Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Jordan Peterson

722 replies

Perimental · 16/05/2018 09:50

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

Thoughts on this man......

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:11

hmm, not according to the transcript Flowers, although happy to be proven wrong (but not happy to spend 2 hours watching something I can read in 30 minutes)

flowersonthepiano · 16/05/2018 22:13

As I recall, she did agree with him enthusiastically though Shock

PatriarchyPersonified · 16/05/2018 22:14

Reluctant

He isn't saying a man who can't fight is worthless, he is saying a man who isn't willing to fight, for any reason, is.

But I think you knew that already.

TerfinUSA · 16/05/2018 22:20

Sophie Walker didn't appear to acquit herself very well. Why didn't she have an answer to the bricklayers all being male?

www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gender_share_em_1020_txt.htm

It's not the case in some other countries (Malaysia:

)

In Thailand women make up a significant proportion of the construction workforce.

www.thenational.ae/world/asia/challenges-of-thailand-s-female-migrant-construction-workers-1.660437

Sophie Walker is unimpressive.

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:22

but for some men fighting is simply not something they will consider. for some that will be because physically they can't do it so it wouldn't occur to them. for some that will be because they don't want to do it.

what he says in his own words is that he has no respect for these men.

really?

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:28

cor blimey. I know people on here are slavishly agreeing with JP, not Paglia, but check out this delightful comment from her

All these elitists and professors sneering at men. It’s men who are maintaining everything around us. This invisible army which feminists don’t notice. Nothing would work if it weren’t for the men

Because I'd like equality between the sexes I take sewers and running water for granted. cheers Camille

PatriarchyPersonified · 16/05/2018 22:30

Reluctant

Well, yeah.

If someone is unwilling to fight under any circumstances (defend themself, their loved ones, other defenceless people etc)

Then why should anyone have any respect for them?

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:33

I'm chuckling away here

Camille again on the subject of the potential collapse of society due to jihadist attacks:

What will happen is that it’s the men. . . The men will reconstruct civilization while the women cower in the houses and have the men go out and do all the dirty work. That’s what’s going to happen again. Only men will bring civilization back again

It's amazing the human race ever got this far with half of it made up of bloody useless women contributing jack shit to anything.

Freespeecher · 16/05/2018 22:35

Well RC, if you liked that then you'll love that Paglia once said "if it weren't for men we'd still be living in mud huts".

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:36

not all fights are physical PatriarchyPersonified

I assume from your posts that you are a man. if we had a disagreement it wouldn't cross my mind to attack you. first of all because that's not how I behave, and second of all because you would wipe the floor with me, so what's the point.

if you had 'trespassed' against me or mine though, you'd better believe I'd fight back with all I was worth. it just wouldn't be physical, which seems to be very important to JP.

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:37

I would guess that Ms Paglia is professionally ornary Freespeecher, and good luck to her. she's certainly keeping me entertained this evening.

TerfinUSA · 16/05/2018 22:41

"Of course I am fully aware that among many men there is an attitude that if a man cannot fight he's worthless. Look, The Big Country is one of my favourite films.

I would however expect a man who makes his living using his brain to have had a little think about that attitude and realise what it means to people who can't fight. And that includes women."

Hmm?

The standard advice to men who are having trouble finding a mate, and who have poor social skills, is to become more physically imposing. Not in order to fight per se but to make himself more sexually attractive, with that attractiveness based on physical 'threat'.

This doesn't have anything to do with women in that a physically weak man is still stronger than a woman, so 'manning up' in that sense isn't about dominating her, it's about his status in relation to other males.

Women aren't expected to fight, or to have physical threat, a woman can take some steps to make her self more attractive in relation to other females, but that won't involve increasing her physical strength particularly - lots of women go the gym, but there are typically quite different goals, 'tone' rather than 'bulk'.

What male violence means in relation to other men is different from what male violence means in relation to other women - a intellectual man who works in an office is just as physically capable of beating up his wife as a bodybuilder is.

I don't think it's the case that a man who can't fight is worthless, but rather that violence, or at least the vaguely implied threat of it through physical stature, is one way for men to establish dominance. Others will do it with financial success or personality, but 'threat' is certainly still a powerful force for men in terms of social hierarchy (and not at all for women).

Freespeecher · 16/05/2018 22:41

I don't know that much about her tbh, but I like the fact she used to teach a course on Hitchcock films as it indicates she has a variety of interests.
Think she'd be good value as one of the dream dinner party guests we're asked to choose from time to time.

PerkingFaintly · 16/05/2018 22:43

And must seriously impair his ability to relate to women.

Yes, that's what leapt out at me. How does he propose to have a debate with any woman who disagrees with him, if he doesn't know how to cope without an underlying threat of physical violence (and bans himself from such violence)?

And how does he cope on the internet? Or recommend his readers cope on the internet? Surely there's no underlying threat of physical violence when the discussion is between disembodied entities on a screen? (Except for the sort of people who're into doxxing.)

How does he envisage women cope, having serious discussions with other women? Does his rule only mean that men can't be violent to women, and he believes women make underlying threats of violence to other women? Or does his worldview perhaps fail the Bechtel test and not really feature women having serious discussions with other women?

It's all quite bizarre, and I doesn't recognise Peterson's assertion as a description of serious discourse.

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:46

you have neatly summed up my issue much better than I can PerkingFaintly, thank you.

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:48

There are many situations where violence could never be an option, because of the person you are talking to, or the medium you're using. as you say, how does JP cope with talking 'in any serious manner' in these scenarios?

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 22:50

and I am quite happy for this to be JPs view, for him not to be saying that this is how all men, or all people relate to each other. that's fine. but I reserve the right to judge the hell out of him for saying it.

PerkingFaintly · 16/05/2018 22:56

Indeed, ReluctantCamper.

Peterson may be confessing a personal failing (quite a serious one, I think, but self-knowledge may enable him to manage it), but he can hardly expect me to salute it when he runs it up a flagpole.

ReluctantCamper · 16/05/2018 23:03

terfin

The standard advice to men who are having trouble finding a mate, and who have poor social skills, is to become more physically imposing

I don't recognise this. what happened to

  • start an evening class
  • practice talking to women at work so you're better in social situations
  • try online dating

go to the gym wouldn't even be on my list for a man in this situation. However, I would suggest that fit bodies tend to be more sexually attractive than unfit ones, so if someone did advise your hypothetical man to go to the gym, it would probably be with the aim of making himself more sexually attractive rather than appearing more dominant.

PerkingFaintly · 16/05/2018 23:15

Yeah, that made me Shock too.

Standard advice from whom? The loser friends of the loser, none of whom has held down a successful relationship?

There are surely women out there who find body-builders or aggressive men attractive, but I'm not one of them. And the idea of a bloke with poor social skills becoming... a muscly bloke with poor social skills, and him imagining that access to women is earned by his position in some muscle-bound pecking order vis-a-vis other men... Blimey, that's not attractive, that's scary.

PerkingFaintly · 16/05/2018 23:34

BTW, I should add that I only use the word "loser" in this scenario because that's the fictional guy's assessment of himself for not having a girlfriend.

If he ditched the friends giving him shit advice, acted less desperate around women, and focussed on improving his social skills and getting a life of his own, he'd be much more attractive – at least to a woman like me.

ginandbearit · 16/05/2018 23:39

Anecdote not data re men's physicality being attractive to women and repressive to other men ..I was in a big music venue type pub one evening , lots of couples , mostly young well dressed , good atmosphere . a biker gang with full patches and leathers came in , very calm and well behaved ..this is in the uk and not a common sight really . These were hard looking men. Heavily tattooed and not some wannabe or amateur club..the atmosphere changed instantly . The men in the couples became quite subdued and the women more excited and almost skittish ..it was very interesting to watch .

Some of the more confident women went up to the bikers and asked about tattoos etc and some flirting went on , the bikers were very quiet and respectful but absolutely exuded strength and a hint of menace and contempt towards the other men.
After an hour or so the bikers left , no violence or grandstanding but had left their mark , and the effect on the couples (not all obviously but v noticeable) was very marked ..the women were giggly and sort of 'alert' while the men were at first subdued then became quite tetchy and sulky even aggressive . A very clear dominance hierarchy had been established and the different sexes responded to it in their own ways ..I concede this is a generalisation but as a snapshop of primeval behaviours it was fascinating .
And yes as a man in there i was totally intimidated !

TerfinUSA · 16/05/2018 23:43

It's obvious that there is a pecking order, in that some men (or women) are desirable by many people and some men are desirable by very few people. If you put your photo on Tinder, then if it's muscle-bound then it's going to get more swipes than if it's a fat sweaty bloke. Not everyone wants a muscle-bound bloke but simply being muscle-bound will get you laid much easier, even with shit social skills, than not.

PerkingFaintly · 16/05/2018 23:49

And are you a man or a woman, TerfinUSA?

(Don't feel you have to answer that, but on this particular topic it's interesting to see what perspectives people are posting from.)

ReluctantCamper · 17/05/2018 06:20

I had a shitty day yesterday and may have let myself go a little on this thread.

But I stand by the fact that when people are unquestioningly swallowing the idea that this man cannot talk 'in any serious manner' on the telephone because there is no possibility of reciprocal violence, I wonder what else they are accepting without applying critical thought.

The knots people were tying themselves in to try to explain away that bit of arrant nonsense imply to me that they are not applying rationality to the teachings of Mr Peterson.