Dr Jordan Peterson

[12boo]

I believe I am a feminist
But I seem to be a fan of Jordan Peterson. Are these states totally incompatible?

How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

This is the exact type of closed minded "I know everything already" attitude that riles me at the moment.

What you are showing with this post is that you have absolutely no knowledge of any psychological literature, but worse, you are putting a motive onto something in line with a fixed ideology you have.

It's barely even deserves a response such is the ignorance of the statement you have made here.

His stupid fucking statements about wearing lipstick being the equivalent of sexual harassment in the workplace, and his implications that women should have to get involved with awful men to make them less awful, are enough for me to want to consign him to the bin

I know what you mean about these points, they are really really tough.

However I do get what he was saying when he was talking about make-up at work. It was in a discussion about 'me too' and he was asking the question about how men and women work together without there being sexual harrassment. He kept saying "it is not entirely clear how men and women can work together" without this existing.

He is as much slating men there as he is women. He is saying men are inherently violent. He is saying women shouldn't 'entice' sexual admiration.

I think both are equally awful, but maybe that is what we have to have honest conversations about. He never said women shouldn't wear make up, he was trying to dissect the factors that are present in workplace sexual harrassment.

What do you mean by both are equally awful?

In context I'm reading it as "wearing lipstick is just as awful as sexual harassment" but in charity I'm assuming that's not what you intended!

@Kantastic

*No it isn't about 'evidence base', or at least it shouldn't be.

Yes, it should be. That said I'm sure Peterson has evidence for his statements about disagreeableness; Big Five personality traits are his area of actual expertise.

His stupid fucking statements about wearing lipstick being the equivalent of sexual harassment in the workplace, and his implications that women should have to get involved with awful men to make them less awful, are enough for me to want to consign him to the bin, but it's hard to completely hate someone who persuades angry young men to do the cleaning on the grounds that it's a way of expressing their masculinity.

As you're all for evidence, you will be able to cite where he said these things. Did he say these actual words or are they your own interpretation?

You didn't read the post you quoted from, did you? Reciting a list of evidence for an hour isn't a lecture. Teaching is a different skill from academic essay-writing. His job is to make students examine their own thinking. First he has to grab their attention and then he has to make a statement which provokes discussion. It doesn't have to be 'evidence-based'.

I did read your post. I simply disagree with it.

I don't think the world benefits from pompous long-winded arseholes pontificating without evidence because they get off on the sound of their own-voice.

And on that note, you'll excuse have to excuse me from further interaction, Fella.

Equally awful in the sense that it is expecting women to adjust their freedom and rights because of the behaviour of others.

In this narrative:

Men are told they are all violent criminals that no-one should trust

Women are told they must have their freedoms curtailed

As any psychologist would tell you, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle

And on that note, you'll excuse have to excuse me from further interaction, Fella.

You didn't just disagree then flounce did you?

#cancelculture

As any psychologist would tell you, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle

I'm not sure this is a universal principle of psychology.

However I'm happy to apply near-universal principles of morality here - your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. I don't think applying that principle gets us to "somewhere in the middle."

You are deliberately missing the point

I know it's a mantra that is ridiculed on here but Not All Men Are Violent Thugs, and it is bad that all men should be treated as such. I know you will hate that, but that is where the middle starts to appear.

It really goes without saying that violence is not acceptable, I am amazed you even have to point that out unless you are virtue signalling

@Kantastic

I did read your post. I simply disagree with it.

I don't think the world benefits from pompous long-winded arseholes pontificating without evidence because they get off on the sound of their own-voice.

And on that note, you'll excuse have to excuse me from further interaction, Fella.

If you've decided not to reply because I'm male, I'm not a fella. It's a Line of Duty reference.

If you've graduated in the last 10 years from a redbrick or post 1992, you may well think that lectures consist of death by powerpoint interspersed with rants about Trump and Brexit or praise of Jeremy Corbyn.

Those of us who have been taught properly know better than that.

@hamstersarse

How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

This is the exact type of closed minded "I know everything already" attitude that riles me at the moment.

What you are showing with this post is that you have absolutely no knowledge of any psychological literature, but worse, you are putting a motive onto something in line with a fixed ideology you have.

It's barely even deserves a response such is the ignorance of the statement you have made here.

Really don't know what crawled up your arse and died today, but how rude of you. I see high levels of disagreeableness in you, sister. I did not claim to have any fixed ideology or any knowledge of psychological literature. I do, however, know something of the abuse and prejudice that childless women receive.

@hamstersarse

And on that note, you'll excuse have to excuse me from further interaction, Fella.

You didn't just disagree then flounce did you?

#cancelculture

Hmm, I actually didn't "disagree then flounce", I disengaged from one person that I thought was a pompous arsehole and continued talking to another person that I thought was worth my time. My mistake, do carry on, the pair of you.

Aaaah, we need to be worth of your time, do we?

Why would we bother? Generic insults aren't anyone's idea of a high-calibre response and I don't see any dazzling insights elsewhere in your contributions.

#cancelled

#mikedrop

Really don't know what crawled up your arse and died today, but how rude of you. I see high levels of disagreeableness in you, sister. I did not claim to have any fixed ideology or any knowledge of psychological literature. I do, however, know something of the abuse and prejudice that childless women receive.

OK, I am not trying to be rude but your statements do indicate you have a very fixed ideology. Namely that all men are violent and abuse women.

You have said that is what JP's stuff is about by creating your Peterson scale, even though people are trying to show you that is not the case. There is a real difference between examining the data and postulating on what the data means and being an actual misogynist, despite what the Guardian/C4 would have you believe.

Usually university lectures aren't endless references to studies etc. Not that they shouldn't be rooted in whatever the relevant evidence base or literature says, and that should be stuff the lecturer can point the students to (usually they will have been given that stuff for their reading) but god, what a boring ass lecture that would be. Good lecturers are making a sort of extended argument.

Anyway, the Big 5 personality traits are petty well established in psychology. There are certainly academic disagreements about them or personality tests in gerneral, but it isn't hard to find out how they work, I think there is a Wiki article about that one.

I did it myself some time ago - I scored 60% agreeable, 40% conscientious, 3?% neurotic, 3?% extraverted, 9?% open.

However I do get what he was saying when he was talking about make-up at work. It was in a discussion about 'me too' and he was asking the question about how men and women work together without there being sexual harrassment. He kept saying "it is not entirely clear how men and women can work together" without this existing.

Yeah, actually I think this is a really interesting question and it's unusual to see someone talk about it openly. No one has really figured out how to deal with the fact that there is sexual frisson between men and women when they get together in groups. Obviously this is talking at a society wide level. Sometimes this works out fine (I married my work supervisor which never really caused problems at work or home) but these things do not always go smoothly. Intentions are misunderstood, people get weird, someone gets aggressive, people make decisions based on who is attractive, people stop being able to work together... Banning work relationships is problematic in several ways, from driving them underground to questions around restricting people's right to see who they want.

I think the idea with the lipstick is - maybe if you completely de-gender the workplace, so that anything that tends to emphasise sex differences is disallowed. Which is kind of silly and impossible, but that is maybe the point.

Why does every MN thread end up in a row at the moment?

It was going ok until someone called me names and said they were done with 'interaction'.

That usually happens when a poster doesn't have anything intelligent to say.

Oh no they don't

I have had a 90 second Google - I knew nothing of him and will go back to learn more - but he has one strike against him for using argument as a verb (assuming those were his own words) and one for him for the "Tidy up your room!" advice. 😂

What does he have against the word argue? Does he imagine we'll think it's a straight synonym for quarrel?

@SuckingDieselFella I'm sorry you have experienced that on here.
I haven't read through all the comments. Just seen the last few. It just seems a few I've been on today and yesterday people are either really lovely or not being very nice to others.

... the name in question being "fella."

#I'm just a guy who can't... hear... no#

This is one of the few places left where you can have robust disagreement with a stranger and not get immediately put on a block list!

I see it as a good thing (although perhaps I am being more agreeable than usual today - probably my oestrogen levels - see the Caitlin Moran thread )

I read English at university in 2000-2003. I think a total of as many as five of the lectures I went to during that three years involved some poor untechie thinking that pretty pictures were a substitute for knowledge of her or his subject (the lecturers were about 50/50 female/male), and mostly they found they had to give up their pictures and use words after the tech had bitten them a few times.

Not one spent time on reciting lists of factdata; they communicated arguments and interesting points which demonstrated , and mostly provided an A4 list of texts for further study or reference if we were interested in what they had to say about (for instance) Dryden, or scansion, or Freud and Gender, or allusion and parody, or Bakhtin on Shakespeare, or Aphra Behn's work's relevance to modern slavery...

If all they had done had been tell us what the critics had said about these things, rather than what conclusions they themselves had drawn from what those who had gone before them had concluded, how boring they would have been! And how little we would have learnt.

I think the idea with the lipstick is - maybe if you completely de-gender the workplace, so that anything that tends to emphasise sex differences is disallowed. Which is kind of silly and impossible, but that is maybe the point.

That was the point. He was talking about what make-up is 'for'. And fundamentally it to attract mates / or compete with other women. You can argue around this, but there really is no other purpose for it.

The question was therefore, is there a place for this in the workplace on the premise that men are the abusers?

I think it opens up the discussion well. In no way is it the answer but what it does do is set out the problem we have very starkly.

Obviously the SJW's use this quote out of context to silence him as a bigot etc. but it is a shame, because it is a discussion that we need to have if we want to progress with sexual harassment reduction.