5 ms·

Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." [1] Someone who has no idea what a dowry is has no business trying to teach anthropology. Pe

Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." [1] Someone who has no idea what a dowry is has no business trying to teach anthropology. Peterson gets attention for being an obnoxious know-it-all but he just repeats well known ideas in psychology and ethology; when it comes to anthropology Peterson does not have a clue. [1] This quote is in one of Peterson's many digressive rants somewhere in the first seven lectures of the 2017 Maps of Meaning course: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-O... I gave up on it after realizing he was just basically making shit up as he went along when it came to his ideas about anthropology.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
"Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." I couldn't decide from your comment, if you think the fact is wrong, or you disagree on ideological grounds, or he is a nutcase.
- sedachv 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry is an extremely common practice across the world going back a very long time. The fact that Peterson asserts that "only rich women get married" was not the case in the past shows an atrocious lack of knowledge about anthropology.
  - chongli 9y ago
    When Peterson makes authoritative claims, it's important to recognize that he's only talking about Western countries. That's where his expertise is focused. Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. Take a gander at his Biblical series. It's 100% about Western civilization.
    - sedachv 9y ago
      > Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Do you not understand that being able to provide a dowry in the past is being "rich" today? Peterson's whole approach to evolutionary psych can be summarized as "this is what people have done in the past, therefore it is a big problem that people are now doing something different." The problem is that Peterson does not seem to actually know what people have done in the past, and how similar it is to what happens today. The result is a lot of ignorant ranting about problems that do not exist. > Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. This was actually the start of Peterson's rant that I mentioned. When in the history of "Western civilization" was this not the case? Lower class women were always treated as slaves, serfs and/or prostitutes and constituted the majority of the population in Europe. Out-of-wedlock births and maternal material deprivation is the historic norm. Forget even having a single mother, many more children than today were raised in orphanages because their single mothers were too poor to provide for them. The only discernible reason Peterson finds this novel or "alarming" is because of his misogynist views on women now having the choice of marriage and divorce.
    - nonamechicken 9y ago
      >Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. I would say it still exists. It just changed its name to alimony. In India, women don't pay dowry. It's the parents, usually the dad. The alimony system just changed it so that now the ex (usually husband) has to pay. I would call alimony/maintenance as divorce dowry.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      >That's where his expertise is focused. Out of interest, what expertise? He seems to be a psychologist who has multiple times talked about Marxism and postmodernism with the utmost ignorance of current research and philosophy. He also makes "authoritative claims" completely outside his "focus of expertise"[0] and is very wrong about them. Why should he be trusted outside his actual field of expertise? [0] https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554?lang=en https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...
      - 9y ago
lf275 9y ago
Maybe you should perform even a rudimentary google search before dismissing others: Marriage is for rich people https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/?referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriag... "A new report, by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of the Hamilton Project, looked at the decline in marriage rates over the last 50 years and found a strong connection to income. Dwindling marriage rates are concentrated among the poor — the very people whose living standards would be most improved by having a second household income." "Whatever the case, the concentration of marriage among the richest Americans is amplifying the increase in income inequality."
- sedachv 9y ago
  Yes, Peterson must have read that exact article because the wording he used was almost verbatim. The problem is that he is convinced that this is somehow a new phenomenon in the context of European society going back to Roman times, which is what his lecture was about. The study is about the United States going back to 1970. It is extremely ignorant of Peterson to make that generalization.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

"Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." I couldn't decide from your comment, if you think the fact is wrong, or you disagree on ideological grounds, or he is a nutcase.

sedachv 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry is an extremely common practice across the world going back a very long time. The fact that Peterson asserts that "only rich women get married" was not the case in the past shows an atrocious lack of knowledge about anthropology.
- chongli 9y ago
  When Peterson makes authoritative claims, it's important to recognize that he's only talking about Western countries. That's where his expertise is focused. Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. Take a gander at his Biblical series. It's 100% about Western civilization.
  - sedachv 9y ago
    > Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Do you not understand that being able to provide a dowry in the past is being "rich" today? Peterson's whole approach to evolutionary psych can be summarized as "this is what people have done in the past, therefore it is a big problem that people are now doing something different." The problem is that Peterson does not seem to actually know what people have done in the past, and how similar it is to what happens today. The result is a lot of ignorant ranting about problems that do not exist. > Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. This was actually the start of Peterson's rant that I mentioned. When in the history of "Western civilization" was this not the case? Lower class women were always treated as slaves, serfs and/or prostitutes and constituted the majority of the population in Europe. Out-of-wedlock births and maternal material deprivation is the historic norm. Forget even having a single mother, many more children than today were raised in orphanages because their single mothers were too poor to provide for them. The only discernible reason Peterson finds this novel or "alarming" is because of his misogynist views on women now having the choice of marriage and divorce.
  - nonamechicken 9y ago
    >Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. I would say it still exists. It just changed its name to alimony. In India, women don't pay dowry. It's the parents, usually the dad. The alimony system just changed it so that now the ex (usually husband) has to pay. I would call alimony/maintenance as divorce dowry.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >That's where his expertise is focused. Out of interest, what expertise? He seems to be a psychologist who has multiple times talked about Marxism and postmodernism with the utmost ignorance of current research and philosophy. He also makes "authoritative claims" completely outside his "focus of expertise"[0] and is very wrong about them. Why should he be trusted outside his actual field of expertise? [0] https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/405200126236311554?lang=en https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...
    - 9y ago

lf275 9y ago

Maybe you should perform even a rudimentary google search before dismissing others: Marriage is for rich people https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/?referer= https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/02/06/marriag... "A new report, by Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney of the Hamilton Project, looked at the decline in marriage rates over the last 50 years and found a strong connection to income. Dwindling marriage rates are concentrated among the poor — the very people whose living standards would be most improved by having a second household income." "Whatever the case, the concentration of marriage among the richest Americans is amplifying the increase in income inequality."

sedachv 9y ago
Yes, Peterson must have read that exact article because the wording he used was almost verbatim. The problem is that he is convinced that this is somehow a new phenomenon in the context of European society going back to Roman times, which is what his lecture was about. The study is about the United States going back to 1970. It is extremely ignorant of Peterson to make that generalization.