21 Comments

Yes, I felt the presence of his emotional vacuum regarding female experience. His glaring lack of willing to even contemplate what she has just proposed---

Expand full comment

I enjoyed this a lot - thank you for providing a critique. I'm reading his second book, funnily enough. I don't like his ideas about women at all, and it was interesting in his first book he basically ignores the idea that women (or indeed men!) can be homosexual when discussing the sexual roles and behaviors of men and women. However, I don't think it's a bad idea to tune into all sorts of different ideas and people, hence why I've read his work. I think his ideas about the strength of narratives to human understanding and logic are interesting - basically that people respond a load better to narratives than they do to fact, which I think is part of why the trans agenda ran before the truth had time to tie its laces.

Cheers!

Expand full comment

Also, if you don't mind me saying, you look very well recently :) thank you for all you do

Expand full comment

Thank you very much. I have been using a new skin treatment since about April that is actually working. I'm glad it's noticeable because it's giving me intense dander euphoria.

Expand full comment

Ah yes, the old “the existence of impoverished males negates the existence of male dominance” chestnut. I think he knows damn well what she means but is deflecting.

Expand full comment

Yep, it's classic whataboutism.

Expand full comment

Polygamous Mormons would often exile younger males, known as "lost boys," in order to maintain the sex imbalance they needed to have plural wives without social disintegration. I guess FLDS is matriarchal now since the lost boys are profoundly disaffected on the basis of their sex.

Expand full comment

that would be a hilarious irony if the female preponderance actually subverted the male dominance. Go wives!!!

Expand full comment

Omg, and I thought it isn't possible to like you even more! It's so rare to find a feminist who likes Peterson. I also like him a lot, granted - that doesn't mean that I 100% share his views. I just hate this popular tendency to hate on a person and call them stupid or dumb man's intellectual just because you don't agree with them and just because they, too, have blind spots. Refreshing to see some nuance.

Expand full comment

I definitely don't 100% share his views but holy shit that man is ready to cry at the beauty of life 24/7 and I love that about him.

Expand full comment

I like him too...especially when he vents his spleen about transgender ideology, he couldn't be more right!

I also admire his "benevolent patriarch" attitude in the way he exhorts young males to be responsible and properly obligated to the children they father. If only humans were perfect I don't think I'd mind living in Jordan Petersons vision of a society that is family orientated and men place their partnerships first.

Expand full comment

The problem with Jordan Peterson is that he makes a lot of good points, many of which are things that we all can agree on. Ideas like: we live in a hierarchy, making your bed is probably a good thing, working toward goals will make you a more fulfilled person, etc...

The problem is that he uses these obvious facts to push dangerous ideas. This is what cult leaders do.

Once he gets people to agree that the root cause of their problems (and therefore societal problems, according to his philosophy) is, say, "Neo-Marxism," it opens the door for them to become radicalized into fascist ideology. He and his ilk are quite literally the intellectual gateway drug. His ideas are quite convincing, but they lead down a pathway toward radicalization.

The idea that women are "chaos" and men are "order" is another one of his philosophies. This has no basis in reality but he acts as though it is a fact. One of the pillars of fascism is rigid gender ideology. As radical feminists, this is something we should be actively fighting against.

Expand full comment

And of course we know from the Mohawk creation story that it is maleness that introduces chaos where previously women had created order.

Expand full comment

it is not original on his part. he has more than 2000 years of that to rest on.

Expand full comment

I like Jordan Peterson. Make your bed! Get a job! Treat women like human beings! Good advice for young men adrift, which in the long run will help our heterosexual sisters. He's totally focused on men, but then, he is a man!

Expand full comment

I was so excited when I got my notification on Substack that you had posted! I then read the title and pressed ‘play’ with some trepidation because I too, like many of his thoughts but silly me- have no fear, Exulansic is here! And as soon as you prefaced your thoughts, I relaxed and was educated yet again! Thank you, as always ❤️

Expand full comment

That’s what I can’t stand about him. I’m sitting here financially destitute when I was recommended for Gifted and Talented Education after testing in sixth grade, but instead the child “experts” who handled me (orphaned of my father) put me on birth control pills and facilitated my rape by an adult heroin junkie convict, who is now a chemical engineer. J. Peterson has the Dong Privilege and can’t even see it, as it’s invisible to him. This is what patriarchy does: it breeds narcissists. I fail to see how male supremacy itself isn’t a form of group narcissism. “Civilized” people are so codependent and dissociated from Earthly reality. I’m one of those who failed to become domesticated, thankfully!

“It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - J. Krishnamurti

Expand full comment

You BOTH make a fair point. That's not playing the middle. That's acknowledging that this is a nuanced area. The toxic masculinity narrative is I think what led a friend's son to want to transition. But what do wino? ;)

Expand full comment

Exulansic, as a speech pathologist and someone who studied linguistics, I would love to hear you talk about ‘inclusive language’ and it’s consequences for woman more in depth. I heard there is a school board now wanting to refer to mothers as ‘birthing parent’ and whatnot. You always break down these issues with such finesse!

Expand full comment

Thank you for the prompt. I definitely have a lot of thoughts. Fundamentally, the goal is to minimize the mother's unique contribution so that motherhood can be taken from women and given from men, to correct what men perceive as a fundamental injustice of women having more control over life. It is about making it seem like being a woman is a choice, so that society can justify not compensating women fairly for motherhood or having supports in place for women who do what society literally requires most of us to eventually do: bear a child. In general, matriarchies center and value mothers and patriarchies marginalize and devalue mothers.

Expand full comment

Wow. You always blow me away with your in depth analysis. It makes perfect sense- make womanhood seem like a choice, then, woman’s rights and issues will seem unimportant. They chose that fate, after all.

If you’d ever make a video about these issues and talk more about your thoughts I’d love to listen. I watch everything you make, no matter how long :) Every half hour to hour long Exulansic upload makes me giddy, even if unedited. Ramble away!

Expand full comment