• expired

[Preorder] Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson - $23.00 + $5.90 Shipping @ MightyApe

29210

Ooooh controversial deal. Do you love equality, diversity, and inclusion? Hate the patriarchy? Think the gender pay gap is unfair and not a product of natural differences between men and women? Agree with new atheism (like Sam Harris) on the foundation of morals? Then you should probably look for another book- here, try this one instead - https://www.booktopia.com.au/a-left-that-dares-to-speak-its-...

If the above doesn't describe you, read on- thanks for making it this far! Love him or hate him JBP has certainly made a huge impact on our culture and the lives of many individuals. This book- "Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life" is a follow-up to his best seller, "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos". This is pretty good for preorder price, comes to $28.90 after shipping so if you've been keeping your eye on any toys/games for Christmas, it's a good idea to bundle for the shipping price.

For reference Dymocks and QBD have a pre-order price (for the paperback version) of $35 and Booktopia has it listed for $31.75 all not including shipping. Book Depository has it for $31.33 including shipping but it's still $2.43 more expensive than this unless you wait for the next great Book Depository cashback deal. Current cashback at CR is 1.4% for existing customers, 8% for new customers - so even if you're a new customer you'll end up 17.4c ahead going via mighty ape and paying for shipping.

Hope this helps someone, maybe more than just financially.

Related Stores

Mighty Ape Australia
Mighty Ape Australia

closed Comments

  • +58 votes

    This deal made me cry.

    • Its barely a deal. Its $5 off, but has 100x more upvotes than the next book.

      Why? Thanks to online brigading by alt-right with new OzBagain accounts, who are a fighting a US culture war, for a benzo addicted self-help grifter with self-induced coma brain damage, stemming from his ridiculous lifestyle philosophy.

      Please comment if you think I'm being unfair. Frankly, the post should be removed. People like him ruined my home-country America. He's a danger to himself and all impressionable young Australian men. Flagging for deletion.

      Edit: Also, no, I'm not a "cultural marxist" and don't have an opinion about gender neutral toilets.

      • Again, JP is a 'moderate' who functions as a gateway to the alt-right. The alt-right is essentially a recruiting mechanism for young men into Nazism. No different from 'moderate' madrasas (islamic schools) who recruit into ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

        • To find out, we turned to Gab — an alt-right associated Twitter-clone boasting nearly a million users and resident community for the Pittsburgh Tree -of-Life shooter in 2018. In a previous analysis looking at word associations with ‘White Genocide’ on Gab, Jordan Peterson emerged as a significant focal point in the discussions on this topic. He was the only academic or intellectual whose name emerged as a significant node in this network of associations.*

        https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/social-science-jordan-pete...

        https://amherstwire.com/35329/opinion/how-i-escaped-the-prou...

        Alt-right extremists are responsible for nearly every mass shooting in the western world, including Brandon Tarant from NSW, who live-streamed murders in Christchurch. Also, his self-help book is quackery. As a psychology major, I've listened to him at-length even before he was a well-known public figure. None of his 12 Rules are backed by contemporary research from psychology. His pronouncements in sociology and history are even more flagrantly wrong.

        • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting

          On August 4, 2019, 24-year-old Connor Betts shot and killed nine people and injured 17 others near the entrance of the Ned Peppers Bar in the Oregon District of Dayton, Ohio.

          Betts made online references about Satan and described himself as a leftist and antifa sympathizer.

          Betts was also known to have been in support of presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

        • Petersen is a pseudo-intellectual that hides behind abstraction. His approach is to say something simplistic, as an absolute, with cherry-picked stats and studies and in a faux-profound manner.

          He denies climate change exists, believes abortion is undeniably morally wrong, believes same-sex parenting causes harm to the child (every systematic review on the topic suggests otherwise), believes in God but can’t offer clear answers on aspects of his faith when probed like on the resurrection of Christ, and criticises areas of literary and political theory he clearly has a shallow grasp on, like postmodernism – it’s apparent he’s read very little on it.

          His soapbox is a problem because he insists on evangelising these beliefs to his undiscerning listeners enamoured by his pseudo-intellectual mannerisms. Climate change denial, anti-abortion rights, same-sex parenting; these are beliefs founded on poorly formed logic that do society harm, and real people harm.

          • @fringe-benefits: Yeah right. Where'd you hear that?

          • @fringe-benefits: Hey karen, people are allowed opinions you disagree with. If you'd rather characterise a man who has helped enough people to become an; internet sensation, a best selling author and sold-out touring lecturer as a bad person because of his personal beliefs on abortion, climate-change, and same-sex parenting are different to yours I'd like to hear how you've improved the lives of 10,000's? He doesn't have any influence over women getting abortions, any power over the climate or the laws that countries use to govern it, or gay couples raising kids. What he does have is the ability to help people make their own lives better. Maybe you should judge him on his works rather than his personal opinions? Disclaimer; I've never heard any of those opinions out of him so please don't take my assumption that you're not misinformed as support for your claims.

        • Alt-right hey? Spoken like someone who hasn't read or seen anything of JP. He's not a collectivist, he's an individualist. The ethno-nationalist alt-right don't play like that.

          • @jlccarv: You seem to hae missed the bit where they said "As a psychology major, I've listened to him at-length even before he was a well-known public figure"

          • @jlccarv: He's hosted podcasts with Stefan Molyneux, an actual white supremacist. The alt right definitely like him.

            • @Autonomic: So one must not engage in dialogue with a White Supremacist for the betterment of race relations? You may want to relay that to Daryl Davis. He should stop his ground breaking work immediately! Grow up mate.

              • @jlccarv: Peterson did not question Molyneux's racist beliefs at all.

                • @Autonomic: So you've concluded Peterson is a racist?.. If so, you should read more about his life mate, and who he associates with and calls his friends.

                  • @jlccarv: He associates with white supremacists. Tell me what one should conclude from that?

                    I don't understand why this is such a controversial thing to say. Associating with white supremacists is bad. Making 4 videos with him to put on to a white supremacists channel is bad. Do you really disagree with that? It's absolutely bonkers to me that someone would.

                    • @Autonomic: So guilty by association? What a low resolution opinion. I'll repeat myself, take your opinion to Daryl Davis, and tell him to stop his ground breaking work (hopefully you can put two and two together).

                      • @jlccarv: It's not association. He's working with him and creating content for him. You do realise that?

                        Daryl Davis speaks to racists to convince them that their beliefs are wrong. Peterson was not doing that, was he? There's no comparison between the two.

                        • @Autonomic: "Working with him", you claim? For what purpose?.. I'm not sure what you were watching mate. It is a direct comparison to Davis' pursuit/aims. He engages extremists in the hopes to de-radicalise them, and their base. He's a psychologist after all.. It seems you're attaching your own meaning onto straight forward events.

                          Molyneux has appeared on many other popular YouTube shows. I guess all of those hosts are also racist, by association. Or maybe they are all actual racists, just undercover? The worst kind!

                          • @jlccarv:

                            He engages extremists in the hopes to de-radicalise them, and their base

                            Show me him doing this with Stefan Molyneux. He never did. He was allowed to spout his racist talking points with zero pushback.

                            Did he or did he not host podcasts with Stefan Molyneux, to be posted on Stefan Molyneuxs channel? Simple yes or no.

                            • @Autonomic: Now you're just repeating your low resolution point of view over and over. It just makes it less valid mate. Engaging someone in the hopes to de-radicalise them doesn't need to be a debate. Again (as you keep repeating the same dud perspective), I point you to Daryl Davis. He debated not-even-one White Supremacist, and has de-radicalised more than you could imagine.

                              Mate, Dave Rubin hosted Molyneux. Is Dave Rubin, a gay Jew, now also a white supremacist? See how ridiculous your assertion is? You are a laugh mate.

                              • @jlccarv: You keep saying Peterson was trying to de-radicalise Molyneux. He didn't attempt anything like that.

                                • @Autonomic: What do you think it should look like mate? A furious debate. Shouting you're wrong over and over??.. I'll save you the time and let you know. It's about engaging and opening a dialogue with them. Isolation is one of the biggest (if not the biggest), risk factors for these people. Isolation breeds more hate and may lead to them committing violent acts on innocent people. It's pretty simple stuff mate. Which you should know if holding such strong opinions.

                                  Point me to one racist act or comment JBP has made? Your guilt by association assertion is utter nonsense, and has been for all of civilised history.

                                  • @jlccarv:

                                    What do you think it should look like mate?

                                    You tell me. You're the one who's saying he's doing it, why can't you back up what you're saying?

                                    Are you seriously suggesting that Molyneux is racist because he's lonely & sad, so Peterson is trying to make friends with him in order to make him feel less sad by way of creating content for his channel, and all of this is what I'm supposed to interpret as him trying to de-radicalise Molyneux? Do I have that right?

                                    • @Autonomic: What? What you typed, actually makes no sense mate.. And don't get it wrong, you're the one asserting JPB is racist, so the burden of proof is on you. Another simple reality you seem to be unaware of.

                                      • @jlccarv: I said he's making content for a white supremacist. Which he is.

                                        • @Autonomic: Mate you said; "The alt right definitely like him". Which is patently false. JBP is a staunch Individualist, the Alt-right are ethno-nationalists. They identify primarily by their group identity. You have some gaping holes in your knowledge mate. You really should inform yourself better, before forming such "strong" opinions.

                                          You then went on to insinuate, quite cowardly, that he is guilty by association; "He associates with white supremacists. Tell me what one should conclude from that?” You're a few hundred years behind the times mate.

                                          Typical tactics trying to backtrack. I'm done here mate. I don't entertain duplicity.

      • I don't like it so no-one else should be allowed to see it, so I'll flag it for deletion. This censorship from the Authoritarian left is what is 'ruining' your 'home' country. Scroll on.

      • Oh bugger on off to America with your radical leftist mumbo jumbo then mate.

      • Umm wot? lol. JP is a left-leaning Democrat supporter. "Alt-right" bwahahaha what planet are you on? Can I take a hit of some of the drugs you are smoking? Please lmao.

  • +58 votes

    If you are a working class white male, read this book. It will change your life and give you hope. If you are a feminist lawyer earning $400,000 a year, don't read this book, as nothing will convince you that your worldview is wrong.

    • +23 votes

      Have you already read the book?

      • Lots more info about the book here: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/beyond-order-12-more-rules-f.... There are also some published extracts around if you Google '12 more rules'.

      • Obviously not. These idiots just assume things.

        Argument: I H8 J. PETERSON
        Assumption: MEN EVIL, WOMEN GOOD
        Premise: EMOTION
        Premise2: EMOTION 2

        • You mean 'feelings'; they don't use grown up words like 'emotion'. Yikes

          • @Popid: If it were the Communist Manifesto it would be upvoted more than that Dell pc lol

            • @hubert1: How many communists do you think would hang out on a site like this? Or is this one of those things where everyone you dont like is a communist and you have no idea what the word actually means?

              Also the Communist Manifesto has appeared in quite a few classic book bundles on here for free and doesnt receive many upvotes.

              • @PiratePete1911: Its not just communists who read it. Lets not forget that leftists are typically adoptive of marxism and hate conservatives in whatever form they come in: peterson/ shapiro/ whatever…

                • @hubert1: I don't even know where to start with this, you have really created a boogieman of the left. Do you think everyone who dislikes Jordan Peterson does so because they are hard left and fighting for a communist state?

                  Its not as black and white as you claim it to be and its possible to dislike someone for reasons other than their political affiliation.

                  • @PiratePete1911: No but I think people that are stupid enough to dislike a book before they've even read it are also stupid enough to be hard leftist.

                    • @hubert1: If you want an example of the right doing the exact same thing check out the comments on any books critical of trump. This isnt a one sided political issue.

                      Rage by Bob Woodward had a deal posted here and people were trashing him in the comments without reading the book.

                      • @PiratePete1911: I don't care for left or right. Do you think its logically sound that someone downvote a book that's not even out yet just because they dislike the person lol? Seriously.. if you answer that with a yes then you're missing the point of this website.

                        • +10 votes

                          @hubert1: Self-contradiction is the Fake News of the day.
                          "Do you think its logically sound that someone downvote upvote book that's not even out yet just because they dislike the person lol?"
                          I see more upvoters (use mirror to see some). Integrity is very important.
                          Leftists exist because of the illogical defence of status quo of the ruling class & the blind followers.
                          "Those who do not move (to the left), do not notice their chains"
                          Enjoy the book & say hello to discuss how you have grown up. Cheers

                          • @taki: Well, you could upvote because it's a good deal.

                          • @taki: LOL are you okay? You're on some other tangent I don't even want to explore.

                            Why are deals are upvoted? Because they're deals? Is this OzBargain or Reddit? Or are you so blinded by hatred that you can't tell the difference

                        • @hubert1: Yes. Because he basically says the same thing over and over again. Milking money out of overly impressionable young men that are full of privilege that he has somehow convinced they are victims. He's not a new person on the scene, this isn't going to be a departure from his opinions that are his cash cow. He has form and is unlikely to depart from his usual schtick.

                          • @brentsbits: Yeah, you're sounding pretty ignorant brentsbits.

                            Presuming people that like him are all privileged is somewhat of an overly used schtick.

                            I think the thing you might not like about him is the fact that he criticises people like you that are perpetually going on about privilege while doing nothing to make the world better.

                            "How dare young men improve themselves, it's merely an expression of their privilege; particularly if they succeed."

        • Seems like you're the one doing all the projecting right now.

          Most ppl aren't going to react or assume anything. It's only that 1% who do who make all the noise. And you're actually proactively assuming that's the case. Why even get into this online at all? Just do what works for you and stop contributing to all the noise.

    • Genuine book review here! +1

    • And men of colour and women who understand logic too!

      Jordan Peterson is a man of great intellect and well done to all of those he helped along the way.

      • +24 votes

        While the pursuit of logic and discourse is a commendable goal, people like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro often fall into the same illogical and emotion based reasonings as the people they are so vehemently against. Jordan Peterson has repeatedly miosquoted studies to further his own world view and misled his readers. While his books are still good to read for discourse, I would strongly recommend anyone who reads his work to fact check the studies he (mis)quotes to "prove" his points and to forumalate your own world views from multiple sources and not just him.

        • +21 votes

          May you please provide us with examples of these misquotes and the associated fact checks? Thanks.

          • @nickp: Also interested to see this, have seen this claimed before but never seen any hard evidence to back the claims

          • @nickp: Sorry for the late reply! But one that immediately springs to mind is the Swedish study that JBP often quotes to support his claims that men and women are different and achieve fulfilment from different career paths, aka why women are nurses and men are engineers. The author of the study themselves came out publicly to say that JBP was misrepresenting the findings of the study. The article can be found here https://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/0E8vo2/loof-har-ratt--jo...

            Another decent read regarding Peterson: https://medium.com/@metamurphie/jordan-peterson-and-the-drag...

            • @shzzkn: I just read (well, used Google Translate to translate it and then read) the first article. It's actually very short, so it doesn't really cover anything in depth. And unless the translator was missing something due to not working properly or some such…there was nothing in there saying what exactly Jordan Peterson got wrong. The article didn't elaborate on what he got wrong/how he was wrong, the author just said that he was wrong. I legit may have misread or misunderstood something in the article though - so let me know if I did.

              So the article is written by a guy who wrote a study about the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox. To quote the author:

              "…Nordic countries have a uniquely equal history, uniquely equal values ​​in the population, a high proportion of women as gainful workers and a number of social systems (preschool, parental leave, and so on) that are intended to promote women's careers.
              Still, there are more women climbing to the top of the business world in countries such as the United States and neighboring countries on the other side of the Baltics."

              So Nordic countries have a lot of these social systems designed to remove barriers thought to be keeping women from choosing whatever jobs they want. With the expectation then being that women would flood into all the areas they had historically rarely been (ie high positions in business etc). The perceived 'paradox' though, is that years after all these social systems were introduced, women in countries with fewer social systems supporting women's work choices actually have more women in higher positions in these certain sectors (again, ie business).

              From that result, Jordan Peterson reasons that with 'everything' being equal in these Nordic countries,(ie if women are free to choose whatever jobs they want), women will choose jobs that they want to do - and if they don't choose those high positions jobs, it's because they don't want to do them.

              The author says that explanation is incorrect, though:
              "He (Jordan Peterson) believes that Swedish women have more choices and then chooses a more gender stereotypical order. But the explanation is different.
              The paradox is that traditional social democratic policies are hampering women's careers - through public monopolies in women-dominated occupations and high tax wedges that make it difficult to buy household services, to name two mechanisms.
              This is because the Nordic countries…have an unusually low proportion of women among managers."

              I dunno if I'm the only one, but this section seems super murky to me, despite it being the crux of the article about 'why Jordan Peterson is wrong'. I don't have any sort of background in social policy or whatever, so if the following could be explained, maybe what the author says would make sense:
              What are the 'public monopolies in women-dominated occupations'?
              And how do they hamper women's careers?
              What do you mean by 'high tax wedges that make is difficult to buy household services'?
              What 'household services' and how do they apply to women making working choices exactly?
              "to name two mechanisms" - what are the others hampering women's careers as compared to men?

              …and then, that's it. That's all that is given about how Jordan Peterson is wrong.

              I don't get it…in the first paragraph I quoted, he says that Nordic countries have a lot of social systems/policies to enable women to choose whatever jobs they want. Then in this paragraph, he is saying that they don't have social systems/policies enabling women to choose whatever jobs they want?

              He then gives stats showing that there are still a higher percentage of women in managerial positions in the United States than the Nordic countries, despite having fewer social systems enabling women to choose their occupations. He follows this by again saying that Nordic countries DO have social systems/policies to enable women to choose their own occupations.
              "Sweden has through reforms opened up the women-dominated welfare sector to competition and introduced the RUT deduction, so that it is possible to buy household services despite the high taxes."

              So I'm not sure if the author is arguing that Jordan Peterson is wrong about the situation in Nordic countries (in terms of systems/policies around, and levels of, gender and social equality), if he is wrong about the results of the reports, or if he is wrong in his reasoning from the results of the reports (ie when women are enabled to choose their occupation, on average, they tend to choose things they are interested in, which is not being in high positions).

              Can anyone explain?

              • @wojaus: Hey! The crux of the article isn't that Jordan B Peterson is misrepresenting the facts, but rather the findings. My understanding (also using google translate) from reading the article and another explanation posted elsewhere is that although the study finds those facts, it did not conclude decisively that those facts weren't also influenced by other factors outside the scope of the study, aka "other mechanisms".

                There are a number of good articles on the study itself if you are interested! https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/countries-with-l...

                My personal view is not that women and men are exactly the same, I'm sure there are definitely differences in the psychology and biology of men and women, otherwise the vast majority of human civilisations would not have been patriarchal! However JBP's simplistic model of human psychology is inherently flawed and is not supported by the vast majority of the science conducted in the area. The fact that he knowingly misleads his readers and supporters with half truths makes me distrust him as an academic or important public figure. If you're particularly interested in some critique of JBP this thread in /r/AskAnthropology has more details.

                https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/adhzl3/jor...

                • @shzzkn: Ahh ok, sweet, but it doesn't say HOW he is misrepresenting the findings. It just says that he is. Are you (and the study's author) saying that although the study presented facts that pointed towards Jordan Peterson's conclusion, the author still just believes Jordan Peterson's conclusion is incorrect…because the study didn't take into account even more factors affecting the situation in Scandinavian countries? Like the study wasn't comprehensive or rigorous enough to make conclusions from? Or that after seeing the facts from the report, the author drew one conclusion and Peterson another (and the author doesn't agree, so he says Peterson is wrong)?
                  Anyway, do you not agree that was a poor article - it's very frustrating when you get these vague statements/accusations with nothing substantial to back them up. People complaining about Jordan Peterson being 'vague' with his references or sources (when he is speaking in scen) but genuinely, even after both of us going over this article, we can't even be sure what the author of the study means/is referring to about how Jordan Peterson is wrong.

                  Also, apart from that, I'm pretty sure Peterson says there are multiple studies on this topic, not just one - so it would seem that he has used the facts from this study in conjunction with other studies to come to his conclusions.

                  Also also, that reddit thread was full of the usual misunderstandings/misrepresentations of what Peterson says/is doing. It's so frustrating and sad.

          • @nickp: edit: sorry accidentally double commented, not sure how to delete comment

        • +1 request for examples please

        • Yup, please show. You shouldn't have any trouble finding those misquotes, considering the number of leftist snowflake (profanity) that hate him.

          • @amahon: Sorry for the late reply! But see my reply above for examples.

            I'm not sure why people like you always feel the need to conjure a boogeyman leftist snowflake. Maybe it's time to reconsider your own position and start realising that the type of identity politics you're engaging in are directly causing the problems you hate so much.

    • I appreciate free speech, I’m not against the things he says. He’s a very rational thinker but he’s quite outdated in his sense of relationships these days. He sees it as black and white, traditional. These roles no longer apply in today’s grey society. Gender roles of women and men are vastly different from the time of his upbringing, which he bases his views on.

      • +7 votes

        You are right that he is a bit outdated with his understanding of modern dating, especially in non-religious countries. Gender roles have changed but they are still based on similar things. Understanding conventional views helps to understand what our current views are based off. For example women are attracted to men who earn more money than themselves, this seems to be universal as it is common across many different cultures. Its possibly less important than it used to be but it doesn't change that it continues to be a major factor.

        Note: This is said by a guy who generally has earned less than my female partners at the time.

      • I find him to be quite the opposite of what your saying. My experience with him, is he is aware of the natural construct of how humans have evolved into what they are today

      • Free speech is great to easier discover the bias of others, with 1 problem. The world is controlled by actions, not free speech.
        I agree with Jordan's assessment. Too conservative & pleasing the conservatives.

      • If you agree that his views are outdated and not applicable yet he still maintains those views, he is by definition not a rational thinker.

    • It will change your life and give you hope

      Why would you need hope as a working class white male? Everything is there right in front of us! We have practically no barriers.

      What do you feel that you are missing that makes you so desperate for hope?

      • Their missing sex and it's all the woman's fault of course. Remember to clean your room first. Something something lobster.

      • The fiction has to stop. It helps neither gender. The number of privileged white men is actually quite small.For every rich white jerk, there are a thousand poor white men.

        Most people who die in war by a huge margin.
        Most likely to die on the job by a huge margin - something around 90%.
        Most likely to die earlier in general.
        Most in prisons.
        Most garbage men.
        Most hard labourers.
        Most who have their children taken from them in a break up.
        Most likely to be ridiculed for taking on a role as a carer.
        Least likely to be able to take a job teaching without being suspected of alterior motives.
        Least likely to be believed in a physical altercation between genders.

        Of course women have their own problems:

        Most likely to become destitute.
        Still oppressed in many countries. From not being able to drive to "virginity tests".
        Plenty of workplaces still boys clubs even if not open about it.

        But anyone who dismisses the concerns of all men off hand because they're "a privilged white male" is sexist and racist. That's the great irony and farce of these social justice movements. They aren't just at all. They tend to be clubs for people who hate an entire group.

        • Do you know what % of garbage men are men?

        • +13 votes

          As with any well reasoned argument, I can agree and disagree with various parts of what you said. I agree with the points you listed that ‘everyday’ men face. I disagree, or maybe you weren’t implying, that this only applies to white men as in reality it applies to men of regardless of their colour.

          I agree that in a equal, fair and just society, the issues that affect men (suicide rate, custody of children, the ability to be believed in DV or situations where they are just expected to shed their universal human feelings and “man up”) should be addressed just like the issues that affect women. Both sides should be open to progressing towards a better future for all involved rather than being at odds.

          That said the term “privilege” is often misunderstood. It’s use here is not the kind where you conjure up images of lavish mansions and the like. It’s referring to the real world benefits that arise out of the lottery at birth. Nobody chooses their sex or colour at birth, hence its illogical to discriminate on factors out of a persons control. I think that is the heart of what privilege refers to. You can be in a better or worse situation overall and in other matters, but sex/colour has not posed an obstacle to your success due to discriminatory practices or unconscious bias (thinking back to the experiment where blind auditions were held for orchestras, when the judges could hear the sound of heels on the hardwood floor and acted upon unconscious bias to prefer more of the male musicians, as opposed to when carpet was laid down and the sound of men and women’s shoes could not be distinguished, a greater proportion of female musicians were preferred.) or http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/AuditDiscrimination_media.pdf

          Excuse the format, but it’s the quickest way I found that first article about ethnic names affecting a persons consideration for a job. Same deal here, either with direct or unconscious bias. The reason I chose this full article was for the important fact that all participants went to high school in Australia so really it cannot be chalked down to assumptions that there will be a language/cultural barrier.

          Either way, as you said, there are many issues that affect men as well that is well overdue for a look at just as there are for women. That would be the way forward in giving everyone a fair go.

          • @DisabledUser374803: If you call the likes of Bill Gates privileged, I'd agree. But unless you've got statistics showing that rich people are only having male babies, I think your thinking is broken. For every Bill Gates, there are many thousands of men born into poverty.

            Some workplaces and even whole countries do discriminate by gender or race as I acknowledged.in my response above, but that doesn't mean most men are going to be in a position to take advantage of that. And also as I stated there are times society discriminates against men.

            My views aren't exactly mainstream. I'm more interested in actual equality than conforming to what's fashionable, and what we're doing now is a miserable fail that's just adding to the inequity in the name of trying to balance it. So for example I both loathe gender quotas in the workplace, and would like to see the work women do for free like raising their own children and doing housework directly financially rewarded. I think you'd see more stay at home men if you could earn a living keeping house for a family. You need to reform the institutions and social structure in a big way if you actually want equality. There is no quota that'll earn women (or men) genuine respect.

            • +7 votes

              @syousef: And if you say many men are born into poverty, there are an equal number of women that are the same. Unless poor people are only having male babies, which isn’t true either. That argument doesn’t really validate anything.

              And I’m not advocating for a gender/race quota either but one on meritocracy. I’ve experienced first-hand how those quotas work (look at race-religion quotas in Malaysia, compared to Singapore, a very similar country in culture that’s largely meritocratic). I’d argue Singapore is the more successful nation as a result as it isn’t doomed to a lifetime of race-religion politics. It’s not a sustainable option and ultimately leads to brain drain in the country. So again not sure where you thought I favoured the idea of a quota system - a meritocratic system works better, while removing barriers that cause conscious or unconscious bias.

              • @DisabledUser374803: It's easier to read this book from his American perspective, and from that, make observations against other nations and cultures.
                He mentioned at least once, that society tends to grab the minority outliers and represents them as the majority. Like people hyper-focus a few rich white men but ignore the billion other poor white men.

              • @DisabledUser374803: You utterly ignored that fact that you dont understand what privilege means in this context, despite syousef correcting you, and in your abject ignorance you have constructed a straw man attacking a completely different concept. You dont even care that you have no grounding in reality because apparently you have a 'reality' to sell, you dont give a rats about what is being communicated because of your victim complex

            • +3 votes

              @syousef: The other thing being as you attested to that race and gender discrimination exists, so does class privilege of being born into a wealthy family or even where you are born to. Nobody is refuting your points that many are born into poverty, poverty affects people around the globe regardless of colour or gender. They coexist with each other, stacked in some cases depending on who you are. When people talk about gender/racial discrimination that exists, that doesn’t take away from the fact that people are born into poverty. I’m definitely not saying that if you happen to be born white and male, it implies you are wealthy, again just referring to the fact that for some their race and/or gender will never pose a hindrance to their success via bias. That those specific factors will never be stacked against them, not referring to their overall wealth, etc. Essentially it’s not that any of this cancels out each other (again keep in mind I am not the people who you may be conflating specific views with, as an individual I’m just stating what I believe drawn from information as I perceive it)

              Edit: just to clarify, when I say privilege, many jump to the conclusion about wealth. Again I state that this word is used in a different context here. It’s not saying those with x privilege are rich, it’s saying that those that are x have a privilege in that they don’t face conscious/unconscious bias for anything in regards to that biological birth trait that they cannot choose. That is all it is referring to - some conflate this to think that some people are saying that having x trait makes you have a luxurious, easy life in all respects. It doesn’t.

          • @DisabledUser374803: My understanding of (my) male privilege and white privilege is yeah, as you say - that generally speaking, because I'm usually in the majority not the minority, in my society in most circumstances, it's unlikely that my masculinity or whiteness will work against me - whether that's getting a job or in a social situation or whatever. Of course that kind of 'privilege' exists. Of course there could be occasions where it disappears - suddenly for whatever reason I'm in a place where most people aren't white, or aren't male (although there are some circumstances where I would still have more 'power', like some cultures than venerate white people despite them being a minority etc.) Or situation re affirmative actions etc (not saying that I disagree with affirmative action necessarily) means that my whiteness or maleness actually is now suddenly an impediment to me personally.

            The problem is that some people who are proponents of the concept of white privilege also misunderstand or misapply it, in a similar way to people who are taking offense to it do; for some people, they really have read that white necessarily equals TOTAL ease in the world, or necessarily means that this person is well of cos they're white, or have 'power' of some kind because they're a male. That they too see the lavish mansions when they look at white people, even if that person rents and can barely make ends meet. Which is itself racism :(

            • @Popid:

              for some people, they really have read that white necessarily equals TOTAL ease in the world

              No one thinks like that. It's a ridiculous thing to say.

            •  

              @Popid:

              That they too see the lavish mansions when they look at white people, even if that person rents and can barely make ends meet.

              Not exactly sure who thinks like this, especially within Australia. Might be the case, if someone in a developing country (e.g. Cambodia) looks at an Australian, and thinks they are relatively wealthier as they come from a developed country. Just as an Australian, you might look at the average Cambodian living in Cambodia and make the assumption that they are relatively less wealthy on average. That has more to do with the economic situation of residents of the country more than anything.

              The problem is that some people who are proponents of the concept of white privilege also misunderstand or misapply it, in a similar way to people who are taking offense to it do;

              The fact that there are people that exist who misunderstand a concept does not invalidate the concept itself. If anyone tells you that "white necessarily equals TOTAL ease in the world" or "well off cos they're white" or "have 'power' of some kind because they're a male", feel free to correct them - I'd back you up if I happened to be there mate :)

              there could be occasions where it disappears - suddenly for whatever reason I'm in a place where most people aren't white, or aren't male (although there are some circumstances where I would still have more 'power', like some cultures than venerate white people despite them being a minority etc.)

              In my experience, due to the nature of colonial history, you'd be hard pressed to find a society at large that oppresses or looks down upon people because they are white. I'm not saying that every society in the world is guaranteed to accept you with open arms, but I can tell you in the vast majority of cases, wherever you travel you will not be thought of as 'dirty' or a thief, or a terrorist just because of the colour of your skin, before anyone has even had the chance to speak to you.

              Or situation re affirmative actions etc (not saying that I disagree with affirmative action necessarily) means that my whiteness or maleness actually is now suddenly an impediment to me personally.

              As mentioned in a earlier comment, I don't agree with the quota system as I've seen firsthand the issues in the long run, and a system that rewards based on merit is one which I support. I would support opportunities and scholarships for the disadvantaged, regardless of gender/background, as I feel that is fairer as it specificially targets those who are disadvantaged.

              As I said and you referred to, there are certain privileges that come with being born white and/or being born male, this doesn't necessarily mean someone is rich/born into a rich family/free of poverty and class privilege has no relation to the genetic aspects I mentioned above. A lot of the time, people just ask that they reflect over this, it doesn't imply in a slippery slope kind of way that anyone owes extra to society or has to apologise for being white and/or male, which is where I feel and as you alluded to that some feel offended that this idea exists.

        • The number of privileged white men is actually quite small.For every rich white jerk, there are a thousand poor white men.

          Wealth is not what is being talked about when people discuss privilege in this context. Wealth is a symptom of privilege, not the cause of it. A white man will generally have better opportunities than any other group when all other things are equal.

          Most people who die in war by a huge margin

          Because women haven't been part of front line military in any numbers until recently, and frankly still aren't. If there are no other people in the front line military (or few of them) then they are undoubtedly going to form the largest part of casualties.

          Most likely to die on the job by a huge margin

          This completely ignores the artificially gendered nature of employment. Again, if it's predominantly men in roles because women typically aren't hired, then of course more men are going to die.

          Most likely to die earlier in general

          That's just a worthless statement entirely. What does this refer to? From disease? Crime? Rocks falling from the sky? With no context it's worthless as any kind of argument.

          Most in prisons

          I wonder why that could be? There's plenty of research out there showing that men commit more crimes than women. Again, if more men commit crimes, then more of them are going to be in prison. What we should really be looking at is why more black men are incarcerated than white men. Black men are far more likely to be sentenced to prison than white men. That's that privilege we were talking about earlier. Go have a look at the Brock Turner case.

          Most garbage men

          What's this got to do with anything at all? Are the men forced into the work? Are women excluded from it because they are deemed to not be physically strong enough for the work?

          Most hard labourers

          Again, so what?

          Most who have their children taken from them in a break up

          Family courts have needed an overhaul for a long time now. This is not an example of a lack of privilege though. It's an example of historical traditional values having no merit in modern society.

          Most likely to be ridiculed for taking on a role as a carer

          Who's fault is that? Men. Men are the ones who will ridicule another man for being a carer. That's that old toxic masculinity that JP and his acolytes refuse to acknowledge.

          Least likely to be able to take a job teaching without being suspected of alterior motives

          What has this got to do with anything? There are craploads of male teachers. If you are starting to use points about what people might suspect of someone without evidence of said suspicion, that's an even worse argument.

          Least likely to be believed in a physical altercation between genders

          While this is valid, it's because statistically men are usually the agressors in every violent altercation. Not just between genders.

          Plenty of workplaces still boys clubs even if not open about it

          This is literally the cause of most of the issues you have listed.

          But anyone who dismisses the concerns of all men off hand because they're "a privilged white male" is sexist and racist

          It's neither. White men have a vast amount of privilege when compared to any other group when all other things are equal. "sexist" and "racist" are discriminatory terms. When describing something that's a true thing, it's at worst gendered. As in making an observation about a gender. For instance "all males have penises" isn't a sexist comment. That men have more privilege than women is not a sexist comment. It's a comment about a gender. And there will always be exceptions but in terms of every day experience, white men face far less harassment than other groups, purely because of being white and male.

          They tend to be clubs for people who hate an entire group.

          This is only a true statement if you completely lack any capacity for critical thought.

          • @brentsbits:

            They tend to be clubs for people who hate an entire group.

            This is only a true statement if you completely lack any capacity for critical thou

            Nope. Try again. That's called ad hominem. You may as well have called me a poopy head. I saw this first and didn't read the rest of your supposed counter argument. Because denying something doesn't make it so, and attacking someone for stating something you don't like - that I'd bet most of us have seen first hand - isn't either. I can't argue with you if you're not honest and you're not even arguing against the points I made - just denying them.

            If you're going to be an SJW, perhaps instead of insisting an entire group are privileged, and taking a dump on them - even the ones that aren't seeing the privilege you're ranting about - you might want to actually give a stuff about the individuals in that group. Tribalism is not empathy. And justice doesn't come in bulk. A homeless guy on the street sleeping rough isn't experiencing much privilege at that point regardless of what opportunities passed him by, and if you're going to take an entire class as your enemy simply because they don't have the right genitals/chromosomes to be worthy of your empathy, you are most certainly one of those haters and part of the problem.

            • @syousef:

              If you're going to be an SJW

              Check out his comments on this thread, sixty-six comments in one thread.
              "The entire planet has been a man's Sage space(sic) for the entirety of recorded history"

              Just SJW and leftists doing what they do best, spamming the hell out of the target thread with anecdotes, accusations, and mentally defective logic as to what fairness is. A debate backed with sources was never in the agenda.

          • @brentsbits: You know what, stuff it - curiosity got the better of me and I will respond because what you're saying is just horrible and/or wrong. In no particular order…

            I wonder why that could be? There's plenty of research out there showing that men commit more crimes than women.

            There's also plenty of evidence that when women commit crimes against men (or otherwise) they aren't as likely to be prosecuted. A certain celebrity ex-couple comes to mind. Even when the woman is on voice recording admitting to hitting and goading the man, humiliating him, initiating much if not all of the violence. Even when she has a history and she does not. She keeps her job, and he's out. And after a civil case being decided against him rather than criminal charges being proven. You sure are cherry picking.

            While this is valid, it's because statistically men are usually the agressors in every violent altercation. Not just between genders.

            How does that help men that are the victims of domestic violence? 1 in 3 is not insignificant statistically, no matter how you try to state it is..
            http://www.oneinthree.com.au/

            It really doesn't even matter if it men are over-represented. You are literally seeking to punish male victims alongside their perpetrators because "privilege'. HORRIBLE.

            Plenty of workplaces still boys clubs even if not open about it

            This is literally the cause of most of the issues you have listed.

            No it literally isn't. You're accusing me

            Again, so what?

            That pretty much sums up your care factor for men in general and white men specifically. Hate!

            Most likely to be ridiculed for taking on a role as a carer

            Who's fault is that? Men. Men are the ones who will ridicule another man for being a carer. That's that old toxic masculinity that JP and his acolytes refuse to acknowledge.

            Wrong. For many women a male's status is still based on what they earn, and not just for romantic interactions, though you should look up hypergamy some time. Women often are suspicious of men having any interest in children. I've seen this first hand. Some of my friends have left teaching over it. I'm glad I was never a teaching. And how much ridicule do male nurses get from women. Whose fault is that? The whole of society. Cherry picking again.

            What has this got to do with anything? There are craploads of male teachers. If you are starting to use points about what people might suspect of someone without evidence of said suspicion, that's an even worse argument.

            Wrong again. Male primary teachers are in such decline that it's one of the few areas where you'll find gender quotas being applied in favour of men and men selected (equally wrongly in my view) over women due to gender. Plenty of statistics on this available.

            This completely ignores the artificially gendered nature of employment. Again, if it's predominantly men in roles because women typically aren't hired, then of course more men are going to die.

            I've rarely if ever heard of women advocating for equal representation in rough and dangerous jobs. Ever heard of women asking for equal representation in sanitation?

            Furthermore there is actually a biological imperative for men being essentially disposable. At the moment it's not much of a factor but historically it has been. You need relatively few men to repopulate after war, disease, famine. Whereas you need lots of women. This is why it's men and boys who are forced to go to war. It's not just their "violent nature". It's society needing them to be the ones who take the life and death risks.

            • @syousef:

              Ever heard of women asking for equal representation in sanitation?

              https://www.mswmanagement.com/collection/article/13024952/wo...

              • @Autonomic: One counter example. Well then my entire argument must be void right? How many examples of asking for equality at the boardroom level can you find?

                This is the kind of tribal nonsense I'm talking about. Have some empathy for human beings, not abstract groups for pity sake! No wonder we are tearing each other apart.

                • @syousef: Let me ask you a question: how many people aspire to be in the boardroom and how many people aspire to work as a garbage collector? Do you think thats related to how often people ask for equality in those areas?

                  • @Autonomic:

                    Let me ask you a question: how many people aspire to be in the boardroom and how many people aspire to work as a garbage collector? Do you think thats related to how often people ask for equality in those areas?

                    You are making my point for me. Supposedly infinitely privileged men end up lumped with the undesirable work. Thanks for illustrating my point so nicely.

                    • @syousef: But people do ask for equality in those things, as demonstrated. It's just not as widespread because it's not flashy enough to put the media.

                      • @Autonomic: My experience isn't limited to what I read in the media, but you're only further re-enforcing what I said. Men get the crap jobs. The article you linked states 99% of those in waste management are male. In white collar jobs, that percentage would be much much higher. This makes my point very nicely.

      • Everybody needs a little hope sometimes.

        There's a big difference between being working class and white collar btw. Plenty of blue collar workers out there just making ends meet.

        I think categorizing this style of book as being exclusively for 'white working class men' is problematic to begin with. Men and woman of all backgrounds struggle with the issues raised by Peterson, I'm thinking 12 rules. Most of it revolves around lack of structure, leading to lack self discipline, leading to lack of self-esteem which leads to lack of achievement. He recognises that achievement is the reward of a life lived with intent and boundaries.

        It's no panacea but a valuable addition to the canon of individualistic philosophy which has proved useful to many. Contrary to what many assume, I don't think that this philosophy is intentionally racist, homophobic or sexist in any way, but it certainly doesn't attempt to soften itself to appeal to everyone. It comes from a place of inner power. It's a hard philosophy. It doesn't reward slackers. It's not right for everyone. It's probably not right for society at large. But it is right for some.

        There are clearly many people right now who feel the need to have their voices heard. You should be able to say do what you want (within reason) and not have to worry about consequential backlash from those who disagree with you. This is where the PC left is going wrong, they are judging everyone by their own wacky standards and it's very distressing to people. So expect the mind war to rage on. Don't expect positive changes if you and your neighbour can't get along despite your disagreements.

        • +4 votes

          This whole post intrigued me to look at a quick video summary of it to see what it’s about and to be honest I think there’s enough to draw from the core principles there while cutting out any excess filler crap that people seem to take issue with. And +1 as you said, I agree men and women of all backgrounds can take away something useful from it as it revolves around self-discipline and structures that lead to a better outcome.

          https://youtu.be/0QuowFNdoqw

      • You're so entitled and you don't even know it.

      • Working class real ncomes have been stagnant for many years, whilst everyone else benefited from economic growth. Manual labour jobs that the average bloke can do were all exported to low wage countries https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...