Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jordan and Camille’s Excellent Adventure
I quite like Jordan Peterson. I don’t agree with everything he says. Occasionally, as do many of his critics, I find him a bit glib and superficial. But if a generation of young men (and even some of their fathers and grandfathers) are going to listen to a social media muse on matters of culture, I’d much rather they listen to JP than, say, Susan “Why Can’t We Hate Men,” Danuta Walters, professor of sociology and director of the Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, to wit:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Good. Lord.
What Jordan Peterson has over this woman and others of her ilk is a positive message, a constructive agenda, an organized mind, and a road map to individual character building, “standing up straight with your shoulders back, grow[ing] the hell up, accept[ing] some responsibility, and liv[ing] an honorable life.” Nothing wrong with that. More power to him. May he change a million young men’s minds. This week. And another million, next week.
I do get a little concerned about context when I watch one of his five-minute clips on YouTube, most recently the one about how powerless a man is when he’s dealing with a difficult woman; apparently since the only real manly recourse, punching her lights out, is forbidden to him because of his inherently chivalrous nature. I guess I’d like to believe that there are other ways to solve conflicts, and that most of them fall somewhere in between turning one’s back and silently walking away, and a swift right hook. But then again, there are the Susan Danuta Walters’ of the world, so perhaps not.
Anyhoo, after watching that short clip, I wanted to learn more about Peterson’s attitude towards the Monstrous Regiment, so I did a bit of Google searching, and I came across a YouTube video in which he engages Camille Paglia for about an hour and three-quarters of vigorous discussion (she doesn’t do any other kind).
Clearly, these two are on the same wavelength. But so different. The very bright, but very dour man of few words, and the brilliant, explosive, very verbal, very mouthy old broad (I think she’d be OK with that description). It’s an interesting pairing.
For the first thirty minutes or so, Camille gives the most lucid and rational explanation I’ve ever heard of what has gone wrong in American academia from the 1970s onwards. (I was there. I remember.) It’s just masterful. And then it’s on to the patriarchy, an entertaining romp through history, art and culture, why the world evolved the way it did, why things are in the mess they are, and what, if anything can be done to repair the damage–Must women save the world? Must men stand up for themselves? What happens if nothing happens–Is Western Civilization Doomed?
The two of them energize and play off each other, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don’t agree with everything either of them said, and there are a few non-sequiturs and, I think, a few holes in their arguments at one point or another. But it’s a free-form discussion where they play off each others’ ideas, not a formal lecture. And rather than drone on as to what I think is problematic about it, I’d rather, if you’re interested and up for it, you have a listen yourself, and see what you think.
For those of you who may not know much of Camille Paglia, there’s always a certain amount of cognitive dissonance for me in the fact that this particular anti-feminist who speaks so eloquently about, and in defense of, the “patriarchy,” the Western Canon, and the traditional roles of men and women in society (I like her explanation of how those roles evolved better than just about any I’ve ever heard) is a seriously libertarian, pro-choice, lesbian/self-identified transgender classicist who’s been tearing up whatever pea-patch she’s been in, and causing trouble, as long as she’s been alive.
I loved this. I think it’s a hoot. They look as if they’re having a blast. Enjoy.
Published in Culture
This video is at the top of my to-do list. Can’t wait to get to it.
For those who want more, I’d suggest JP interviewed by Russel Brand. JP tends to get interviewed by either people who want to take him down or people who want him to take others down. In either case, I think we might miss out because in both cases we don’t get this: JP is an excellent listener. Russel Brand is, too, and the two of them delve into areas where both want to go but neither has much of a chance, at least in public. To the world, these two are probably opposites who should be at each other’s throats. In fact, they give us a perfect demonstration of the power of honest dialog.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kL61yQgdWeM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MLFQxVOvan4
What I like about Paglia’s position is that she rejects the whole “this is all about power, men have it women don’t” argument, in favor of something more along the lines of “Look. This was the reality–young women, pregnant women, nursing mothers, older women, men as hunter-gatherers, taking care of the women in order to insure the future of the human race” approach. This “reductio ad everything-is-about-power” of the last couple of generations of feminists is just tiresome and ultimately leads nowhere, IMHO. As I said in another thread recently:
I stand by that.
I have listened to the first hour, and so far I haven’t heard either Peterson or Paglia say a single thing I disagreed with. :-)
Thank you for posting this link.
Here’s something a high-school friend posted on Facebook:
Blech.
If I’m a racist “no matter what,” why should I join your crusade? Why should I dirty it with my filthy, grubby, white-male hands? All around the world, “people of color” — Rohingyas, Uyghurs, Yazidis, and surely others — are suffering not merely discrimination, but actual genocide, and you want me to apologize for my country? Sorry. No.
Needless to say, I blocked this friend. Such ingratitude isn’t sustainable. It can’t be sustainable. Sooner or later, people will grow tired of the whining.
What tripe. And yes. Ingratitude. I hope you are right, that “sooner or later people will grow tired of the whining.”
Think it’s our job to bring it to their attention, though.
Andrew Klavan has often said that if you want to learn where society is going, look at the young men. All the energy and all the vigor is with them. The burning drive to change, destroy and create is mostly a dude thing.
This is what generates white nationalists. If you tell decent whites that no matter what they do they are bad, they are strongly tempted to give up being decent.
Though I am no big fan of Ann Rand, she did say that, “Racism is the stupidest form of collectivism.” She was right about that. All decent people should look at all forms of racism as the garbage that it is.
Listening to Camille Paglia is like standing on Mount Etna. The experience is worthwhile, but one has the sense that she might explode at any minute, sending forth plumes of ideas into the lower stratosphere.
Marvelous! Exactly right!
It’s something I’ve noticed about (some?) high-IQ people — Richard Epstein, Camille Paglia, Robin Williams, John von Neumann, a few students in my undergraduate classes, and so on. So lively are their minds that their mouths struggle to keep apace.
For us mere mortals, it’s terrifying. Absolutely terrifying.
I like professor Paglia, but I watched this discussion and my impression is that she isn’t as sharp as she used to be. She was far too impressed with her own imagined influence on culture in the past (and as much as I like a lot about her, we have to admit that she has had little impact) and is a little too impressed with herself. She actually sounded a bit desperate for us to believe in her past glories, imagined and real. It was kind of sad to watch, because she used to impress me with her reasoning and her confident presentation of ideas. Now she just seemed a bit whacky. (I also doubt that she calls herself a libertarian.)
I’ve been watching a lot of Jordan Peterson this past month, and I like a lot about him. He has a strange fascination with religion, which seems to conform to no dogma or tradition that I can discern. He seems to think religion is just a matter of story telling, in a kind of Joseph Campbell sort of way, as though it doesn’t matter if there is a god, we just all need to pretend that there is one because we need the story telling. I find that pretty odd.
He also goes on and on about how it is “illegal” for the US military to enlist anyone with an IQ of less than 80. He claims it a lot, but I don’t believe it for a second and he never cites the law. Whether someone can enlist or not is a matter of policy and administrative standards, but you can also say that about wearing glasses, being circumcised, or having tattoos. Almost anything can be and frequently is waived depending on how short the military is on its recruitment goals.
But he makes a lot of sense. I think he is very powerful at changing the dynamics of the political discussion. I think a lot of what he says needs more proof, but the gist is really good.
That’s the danger of this mindset. If we are racist no matter what we do, why should we bother to care about whether we are racist or not? It’s a very risky argument. It becomes quite easy to counter that argument with the argument that blacks should be discriminated against since there is no cure for racism short of suicide. Racism is better than suicide.
‘Seasy…
Patriarchy! Domination! Inequality! Male privilege! White privilege! Privilege!@l
Oh, wait, you want an actual, rational explanation? [insert word salad here]
Wait.
That’s the ex-Mr-Katy-Perry Russell Brand?!?! He’s much, much, much more impressive than I thought, based on Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek and, well, being Mr-Katy-Perry.
I’ve only watched the first video, but he’s actually articulate, intelligent, and wears his Christianity on his sleeve. I never would have known.
Thanks for sharing!!!
Yeah, she’s 71 years old, that may have something to do with it (63 myself, so I think I’m allowed to say that). Sometimes the words don’t line themselves up quite as neatly as they used to for me, either. One of the things that I like about her, though, is that she hasn’t had some massive ideological shift over the years, like a lot of reformed leftys who’ve come over to “our” side. She’s kept her (to me) problematic leanings intact, but she’s still one of the most articulate spokesman for the “conservative” point of view on many fundamental issues. Think I like her most because she’s always had such an individual point of view. She’s just not part of the herd.
This isn’t something I’ve paid particular attention to, but suspect it has to do with his Jungian roots. It is nice so see someone who doesn’t automatically dismiss the religious tradition in Western Civilization as something evil, and it seems as though he thinks that such a tradition ought to make us better people. I like that thought.
Hm. Haven’t read that.
Yes, I think he is having an impact, and very much on the positive side. Agree.
I’ll go further and say it drives men to being indecent, especially toward the women and minorities who suffer merely because of our existence . . .
I might quibble on the “create” side of things. It’s one of those areas where I think women are at least as competent as men, but in a completely different sphere. Complementarity.
I agree that traditionally, women have been more conservative than men. They have been oriented to keeping their families together and stable, nurturing the next generation, and not towards massive and destabilizing social, or any other kind of, change. And I think you are right about “destroy.”
The trouble with lunatics like Susan “Why Can’t We Hate Men,” Danuta Walters is that although she doesn’t specifically say so here, she is talking only about white men. Her oppression and victim-centered intersectionality creds just wouldn’t have it any other way.
I don’t know if this sort of thing necessarily generates “white nationalists,” (whatever that means) but it does breed a justified resentment, and a feeling that there is nothing that can be done through civil dialog to change what passes for the mind of such a troll (not using the word in the Internet sense, more in the Brothers Grimm sense.) And it certainly contributes to the breakdown of our society, as hordes of the dim-witted, the half-baked and the uneducated, sign on to her venomous screed because everything that’s been held out as good, or noble, or worthwhile in their lives has been coarsened, dismissed and devalued in front of their eyes. Nevertheless, civil (which does not mean passive or ineffective) dialog is what we have available to us, and we should make better, and louder, use of it that we have to this point, IMHO.
(Back to my earlier point about why any sort of “conservative” parents (who I think still absorb a huge proportion of college expenses for their children) put up with the nonsense that is spewed by their childrens’ schools. To put it simply: Remove them. Send them out to work so they can make some money and pay their own way, or find a school that better reflects one’s values and send them there. Pause here to recognize what an utterly screwed-up mess the student loan programs of the last fifty years have been, and how much they have contributed to the bloated and seemingly unaccountable behemoth academia has become. Another area that needs massive reform).
I liked Paglia’s idea about a lifetime enrollment for women entering college. Paglia wants to enable women to pursue family formation and education at the same time. She said that it would accomplish two things: First, it would put mothers into the college classrooms, which would help the kids who have grown up in single-child families get a more realistic idea of the differences between boys and girls and men and women. It would also give them a mature look at family life. Second, it would enable young women to start families at the best biological time for both the women and the children.
I loved having older students with real-life experience in my college classes. It was more common in the evening classes, probably because they were working during the day. But they brought a serious learning ethic with them, had some different perspectives than us “young’uns,” and always made the class better. Think it was good for the younger students to hear from those with outside experience, and also good for the older students to be exposed to the upcoming generation. Win-win, as they say. So I’d like to see a way to make that work somehow, too.
Ability to create is not the same as creating. Even today, almost everything is designed and created by men. Sure, women can, but they generally don’t.
Moms are really down to earth. :-) I saw this so vividly when I was helping out in an eighth-grade CCD class (the Catholic Church education program). The class was run by a nun. The first problem I noted was that it was in the evening. The kids were falling asleep. The nun thought they just didn’t care or were poorly prepared for class. Second, the class was two hours long. I was falling asleep after forty-five minutes. It was painful. I felt sorry for the tired and head-achy kids.
One time the nun had to go to a conference, and she asked one of the mothers who was also a teacher to take over the class in her absence. Oh my gosh, what a difference. The mom had the kids learn the three points the nun wanted them to learn in the first ten minutes. Then she broke up the class into small chatty groups for arts and crafts of some sort and a snack. Wow! The kids had a great time. They stayed awake. And they learned the lesson. I heard some of them actually laughing!
:-)
As a recovered psych major, I have to opine here: I [HEART] Carl Gustav (with caveats). Jung used faith-related (strongly Asian-infused) language that appeals to the young and young-at-heart, as exotic and intriguing…Lewis’s borrowing of the term Tao to gather together cross-cultural verities serves a similar purpose. Joseph Campbell’s anthropological survey, a la Frazer’s The Golden Bough is more a catalogue than a handbook. Peterson makes the background of Western Civ exotically concrete: “Pick up your doshgarned room.”, is something many pajama boys and “Julias” have never heard before.
Well. I disagree. But that’s OK. I suspect you’re a Martian, and I’m a Venusian, and we’re using “create” in rather different ways. Because I do think there are different sorts of creators, and different sorts of creating, and different sorts of creations.
I like to hear what she says. But it is hard to listen to how she says it.
[pointless ad hominem joke]
Doesn’t change the character or her value and I respect her but.. whew, it is hard for me to keep up : 0]
That’s what I meant. But I am not as creative as @Bunwick Chiffswiddle
While Paglia was talking about how there is a cafeteria style presentation of how students take courses, and there is no longer a teaching of oversight of civilization and foundational gestalt, no grand narrative and wiring of the brain so that a true basis for approaching a piece of art, I suddenly remembered going to a Rodin exhibit at Stanford.
What absolutely floored me was that each and every one of the many pieces Stanford had obtained was positioned flush against a wall. So you couldn’t really view the sculptures in a 3 D type of way, except for the very limited view of the front side of the sculpture. Considering that to even obtain the career position where you’d be allowed to be in charge of such a display required probably Master’s or PhD in art, I was flummoxed. The entire display was a distortion – because sculpture exists for us to experience while we walk around it, lean over and peer up at it, and certainly does not exist in order to be turned into what was almost a 2 D display.
So I totally get how Paglia can go on in total frustration about the professor she critiques who has no understanding of society or anything, who sneers at art or great literature as something beneath his intellectual stature as an analyst. Yet this person is given his top position in his university department and allowed to design the coursework that will allow his level of ignorance to continue. I totally understand her need to use the word “distortions.”
Slightly different spin, but same sort of thing: One of the highlights of my trip to the UK in 1984, with my mother-in-law and stepdaughter, was going to the V&A Museum to see a special exhibit of Faberge eggs. We were quite excited. I mean, beautiful, right? Well, no. The were in pokey, poorly lit glass cases, all huddled together in the almost-dark. It was one of the most disappointing things of its kind I’ve ever attended, and I remember wondering how anyone in charge could have been so insensitive as to do that. Unfortunately, our institutes of learning, and even the repositories of our cultural artifacts, are riddled with just the sort of people Paglia and you are describing. How can we fix that?