Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate — not the same person

Apparently Jordan Peterson, prominent Canadian psychologist, and Andrew Tate, former kickboxer, proud misogynist and shameless hustler, are the same person. They are the same person in terms of their message, character and impact. This is according to articles I’ve read on Medium and elsewhere.

If you want to read them, the Medium articles are here and here.

According to the latter, Jordan Peterson is actually worse than Andrew Tate — “his theories’ impact is much worse than all of the other misogynistic grifters combined” — because it’s couched in ‘pseudo-intellectual’ language that bamboozles people into thinking its legit smart truth.

It’s concerning that these two people are put in the same box.

The writers seem to think that they also have the same audience. Namely, incels or angry males well on the way to being incels. But while I could see Andrew Tate’s schtick appealing to such types (indeed he made millions exploiting lonely men via his webcam business), Jordan Peterson has almost nothing to say that the typical incel would want to hear.

Consider these central messages (taken from his popular book 12 Rules for Life):

‘Stand up straight and put your shoulders back, Clean your room, treat yourself as if you’re someone worth being helped, take on as much responsibility as you can handle…’

Any young man who took on his advice would have to confront his resentment, his anger at the world (including women). Resentment arises from feeling powerless and envious. Jordan Peterson has undoubtedly inspired and empowered men across the world. Incels have a victim mentality. This is the opposite mentality to what JP espouses. Just have a read of the comments below this video to get a sense of his impact.

Now ask yourself, are those people closer to becoming resentful incels plotting revenge against the world and women, or further away?

This tendency to lump Jordan Peterson in with such unsavoury peeps as AT just because he has something positive to say to and about men, suggests a large part of society seems to find masculinity itself worrying.

Indeed, the American Psychological Association recently labelled traditional masculinity as toxic. The article states, “the main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

On the whole, I would’ve thought that stoicism was something of a virtue. In fact, there are many popular and current self-help books borrowing from the stoic tradition — some even written by women! As for competitiveness, there is such a thing as healthy competition. Watch how men shake hands at the end of a tennis match. Look at the warmth on the part of the defeated, the congratulatory pat on the chest or shoulder. Think about the humility that requires. The willingness to have a go, knowing you might lose, and then taking it on the chin. Brilliant.

Some people would deny reality. That men are competitive is a fact. That it can be channeled into unbelievably useful and inspirational outlets is also a fact.

But sure, let’s say traditional masculinity has some unhealthy aspects. I know it. My concern is that masculinity itself is being condemned. People can say nothing good about it.

What are men supposed to do? What healthy alternatives are offered?

If the masculine is condemned as inherently toxic in itself, boys become confused. Trust me. I’ve been there. I remember wondering what was good about men, being ashamed of myself for being one of those who killed and raped and hurt. The negative messaging has only gotten worse, so imagine how hard it is now. Boys don’t know who or what to be. It can take a long time to figure it out, and along the way they will make a lot of mistakes.

One mistake is to turn to the likes of Andrew Tate — or worse - and double down. And then it really gets toxic.

So please, differentiate between these people and their messages.