Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

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

Thoughts on this man......

like at Google where they create an environment that is prejudiced against men and biased towards women based on a dogma that 50% representation is the natural outcome.

Yes I agree, that’s why we shouldn’t be looking only at outcomes but also at opportunity. The assumption that we would end up with 50% male and female is just as bad as the assumption it would be Male or female dominated.
We should be spending our time looking at barriers to opportunity and removing them rather than looking for a certain % of representation.

I think everyone can see that fmsfms wants to justify male violence and female oppression anyway he can.

Nope.

fms sorry, you're right I have assumed you're a bloke. Although I had it in my head you'd said you were a bloke, or was that Oldman?

I'm male. The username implies it and I'm sure I've said so early on in this thread. No idea what fmsfms is but it really shouldn't matter.

"The assumption that we would end up with 50% male and female is just as bad as the assumption"

That's literally the point I was trying to make last night.

Remove all social stigma and there would still be more men in the army than women.

That somehow got misrepresented/strawmanned into @fmsfms believes that women are innately submissive and that I believe men using violence to dominate women is justified

LOL

but your style of arguing, which is very confrontational, makes it difficult to have a productive conversation (which is why I congratulated teacup on their persistence

I think it can objectively be stated that a direct approach which quotes and responds specific things people have said consistently and tries to recognize shifting ground is MORE conducive to productive conversation than indirect attacks that aren't based on what people say. E.g. comments about "oh listen to the male speaking" and "I wonder what Dr. Peterson thinks about choking porn" and "people think this because they're male" and "stop calling him Dr. Peterson, you're showing your sycophancy" and "oh look, a man is criticising a woman, isn't that interesting" rather than actually responding to points.

If the interest is in productive discussion, should not your criticism have been first directed to many of the previous ad hominems and dismissals of what someone says based on their sex?

You (flowers) don't do this, but I'm pointing out that you're picking on fms for their "confrontational" approach to the discussion whilst ignoring the copious far more confrontational and personal attacks that have been made by those that hate Dr. Peterson.

In that last paragrapth, I actually meant to type "teacup" rather than "flowers". But no insult to flowers. Just trying to keep usernames straight.

I admire your stamina, fms.

^
The argument is that JP is only popular because of his race/sex and not because of the content of his ideas, the way he delivers them and other characteristics/aspects that are separate from group identity.^

That is not what anyone is saying for ffs, you’re talking about strawman arguments and putting them right into other people’s mouths.

It is not only because he is white, male and middle class that he is successful, not at all. Otherwise all Male middle class white men would be successful which they are patently not.

But voices of Male, white middle class people are amplified and him being one of those people HAS benefitted from this.
Numerous studies show that the same words spoken by a man and a woman are received differently by an audience.
Women have known this for years, why do you think so many women write under a pen name.

Men who write crime fiction sometimes do better if they write under a female name, this is because when people are confronted by a person they have already made assumptions about what they are going to say because of their identity before they have even opened their mouths.
The way to challenge this is not to deny it and say it doesn’t happen but to look at why it happens and try and change it.

Accepting that people are treat differently because of their identities is not saying that’s ok, but denying it is never going to change it.

I think I'm about ready to wrap this up as far as I'm concerned. Whilst some of the discussion has been reasonable and it started off well (many seem to have dropped out by this point), I think this thread has illustrated very well how so often attacks on him aren't reasoned or based on his actual work, but are all manner of strawmen and ad hominem and sexism.

In that last paragrapth, I actually meant to type "teacup" rather than "flowers". But no insult to flowers. Just trying to keep usernames straight.

Me?? I’ve never accused fms of being confrontational.

Fmsfms

I think the rest of the women here can clearly see what you are doing it has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread. I simply offered a different theory to yours, and pointed out why yours is flawed, for which you have resorted to attacks and name calling. Although it does not bother me on a personal level, it is a sign of someone who knows they are loosing the argument, I am sure everyone can see that. I am glad you will not be responding to me again.

Accepting that people are treat differently because of their identities is not saying that’s ok, but denying it is never going to change it.

This sounds suspiciously like Jordan Peterson's comment about how men talk to women differently than they do to men (and vice versa).

Remove all social stigma and there would still be more men in the army than women.

Argfffhhhhhh

But we don’t know that to be fact!!!

We can’t say for definite either way, there is no absolute evidence for what the percentage would be.
Either assumption is harmful.

Me?? I’ve never accused fms of being confrontational.

No, I meant you don't do this [dismiss people's words based on their sex]. It was a confusing paragraph because I'd briefly confused the two of you.

This sounds suspiciously like Jordan Peterson's comment about how men talk to women differently than they do to men (and vice versa). wink

Yes I agree with some things Peterson says, like I’ve said many times. What I don’t agree with him is that the reason for those differences is an innate part of humanity and not due to socialisation.

I said earlier in the thread that I like listening to Peterson because when he speaks from far away what he is saying sounds very like my own world view but when I look closely it’s like a mirror image where the whole thing has been flipped. It’s interesting and useful.

Argfffhhhhhh But we don’t know that to be fact!!! We can’t say for definite either way, there is no absolute evidence for what the percentage would be. Either assumption is harmful.

Well men are on average larger and have more testosterone (which leads to aggression) and can run faster and longer. There was an interesting USAF study years ago that found women hesitated for less before taking a lethal shot and women do have a higher pain threshold than men. But I'd say we have reasonable grounds to believe there would be more men in the army than women. Not all evidence is direct observation. If it were, then science would not be where it is today!

Also, we see the same pattern recur in separate societies over and over again. Even in cultures where female martial excellence was celebrated such as ancient sparta, most of the army was still men. In Israel where military service is mandatory for both sexes and we can presume social stigma against women in the army is thus very low, women are significantly over-represented in the less combat facing roles (such as signals and intelligence) and men in the frontline roles.

If you want to argue that it's impossible to 100% test this so it might not be true, that's fine. But it's also academic. You'll agree that we have very good grounds for thinking it so.

“Put yourself in my shoes”

Says the man who refuses to believe that men are privileged in society over women, or whites are privileged over people of colour ad infimum.

“You have some people that respectfully disagree.”

Says the man who does not respectfully disagree but resorts to name calling constantly.

“You have some people that flagrantly twist what you are saying.”

Says the man that has done this to women on this thread numerous times.

“Of course you're going to come across as confrontational”

Says the man who cannot understand why women may be angry when men try to claim the sexual oppression of females does not exist or is the product of nature.

Looks like this man wants women to give him empathy while showing none to others.

Yes I agree with some things Peterson says, like I’ve said many times. What I don’t agree with him is that the reason for those differences is an innate part of humanity and not due to socialisation.

I don't think it's fully either / or. And when asked about it (in a very loaded way), Dr. Peterson says he welcomes removal of the still existing barriers. But I think he feels that we're at the point where the dogma that everything is down to prejudice must be deconstructed. And I agree with him on that.

Keep in mind he works with women in business to help them be more successful. It's not what you say that I argue with so much as it is the context of this thread being littered with attacks on the guy for an impossible standard where he can't say anything without an extensive set of caveats and sub-clauses listing all the things that might be relevant in a different context. (At which point we'll have anlaf back here complaining about how long-winded he is).

Anyway, I mainly posted that observation as a joke. Wondering if you're going to get attacked by Picasso and ReluctantCamper now for implying that men want to beat up women. (Again, wry humour).

Well it could also be argued that the reason why more more men are in the army is because it’s a very dangerous job that requires long periods of time away from the home and women are needed to care for the children. If we lived in a completely equal society it could be the case that the duties of childcare were spread evenly between the sexes and therefore more women WOULD join the army.
We can look at the world and say ‘well men have always been more represented in the army so that must be the way we are designed’ but that wouldn’t be the whole picture.
The stigma attached to a woman doing a dangerous job which takes them away from their family is huge and apart from the stigma we’ve never had a society where it’s been practical for women to leave their children. It’s not necessarily that it’s innate it’s just easier and more practical.

It’s all very well and good to say that you welcome the removal of the existing barriers, but if you don’t believe those barriers actually exist then it’s a pretty empty statement.

But I think he feels that we're at the point where the dogma that everything is down to prejudice must be deconstructed.

OK, no need to throw the baby out with the bath water though.

"Jordan Peterson uses his privilege as a white middle class Male....Imagine his exact words are being said by a black woman"

"She was noting that his ability to promote is message is enhanced by his white male privilege."

"The argument is that JP is only popular because of his race/sex"

"That is not what anyone is saying for ffs"

Regardless, the claim that his voice gets amplified just because he is a white man is questionable - again, you can't measure white privilege or prove it exists. Regardless of whether you claim that privilege amplifies his popularity or is the sole reason for that popularity.

"Argfffhhhhhh But we don’t know that to be fact!!! We can’t say for definite either way, there is no absolute evidence for what the percentage would be. Either assumption is harmful."

I never asked for an exact %. I asked whether if we erased overnight all social stigma would there still be more men than women in the army.

The answer is obvious, I really can't believe people think its debatable

Well it could also be argued that the reason why more more men are in the army is because it’s a very dangerous job that requires long periods of time away from the home and women are needed to care for the children. If we lived in a completely equal society it could be the case that the duties of childcare were spread evenly between the sexes and therefore more women WOULD join the army.

Valid points. But the evidence, imo, still leads to seeing more men in the army than women. And childcare in the early years has a biological basis. Even today.

It’s all very well and good to say that you welcome the removal of the existing barriers, but if you don’t believe those barriers actually exist then it’s a pretty empty statement.

He does believe they exist. He said so in the Cathy Newman interview as one instance. He believes they are now only a small factor in the career discrepancies we see in most Western countries, however. And I'd agree with that.

Also it’s the risk factor, one man can impregnate lots of women but a woman can only have one child.
It just makes sense to send the men to war because men are less useful for keeping a nation going. A woman is a more important resource to a nation than a two men and one woman can have one baby at a time, two women and one men can have two.

That’s just practicality, nothing to do with character differences between the sexes.

"Well it could also be argued that the reason why more more men are in the army is because it’s a very dangerous job that requires long periods of time away from the home and women are needed to care for the children. If we lived in a completely equal society it could be the case that the duties of childcare were spread evenly between the sexes and therefore more women WOULD join the army. "

.....................Start at "very dangerous job"

add "that requires learning how to kill people and willing to be killed"

Then add "long hours away from home"

"therefore more women WOULD join the army."

Yes, it's possible, but would there still be more men in the army - that's the question. Not would more women join the army.

The scenario is eliminating all social stigma, conditions and barriers...therefore it can be assumed that more women will do masculine jobs because of no social stigma.

The question (again) is would there still be professions that are male dominated eg 50%+ in a social stigma/barrier less world