Wednesday's article on Jordan Peterson was The Record's second laudatory opinion piece about the University of Toronto professor. Certainly, his academic and popular stardom is newsworthy, but the review of his local appearance by a self-proclaimed follower is an incomplete picture. Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" contains thoughtful ideas for both men and women, about personal responsibility, open-mindedness, and other aspects of mature and meaningful adulthood. But Peterson has been equally vocal, in public appearances and online, in support of extreme gender essentialism. His "12 Rules" would not have to be lived out in a sexist way, but to write abut them without commenting on the sexist things he says leaves out relevant information.

Recently, The Record published a piece that suggested Peterson's popularity was part of the response to feminists being too tough on men, without having good solutions to sexism. Besides ignoring the fact that "feminists" vary greatly in beliefs (other than agreeing on gender equality) and strategies, and are as diverse a group as "Canadians," that piece also downplayed the sexist things Peterson says.

Consider his encouragement to female students at the U of T to blunt their ambition because they are more likely to have "jobs" than "careers" (seriously, U of T? You're OK with videos of your prof telling young women to decrease their career ambitions to focus on having babies?), or his Twitter musing that the reason women are outraged is lack of contact with infants (rather than harassment, lack of safety, lack of equal opportunity, etc.). I'm no Peterson scholar, but I've spent a significant amount of time reading and listening to his work, to better understand someone I know who is a fan of his. He consistently denies his own privilege, and claims to support individualism, but lumps women together as if all want and think the same things. A psychology prof who doesn't fully acknowledge the depth of human variety? Many Canadians seem delighted to have a smart public figure on the world stage; surely we have choices beyond an academic who relies on 1950s gender roles (and such things as the biology of lobsters) for support of his work.

Feminists or others who take issue with Peterson's declarations are not anti-male. Men and women are awesome: wonderful and terrible and human, equally capable of good and bad. There's nothing wrong with being male, and males deserve as much respect, justice and peace as women do. But many prevalent versions of current "masculinity" are based on men being in opposition to women and children, and Peterson promotes that. Lots of male and female feminists I know are respectful to all, and work with integrity and determination to improve life for others as well as themselves, regardless of gender or other human characteristics. Peterson and some of his followers seem to think that for men to be well and do well, they have to do so over and against women. I want a good world for my loved ones and everybody, and so do many others. I'm privileged in many ways, but my wanting a just world for all isn't rare. Peterson is cool right now because he's supposedly saying something new and unspoken, but privileged people have been protecting their own privilege for ages.

I agree with the author of Wednesday's piece that many of Peterson's fans seem to be looking for something, as Peterson "argues that his growing fame speaks to a deep seated hunger, more evident in young men than women, for meaning and direction," that video games and online entertainment do not make a fulfilling life. Women are still making their way in a world that tells them (in various ways and to various degrees, depending on their location, situation and income) to stay in the box marked "female" (and men in the box marked "male"). Young or old, of every gender, people need meaningful activity, and some of Peterson's followers are engaged by the idea that masculinity is under attack, and they are needed to fight back. There are plenty of dragons to slay: people refuting sexism are not among them. (Peterson's comment that students were "very brave" to attend his lecture is grandstanding. The writer's comment about our "overtly politically correct world" attempts to make that scary terrain, but often "politically correct" just means working against sexism and racism.) Women and men of various circumstances can work together for gender equality, but not if they accept Peterson's apparent belief in biological determinism. Humans are biological, and also social. Why not make society good for all, regardless of biology?