What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Agema:

altnameJag:
I mean, Classical Liberals are the Victorian era politicians of the "why have charity when you have poorhouses?" variety.

Being a Dickens villain isn't really on the left of the political spectrum.

This is rather unfair.

19th century British classical liberals were facing a very different world situation, where the country was still dominated by laws that hugely privileged land ownership (and thus the aristocracy), and a small fraction of the population could vote. Their concentration was thus mostly focused on removing political and economic privilege from the aristocracy. They believed these economic restrictions were the main driver of poverty, and if they could create economic freedom, poor and rich alike would thrive. Whilst undoubtedly the caricature of a selfish industrialist exploiting his workers has a basis in reality, classical liberalism of that age was a lot more concerned with improving the lot of the poor than your post suggests.

Towards the end of the 19th century classical liberalism was foundering. Economic liberalisation had failed to solve the problem of poverty, and there became greater realisation that many problems of the poor stemmed from circumstances outside their control. Consequently many liberals turned to policies of government support for the poor; this developed into what is now called social liberalism. Some liberals, obviously, continued with classical liberalism.

To add to that, Classical Liberals have changed too. But in some ways they haven't. Calling for all welfare to be privatised is still one. They do tend to be pro-LBGT and secular. The way that I heard a CL talk about rent seeking sums them up in my head. "If there are many people renting seeking from the government, reduce the government so they cant do it anymore." Which... I can see the logic but that not how rent seeking works. If you reduce legislation, the rent seeking will intensify around the remaining laws. It will become more important to seek rent. Sometimes, they claim to know economics but they don't bother criticising their own work to find the holes. But then, if someone cant tell me the negative impact of their economic policy (as well as the positives), they clearly haven't thought it through.

Gorfias:

One thing we're seeing is that a statement is taken out of context to seem outrageous and therefore, the subject becomes an intellectual untouchable. Doing this makes Western civilization harmed. We lose out of the minds and views of people who have interesting things to stay. An individual must be viewed as the whole of their works.

I'm not necessarily that critical of Peterson for this; I suspect Peterson is well aware of the inconsistency.

I don't consider inconsistency to necessarily be a bad thing. I think it can be healthy, because any belief that is excessively rigid is likely to end in absurdity or atrocity. At some point, pragmatic, justified bending around the edges or a central axiom is reasonable and sensible. But that core of ideology must remain largely intact and deviations from it properly explained, otherwise inconsistency becomes hypocrisy and arbitrariness.

I can think of people who nominally espouse liberalism or individualism, but scratch the surface and its paper thin. Many leftists might suppose themselves liberals, and whilst I can see where they're coming from, I think they're deluding themselves that what they propose really furthers liberalism. Similarly many rightists claim to support liberal society, but they're actually conservatives supposing "liberal society" is whatever past or present they idolise, and just resisting change and difference.

JP: very interesting mind. Classical liberal (or as Sargon of Akkad would say, Liberalist). The goal should be a difficult to define fairness rather than, as Pol Pot might have wanted, equality of outcome. We will all be equal in the grave.

I don't particularly mind Peterson's illustrative flourishes with religious and cultural imagery either. Lots of people use these techniques to make a point. Nevertheless, when you go around saying things like that chaos is represented by the feminine and order is masculine, even if you're aware this is just imagery yourself, you stand the risk of being misunderstood by readers and tickling prejudices. I have a problem with people who claim their beliefs are scientifically derived, but in practice play fast and loose with science and mixing in a lot of analogy and imagery to make it even harder to discern what is scientifically true or not.

But we can easily see Peterson's attraction to the right wing. Discipline, order, hard work, self-reliance, small government, the allusions and respect for tradition and religion; characterising modern society as rootless, chaotic, nihilistic, nannying, intrusive (which, of course, conservatives accuse liberals of making it since whatever their chosen golden age is).

I can't help but wonder - having grown up in rural Canada, is Peterson not perhaps extolling the virtues of a neat, orderly, rural, (conservative), 1960-70s Canada? When I think about what many people end up advocating... it's themselves. I think many philosophers were actually justifying themselves; they made logic arguments to argue universal the principles they believed in, or justified their own conduct. [1] In many cases that makes sense, assuming they turned out okay - obviously they'll believe the lessons they learnt will help others, and likely it's what many people can gain from hearing. On the other hand, it necessarily also means the message is not universal, and fails to consider the difficulties and needs many others have.

[1] As a cheap shot, take Ayn Rand - a selfish narcissist whose early life was thrown into chaos when the Bolsheviks took her parents' factory away, and so she created a philosophy enabling selfish narcissism illustrated by stories preoccupied by socialists stealing other people's stuff.

Gorfias:
One thing we're seeing is that a statement is taken out of context to seem outrageous and therefore, the subject becomes an intellectual untouchable. Doing this makes Western civilization harmed. We lose out of the minds and views of people who have interesting things to stay. An individual must be viewed as the whole of their works.

I don't particularly need to hear any of his comments out of context to arrive at a poor opinion of him. His fully-voiced arguments are outrageous enough.

Well, "outrageous" is the wrong word. "Grossly misrepresenting the facts" was my first impression of him.

Gorfias:
JP: very interesting mind. Classical liberal (or as Sargon of Akkad would say, Liberalist). The goal should be a difficult to define fairness rather than, as Pol Pot might have wanted, equality of outcome. We will all be equal in the grave.

Peterson is not a classical liberal. He's fundamentally a political conservative; he thinks modern society is rotten and has lost its way, and what people need is firm discipline and a return to the social order and conformity of the 1950s. This is a conservative mindset.

bastardofmelbourne:

Peterson is not a classical liberal. He's fundamentally a political conservative; he thinks modern society is rotten and has lost its way, and what people need is firm discipline and a return to the social order and conformity of the 1950s. This is a conservative mindset.

Um, no. He thinks what people need is self-discipline, and he's harshly critical of conformity.

People really seem to have trouble working out his message, probably because they lack the referents. Like the whole "OMG, he says women are Chaos incarnate!" That would make no sense in his framework, which by the way is not something he came up with himself. The thing with "Chaos" is that it's the inchoate, and the work of civilization is to transform meaning out of it. Just like the archetypal Biblical myth of creation consists of God ordering the primordial chaos into things by naming them. That's what all the stuff about "slaying the dragon", "rescuing the Father from the belly of the whale" and diving into dark waters to bring back a treasure is all about, making sense out of a bewildering existence. And women have to do it as well as men.

People may scoff on that if they will, but I wish they'd at least be scoffing at the thing itself, rather than some funhouse mirror reflection presented by malicious/ignorant commentariat.

StatusNil:

Um, no. He thinks what people need is self-discipline, and he's harshly critical of conformity.

Or, in the case when they lack the self-discipline not to kill people for not getting laid, they need the government to make sure women have sex with them anyway.

See, the problem most of us have with Peterson isn't that we don't understand his message. Our problem is that we understand it and we see just how contradictory and reactionary it is. As one of the earlier comments pointed out, he thinks women are the Chaos to men's Order, yet he also says that women help bring stability and order to men's lives. It is an old conservative idea (that the housewife brings the domestic stability and order a man needs to dedicate himself to his career) that's tacked onto an incompatible pseudo-philosophical/spiritual dichotomy of gender. Which doesn't make Peterson deep or insightful, it just means he has the ability to sound intellectual even when he's talking out his ass.

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:

[quote]If you actually read it, you wouldn't need me to point out the problem.

Relying on your footwork to dodge questions you don't like again, Zontar?

If that was footwork he must spend most of his time face down in the dirt. I was honestly a tiny bit embarrassed for him. But it passed and I laughed.

StatusNil:

bastardofmelbourne:

Peterson is not a classical liberal. He's fundamentally a political conservative; he thinks modern society is rotten and has lost its way, and what people need is firm discipline and a return to the social order and conformity of the 1950s. This is a conservative mindset.

Um, no. He thinks what people need is self-discipline, and he's harshly critical of conformity.

The guy who criticizes people who do not conform to gender is 'critical of conformity'?

Peterson IS a conformist...

Gethsemani:

StatusNil:

Um, no. He thinks what people need is self-discipline, and he's harshly critical of conformity.

Or, in the case when they lack the self-discipline not to kill people for not getting laid, they need the government to make sure women have sex with them anyway.

Apparently he sent out a tweet later going something like "All I meant by enforced monogamy was that society should value and support proper pairing and loyalty values, I can't possibly understand why aaaanyone would think I meant anything else! They're all out to slander me!"

...Which...You know, I'm not really buying because of the context of the rest of the stuff he said around the subject and the fact that society already does that and it's done nothing to stop crazy dudes from driving vans down crowded streets through people while declaring the Incel revolution.

But even if he DID actually "mean it" in the more "benign" sense...well, this leads to point b:

See, the problem most of us have with Peterson isn't that we don't understand his message. Our problem is that we understand it and we see just how contradictory and reactionary it is.

I'm feeling that this is by design.

I feel like he's literally making the most vague sweeping statements possible, so that not only can he snare his intended audience, but he can then turn around and go "OMG everyone is out to slander and censor me! I'm such a victim of the PC police! The postmodern neo-marxists are all out to get me!" which gets him more attention as the "underdog/victim".

It would certainly explain why when he did his initial protest, he immediately jumped to "They could lock me up for this! PC police will lock me up!"

The more I look at him and how he plays with words and retractions that don't accept any blame for the context he made statements in, the more I see a man who desperately wants to be Martyr Pastor of The Internet.

He very well may actually believe some garbage about women being chaos, but also somehow being what's needed to "soothe" men into not being violent...But I don't know if it's possible to know for sure, because of the way he keeps dancing around with his words to spin whatever yarn he needs to make his congregation cheer, while leaving him room to backpedal and claim he was misunderstood.

Basically, I'm saying he's a wordy kinda culty con man out for popularity and patreon money and the adoration of his loyal fans.

Gethsemani:
See, the problem most of us have with Peterson isn't that we don't understand his message. Our problem is that we understand it and we see just how contradictory and reactionary it is.

There is a guy called Arnold Kling who wrote a booked called the Three Political Languages. Conservative, Liberals and Libertertarians all speak different languages in a political sense. Conservatives think that tradition make the world survive. Thus when I look at the two comments about women, I try to translate that into Liberal speak. Women are good when they follow traditions and support men. They are otherwise choas. But if a conservative saw this translatation, they would think that is true, as it served well for thousands of years. This created civilization, and should be adhered too.

StatusNil:

People really seem to have trouble working out his message, probably because they lack the referents. Like the whole "OMG, he says women are Chaos incarnate!" That would make no sense in his framework, which by the way is not something he came up with himself. The thing with "Chaos" is that it's the inchoate, and the work of civilization is to transform meaning out of it. Just like the archetypal Biblical myth of creation consists of God ordering the primordial chaos into things by naming them. That's what all the stuff about "slaying the dragon", "rescuing the Father from the belly of the whale" and diving into dark waters to bring back a treasure is all about, making sense out of a bewildering existence. And women have to do it as well as men.

People may scoff on that if they will, but I wish they'd at least be scoffing at the thing itself, rather than some funhouse mirror reflection presented by malicious/ignorant commentariat.

Becuiase then we get to this, which I might describe as Christian political language. I translate this as women must be restrained, by tradition, so they can have meaning. But that becuase I'm Liberal and I'm wary of oppression. Status is probably focussed on how this leads to civility and order. If I want to change Status' mind, talking about how this statement is oppresive to women is pointless. I have to discuss how this statement doesnt lead to order and civility. If Status wants to change my mind, he has to prove that this is not oppression. Hence when we all talk over each other, and dont seem to listen, its because we hear totally different things out of the same sentence.

Agema:

altnameJag:
I mean, Classical Liberals are the Victorian era politicians of the "why have charity when you have poorhouses?" variety.

Being a Dickens villain isn't really on the left of the political spectrum.

This is rather unfair.

19th century British classical liberals were facing a very different world situation, where the country was still dominated by laws that hugely privileged land ownership (and thus the aristocracy), and a small fraction of the population could vote. Their concentration was thus mostly focused on removing political and economic privilege from the aristocracy. They believed these economic restrictions were the main driver of poverty, and if they could create economic freedom, poor and rich alike would thrive. Whilst undoubtedly the caricature of a selfish industrialist exploiting his workers has a basis in reality, classical liberalism of that age was a lot more concerned with improving the lot of the poor than your post suggests.

Towards the end of the 19th century classical liberalism was foundering. Economic liberalisation had failed to solve the problem of poverty, and there became greater realisation that many problems of the poor stemmed from circumstances outside their control. Consequently many liberals turned to policies of government support for the poor; this developed into what is now called social liberalism. Some liberals, obviously, continued with classical liberalism.

And those liberals, quite obviously, aren't anywhere approaching the left side of the political spectrum, and are idiots besides.

After all, there's ample evidence to show their ideas don't work and in fact harm poor people, yet there they go, bound and determined to fuck up the same way as before.

StatusNil:
And women have to do it as well as men.

They're agents of that chaos, how are they supposed to do it?

StatusNil:
Um, no. He thinks what people need is self-discipline, and he's harshly critical of conformity.

So why did he pointedly deny his transgender students the freedom to choose their own names?

StatusNil:

People really seem to have trouble working out his message, probably because they lack the referents. Like the whole "OMG, he says women are Chaos incarnate!" That would make no sense in his framework, which by the way is not something he came up with himself. The thing with "Chaos" is that it's the inchoate, and the work of civilization is to transform meaning out of it. Just like the archetypal Biblical myth of creation consists of God ordering the primordial chaos into things by naming them. That's what all the stuff about "slaying the dragon", "rescuing the Father from the belly of the whale" and diving into dark waters to bring back a treasure is all about, making sense out of a bewildering existence.

So then Peterson is telling us that civilisation is built by men, imposing order and meaning on women?

Okay, that's probably not what you really mean, but the fact it reads like that illustrates why this women = chaos can cause a lot of confusion.

So there's the whole ancient Western mystical tradition of male and female domains, where female means nature, wombs, fluidity etc. and male means rigidity, structure, etc... but why the hell even go there? The question I would ask is whether it aids understanding; as an educator increasing understanding is Peterson's job. If it is merely some representation of duality in ancient Western esotericism that's not particularly relevant to the point he's trying to make (and worse is even counterintuitive), he probably just shouldn't make it. Thus at best it seems to mostly be some sort of confounding academic impenetrability, and I know full well how much venom you'd be be reacting with were it a leftist academic doing similarly.

Um, no. He thinks what people need is self-discipline, and he's harshly critical of conformity.

This is very misrepresentative. In fact he argues conformity in practice is broadly positive.

Several pages back Bastardofmelbourne posted up a chunk of his writings he found hard to parse. But part of it stated (in simple terms) that failure to consider other people's ethics would result in a failure to adequately function in society. That is an argument supporting conformity. It is a conditional conformity, in the expectation that the individual examines the justification for dissent, but broadly supportive of conformity nonetheless. We could, for instance, contrast that with the Nietzschean or Randian concept of the hero individualist for whom conformity is almost contemptible.

Agema:

But we can easily see Peterson's attraction to the right wing. Discipline, order, hard work, self-reliance, small government, the allusions and respect for tradition and religion; characterising modern society as rootless, chaotic, nihilistic, nannying, intrusive (which, of course, conservatives accuse liberals of making it since whatever their chosen golden age is).

I can't help but wonder - having grown up in rural Canada, is Peterson not perhaps extolling the virtues of a neat, orderly, rural, (conservative), 1960-70s Canada? When I think about what many people end up advocating... it's themselves. I think many philosophers were actually justifying themselves; they made logic arguments to argue universal the principles they believed in, or justified their own conduct. [1] In many cases that makes sense, assuming they turned out okay - obviously they'll believe the lessons they learnt will help others, and likely it's what many people can gain from hearing. On the other hand, it necessarily also means the message is not universal, and fails to consider the difficulties and needs many others have.

Interesting points wondering about him like this. EDIT: And I did not know that about Rand. Interesting stuff, thanks for including.

He got into a lot of trouble recently with MGTOW for calling them pathetic weasels and Paul Elam did a piece pondering why he did it. He is a first born and may have something of a hero or golden child complex and be a romantic.

But I hate when someone does something like this:

JP: (asking do we really want a totally sexless work environment?) should women be barred from wearing lipstick at work? It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work.

Translator: Did you know JP wants to stop women from wearing lipstick at work?!?!

Conversation killer.

bastardofmelbourne:

Peterson is not a classical liberal. He's fundamentally a political conservative; he thinks modern society is rotten and has lost its way, and what people need is firm discipline and a return to the social order and conformity of the 1950s. This is a conservative mindset.

You think him anti-enlightenment? Anti pro free speech and assembly? Anti due process? Against freedom of opportunity but not outcome? These are classic liberal positions and I think he holds them all.

The number one ?conservative? thing I take from him is that he is anti-equality of outcome. When he speaks of this being as dark as it gets, I think he is thinking of death camps, gulags and killing fields. Forced starvations and mass gassings and mass graves with mutilated masses murdered by the state that went along with radical group rights think. He has a point and concern for that, I don?t think, is conservative but humanist.

[1] As a cheap shot, take Ayn Rand - a selfish narcissist whose early life was thrown into chaos when the Bolsheviks took her parents' factory away, and so she created a philosophy enabling selfish narcissism illustrated by stories preoccupied by socialists stealing other people's stuff.

Gorfias:
[
But I hate when someone does something like this:

JP: (asking do we really want a totally sexless work environment?) should women be barred from wearing lipstick at work? It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work.

Translator: Did you know JP wants to stop women from wearing lipstick at work?!?!

Conversation killer.

How is the first one better

undeadsuitor:

Gorfias:
[

JP: (asking do we really want a totally sexless work environment?) should women be barred from wearing lipstick at work? It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work.

Translator: Did you know JP wants to stop women from wearing lipstick at work?!?!

How is the first one better

One is a hypothetical testing values. What do people want? A question.
The other is misleadingly putting words in his mouth. A lie.

Questions are better than lies.

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

Gorfias:
[

JP: (asking do we really want a totally sexless work environment?) should women be barred from wearing lipstick at work? It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work.

Translator: Did you know JP wants to stop women from wearing lipstick at work?!?!

How is the first one better

One is a hypothetical testing values. What do people want? A question.
The other is misleadingly putting words in his mouth. A lie.

Questions are better than lies.

"It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work."

isn't a question though

undeadsuitor:

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

How is the first one better

One is a hypothetical testing values. What do people want? A question.
The other is misleadingly putting words in his mouth. A lie.

Questions are better than lies.

"It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work."

isn't a question though

It is the setting the foundation for the question. The foundation is presumed from some of the discussion raised by "Me Too". It does beg the question: is that what anyone wants: a sterile work place.

Your thoughts on a sterile workplace?

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

Gorfias:

One is a hypothetical testing values. What do people want? A question.
The other is misleadingly putting words in his mouth. A lie.

Questions are better than lies.

"It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work."

isn't a question though

It is the setting the foundation for the question. The foundation is presumed from some of the discussion raised by "Me Too". It does beg the question: is that what anyone wants: a sterile work place.

Your thoughts on a sterile workplace?

Why is it women's responsibilities for men's actions?

Isn't blaming women's appearances for sexual assaults just another form of "Shes was asking for it"?

If men are supposed to be the order to women's chaos, why are we relying on women's order to restrain the chaos of a man's boner?

Are men not responsible for their bodies and their actions?

undeadsuitor:

Why is it women's responsibilities for men's actions?

Isn't blaming women's appearances for sexual assaults just another form of "Shes was asking for it"?

If men are supposed to be the order to women's chaos, why are we relying on women's order to restrain the chaos of a man's boner?

Are men not responsible for their bodies and their actions?

Adult language:

Gorfias:

I hold men accountable for not walking around the office in shirt, suit coat, tie, black socks and shoes but no pants or underwear jerking off around the office on their way to coffee or the copier etc. Your in a work environment. Be courteous to your coworkers. I think such jerking off, even if they don't touch you, out of bounds. Where do we draw the lines? If I cannot jerk off at work (or even where a fez or high heels) due to expectations are women to have no curbs on their dress?.

Your argument: 'Well, if I can't have a wank at my desk, why is she allowed to wear a short skirt?'. That's mental. That really is quite strange.

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

Why is it women's responsibilities for men's actions?

Isn't blaming women's appearances for sexual assaults just another form of "Shes was asking for it"?

If men are supposed to be the order to women's chaos, why are we relying on women's order to restrain the chaos of a man's boner?

Are men not responsible for their bodies and their actions?

Adult language:

image

So, a woman wearing lipstick at work is the equivalent of a man masturbating?

Gorfias:

Adult language:

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, Gorfias. I understand where you are coming from and understand Peterson's message of self-discipline being the grand objective of any democratic society. I understand his message towards wanting people to be responsible for their own actions and emotions while at the same time not having to be forced to do anything to adhere to someone else's.

But your analogy is fucking abysmal. There isn't an equivalent for short skirts vs. men's attire in the workplace because in that scenario what makes a man attractive IS the attire they're required to wear - business suits. It would work in a more physically demanding job if men are not allowed to work shirtless - but they are required to wear something for health and safety concerns, even if it's just a high visibility vest.

You would genuinely help your political ideology by shutting up, and I say that as someone who agrees with a significant amount of your political leanings.

Baffle2:
snip

undeadsuitor:
snip

So, a woman wearing lipstick at work is the equivalent of a man masturbating?[/quote]

Abomination:
snip

The point is not equivalency but illustration.
I asked if we are supposed to be trying to make the work place a sterile one or not. undeadsuitor seems to have taken this to mean that only men have to change their behavior: that asking women to do anything at all is the equivalent of making them responsible for male behavior. Not so. Person A can be doing something that is simply inappropriate in a public space that impacts person B and that we can insist is stop. This can be whether there is actual physical contact involved or not.

Correct?

Gorfias:
He got into a lot of trouble recently with MGTOW for calling them pathetic weasels and Paul Elam did a piece pondering why he did it. He is a first born and may have something of a hero or golden child complex and be a romantic.

I'm not surprised he said that about MGTOW. It fits what I've read about his thinking that he would be less than complementary about them. He seems to have a stoic stance that life is difficult, and you face down your problems and work on self-improvement to deal with them. MGTOW looks for all the world like blaming your difficulties on others and running away from them. I suspect he'd be similarly scathing about "incels" for the same reason. Although at least MGTOW have essentially chosen to seclude themselves and not bug the rest of society, unlike the frothingly toxic incels.

JP: (asking do we really want a totally sexless work environment?) should women be barred from wearing lipstick at work? It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work.

I think it's unsafe to assume that the intended purpose of lipstick is sexual appeal. It's a way to make oneself look good; becoming more sexually attractive is then a side-effect of looking good. But as looking good also includes hairstyles, clothing, etc. you can't really pick out lipstick, because they also contribute to sex appeal. Charisma is sexy. Can we ban that from the workplace?

Being sexually attracted at work is not a problem, of course. All we ask is that sex not improperly intrude into a workplace. Loads of people - including me in years past - have started and/or maintained a relationship with a co-worker. You just compartmentalise and keep it out of the workplace.

Agema:

Gorfias:

[quote]JP: (asking do we really want a totally sexless work environment?) should women be barred from wearing lipstick at work? It is sexually attractive to men and you don?t want men being sexually attracted at work.

I think it's unsafe to assume that the intended purpose of lipstick is sexual appeal. It's a way to make oneself look good; becoming more sexually attractive is then a side-effect of looking good. But as looking good also includes hairstyles, clothing, etc. you can't really pick out lipstick, because they also contribute to sex appeal. Charisma is sexy. Can we ban that from the workplace?

True enough. But we are constantly being told that it is the effect which matters, not the intent. When a guy says or does something that ends up being interpreted as misogynistic he doesn't get to use the defense of intent. See below:
http://www.shakesville.com/2011/12/harmful-communication-part-one-intent.html

Agema:

I'm not surprised he said that about MGTOW. It fits what I've read about his thinking that he would be less than complementary about them. He seems to have a stoic stance that life is difficult, and you face down your problems and work on self-improvement to deal with them. MGTOW looks for all the world like blaming your difficulties on others and running away from them. I suspect he'd be similarly scathing about "incels" for the same reason. Although at least MGTOW have essentially chosen to seclude themselves and not bug the rest of society, unlike the frothingly toxic incels.

He later did a really weird apology to the MGTOW where he couldn't quite look into the camera while he said it. He simply agreed they have certain points. He's still no doubt disappointed that, in his mind, they should improve themselves and therefore, improve their situation.
Even I'm pissed off at the incels. You want to get laid? Improve yourself and be worthy of the attention. There are videos of these guys out there and it's like, "dude... you might want to do some manscaping if you want positive attention."

I think it's unsafe to assume that the intended purpose of lipstick is sexual appeal. It's a way to make oneself look good; becoming more sexually attractive is then a side-effect of looking good. But as looking good also includes hairstyles, clothing, etc. you can't really pick out lipstick, because they also contribute to sex appeal. Charisma is sexy. Can we ban that from the workplace?

Being sexually attracted at work is not a problem, of course. All we ask is that sex not improperly intrude into a workplace. Loads of people - including me in years past - have started and/or maintained a relationship with a co-worker. You just compartmentalise and keep it out of the workplace.

Compartmentalization is harder to do than you'd think. A major complaint about sexual harassment is the charge that too often, it isn't that someone was out of line: its that the woman wants to avoid the discomfort of having to reject a suitor they wish knew to begin with to not even betray interest. ITMT I met my wife at work. Letting her know I was interested was a risk. I don't think any of us would ever want the world to be a perfectly safe place. Be boring.

Gorfias:

Agema:

I'm not surprised he said that about MGTOW. It fits what I've read about his thinking that he would be less than complementary about them. He seems to have a stoic stance that life is difficult, and you face down your problems and work on self-improvement to deal with them. MGTOW looks for all the world like blaming your difficulties on others and running away from them. I suspect he'd be similarly scathing about "incels" for the same reason. Although at least MGTOW have essentially chosen to seclude themselves and not bug the rest of society, unlike the frothingly toxic incels.

He later did a really weird apology to the MGTOW where he couldn't quite look into the camera while he said it. He simply agreed they have certain points. He's still no doubt disappointed that, in his mind, they should improve themselves and therefore, improve their situation.
Even I'm pissed off at the incels. You want to get laid? Improve yourself and be worthy of the attention. There are videos of these guys out there and it's like, "dude... you might want to do some manscaping if you want positive attention."

I think it's unsafe to assume that the intended purpose of lipstick is sexual appeal. It's a way to make oneself look good; becoming more sexually attractive is then a side-effect of looking good. But as looking good also includes hairstyles, clothing, etc. you can't really pick out lipstick, because they also contribute to sex appeal. Charisma is sexy. Can we ban that from the workplace?

Being sexually attracted at work is not a problem, of course. All we ask is that sex not improperly intrude into a workplace. Loads of people - including me in years past - have started and/or maintained a relationship with a co-worker. You just compartmentalise and keep it out of the workplace.

Compartmentalization is harder to do than you'd think. A major complaint about sexual harassment is the charge that too often, it isn't that someone was out of line: its that the woman wants to avoid the discomfort of having to reject a suitor they wish knew to begin with to not even betray interest. ITMT I met my wife at work. Letting her know I was interested was a risk. I don't think any of us would ever want the world to be a perfectly safe place. Be boring.

I've been on the other side of this type sexual harassment stuff. Not the receiving - deal with the consequences. I had no training other than being a workplace mediator. I was asked by a boss to help work through situations. We had a small panel to discuss issue. Some of it was a one off. You didn't follow up this without another occurrence. Obviously, this would be more verbal in nature. An overt physical action, we never had to deal with. It was more people repeatedly not listening to the person requesting them to stop.

A part of a mediators job was not to take over proceedings, but to encourage the participants to take charge. You just keeping heads cool. You empower the "victim" to talk to the "perpetrator" to resolve issue before you get involved whatsoever

trunkage:
I've been on the other side of this type sexual harassment stuff. Not the receiving - deal with the consequences. I had no training other than being a workplace mediator. I was asked by a boss to help work through situations. We had a small panel to discuss issue. Some of it was a one off. You didn't follow up this without another occurrence. Obviously, this would be more verbal in nature. An overt physical action, we never had to deal with. It was more people repeatedly not listening to the person requesting them to stop.

A part of a mediators job was not to take over proceedings, but to encourage the participants to take charge. You just keeping heads cool. You empower the "victim" to talk to the "perpetrator" to resolve issue before you get involved whatsoever

Good advice. Being a mediator sounds like an interesting type of gig to have had. I'm jealous. I am surprised the employer did not provide you with at least a skeletal outline of training. Documents, videos to get you started.

Blood Brain Barrier:

True enough. But we are constantly being told that it is the effect which matters, not the intent. When a guy says or does something that ends up being interpreted as misogynistic he doesn't get to use the defense of intent. See below:
http://www.shakesville.com/2011/12/harmful-communication-part-one-intent.html

Imagine you fancy a co-worker, you think you're getting on well and maybe it could go somewhere... what do you do? Try something as blissfully simple as ask "Do you fancy going for a drink sometime?" and then accept their response (whether positive or negative). I mean, hell, even ask them it in the carpark before or after work hours. They can take offence, maybe you've catastrophically misread the situation and it might be awkward, but you're not going to get in trouble for a simple request. You might get in trouble for "being a creep": inappropriate touching, unwelcome innuendo, pestering, repeatedly asking again, pressurising if you have superior rank, etc. So don't do those things - problem solved.

I imagine a problem many people have is understanding where the boundaries lie and thus being clueless that they have passed the point of interested co-worker into office sex pest. That or they're so fixated on disasters they overlook the fact it's both reasoanbly common and barely ever an incipient sexual harassment suit.

Gorfias:
He later did a really weird apology to the MGTOW where he couldn't quite look into the camera while he said it. He simply agreed they have certain points. He's still no doubt disappointed that, in his mind, they should improve themselves and therefore, improve their situation.

I would say that "pathetic weasel" is certainly not the sort of term a clinical psychologist should be bandying around, and worth apologising for. I'm sure it was something of a non-apology also, for the reasons you say.

Even I'm pissed off at the incels. You want to get laid? Improve yourself and be worthy of the attention. There are videos of these guys out there and it's like, "dude... you might want to do some manscaping if you want positive attention."

Yes. Lots of us were relationship noobs once upon a time. One or more of poor appearance, low social skills, maybe shy, etc. You learn to do better and work towards being pr0... better than ragequitting.

Gorfias:

Baffle2:
snip

undeadsuitor:
snip
So, a woman wearing lipstick at work is the equivalent of a man masturbating?

Abomination:
snip

The point is not equivalency but illustration.
I asked if we are supposed to be trying to make the work place a sterile one or not. undeadsuitor seems to have taken this to mean that only men have to change their behavior: that asking women to do anything at all is the equivalent of making them responsible for male behavior. Not so. Person A can be doing something that is simply inappropriate in a public space that impacts person B and that we can insist is stop. This can be whether there is actual physical contact involved or not.

Correct?

If everyone's responsible, what can men do? What are their responsibilities?

I find this less and less comprehensible the more look at it.

undeadsuitor:

If everyone's responsible, what can men do? What are their responsibilities?

Be much, much more restrained than they'd like. Have you seen the Mad Men series?

I've literally been told to change my computer wallpaper as it was too provocative.

I think men are better for these changes. I was tasked with watching a sexual harassment sensitivity video and when they gave dramatized examples of how some men actually act, we in the audience laughed our butts off. These men weren't just being annoying to women. They were making asses of themselves.

How much restrained is restrained enough? I don't know. Most recently, I heard lessons about how to give a professional, touching each others elbows quick embrace and release professional social gathering hug. Lotta rules.

Gorfias:

undeadsuitor:

If everyone's responsible, what can men do? What are their responsibilities?

Be much, much more restrained than they'd like. Have you seen the Mad Men series?

I've literally been told to change my computer wallpaper as it was too provocative.

I think men are better for these changes. I was tasked with watching a sexual harassment sensitivity video and when they gave dramatized examples of how some men actually act, we in the audience laughed our butts off. These men weren't just being annoying to women. They were making asses of themselves.

How much restrained is restrained enough? I don't know. Most recently, I heard lessons about how to give a professional, touching each others elbows quick embrace and release professional social gathering hug. Lotta rules.

So, women have to change how they dress, act, talk and everything else about their lives

And men just have to...not sexually assault women?

Seems like a lopsided sense of responsibility

Why can't men control themselves without controlling how women dress?

A lady I conversed with a little time ago said something that has stuck with me since, and that is any female should be able to walk naked without fear of rape, people's expectations that they deserve to be raped or sexually harrassed/attacked. There is no excuse. Take some responsibility for your actions towards others.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked