Is Jordan Peterson the New Hugo Schwyzer???

In my last article, I mentioned how Jordan Peterson’s use of “rhetoric” was similar to Hugo Schwyzer demolishing MRA’s in debates because he was more educated rather than right.  But the more I think about things, the more I see many similarities between fallen feminist icon Hugo Schwyzer and traditionalist tough guy Professor Peterson….

Of course there is the obvious stuff…

They are both academics and they are both fame seekers.  But let’s dive a little deeper…

Hugo Schwyzer often bashed low status men with what he called the trifecta: “Porn, Pot and Video Games.”  It was a cheap shot to ignore the very real struggles many men go through.  And why shouldn’t they “opt out” and enjoy themselves.  Feminism is supposed to be about helping women and not hurting men, right?

Okay, let’s take a look at Jordan Peterson and his views on Universal Basic Income:

Most telling is his attitude in the video, “Men who are men don’t need money, they need function…”

…and interestingly enough, he made fun of MGTOW’s, men who discuss “the game being rigged.”  Is it because he needs low status men to “stay in the game?” Neither Schwyzer nor Peterson have much “status” if being a professor means nothing and other men aren’t broke.  Both have “succeeded” in a dominance hierarchy and need struggling men beneath them.  If men “opt out” then what do they have?  A worthless piece of paper and a finger to wag, “Stop being lazy and be of service to women?”

The next point will be a bit counterintuitive, but I believe we can look at Schwyzer and Peterson as being “different sides” of the same coin…

At first glance a (neo) liberal male feminist and a “right wing” trad con would seem diametrically opposed.

Schwyzer was a sex positive male feminist who brought adult film stars with allegations of abuse to his classes.

Peterson seems almost regressive to many right wingers for questioning women’s wearing make-up in the workplace. And he has also talked about women’s (increasing) unhapiness and the “problem” high powered women have of finding a man as well heeled or better off, so to speak.

Now, I may be making a jump in logic, but I think at the root of both ideologies is a desire to control people.  In Schwyzer’s case, he wants to shame low status men.  In Peterson’s case he wants to curtail women’s freedoms and lecture men to “return to patriarchy.” Both of them are at odds with male sovereignty at the end of the day. They just have different ideas of how to do this.

The third point is the “impropriety” of both of these guys…

(Now in Peterson’s case it is merely accusations…)

(Thanks to Mr. Odessa for letting me know at AD’s place…)

Now, what I find strange about this is that Prof. Peterson is reluctant to leave the door open when speaking to female students.  I remember when I worked in a public facing role that I made sure to be as out in the open as possible so that I wouldn’t face a false accusation.  I was glad to have “camera’s on the cash registers” so to speak.  I did, ironically enough, face one issue of being accused of being stoned at work.  And, this was a time in my life I probably would’ve passed a piss test.

Part of me can appreciate that Peterson doesn’t want to give up all privacy when conversing with a student and it seems like giving the finger to the NSA.  However, one might think that if they were absolutely baseless accusations, he would now happily leave the door open to avoid them in the future.  So for me, something doesn’t seem to be adding up.

Schwyzer bragged about banging students on his desk and even had a post on his blog about how  he almost killed his lover (and himself) in a drug fueled rage…

Ironically, Peterson talks about “having your house in order” before you critique the world.  But neither of these two asshats have any problem wagging their finger at low status men.  What a bunch of sanctimonious pricks…

Update, the Youtube video where JP says he has been accused of sexual misconduct 3 times has “gone down the memory hole.”

If any of you guys have a link to a mirror video, feel free to drop it in the comments…


17 thoughts on “Is Jordan Peterson the New Hugo Schwyzer???

  1. The gap between CONservatives and LIEbrals is far smaller than most people would want to believe. LIEbrals are basically CONservatives who dress better and talk a bit more eloquently.

    1. Their kids go to the same schools, they live in the same neighborhoods, they both think they’re middle-class. They can go fuck themselves.

  2. >Hugo Schwyzer often bashed low status men with what he called the trifecta: “Porn, Pot and Video Games.” […] And why shouldn’t they “opt out” and enjoy themselves.

    Not spending your resources on women is a crime in gynocentrists’ eyes, no matter if by marriage, child support, dates or any other way.

    >and interestingly enough, he made fun of MGTOW’s, men who discuss “the game being rigged.” Is it because he needs low status men to “stay in the game?” Neither Schwyzer nor Peterson have much “status” if being a professor means nothing and other men aren’t broke.

    Exactly, because when these men opt out, they’ll become the new bottom. Also, lots who bash men who opt out are financially hurt by MGTOW: less men that go to PUA seminars, less men throwing away money on shit they don’t need, and less men who get divorce raped.

    >but I believe we can look at Schwyzer and Peterson as being “different sides” of the same coin.

    When it comes to gynocentrism, tradcons and feminists are allies. They all simp for women, they just don’t agree on HOW to simp for them, and you’ll see that certain issues will unite them like getting surrogacy banned:


      “The Fundamental Law (Hungary’s constitution) attaches special importance to the family, protects the institution of marriage, and states that the foundation of family lies in marriage and in parent-child relationship. It declares that Hungary shall encourage the commitment to have children.

      A precondition of the medium and long-term social development and the sustainability of Hungary is a lasting turn in demographic trends. The objective can be achieved with a stable, complex, targeted and flexible family policy that is capable of adapting to changing needs and conditions.

      Parents and parents-to-be need to have long-term stability and reliable financial situation. In this respect, employment and the easy reconciliation of work and family obligations are of key importance. Therefore, we make attempts to help parents harmonise their career and child raising as much as we can.”

      1. Don’t listen to what my government says, watch what it does (not). Sadly I can’t find any English sources that show that emigrant Hungarians have far more children than those who stay here, except for some people (mostly gypsies) who don’t work but have lots of children just for the benefits, while others don’t because of their financial situation. Some of these are the ones who emigrated to UK or Germany for higher wages, and they indeed do have more children, even if both parents are Hungarian.

    2. That link is very handy. Another example of feminists teaming up with right wingers.

      I have said this for years, feminists may appear left wing superficially, but they are not left wing in any sense of the word what so ever.


    All your suspicions are proven…

    “Dr. Jordan B. Peterson does precisely the opposite. Rather than feeding into the resentment of men who feel like useless failures, he tells them to grow up and become men. He tells them to quit porn, to date with the intention to marry, to control their impulses, get skills, and get a job. He tells them to stop whining and make something of themselves, and by the tens of thousands, they are actually listening to him.”

    1. This kind of thing shows you how stupid too many men’s rights activists can be. They want to rally around a dude who is, basically, calling them losers. Then again, they also like to support libertarianism, which reduces them to being useful, or dying.

  4. Hmm…I don’t like seeing all people who want to control others grouped together, like that – two sides of the same coin. There are tons of people (like me – i’m a totalitarian) who want to control others who are VERY different from both of those guys.

  5. ” In Peterson’s case he wants to curtail women’s freedoms and lecture men to “return to patriarchy.””

    I honestly don;t think he does, this is what feminists accuse him of wanting to do, but Peterson is a deranged woman worshipper.

    He wants women to be able to do what they want, and still have men willing ti fulfil their provider roles, for nothing in return.

    1. He’s one of many faux tradcons who want men to be men, but cannot tell women to be women. I don’t like tradcons, whether they are true tradcons or faux tradcons.

      He is brave though, to assert that women were never oppressed. I wonder if he’s willing to say that about other parts of the world, especially islamic world. I wish someone would ask him about this.

    1. couldn’t get through the whole thing..

      sounds like something a man hating feminist like Clarise Thorne would write…

      Also Fucker Tax and Creepy Strauss are PUA weirdoes, it’s no surprise they are now pedaling “Traditionalism.”

      1. Scroll towards the end of the article. The author (who is a leftist feminist) praises Neil Strauss for becoming mature, becoming responsible, becoming a man and getting married.

        This is not a traditionalist asking men to man up and get married, but a feminist!!!

        Is this a new trend? Feminists asking men to get married?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s