Jordan Peterson Has One Thing Right: Academic Psychology's War on Masculinity Is Political Not Scientific

University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson, talks too much. We have that from Peterson himself, quoting his father, who must know. But whatever he says, whether it be complete rubbish, as in the case we noted here, or a well-reasoned argument, Peterson demonstrates an oratorical force and a disdain for consequences rarely to be seen in the political, let alone the academic, arena.

To this combination of forceful outspokenness Peterson adds a thoroughgoing contempt for the ideology of political correctness, which he perceives to be a threat not only to the integrity of the academic enterprise but to the continued existence of Western civilization. It is in his critique of the present-day manifestation of feminism, anti-white racism, and indeed white self-abnegation, together with every other form of Marxist-inspired group identity politics that Peterson has achieved international recognition. His scathing critique of the American Psychological Association's denigration of masculinity, a critique published in today's National Post, will only enhance Peterson's standing as a champion of rationality opposed to the toxic leftist dogma that has permeated the Western academic world.

It’s ideology vs. science in psychology’s war on boys and men By Jordan Peterson National Post, February 1, 2019: The American Psychological Association (APA) recently released its Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men. It manages to be simultaneously predictable, reprehensible, infuriating and disheartening — no mean feat for a single document. Make no mistake about it: this document constitutes an all-out assault on masculinity — or, to put it even more bluntly, on men. The coup of the APA undertaken by the ideologues is now complete. The field has been compromised, perhaps fatally. And the damnable guidelines provide sufficient, but by no means exhaustive, evidence of that. Why should we care? For that, I defer to Robert W. Levenson, when he was president of the Association for Psychological Science, an organization formed in an attempt to retain integrity in the field: “We all will come into close contact with mental illness during our lives. The diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness must reflect the very best science possible. Good intentions are not enough. History is replete with well-intentioned practitioners offering treatments of no proven scientific value, that were enthusiastically embraced by patients and their families but ultimately did absolutely no good and kept people from seeking truly effective treatments.” We cannot allow ideology and political correctness to prevail over science. The Boys and Men document is propagandistic to a degree that is almost incomprehensible. Read more

Despite the plausibility of Peterson's argument, it is far from certain that the absence of a male parent is the reason that fatherless boys are prone to antisocial behavior. Equally plausible, it would seem, is that fatherless boys are more liable to engage in antisocial behavior because they have a greater than normal chance of inheriting paternal genes that predispose to irresponsibility. Peterson is correct, however, in condemning the American Psychological Association for asserting a mere hypothesis of low credibility as a scientific fact and as a basis, quite outrageously, to encourage mothers to dispense with a male partner in raising their sons.

Related:

Telegraph: Boys left to fail at school because attempts to help them earn wrath of feminists, says ex-Ucas chief
Voice of Europe: The Islamisation of Britain intensifies: Muslim school will not allow girls to eat lunch until after boys have finished