Jordan Peterson's 5 most controversial ideas, explained

Jordan Peterson describes race as “post-modernist“ and claims that “white privilege” is instead “majority privilege” in a country founded by a white majority. 

In doing so he overlooks empathy, the cascade of further unintended benefits Caucasians came to enjoy and that America was founded on the idea of a level playing field.

Peterson believes that neither sides of the political extremes, right or left, represent the values of the majority and have gone too far on their demands. 

Peterson believes that currently what makes someone a believer in God or not is not clearly defined. 

“Belief” and “God” are very generic terms and deriving meaning from them is nearly impossible. 

Peterson believes fathers and children push each other’s limits to “find out where they are.” He cites the fact that kids in a family with a father do better than single-parent families, not citing “families with a mother.” He also believes that a heterosexual nuclear family is the smallest, viable human unit and that going below that comes at a price.

But he admits that women are parents too and that treating gay families in a post-modernist fashion is gerrymandering questions without facing moral responsibilities. In the end, Peterson ignores the power of parental love, the fact that fathers are predominantly at fault for broken homes and that there is no long-term data set on gay families since their acceptance is a recent phenomenon.

Peterson believes that the #Metoo movement is a consequence of the sexual liberation movement of the 60s and the advent of birth control pills. Both fundamentally changed what women used to be, and that identity is still forming.

He argues that the uncertainty of what women are now blurs the line between sexual invitation and harassment. He ignores that female identity is distinct from an individual woman’s identity and that she knows herself and can set her own boundaries.