12 thoughts on “Paul Elam: The Thing About Jordan Peterson”
Forget this theory that Peterson’s manner of delivery of an apology is down to him being the eldest of three siblings and Paul E betting that Peterson must have played out some ‘hero child’ family role in earlier life! Completely pointless analysis.
Peterson’s apology for his use of two over critical words to describe Men Going Their Own Way was acceptable.
During the apology Peterson was conscious in the same instant of the two sides of the argument that he could see regarding MGTOW and he was simply going through the thought process in his brain of untangling the two sides.
In this instant he appeared to be under a little strain in clarifying his thoughts, we all have bad days! Paul E reads way too much into it all.
It’s far more apt in analysing Peterson’s MGTOW lecture message to bear in mind that Peterson speaks from the context of being a male who has been in a long term marriage of nearly thirty years duration.
He has had first hand experience of the fulfilment,comfort and positives that come with a long contented marriage. I think Peterson was trying to say from a place of appreciation of his wife and his long marriage that you can’t tar ALL women with the same negative, doom mongering brush just as you can’t tar ALL men with the same brush.
Of course there will always be a percentage of females and a percentage of males in the human population who will cause trauma, heartbreak and great financial consequence to the opposite sex.
But don’t forget, ignore and pretend they don’t exist, the percentage of men and women who give each other life long fulfilment and contentment.
There’s a healthy mistrust and wariness towards the opposite sex, there’s a fine balance, I think Peterson worries that proponents of MGTOW are in danger of tipping young men into an unhealthy,
crippled with so much fear, paranoid mistrust of ALL women.
So crippled with fear of the potential dangers that they won’t attempt a relationship in any shape or form with any woman, which in itself is tragic as they lose the chance of the contented, fulfilling relationships with women that can and do exist.
I have been married exactly the same number of years that Peterson has.
The most important piece of advice I feel I could give to young men is don’t act impulsively, take your time to really get to know the person you’re thinking of committing to.
I spent eight years getting to know my husband before I married him.
I knew exactly the sort of person I was getting.
In that time you can see how the person reacts, behaves in and deals with all sorts of situations. Every person on this planet will at some point irritate and frustrate you, including that new love interest in front of you.
If the good points far outweigh the bad points, and the bad points are more along the lines of trivial irritants then that’s quite promising. For a marriage to be successful your potential spouse has to earn your respect and trust.
I’ve always had great respect for my husband and I’ve always loved him and really cared for him, it doesn’t mean he never irritates or frustrates me. In the great scheme of things, if most of the things are ‘right’ you can ignore and turn a blind eye to the irritations and frustrations of a personality that is very different to your own.
I think it’s also important for young people to understand the distinction between ‘being in love,’ and
loving someone.
In self centred youth, I was ‘roller coaster in love’ with my first boyfriend, but I didn’t respect certain things about him, I didn’t love him or care about him, although I didn’t realise that at the time, I was more in love with the exciting thrill of it all, but if I’d impulsively and blinding married him the marriage would have been a bloody disaster!!!
Life itself, like relationships is full of risks, you can’t fully eradicate all risks. I think Peterson thinks that instead of empowering men there’s a danger of making them so fearful and cowardly that they avoid all risks and that in itself will lead to a life half lived.
Thanks Danuta. This isn’t about Peterson’s marriage, yours, or anyone else’s. It’s about MGTOW being a perfectly rational response to a state that has (at the behest of feminists and their male lapdogs) weaponised women to assault their partners’ human rights through e.g. false allegations. 50% of marriages end in divorce, with women filing for most divorces. Peterson has a huge amount to learn before he has half the insights of Paul Elam on MGTOW and so much else.
No, about 39% of marriages end in divorce. If you later have children, that risk drops to about 24%. Once you get past the first 8 or 10 years, the risk of divorce is the same as it was for your grandparents. The number of men filing for divorce has remained roughly constant; the number of women filing rose rapidly to a peak in the early ’90s but is now falling – probably due to the lower numbers marrying. Women file for about 60%. The changes in marriage and divorce laws have only affected the first decade of marriage, which is interesting; they have also disproportionately affected the lower stratifications of society and have largely left the upper classes unaffected. People are also marrying much later – the average age for men has increased from 23 in the 1970s to 33 now.
All of this matters because marriage is the difference between a sperm-donor and a father.
These figures will be different in the US and MGTOW is predominantly an American phenomenon; it is a rational response to a perception about marriage, but not necessarily to the reality.
I hope you approve this comment, because I believe we should try to argue from the facts, but I am aware any disagreement with MGTOW or with Paul Elam is rarely allowed.
Thanks Nick. It’s been a long time since I analysed marriage and divorce stats for my book The Fraud of the Rings (2009), but some of the numbers on the ‘divorce rate’ must be projections. What cohort of marriages ending in divorce does 39% relate to, is it an estimate of the likelihood of a couple marrying today, eventually divorcing? If so, you have to ask yourself this – if you were about to do a charity parachute jump from 5,000 feet, and learned that the failure rate of your parachute was 39%, would you jump? I guess the lower numbers of people marrying are in part a reflection of more ‘high risk’ couples deciding (probably wisely) and/or risk-averse men (and a few women) deciding not to tie the knot?
Yes, they are projections, mostly from the Marriage Foundation, so we can’t know for a fact that only 39% of marriages will end in divorce until they do end, but that isn’t a new problem. I want to make two points: the first is that 39% of parachutes failing will include some very rotten, poorly maintained parachutes. If you inspect your parachute regularly, maintain it well, store it in clean and dry conditions and follow the manufacturer’s instructions, the chances are that it won’t fail. There are positive actions that can be taken to give a marriage the best chance of success; if you don’t have children before marriage and can last the first few years, the chance of divorce is pretty low, and no higher than it has been for a very long time.
My first marriage was a disaster, but that’s life and I learnt a great deal from the experience and have met some remarkable people as a result; I refuse to regret it and it isn’t for me to deny that experience to other men. My second marriage has been wonderful and, again, I have no right to steer young men away from what could very well be for them a similarly wonderful experience. Certainly, we should make young men aware of the risks, but we should ensure the information we give them is as accurate as we can make it.
Secondly, I make no apology for believing that marriage is essential to social cohesion and to fatherhood; if we abandon marriage we abandon everything. MGTOW is understandable, but it is defeatist, and does the job of feminists for them. To stretch your analogy a bit, we need paratroopers, not conscientious objectors!
Thanks Nick. OK. Let me return to the parachute analogy. Let’s say they’re all brand new, and the cause of the 39% failure rate is a problem just detected. Would you jump? There’s plenty you CAN’T do before you marry, or during your marriage. You can’t change the reality that your wife will see that if she divorces you, she could take a lot of your accumulated wealth (and maybe that of your forebears) and deny you access to your children. To my mind this makes the institution highly toxic. Personally, I’m not up for a 39% chance of ruin and denial of access to children.
I think the analogy has probably been taken as far as it will go! The cause of the 39% failure rate isn’t a new problem, it is fairly well known and the risk can be managed to reduce it to around 10 to 15% at which level it doesn’t look too bad. Nothing worth doing is without risk! Campaigns may help eventually, but individuals have to take responsibility too; fewer people marrying can only weaken marriage overall; MGTOW is defeatist, inward-looking and selfish. It’s an emotional reaction, but not a philosophy, and far too similar to separatist feminism for my liking.
Thanks Nick. We’ll have to agree to disagree. If and when the state stops destroying men’s lives at the behest of their female partners, more men may return to marriage. Or they may not. Have a good week.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Forget this theory that Peterson’s manner of delivery of an apology is down to him being the eldest of three siblings and Paul E betting that Peterson must have played out some ‘hero child’ family role in earlier life! Completely pointless analysis.
Peterson’s apology for his use of two over critical words to describe Men Going Their Own Way was acceptable.
During the apology Peterson was conscious in the same instant of the two sides of the argument that he could see regarding MGTOW and he was simply going through the thought process in his brain of untangling the two sides.
In this instant he appeared to be under a little strain in clarifying his thoughts, we all have bad days! Paul E reads way too much into it all.
It’s far more apt in analysing Peterson’s MGTOW lecture message to bear in mind that Peterson speaks from the context of being a male who has been in a long term marriage of nearly thirty years duration.
He has had first hand experience of the fulfilment,comfort and positives that come with a long contented marriage. I think Peterson was trying to say from a place of appreciation of his wife and his long marriage that you can’t tar ALL women with the same negative, doom mongering brush just as you can’t tar ALL men with the same brush.
Of course there will always be a percentage of females and a percentage of males in the human population who will cause trauma, heartbreak and great financial consequence to the opposite sex.
But don’t forget, ignore and pretend they don’t exist, the percentage of men and women who give each other life long fulfilment and contentment.
There’s a healthy mistrust and wariness towards the opposite sex, there’s a fine balance, I think Peterson worries that proponents of MGTOW are in danger of tipping young men into an unhealthy,
crippled with so much fear, paranoid mistrust of ALL women.
So crippled with fear of the potential dangers that they won’t attempt a relationship in any shape or form with any woman, which in itself is tragic as they lose the chance of the contented, fulfilling relationships with women that can and do exist.
I have been married exactly the same number of years that Peterson has.
The most important piece of advice I feel I could give to young men is don’t act impulsively, take your time to really get to know the person you’re thinking of committing to.
I spent eight years getting to know my husband before I married him.
I knew exactly the sort of person I was getting.
In that time you can see how the person reacts, behaves in and deals with all sorts of situations. Every person on this planet will at some point irritate and frustrate you, including that new love interest in front of you.
If the good points far outweigh the bad points, and the bad points are more along the lines of trivial irritants then that’s quite promising. For a marriage to be successful your potential spouse has to earn your respect and trust.
I’ve always had great respect for my husband and I’ve always loved him and really cared for him, it doesn’t mean he never irritates or frustrates me. In the great scheme of things, if most of the things are ‘right’ you can ignore and turn a blind eye to the irritations and frustrations of a personality that is very different to your own.
I think it’s also important for young people to understand the distinction between ‘being in love,’ and
loving someone.
In self centred youth, I was ‘roller coaster in love’ with my first boyfriend, but I didn’t respect certain things about him, I didn’t love him or care about him, although I didn’t realise that at the time, I was more in love with the exciting thrill of it all, but if I’d impulsively and blinding married him the marriage would have been a bloody disaster!!!
Life itself, like relationships is full of risks, you can’t fully eradicate all risks. I think Peterson thinks that instead of empowering men there’s a danger of making them so fearful and cowardly that they avoid all risks and that in itself will lead to a life half lived.
LikeLike
Thanks Danuta. This isn’t about Peterson’s marriage, yours, or anyone else’s. It’s about MGTOW being a perfectly rational response to a state that has (at the behest of feminists and their male lapdogs) weaponised women to assault their partners’ human rights through e.g. false allegations. 50% of marriages end in divorce, with women filing for most divorces. Peterson has a huge amount to learn before he has half the insights of Paul Elam on MGTOW and so much else.
LikeLike
Well, you’re very fair Mike, you’ll allow comments that you disagree with, I’ll give you that 🙂 All the Best.
LikeLike
Thanks Danuta. I don’t always allow comments, I try to take each on its own merits.
LikeLike
No, about 39% of marriages end in divorce. If you later have children, that risk drops to about 24%. Once you get past the first 8 or 10 years, the risk of divorce is the same as it was for your grandparents. The number of men filing for divorce has remained roughly constant; the number of women filing rose rapidly to a peak in the early ’90s but is now falling – probably due to the lower numbers marrying. Women file for about 60%. The changes in marriage and divorce laws have only affected the first decade of marriage, which is interesting; they have also disproportionately affected the lower stratifications of society and have largely left the upper classes unaffected. People are also marrying much later – the average age for men has increased from 23 in the 1970s to 33 now.
All of this matters because marriage is the difference between a sperm-donor and a father.
These figures will be different in the US and MGTOW is predominantly an American phenomenon; it is a rational response to a perception about marriage, but not necessarily to the reality.
I hope you approve this comment, because I believe we should try to argue from the facts, but I am aware any disagreement with MGTOW or with Paul Elam is rarely allowed.
LikeLike
Thanks Nick. It’s been a long time since I analysed marriage and divorce stats for my book The Fraud of the Rings (2009), but some of the numbers on the ‘divorce rate’ must be projections. What cohort of marriages ending in divorce does 39% relate to, is it an estimate of the likelihood of a couple marrying today, eventually divorcing? If so, you have to ask yourself this – if you were about to do a charity parachute jump from 5,000 feet, and learned that the failure rate of your parachute was 39%, would you jump? I guess the lower numbers of people marrying are in part a reflection of more ‘high risk’ couples deciding (probably wisely) and/or risk-averse men (and a few women) deciding not to tie the knot?
We approve 99%+ of submitted comments, taking each on its merits. We’ve been strong and loyal supporters of Paul Elam and AVfM since before we launched J4MB in 2013. AVfM published my pieces, “Fighting feminism – let’s get political’ just before the launch https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/fighting-feminism-lets-get-political/.
LikeLike
Yes, they are projections, mostly from the Marriage Foundation, so we can’t know for a fact that only 39% of marriages will end in divorce until they do end, but that isn’t a new problem. I want to make two points: the first is that 39% of parachutes failing will include some very rotten, poorly maintained parachutes. If you inspect your parachute regularly, maintain it well, store it in clean and dry conditions and follow the manufacturer’s instructions, the chances are that it won’t fail. There are positive actions that can be taken to give a marriage the best chance of success; if you don’t have children before marriage and can last the first few years, the chance of divorce is pretty low, and no higher than it has been for a very long time.
My first marriage was a disaster, but that’s life and I learnt a great deal from the experience and have met some remarkable people as a result; I refuse to regret it and it isn’t for me to deny that experience to other men. My second marriage has been wonderful and, again, I have no right to steer young men away from what could very well be for them a similarly wonderful experience. Certainly, we should make young men aware of the risks, but we should ensure the information we give them is as accurate as we can make it.
Secondly, I make no apology for believing that marriage is essential to social cohesion and to fatherhood; if we abandon marriage we abandon everything. MGTOW is understandable, but it is defeatist, and does the job of feminists for them. To stretch your analogy a bit, we need paratroopers, not conscientious objectors!
LikeLike
Thanks Nick. OK. Let me return to the parachute analogy. Let’s say they’re all brand new, and the cause of the 39% failure rate is a problem just detected. Would you jump? There’s plenty you CAN’T do before you marry, or during your marriage. You can’t change the reality that your wife will see that if she divorces you, she could take a lot of your accumulated wealth (and maybe that of your forebears) and deny you access to your children. To my mind this makes the institution highly toxic. Personally, I’m not up for a 39% chance of ruin and denial of access to children.
LikeLike
I think the analogy has probably been taken as far as it will go! The cause of the 39% failure rate isn’t a new problem, it is fairly well known and the risk can be managed to reduce it to around 10 to 15% at which level it doesn’t look too bad. Nothing worth doing is without risk! Campaigns may help eventually, but individuals have to take responsibility too; fewer people marrying can only weaken marriage overall; MGTOW is defeatist, inward-looking and selfish. It’s an emotional reaction, but not a philosophy, and far too similar to separatist feminism for my liking.
LikeLike
Thanks Nick. We’ll have to agree to disagree. If and when the state stops destroying men’s lives at the behest of their female partners, more men may return to marriage. Or they may not. Have a good week.
LikeLike
Also I must say I was so thoroughly engrossed in what James Tate was saying in his interview with Ewan Jones, what an interesting mind JP Tate has.
LikeLike
Interesting critique by Elam. I had never previously considered that Peterson may be acting out the responsible ‘eldest son’ or ‘hero’ archetype.
LikeLike