[Swan]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

There's a lot more than that too, if you really listen to what he's saying. He hides behind "the data" or at least his interpretation of the data, ignores other contributing factors if they don't fit his narrative, and is when it comes down to it an apologist for male violence and a rhetorician of white male victimhood - that part is a huge part of his popularity, he offers vindication to a demographic of people who are frustrated with their lives.

Ultimately though he gives away his thoughts in his interpretations of the data. He's a male-supremacist when it comes right down to it. He dresses it up as science but he's not an unbiased raw data analyst at heart ... he's a social psychologist seeking to validate a hypothesis he already holds.

His argument is complex, he's a complex guy. I just don't believe his views are bred from hate towards women. Unlike Tate, who sees women as servants and/or commodities.

There is nothing wrong in telling young men to be confident within themselves. It's kinda like you're suggesting Peterson's angle is the same as Tate's, that their is approach is different (which it is) but ultimately their goal is the same. I certainly disagree with that. Tate uses young men for profit, and ego. Peterson comes across like he genuinely cares.