Stanning the Skibidi in Brotopia
The Jordan Peterson Blueprint for Rescuing Imperilled Manhood – One Skateboarder at a Time
As the US election nears - and with it, the fate of sanity, decency, good taste, and perhaps some kind of meaningful global governance hanging in the balance, I admit to having no idea who will win. I incline to the view that Harris will win. But at the same time, I recognize that my own preferences are so deeply and prejudicially weighted in favour of one candidate over the other that I am incapable of evaluating the situation with the customary analytical sangfroid and detachment that ought to be the normal posture of those whose pretence extends to a scholarly vocation (sorry, I’ve been reading Dickens). In the tweets I browse, the pages I read, and the podcasts to which I listen, however, there is a common theme which resonates with me, and, I suspect, many of those who share my inclinations, namely: how the fuck is this election even this close? And also: what the fuck is wrong with people?
In my recent post about the “Enschmittification of politics”, I tried to explain the deep, structural and growing divide that exists in, not just US politics, but across the post-Industrial world, almost without exception. It was …, well gratifying is certainly not the mot juste, but let’s say, bolstering, when almost the very next day Trump mused aloud: “I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And … it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.” While I can state with complete confidence that Trump has never heard of, let alone read, Carl Schmitt (I doubt he could even spell the name), it is, nonetheless exactly the kind of thing that Schmitt could – and did – get behind, for recall he was perfectly happy when the German state para-militarised itself against the enemy within. Of course, the bigger point is not that Trump is living inside a darkly Schmittian sphere, which is merely a product of his own self-encompassing narcissism, but that he has been dragging, and continues to drag, his many supporters into the same dark hole.
And in that hole: so many middle-aged white men – and increasingly, its growing younger and more diverse. I don’t know what we will wake up to November 6th, but one safe prediction is that this election will be the most divided along gender lines in the history of the modern electorate. If you dig into the polling cross tabs to determine the mainstay of Trump support, you will find it is non college-educated white men, and especially those between 45 and 64 years old. If you happen to meet one such individual, there is a close to 3 in 4 chance that he is a Trump-supporter.
Travel down that hole and you will reach the hyper-gendered world of the brotopia, a mythical space premised on the skibidi (as the kids say, and I know I am not using it right, so go away) idea that the world used to be a better, fairer place to live, until the wrong people rose into power, and enacted an institutional takeover to bring about decent society’s downfall.
I am not wrong, surely, to think that the enschmittification of these folks extends to more than just hating those with whom they disagree politically super hard, not just a salivating glee provoked by the savoury enjoyment of “salty liberal tears.” Beyond the exaltation of tearing down one’s enemies, there is also the raising up of a new masculinity that presents itself as a return to an old masculinity, one that is nourished by a crass, unapologetic, and curiously bare-chested (see photo above) vision of its own manhood.
The prophets of this brotopia all have their own YouTube channel or podcast it seems, and Trump has been doing the rounds, a veritable Periplus of these centres of modern masculinity. Striking in this world of brotopia podcasting is the consistency of a language that pushes back against the perceived weakening of a Western (male-centred) social contract, and decries the emasculation, girlification, and wussification of society. This is the result of an insidious agenda, advanced by their political opposition – hapless students brainwashed by a universally liberal professoriate, childless feminists (with or without cats), spineless, gender-bending poltroons, coastal elites, gays, Jews (of course, Jews), Hollywood, and all the other elements that make up the diverse world that is not predominantly non college-educated (still mostly white) men. It is in this world where it makes sense to observe with “amazement that Harvey Weinstein got schlonged,” which to be clear is not (or at least not just) an expression of surprise that a rapist was not forgiven for assaulting as many would-be Hollywood starlets as he could, but rather that he was not protected by his large contributions to a corrupt political and judicial machine that, in their view, has turned the law against the basic norms of society. If Harvey Weinstein can’t pay his way out of his masculine enthusiasms, what hope is there when they come for us (men)?
There is no one person to blame for this sorry mess, but I do like to single out fellow-Canadian and sartorial-whiplash of a man Jordan Peterson as having provided a clear sign of what we now see infecting the public discourse. This is partly because of his message, about which much more in a moment. But it is also because Peterson demonstrated that a just-slightly-above average nebbish who can barely write a coherent sentence could clear healthy seven figure sums from a Youtube channel with the properly-crafted message for the Brotopians.
This boost to Peterson’s income and fame came about after the 2018 publication of his famous masterpiece of modern self-help (the subtitle to which is is worth noting): “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.” At first glance, many of his 12 rules are not only not unobjectionable, but eminently reasonable: stand up straight (#1), set your house in order (#6), speak with precision (#10), do not bother children while they are skateboarding (#11). But when you dig into Peterson’s logic for each of his rules, you quickly appreciate that Jordan Peterson is to self edification what Ayn Rand is to philosophy.
In its pages, the Brotopia social blueprint unfolds in all its craziness. As an example, let’s dissect rule 11: let your kids skateboard. You might think that this is because children should be allowed to play and have fun, enjoy the open air, spend time with their friends, get exercise, etc….
But no. In an absolutely insane rambling delirium of a chapter, Peterson first walks us through various things that have nothing to about skateboarding. We get the story of a friend of his: Chris. This fellow has become, apparently, a wayward layabout over the years and at one point shows up to stay with his friend Jordan. Chris, Peterson tells us, had become by this point an embittered misogynist. He “smoked heavily, and was unemployed. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he was not of much interest to women. That made him bitter. I tried to convince him that the path he had chosen was only going to lead to further ruin. He needed to develop some humility. He needed to get a life.” Tough love, but it doesn’t work. Peterson tells us that to escape the toxic friend squatting in his pad, he goes (with his wife) for a stroll through a nearby park on a bitterly cold day (he claims it was -35º but I call bullshit on that one) and has an epiphany. What transpired? He saw
a black squirrel, [which] gripped a leafless branch, shivered violently, struggling to hold on against the wind. What was it doing out there in the cold? Squirrels are partial hibernators. They only come out in the winter when it’s warm. Then we saw another, and another, and another, and another, and another. There were squirrels all around us in the park…. No one else was around. It was impossible. It was inexplicable. It was exactly appropriate. We were on the stage of an absurdist play. It was directed by God.
First off, grey squirrels (of which the black squirrel is a hybrid), do not hibernate in winter as anyone who lives in a city full of squirrels can tell you. It is true that in very bitterly cold weather, and it has to be literally about -35º, they will go to ground, which explains, I presume, the otherwise unexpectedly precise weather report in Peterson’s little anecdote. But leaving that fact aside, let’s be clear what happened. Peterson’s friend came to visit and killed his chill because he was, apparently, an unemployable loser (this is literally Peterson’s description of him). So Peterson grabs his wife to go for a walk. When it’s 35 below 0. In a park. Saw Squirrels. God.
WTF? And this, recall, is in a chapter about why kids should be allowed to skateboard.
It turns out that this has something do with the fact that Jordan’s old buddy Chris – who he tells us ended up killing himself – had turned “anti-human,” and I guess God was sending out a squad of squirrels as some kind of updated burning bush to give him a sign that he needed to warn people about becoming separated from their humanity? These folks, according to Peterson, who drift from their core human purpose (we’re still talking about skateboarding here) are everywhere, and especially those who “appoint themselves judges of the human race,” which apparently (Peterson logic here) links his doomed loser friend Chris with ... wait for it … “the boys who shot up Columbine High School.” I am not making this up.
One of the groups most afflicted by these human-hating self-appointed judges are “university students, particularly those in the humanities, [who] suffer genuine declines in their mental health from being philosophically berated by such defenders of the planet for their existence as members of the human species.” And then we get the rub: “It’s worse,” states Peterson,
for young men. As privileged beneficiaries of the patriarchy, their accomplishments are considered unearned. As possible adherents of rape culture, they’re sexually suspect. Their ambitions make them plunderers of the planet. They’re not welcome. … Boys are suffering, in the modern world. They are more disobedient – negatively –or more independent – positively – than girls, and they suffer for this…. They are less agreeable (agreeableness being a personality trait associated with compassion, empathy and avoidance of conflict) and less susceptible to anxiety and depression… Boys’ interests tilt towards things; girls’ interests tilt towards people. Strikingly, these differences, strongly influenced by biological factors, are most pronounced in the Scandinavian societies where gender-equality has been pushed hardest: this is the opposite of what would be expected by those who insist, ever more loudly, that gender is a social construct. It isn’t. This isn’t a debate.
Thanks for that brilliant exposition, Jordan, but what about skateboarding? Not yet. Next we have a bit about how career women can’t find suitable husbands because of the “increasingly short supply of university-educated men.” Then we segue into Peterson’s rejection that patriarchy exists and his insistence that our traditional culture isn’t all that bad after all, we’re just looking at things the wrong way. Luckily Peterson can give us insights into how to look at things the right way.
Throughout history, men and women both struggled terribly…. Women were often at a disadvantage during that struggle, as they had all the vulnerabilities of men, with the extra reproductive burden, and less physical strength. … Before the twentieth century, women also had to put up with the serious practical inconvenience of menstruation, the high probability of unwanted pregnancy, the chance of death or serious damage during childbirth, and the burden of too many young children. Perhaps that is sufficient reason for the different legal and practical treatment of men and women that characterized most societies prior to the recent technological revolutions, including the invention of the birth control pill. At least such things might be taken into account, before the assumption that men tyrannized women is accepted as a truism.
Ah yes, those seriously inconvenienced ladies living in the past – what with their monthly unspeakables, complicated pregnancies, and all that child-rearing – I know, let’s help them out by depriving most of them of political rights, economic standing, and social independence for the lifespan of human civilization. That “looks to me,” says Peterson, “like the so-called oppression of the patriarchy was instead an imperfect collective attempt by men and women, stretching over millennia, to free each other from privation, disease and drudgery.” Yup - perfect analysis. No notes.
But we’re still not at skateboarding. Where is the fucking skateboarding?? Well, next we have to take a pit-stop at why Marxism is a bad thing, post-modernism rather worse, and then a very peculiar take on the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. And it goes on and on and on, and eventually we find out the point is this: skateboarding turns boys into men. So let them skateboard. This being Peterson, he expresses it in his own inimitable way:
Men have to toughen up. Men demand it, and women want it…. Some women don’t like losing their baby boys, so they keep them forever. Some women don’t like men, and would rather have a submissive mate, even if he is useless. This also provides them with plenty to feel sorry for themselves about, as well. The pleasures of such self-pity should not be underestimated. … [But] if they’re healthy, women don’t want boys. They want men.
So, for all those forlorn ladies, at once deluded into thinking they live in a patriarchy, but also sad because they can’t find a man who “outclasses them” (his words, honest) and hence is desirable, the answer is: a society that let’s boys (he says “children,” but he means boys) skateboard. Because, you know, skateboarding toughens up boys and makes for good future husbands.
And this incoherent, incomprehensible nonsense is just one of his twelve rules, all of which are expostulated in much the same absurd vein. To read Peterson is to come away with the strong impression that society is setting up men to fail because they are resented so much that men have now become complicit in their own self-destruction. It is the book equivalent of someone shaking you vigorously, shouting “clean up your room, stand up straight, get on your skateboard, and man up you little sissy bitch!”
Rational, self-respecting, fact-aware readers of this modest ‘stack may not understand this stuff, but the brotopia understands. Men are under assault. They are being infantilized and feminized. These men, pushed off their skateboards and into empathy and compassion and historical awareness are victims of a post-modernist, liberal-progressive system intent on righting the sins of the past (which are greatly exaggerated) by depriving them of their manhood. And we know how that story turns out – just look at Peterson’s self-destructive, unemployable, loser friend Chris. Ladies hate Chris. Chris hates Chris. Listen to the squirrels – don’t end up a Chris.
This hallucinatory nonsense does not furnish the blueprint exactly of the Brotopia, but it is I think exemplary of the fundamental idea that circulates within the Brotopia of a manhood that must, as a matter of existential urgency, free itself from the dangerous ideas of a modernity that seeks to trample it underfoot and, unless men take decisive action, they will be placed under the authority of … who exactly?
A woman, and a woman of colour at that. This isn’t a reflexion of her competency or experience. It’s a reflexion of how much the anti-patriarchal thugs hate you, a huge fuck you to the concept of real virility. Nominate Kamala Harris for President? Time for Andrew Tate to take his shirt off again!
I don’t want to claim that all those men who will vote for Trump in two weeks are the Jordan-Peterson-style aggrieved seeking to bring about that brotopia where men can be men, and women can just get down to the important business of appreciating them for that. But I bet you that a shockingly large number of them are influenced by this way of thinking, whether directly or indirectly: for having read the 12 Rules, or listened to any of the many, many Brotopian podcast, or simply having absorbed it as part of the (male) cultural Zeitgeist.
So what I think this election will reveal, incontestably, is this: the gender divide is growing ever wider, and the discourse that embraces half of that divide is sinking rapidly into an ever deepening skibidi (ask a twelve year old) mess of ahistorical, poorly-informed, aggrieved nonsense.
We need more squirrels.
Thanks for reading. And throw a dangerously emasculated liberal professor busy berating his students a like if you made it this far, if for nothing else than for reading Jordan Peterson, so you don’t have to! Also, this substack is eminently poised to reach double digits of subscribers, so please feel free to recommend it to a friend.