same logic could be applied to body building. i'm not equating that with strength training and practical stuff like that, but rather targeting biceps/pecs/abs/etc, in order to look more attractively proportioned. mind you, i take no issue with the practice and it's really a cross-gender thing at this point anyway. however it is worth pointing out that these folks are putting lots of hours and energy into altering themselves, in order to look more attractive.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
but no, people wear make up for the same reason anyone does anything to improve their appearance, to look presentable and feel good about themselves. I understand that certain people who don't understand those concepts might feel differently, but there it is.
Interesting. Why do you think it is women wearing makeup on a vastly higher scale than men?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes because there is some utility beyond physical appearance to make-up and high heals.I'm sure people use make-up and high heels with the intent of protecting their skin from the sun and getting things high up on shelves.
I'd also argue the amount of men who put hours and hours into body building isn't really proportional to the amount of women who wear some sort of makeup.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well it depends on what he means by "women who don't want to be sexually harassed" because it's possible he could be referring to the modern definition of sexual harassment where HR forbids hugging (as was mentioned in the video), where some women consider any compliments to their appearance sexual harassment, or flirting sexual harassment, or being asked out sexual harassment.Because in the exact same clip he both said that it would be desirable if there were no sexual harassment in the work place and that he specifically clarified that he wasn't saying women shouldn't wear make-up or that there shouldn't be any sexual displays in the workplace, both of which seem antithetical to what his later statement in the video is being interpreted as. And the idea that he's saying women shouldn't wear make up or make sexual displays in the workplace is contradicted both by his clarification that he wasn't asserting that make-up rule as his actual opinion, and that he found the no hugging rule absurd.
If he was referring in his last statement to women who hold the stance on sexual harassment that any comments on their appearance, any flirtation, being asked out, etc. sexual harassment, then the overall point he's making in the video is internally consistent: What he views as sexual harassment shouldn't be in the workplace and rules like no hugging are absurd, but it's hypocritical to draw attention to your appearance or make a sexual display in the workplace while having some puritanical expectations of men's interactions with you ie. no flirtation, no compliments on one's appearance, the no hugging rule from HR.
That would be more consistent than his overall work, and it would be the same position held by other people who have expressed similar displeasure with the modern sex culture, such as criticism of feminists who simultaneously hold the positions that women should be able to flaunt their sexuality however much they want, but then define any flirtatious romantic or sexual encounter that makes them uncomfortable as sexual harassment (flirtation, asking a woman at a bar if you can buy them a drink, telling a woman they look good, etc.)
He could've misworded what would otherwise be a very astute point that is consistent with what he said in the interview, consistent with his other work and statements, and consistent with what other people have said who agree that the modern sex culture and third feminists expectations of how men/women interactions should be are cancer, or he could be saying something at the end that completely contradicts everything else he said in the interview and contradicts a lot of other things he's said about male impulse control. If it's the former, I agree 100%, if it's the latter, then I condemn the statement and disagree with it. I'd like to see some clarification on this before jumping to an absolute conclusion.
That being said, even taken at the worst possibility, which is what is being presented by Joker and our resident soyboy Benjamina, it would be a bad statement but not one that discredits the merits of any of the many good points and impacts he's made throughout his vast body of work, ie. the individualist messages, the criticism of modern progressivism, the free speech activism, the countless citations his work has received within his field, the countless people he's pulled away from the alt-right or helped become more responsible people in their day to day lives.
And also, assuming the worst of the two interpretations, let's not conflate sexual harassment with sexual assault and suggest that he's "victim blaming" women who are groped or molested or raped or whatever.
Bingo. If anyone thought it somehow negated any of the many good points Peterson has made...they are hilariously wrong.
Originally posted by SurturFunny, you didn’t find it interesting before. And I would say probably because societal norms condition them not to, men are not comfortable wearing makeup.
Interesting. Why do you think it is women wearing makeup on a vastly higher scale than men?
But some of them could really do with it. 🙁
You come at Beni like this:
Originally posted by Surtur
If you care to actually say what he said you take issue with, I'll be more than glad to respond. I mean, your original clip was less than 2 minutes long. Surely it's not that difficult for you to discuss what irked you.
and when both him and I actually point out how and why what Peterson said was wrong and stupid, you’re response is:
Originally posted by SurturMocking.
Well I will admit that I do not know as much about makeup as you guys, I will defer to your greater knowledge on that.It would seem Peterson still have some things to learn, like everybody else.
*yawn* You’re predictable.
— — — — —
@DMB: I really don’t understand why you’re trying to narrow down what Peterson was talking about. The question levied towards him was not specific regarding HR or radical feminists, but one probing Peterson’s suggestions regarding rules in the workplace to remedy sexual harassment against women in general. Nobody is saying that Peterson is not against sexual harassment. And even if Peterson does not advocate for a no makeup rule, his opinion that wearing makeup is hypocritical in that it somehow is implicitly asking for sexual attention is... blatantly wrong and incredibly backwards. Which is all I’d prefer for Peterson fans to acknowledge—not for them to find every way possible to plug their ears and excuse the statement with tangent subjects mentioned in the video that Peterson was very likely not referring to.
And acknowledging that does not mean you have to disown any of his other opinions that you agree with. It’s not an ultimatum.
Why’d you have to bring this thread to my attention, though, DMB? You’re about to devolve this into Thursday night again. 🙁
Originally posted by |King Joker|
You come at Beni like this:and when both him and I actually point out how and why what Peterson said was wrong and stupid, you’re response is:
Mocking.
*yawn* You’re predictable.
— — — — —
@DMB: I really don’t understand why you’re trying to narrow down what Peterson was talking about. The question levied towards him was not specific regarding HR or radical feminists, but one probing Peterson’s suggestions regarding rules in the workplace to remedy sexual harassment against women in general. Nobody is saying that Peterson is not against sexual harassment. And even if Peterson does not advocate for a no makeup rule, his opinion that wearing makeup is hypocritical in that it somehow is implicitly asking for sexual attention is... blatantly wrong and incredibly backwards. Which is all I’d prefer for Peterson fans to acknowledge—not for them to find every way possible to plug their ears and excuse the statement with tangent subjects mentioned in the video that Peterson was very likely not referring to.
And acknowledging that does not mean you have to disown any of his other opinions that you agree with. It’s not an ultimatum.
Why’d you have to bring this thread to my attention, though, DMB? You’re about to devolve this into Thursday night again. 🙁
To be fair, you gave an opinion as to why he was wrong. It is not something I really wanted to get into a big debate over. I'd rather just go with "whether you disagree or not, this one thing doesn't negate any of the other good points this person has made". Not that you specifically said that, but that was IMO the intent of the person who originally posted it.
I think DMB nailed the pertinent points in his post.
Re: Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman
Originally posted by The Ellimist
YouTube videoI mean this is just hilarious.
Almost every single time - minus 2 specific examples - she reframed his statements with either a strawman or something not even close to what he said.
At about 15 minutes in, I wish he would have said, "How about stop trying to reword what I said and just stick to my actual words? You're most certainly never getting right."
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"i have a phd, so my clinically marginal opinion and sweeping generalizations are fact"have fun buying into this clown's dogshit and being a lonely angry ball of self pity for the rest of your lives. 👆
I just noticed this post...
It seems like you're projecting. A lot.
And I read the subsequent arguments against you and your position, as well: you refused to be specific at all about what you're referring, too, here. You quite obviously don't want to take a position because he didn't misspeak and the points he made that were backed by actual research are rather ubiquitous at this point (at least in socio-political academia).
Instead of being a coward and dodging people asking you to clarify your vitriolic and inflammatory post, perhaps you could actually clarify which of his points were sweeping generalizations and not fact? It should not be very difficult or time consuming at all to pick just one and cite a credible study if his points are so obviously rubbish to you.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
...Does someone have a counter to the simple argument that differences in outcomes only prove differences in opportunity if you assume zero relevant biological differences between men and women, and that this is patently absurd? I'm honestly curious because Cathy didn't provide any but there are some smart people on these boards so I'd like to hear from them.
No, it is just not the case when the population is viewed as a whole.
There are clearly specific examples but they are rather rare. One such example ended up becoming law in 2009 and it is called Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 specifically for a gender-pay issue she experienced at work (this law allows people like her to bring up equal pay lawsuits more readily...sounds simple but it's not. Just look it up if you're interested...you might enjoy it).
But the situation she (Kathy) tried to imply really does not exist for the extreme majority of the population in most Western Countries.
Research has been done on poorer countries and outcomes DO exist that directly relate to gender. When you have the option to get an education in Nursing instead of having to walk 50km to get clean, drinkable water (potable) for your family, then you can understand why there are significant differences in poorer countries compared to their Western counterparts.