Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

(To clarify, I added the "in the West" qualifier not because I don't believe there is an innate quality to this, but because I believe in the Muslim world, there is a socialisation towards misogyny that acts contrary to it).

Dr. Peterson's statement was exactly that he feels constrained because he is unable to bring an underlying implication of violence. What he says is in direct opposition to how you have just interpreted it. And I can confirm that I also feel that way and I'm confident in stating so do the large majority of men in the West.

Siiiiiiigh

No, the implication is there believe me.

Here is the video.

I would be interested in the views.

Men don’t need to overtly remind women that they are physically stronger and that men are violent. Women know that.

The idea that most men in the West aren’t violent towards women or use the threat of violence to get their way is laughable.
Never read the relationship boards on here then?

That if he describes something they either don’t agree with or find abhorrent then they deduce he supports it.

No, that he believes that is the way the world is and can't see a way around it.

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!!

He, and other men who observe that is how they function, might do very well to watch and interact with women and try to learn different ways of communicaging effectively. Women have and resolve disputes. I don't pretend to have a great deal of insight into how.. .

Thinking about it like that I do have a good deal of admiration for JP for managing to the define the problem in a way that appears to resonate truthfully with many men.

The next step is to think of a resolution (preferably one that doesn't involve the threat of bludgeoning one another into submission )

feels constrained because he is unable to bring an underlying implication of violence.

We see the feeling of constraint. It is read by women as the uneasy and unstable balance of forces that it is. We can' t rely on it other than in extremely limited locations. It's why we have sex segregation.

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.

Sure, I'v seen this with my own son - he's been taught to never hit girls, cue much bewilderment at physically aggressive girls.

Mind you, this has happened only once with my youngest to my knowledge, never with my oldest (beyond toddlerhood, I mean). I don't think it follows that even 'nice' men are consistently frustrated with their inability to hit women; I think it's pretty rare to encounter physically aggressive women in any case.

I'm not sure if you mean to limit this to physical aggression, though?

I read JP's 'no respect' comment differently though; I saw it as more a comment on what sort of traits we like to see in men, rather than how men deal with women.

I'm not sure if you mean to limit this to physical aggression, though?

Well I think it's best to interpret in the context of the discussion as we're debating Dr. Peterson. And his context was people who depart from civil discourse. So no, not simply physical aggression. He was talking about those that shout others down, call him a Nazi, etc. And as nobody here would depart from civil discussion it shouldn't be considered an issue by anyone here.

What I'm noticing in a couple of his critics' comments here is that most of what they say boils down to "I don't like this" rather than disputing he's wrong. It's what someone observed on page 2 or 3 of this thread: that his critics frequently attack him because he's said something they don't like rather than point out where he's wrong.

The idea that most men in the West aren’t violent towards women or use the threat of violence to get their way is laughable.

I don't think so. It's not supportable to say that most men are violent towards women.

I’m saying he’s wrong.

I’m saying that he views this as the way the world is because it’s his lived experience but that it is not fact. It is a theory.
An interesting theory, a theory that’s worth discussing but it’s not fact.

However because he is a man and claims not to fall into the trap of postmodernism, he believes his lived experience and views on the world are more valid than other people’s.

He says it nature and I’m pointing out that that’s an interesting theory but it’s a theory.
And it’s a theory that can really damage people if taken for fact without any scrutiny.
It is actually the hegemonic idea so of course it feels like fact, confirmation bias and all that, but it is as flawed as any other theory.

And in the absence of absolute fact we have to hash out a way of existing in the world that doesn’t make 50% of the population frightened of physical violence from the other 50%.

It's not supportable to say that most men are violent towards women.

I didn’t say that, I said use the threat of violence to get their own way. The implicated threat of violence which youbare so keen to say exists in every interaction between males, also is their between interactions between males and females, just the males don’t notice it as much because the violence won’t be against them.

You KNOW you’re not going to pubch a woman. The woman doesn’t.

When I was in my early teens my mother would have frequent arguments with my stepfather. From my perspective on several occasions I thought she was trying to provoke him into hitting her, also on some occasions she would initiate the physicality and he would have to restrain her. On one occasion he hit her and he had a temporary restraining order from coming inside the house. On another occasion she was asking me to phone the police and I didn’t, because it looked like she was the one starting the trouble. Of course this meant she felt I was siding with him against her.

When I look back on my mothers behaviour I think it definitely counts as “crazy”. It was only during counselling sessions that I realised she probably did have some underlying personality disorders.

So on some occasions men are definitely confronted with crazy behaviour from women, behaviour designed to get them to lash out physically. Every man knows the consequences of doing so, and of course provocation is not a valid legal defence. Of course as I’ve said in other threads, my experiences are purely anecdotal and not compelling evidence for anything.

Teacup

Fair enough, but Peterson's theory is precisely that, it's a theory, i.e a hypothesis that he supports with evidence. Now you can contest that evidence, I encourage you to do so, but ultimately it's a valid theory.

What you are proposing is a hypothesis, and it's a weak hypothesis as well because you haven't backed it up with anything other than your opinion and numerous logical fallacies.

If you want to disprove Peterson, then have at it, but you actually have to do some work to do it, not just keep repeating 'I disagree', or words to that effect.

Had he hit her when you wouldn’t ring the police?

bit of a rhetorical question but perhaps the way I explained it was ambiguous. No.

It wasn’t a rhetorical question.

Do you think it would have been better if society had condoned violence against women and he could have hit her?

"Do you think it would have been better if society had condoned violence against women and he could have hit her?"

Now that is a rhetorical question and not worthy of a response

Which bit do you want me to give you evidence of?

That social conditioning contribute to the way males interact with each other and it’s not all innate?

That women are conditioned to modify their behaviour to placate males because of fear of violence?

That it’s possible for a male to respect another male that won’t fight him?

I’m saying that he views this as the way the world is because it’s his lived experience but that it is not fact. It is a theory. An interesting theory, a theory that’s worth discussing but it’s not fact.

Everything in Science is a theory. I'd be surprised if he couldn't back up his statement with some supporting evidence. But as PP says, your statement is simply a hypothesis. And it's one that contradicts my experience and that of many other men. You've used "lived experience" as support for your own views. Why do you not accept ours?

I didn’t say that, I said use the threat of violence to get their own way.

No, you included the use of violence as well. I quoted you fully above. Firstly you conflated two things. Secondly, I still dispute it. I do not think that the majority of men go about threatening women with violence if they don't get their way. Now you may feel threatened, you may believe that the simple fact of a man often being larger means there is inherently an implicit threat. But that doesn't make it so.

It actually wasn’t a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely interested what you think the answer is to men being hamstrung by their inability to hit women.

Cheekily chiming in on fmsfms's argument but...

That social conditioning contribute to the way males interact with each other and it’s not all innate?

Nobody has said there's not a social component to it. In fact, I explicitly talked about such with reference to Islam earlier. The point you argued against was there being an innate component which I'm pretty sure there is.

That women are conditioned to modify their behaviour to placate males because of fear of violence?

This is outside the context of what Dr. Peterson was talking about. I don't think it has any bearing on what he said. If you feel otherwise, please explain how.

That it’s possible for a male to respect another male that won’t fight him?

You've ommitted "under any circumstances" which is, whether I agree with Dr. Peterson or not, a very important part of his statement.

It actually wasn’t a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely interested what you think the answer is to men being hamstrung by their inability to hit women.

I think you are, deliberately or otherwise, dropping the context repeatedly here. The context is specifically people who depart from civil discourse. Dr. Peterson says that when men do this there is a recourse to him and when women do it, he does not. It's not "women" as you phrase it.

As to a recourse, it really depends on the circumstance. Dr. Peterson's, in this instance, was to ask other women to protect him.

‘Why do you not accept ours?‘

I actually do accept yours, but I don’t accept it as fact or any more important than anyone else’s.

‘You may believe that the simple fact that a man is larger ...but that doesn’t make it so’ (sorry for shit quoting I’m on phone and can’t copy and paste)

bangs head against wall

How come there’s an implication of violence in relations between men and men but not men and women. Men are on alert for violence but women don’t need to be because most men aren’t violent towards women.

I don’t think men have any idea how much allowances women make for the threat of Male violence. We simply cannot tell if you will snap or not.

I actually do accept yours, but I don’t accept it as fact or any more important than anyone else’s.

Well here's the thing, then. What I feel is shared by many men. And I'm confident most men will acknowledge it. I don't know how many of the posters here are men but those who have been identified as such and several who haven't, seem to also recognize what Dr. Peterson says. And it's observable. Talk -> Argue -> Push -> Physical. I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize that as a standard progression in confrontations. And if you do, then you're half way to agreement and the only branch away from that would be if you dispute that men feel restricted from the last stage when it comes to women. But statistics back that up because most violence is man on man. So no, it's not just a feeling. It's supportable.

How come there’s an implication of violence in relations between men and men but not men and women.

Again, we're talking about departure from civil discourse and you have multiple people telling you that most men feel less able to physically confront a woman than they do a man. Again intrapersonal violence is far more common between men than between women and men.

We simply cannot tell if you will snap or not.

Well I can't tell if a woman will snap or not. Or another man will snap or not. Nobody can always tell anything. But I hope you're not going through life thinking of men as land mines that could explode at any second. Because that's no way to live and it's not statistically backed up, either.

I'm inclined to drop this aspect of the discussion myself. It's very far from what Dr. Peterson actually said and not really relevant.