Jordan Peterson

it's that the underlying implication of violence helps keep things at the level of reasonable discourse.

And as a woman I can tell you that the underlying implication of violence does nothing to keep a level of reasonable discourse, and instead keeps women subservient and frightened.

so the men have got a problem with communicating with women but are blaming women - where have I heard that before /s

I trust you're not expecting us to solve your problems - find another communication strategy if the one you're using isn't working - duh!!

But what you’ve described is the idea that men are unable to communicate effectively without the threat of physical violence being present.

Not unable. And not communicate. It's not about communicate, it's about verbal conflict - i.e. actual dispute. And it's not unable, it's that the underlying implication of violence helps keep things at the level of reasonable discourse.

We do know this. It's why we are unsafe. We never know if the control valve will break.

Past performance is not a guarantee future returns.

Yes women are always assaulting women and men never assault women.

This definitely happens the majority of the time.

@OldmanOfTheWeb3 That is what you said. "We're hamstrung in the face of female aggression."

Yep. It is. And the dictionary definition you just provided fits my meaning: We feel severely restricted in the efficiency of effectiveness of dealing with aggressive women. Relative to aggressive men. You have my meaning correct.

But what you’ve described is the idea that men are unable to communicate effectively without the threat of physical violence being present.

Women of course have been doing this for milenia, but it must be hardwired into them and has nothing to do with the fact that if you take that ability off the table then you come up with alternatives.

If men are unable to communicate without the threat of physical violence then they need to sort it out not whine that women are hamstringing them.

I also call bullshit on it because know hundreds of men who would vehemently disagree with you.

If a woman gets aggressive with me, there is no real way I would consider being violent towards her, therefore there is no detterant and the framework is one sided.

Yep. I've been assaulted by women and haven't fought back, let alone done so out of an argument. This is the majority of men. It's a very strong instinct. Hence Dr. Peterson's plea for sane women to save him from the crazy one.

@OldmanOfTheWeb3

That is what you said.

We're hamstrung in the face of female aggression.

Hamstrung.
severely restrict the efficiency or effectiveness of.
"we were hamstrung by a total lack of knowledge"
synonyms: handicap, constrain, restrict, cripple, shackle, fetter, encumber, block, frustrate, cramp, bridle;

Omg every one is autistic these days. Ffs! As a DM to someone with severe autism, who will never know What Christmas, utter a word or be out of nappies, it pisses me right off.

Aaaargh teacup, you jumped on the outrage bus before I had the chance to hit post...

I suspect it felt like I'd given you a free Christmas present.

And to clarify...

It's not a problem that most men don't want to hurt women, it's a very good thing, but it leads to what Oldman and I have just described.

The problem comes precisely because the majority of men are very reluctant to hit women.

Wow, just wow.

And some people can’t see why feminists might not be on board with this idea.

I completely agree with Oldman. Every man knows that if you push another man far enough, he will probably hit you. That's human nature and it keeps things (relatively) civil.

The problem comes precisely because the majority of men are very reluctant to hit women.

If a man gets aggressive with me, the chances are I will get aggressive back. He knows, I know this. It acts as a mutual detterant to violence.

If a woman gets aggressive with me, there is no real way I would consider being violent towards her, therefore there is no detterant and the framework is one sided.

Would you feel better if you could hit women then?

It's a weird question. And it seems to contain the (unpleasant) insinuation that I'm frustrated by an inability to strike women. I wouldn't be me. You'd have changed a core instinct and belief. Your question is essentially "does a person who feels comfortable hitting a woman feel better than a person who does not". I've no idea but from observation I've not seen people like that appear happy. Indeed, they seem to be very troubled and disliked individuals, in my experience.

Well, yeah... It's supposed to be, that's his entire point.

And you can’t see how that would be problematic for women?

how do you think women communicate with each other without the undercurrent of violence then?

Teacup

It's a threat

Well, yeah... It's supposed to be, that's his entire point.

Would you feel better if you could hit women then?

Why are we settling for rules of communication that apply to men and women differently? How is that ever going to achieve a world where everyone is heard if you can’t communicate effectively with half the population.

If you find a step of communication is missing when talking to half the population you’d better go back and readdress the steps you’re using to communicate.

This.

For a man to say that it’s hard to debate with women because he threat of violence isn’t there, is tone deaf at best.

Honestly, that's how a lot of us feel. Not the debate part, but the confrontation part. We're hamstrung in the face of female aggression. Whilst some men will strike a woman, most of us feel unable to. Both through socialisation (it's drummed into us from the earliest age and reinforced through social condemnation) and through an innate reluctance. Men who abuse women exist, but the majority of us feel some degree of what I've just described. Men here will, I suspect, confirm.

If you find a step of communication is missing when talking to half the population you’d better go back and readdress the steps you’re using to communicate.

I don't think Dr. Peterson has ever said you shouldn't try to solve communications problems. He's saying they exist. And in fact the first step in solving a problem is to acknowledge it exists.

I actually don't think it's the most important thing in the world. I'm able to talk pretty well with most of my female friends and they with me. So clearly we're able to manage, for the most part.

And do you know what ‘someone who could fight but chooses not to’ is, it’s a threat.

As a woman I am very aware that a man could hit me, I don’t for a second think that a man wouldn’t hit me in an altercation. I don’t behave in a way that assumes I wouldn’t be hit, I have modified my behaviour since I was tiny to minimise the chance of being hit or killed by a man.

For a man to say that it’s hard to debate with women because he threat of violence isn’t there, is tone deaf at best.

This will be my final attempt at explaining a "logical extreme fallacy" to you.

If only that were true. We won't hold our breath.

You can argue it the other way. Men have been socialised to believe that women are interested in big strong men so behave a certain way around them. Nature vs nurture. No one knows the definitive answer.

The fact that nearly all mammals exhibit some variant on this behaviour despite not having social conditioning in any sense we'd apply to humans, and that it tends the same way for different species of mammal means we'd need a pretty strong reason to suppose humans don't have it. That it's common across cultures both geographically and through time; that comments from mothers about raising boys being different to raising girls, even from a very young age, indicate differences; that, speaking anecdotally, it just feels innate in a way that other socialised differences I was raised with do not; I really think it's mostly innate. Obviously socialisation makes a big difference, but I think the difference it makes is primarily how we act, not how we feel.