Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

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

Thoughts on this man......

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.

Yes, I'd like an answer to this as well.

Re what Oldman gave as an answer, in this instance, was to ask other women to protect him," my question is, how?

What is the thing that women are supposed to do to the offending woman, that Peterson does not do?

(That's leaving aside the obvious problems of what he plans to do if there are no other women around to work for him.

Or if the other women around disagree with Peterson's assessment that the Offending Woman has sinned against him and strayed from "civil discourse.")

Sorry, talking about you in the third person because I'd welcome an answer to this from any poster, Oldman, not just from you.

No, not all men, all the time. At least not for me, but then I’ve never been assaulted. But strange men? Or relatively unknown men with you in a situation where you’re on your own? Or drunk men?

Yes absolutely I’m watching them for signs of snapping. Because they do, and maybe I can defuse the situation or maybe I need to get out, because I can’t stand up to them physically.

To borrow a Peterson “on average”, I would say that on average, because men are more of a threat to women than women are to men, women are more likely (on average) to do things like attempt to pacify, cross the street, smile submissively etc etc.

Trust me, we’re not all thinking that you are about to haul off and punch us. But we’re keenly aware that some men DO. So if we don’t know you, we’re alert to that.

After all, if we get assaulted there’s always going to be someone saying it’s our fault for not being prepared or cautious enough.

Ah, thread has moved on, darn slow typing. My last was to Oldman on thinking all men are about to snap.

Re what Oldman gave as an answer, "in this instance, was to ask other women to protect him," my question is, how?

Well he didn't go into how explicitly but in this sense it would make sense to interpret it as speaking out, arguing against the other women. I'll post the specific clip here.

What is the thing that women are supposed to do to the offending woman, that Peterson does not do?

Again, within this specific instance, speak out. When a woman is pretending to speak for Women, it is more effective if other women dispute that than if men dispute that.

Teacup earlier talked about what he said just being "a theory". Leaving aside that "theory" is not a negative. I think this video might be an interesting related clip that illustrates how he tends to arrive at his conclusions. He very seldom speaks off the cuff carelessly.

Sorry, talking about you in the third person because I'd welcome an answer to this from any poster, Oldman, not just from you.

No problem. The more viewpoints the merrier, as far as I'm concerned! :)

And wait a minute, where has this idea that Peterson isn’t offering a moral judgment come from and is merely observing the world come from?

Saying that you wouldn’t be able to respect someone who didn’t do x behaviour is a pretty big endorsement for that behaviour.

If he was merely pointing out that some men use an undercurrent of violence in their interactions my reaction would be ‘no shit sherlock’, but to say that a man has to have an undercurrent of violence or to be willing to physically fight another man to warrant respect IS endorsing that behaviour.

If you think Peterson is suggesting that other women speak to his Offending Woman™, rather than threaten her with violence, why doesn't he just do this himself?

To borrow a Peterson “on average”, I would say that on average, because men are more of a threat to women than women are to men, women are more likely (on average) to do things like attempt to pacify, cross the street, smile submissively etc etc.

And that's fair. It wasn't Teacup's suggestion that men can be violent that prompted my reply but that "most men" used violence and the threat of violence against women to get their way.

The problem with averages is that the wider context should always be considered. Someone remarked to me that men were 11 times more like to be imprisoned for violent crimes than women. That's a stat that can be used to make men look terrible (and that's how I've seen it used). But when you look at overall incarceration rates and realise it.s 0.6% of men that constitute those men and 99.4% of men don't fall into the category, the impression of those statistics change. Even if it's true that for women it's 99.9% that don't.

Trust me, we’re not all thinking that you are about to haul off and punch us. But we’re keenly aware that some men DO. So if we don’t know you, we’re alert to that.

And again, that's fair. But when we're talking about discussions, isn't that mostly with men (and women) you do know?

Because perking of misogyny rule number (can’t remember which number it is) ‘the problem with Male violence against women is that it makes men look bad.’

What if an Offending Woman™ isn't "pretending to speak for Women", or other women agree with her?

What work is Peterson expecting other women to do for him, to cope with his problem that he doesn't know what to do without the underlying threat of violence?

How is that supposed to work?

(And doesn't this sound terribly, terribly familiar in the light of TRAs asking women to protect them from "TERFs"?)

Ok oldman and I have to admit I did waver about whether to say most men, it’s probably not most men, but a sizeable minority.

I think all women have felt threatened by a man in an altercation in their life though.

If you think Peterson is suggesting that other women speak to his Offending Woman™, rather than threaten her with violence, why doesn't he just do this himself?

I believe I already answered this with the comment about where the criticism of her is coming from carrying weight. In group vs. Out group, essentially.

And wait a minute, where has this idea that Peterson isn’t offering a moral judgment come from and is merely observing the world come from? Saying that you wouldn’t be able to respect someone who didn’t do x behaviour is a pretty big endorsement for that behaviour.

I've pointed out several times now when you have dropped the context. At this point I have to believe it's deliberately intended to diminish what he said. "A man who will not fight in any circumstances".

Let me test you on this. Would you respect a man who would not defend himself? Defend his partner? Defend his child? If a man wouldn't step in to prevent a rape or a beating or a murder. Would you respect that man? Are you saying that he is "worthy of respect"? Because if you keep dropping part of his sentence over and over, I suspect you're trying to avoid acknowledging that no - most of us would not respect such a man. We would, in Dr. Peterson's terms, think he had failed in his duty and responsibilities.

And wait a minute, where has this idea that Peterson isn’t offering a moral judgment come from and is merely observing the world come from?

Saying that you wouldn’t be able to respect someone who didn’t do x behaviour is a pretty big endorsement for that behaviour.

If he was merely pointing out that some men use an undercurrent of violence in their interactions my reaction would be ‘no shit sherlock’, but to say that a man has to have an undercurrent of violence or to be willing to physically fight another man to warrant respect IS endorsing that behaviour.

Indeed.

Ok oldman and I have to admit I did waver about whether to say most men, it’s probably not most men, but a sizeable minority.

Thank you. I appreciate you adding that a lot. Likewise, I don't mean to diminish that some men abuse women. If it helps, I once knocked a man out for punching his girlfriend. I've also taught women self-defence. Abuse is something I'm actively concerned with.

Because perking of misogyny rule number (can’t remember which number it is) ‘the problem with Male violence against women is that it makes men look bad.’

Well that's certainly A problem. I hate being regarded as a monster because of what someone else did. It's just not the main problem (which is what happened to the victim).

isn't that mostly with men (and women) you do know?

Not necessarily, think about road rage or disputes about parking. I once had a man scream in my face because he thought I’d parked in front of his house and it wasn’t even my car.

What if an Offending Woman™ isn't "pretending to speak for Women", or other women agree with her?

Then we're either talking about a different circumstance that isn't what he was talking about or his recourse will be ineffective.

I don't think you have answered it, Oldman.

It might validate someone's response if someone in a different "group" repeats it or amplifies it – but that in no way absolves the person actually having the debate from making their own response.

In fact, it just looks like the debater is running away because they can't muster an answer themselves.

Also look at interactions online, I feel pretty much mute under my own name for fear of Male violence.

I have a YouTube channel which does instructional videos for something very boring, unsexy and completely unprovocative. I receive countless rape threats, unsolicited dick pics, horrible comments about my looks and body all for the crime of being female and speaking.
I say NOTHING contraversial and still get it.

It might validate someone's response if someone in a different "group" repeats it or amplifies it – but that in no way absolves the person actually having the debate from making their own response. In fact, it just looks like the debater is running away because they can't muster an answer themselves.

I'm fairly sure that he ALSO said that he wasn't a Nazi and didn't hate women. But he felt that some other women saying it to her would help. Which seems reasonable. If someone's screaming "Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!" at you, they're not really open to you debating with them. Which is the context he was talking about explicitly - when someone departs from civilized discourse.

I have a YouTube channel which does instructional videos for something very boring, unsexy and completely unprovocative. I receive countless rape threats, unsolicited dick pics, horrible comments about my looks and body all for the crime of being female and speaking.
I say NOTHING contraversial and still get it.

YouTube comments are primarily the preserve of young, socially rejected incels that have too much time because they're unemployed. I sympathise and nowhere am I saying abuse doesn't happen. But that's the worst possible filter for selecting sample males. You'd find less misogyny in a brothel.

Let me test you on this. Would you respect a man who would not defend himself? Defend his partner? Defend his child? If a man wouldn't step in to prevent a rape or a beating or a murder. Would you respect that man? Are you saying that he is "worthy of respect"? Because if you keep dropping part of his sentence over and over, I suspect you're trying to avoid acknowledging that no - most of us would not respect such a man. We would, in Dr. Peterson's terms, think he had failed in his duty and responsibilities.

I don’t hold men and women to different standards on this.
I don’t think it’s a mans job the defend his family any more than it’s a woman’s.
I wouldn’t lose respect for a man who wouldn’t physically fight no. I don’t think that’s part of what makes a man a man.

I think most people if really pushed would physically defend themselves but it would have to be a last resort.

I think most people would defend a child but I don’t think a man would have more responsibility to do this than a woman unless he was the only one there big enough to do it.

If a man threatened me and my husband stepped in I’d be absolutely mortified to be honest. It’s far more likely to escalate the situation and I’m pretty good at diffusing situations on my own.

So much shit has happened due to Male pride and honour and respect.

I think it takes a brave man to say ‘no more’ and I respect that.

What would JP think about choking women porn I wonder?

JBP has stated many occasions he is against pornography full stop