Assessing Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life by Greg Boyd
Christian theologian Greg Boyd has written a series of posts about Jordan Peterson’s views.
Peterson has become a very revered figure among certain conservative people.
I myself am conservative, and while I agree with Peterson on a topic here or there, I don’t agree with him on much of what he says about women or gender roles.
I posted previously about Peterson on my blog here.
My conclusion about Peterson is that he’s essentially the secular version of a Christian gender complementarian. He holds what appears to be many of the same views about women that gender complementarians do – which is enough for me to reject his views.
Part 10 (of 15): Who Gets To Interpret The World? by Greg Boyd
In my previous two posts (post 8 & post 9) I critically evaluated Peterson’s thinking on hierarchies, race and white privilege. In this post I’ll address three other aspects of Peterson’s thought that was outlined in post 5, post 6, and post 7.
On the Power of Women’s “No”
First, we’ve seen that Peterson claims that “[w]omen’s proclivity to say no [to men] more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are” (41).
Because females naturally want to mate with males who are as high up on the social scale as possible, finding the bottom half to be undesirable (41), they have been the central means by which advantageous genes got passed along while disadvantageous genes were selected out.
Hence, the playing field on which men must compete for mating rites has been getting higher and higher throughout our biological and social evolution.
While I don’t dispute the research demonstrating that women are choosy maters, I’m not convinced women have always, or even usually, had the power to say “no” that Peterson ascribes to them.