The Extremism Nobody is Talking About by Laura Bates
• A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice by Ivan Jablonka
• Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right by Michael Brooks