I still want to know how the work relationships between men and women have deteriorated over the last forty years.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
I still want to know how the work relationships between men and women have deteriorated over the last forty years.
Men wear suits to make their shoulders appear broader, they wear ties to work to make them look good. Peterson didn't have much of a point with the make up thing, it was a ridiculously irrelevant thing to say in response to a sexual harassment question. I'm not sure how his point can come across as anything other than sexist
Whether it's called "Cultural Marxism" or something else, the gist I get is that he's talking about a worldview of looking at everything through the lens of oppressed vs oppressor.
So what I personally take from it, is that he's saying yea, life is hard, but instead of constantly feeling like a victim, waiting for "the system" to change or fix itself, which it probably never will, take matters into your own hands and do the best you can, with what you have, including fighting the system itself, rather then just complaint about it.
It's a push to action instead of inaction and waiting for things to change for the better when instead you can be the change.
Pretty Ugg boots and vanilla latte stuff.
I don't see what's controversial about that, though he'd have much more luck by avoiding these sort of terms.
So what I personally take from it, is that he's saying yea, life is hard, but instead of constantly feeling like a victim, waiting for "the system" to change or fix itself, which it probably never will, take matters into your own hands and do the best you can, with what you have, including fighting the system itself, rather then just complaint about it.
It's a push to action instead of inaction and waiting for things to change for the better when instead you can be the change.
Pretty Ugg boots and vanilla latte stuff.
I don't see what's controversial about that, though he'd have much more luck by avoiding these sort of terms.
So when he's saying cultural marxism as always he has no idea what he's talking about and just mouthing off?
Boy I wish I had interpreters like him all around the internet
This doesn't make much sense based on how much issue he has with the left trying to effect change to social injustices. It just highlights how vague and loose his definitions of the term are, because your everyday person can read it many ways.
Do you believe systemic sexism and racism exist? If you do, his "advice" is pretty ineffective as a solution to those problems, don't you think?
Also, I guarantee a significant proportion of his white guy fanbase believe the scales are tipped against them in favour of women and minorities. Do you think the message they're taking is to ignore that and sort out their own lives?
He thinks protesting is just paper on sticks.
He doesn't want you to change society he wants you to only work on you. That's the source of his whole clean your room stuff. It's hyper individualism in defense of the status quo.
This is a man who would have told civil rights activists in the 60s to go home and clean your room.
He actually reduced student protests in the 60s as kids waving papers on sticks and condemned them for it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a million inconsistencies in his logic.
Yea but you have to actually do something to fight against system issues, not just complaint on Twitter and hope things fix themselves.
Doesn't make sense in regards to his point, cleaning your room is an action of rebellion against stagnation, if you can clean your room, why can't you extend the same mentality and rational to cleaning society and it's ilk of problems?
He doesn't want you to do that either.
In fact people doing more than that is what really scares him. He doesn't believe in institutional oppression. He believes believing in it is dangerous.
Hyper Individualism has done wonders for US labor. Now that those pesky unions are almost dead, they are finally free to slay the chaos dragons. That's why I always hear of the victories of employees against their employer while the police unions are taking Ls every time. Just like the old saying divide and conquer; you divide yourself and then conquer everything.
Me as well, as I don't think they did deteriorate. Maybe in some next interview somebody would press him for evidence, I'd love to see that.
So Cultural Marxism is just whining about the system and not doing anything about it? Then why does he complain about safe spaces and the notion of white privilege? Or denying that systemic racism exists? Or saying that new pronouns are Marxist words?
I'm not comfortable laying this at the interviewer's feet. Jordan made the claim and as the supposed intellectual, he should back it up.
"Are you denying the existence of discrimination based on sexuality or race?" -- "I don't think women were discriminated against, I think that's an appalling argument."
Jordan Peterson life guru who could go on for hours about evil post modern neomarxists and how to deal with them gets stumped by an anti-semitic question about Jews controlling the media from a fan:
https://torontolife.com/city/toronto-politics/hows-jordan-petersons-world-tour-going/
Like people satire is dead
https://torontolife.com/city/toronto-politics/hows-jordan-petersons-world-tour-going/
Like people satire is dead
Last edited:
So Cultural Marxism is simultaneously whining about the system and doing nothing about it, but also enacting societal changes.
Never let answering a question about the (((Media))) get in the way of the grift
When Peterson talks about Cultural Marxism, hes talking about what the conspiracy has always claimed - evil left wingers in the Academy spreading Marxist ideology to destroy Western Civilisation. He never shuts the fuck up about it. It boggles my mind that anyone pushing the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is taken seriously by anyone, let alone a supposed intellectual. This is Alex Jones level bullshit. It's also anti-semitic as fuck.
If you click the video in the quote he is given a book by the anti-semite
And after listening to his crazy and lengthy anti-semitic conspiracy question... Peterson thanks him for the book and promises to read it... then thinks hard about the question which literally is:
That... he got stumped by that.
Ask him if institutional racism exists and he can tackle that dangerous concept no problem and tell you how dangerous and marxist it is..
But ask him if the media hostility towards Russia is a Murderous Jewish Revenge Conspiracy and... he's stumped.
And after listening to his crazy and lengthy anti-semitic conspiracy question... Peterson thanks him for the book and promises to read it... then thinks hard about the question which literally is:
That... he got stumped by that.
Ask him if institutional racism exists and he can tackle that dangerous concept no problem and tell you how dangerous and marxist it is..
But ask him if the media hostility towards Russia is a Murderous Jewish Revenge Conspiracy and... he's stumped.
Last edited:
Why not? He had a ball in his hands - press the damn issue. Instead he allowed Peterson to turn it against him, didn't call back to the original point when Peterson changed his stance to "didn't improve" and allowed to move the conversation onto Hollywood instead.
So I'm saying, get Peterson to prove the "rapid deterioration", explain what he means by that and what's the proof he has. Maybe some interviewer can get to that point in the future, I would love to hear either proof or apology or further exploration - that would be a good discussion to have.
Are there any other instances of Jordan talking about the decline and provides evidence
If makeup is a sexual display and sexual displays are why women are sexually harassed in the workplace, then women who don't wear makeup are sexually harassed for not wearing makeup...which means that makeup and other sexual displays aren't actually the root cause of sexual harassment and makeup-wearing women who don't want attention aren't actually hypocrites.
That problem is that I was able to come to such a conclusion by following Peterson's logic because his logic is stupid.
The more important point is that Jordan keeps making these claims without backing it up. Work relationships? No evidence. He says cultural Marxism but doesn't pin down what it means so we have different and sometimes contradictory interpretations of it.
I have no clue what you're taking about. You're making wild assumptions about causations that are not what was stated and I'm tired with debating the same misunderstandings over and over again.
You need to watch another video where he explains what he means by cultural Marxism in great detail or read the poster who explained it not too long ago or my very limited explanation. It's not a question of interpretation, the man has a clear vision and definitions. If we're stuck on those we can't debate whether they are valid or not.
Yup. The man is a charlatan with a side order of mass market self help drivel.
The man's vision is skewed because he sees boogeymen everywhere. He never puts things into context or through history in order to grasp progress. The idea that men and women's relationships in the workplace have gotten worse because there are more reports of sexual harassment is pretty fucking stupid. I'd get a better idea of these relationships by watching Mad Men.
Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory. Period. I don't care how Peterson pussyfoots around spewing verbal diarrhea in an effort to deflect from this.
Ignoring the bit about rules/not knowing how to behave for now (because I'll address that shortly), I still don't see how this logic at the end tracks. Even if we assume that makeup is a sexual display and somehow "sexualizes" the workplace (which it isn't and doesn't), why would a woman wearing some and then not wanting sexual attention be hypocritical? Even if she does actually want sexual attention from someone at work, it doesn't mean she wants it from everyone at work (or men in general, and so on).
And of course, as others have mentioned, not wearing makeup definitely doesn't stop men from crossing boundaries, etc. The "sexualization of the workplace" through makeup leads logically to what you claim is an overreaction- if wearing makeup sexualizes the workplace, then isn't that saying wearing makeup at the very least contributes to an environment that invites sexual attention? I know Peterson himself is vague and unclear about this in that transcribed bit, but I'm not sure how it's possible to claim it "sexualizes the workplace" without that also being true?
Now, not to bother you beyond the above, but I feel as if you still have not properly addressed the following point of his that it seems you continue to agree with:
Peterson via dusteatingbug said:
Why is it reasonable to think that there has to be an "element of flirtatiousness" (which I think you personally referred to as "sexual tension") in interactions between men and women at work? Of course that's going to be "playing with fire", because it's completely unnecessary and expects that everyone wants that when that's a ridiculous assumption? It also assumes everyone's heterosexual (and one of those two genders besides), but of course even straight men and women reasonably might not want to flirt at work.
Now, I can sorta see where he was going with that bit about flirting and parties and such, in general, even if I completely disagree with his point- I have friends that can be a little flirty with each other despite having SOs, sure. But they're friends, not coworkers, and more importantly everyone involved knows each other's boundaries due to their friendship. Which again is the solution he seems to be missing- if you actually try to learn each other's individual boundaries, respect them, and avoid crossing them (and particularly not to a severe degree), there's your rules. You can't have formal rules for this, because everyone is different.
I mean, he's completely wrong given that even people viewing things through the lense of the oppressed fighting against opressors (which is a rather oversimplified view of the left, given how intersectionality affects this) still actually fight the system itself instead of just "complaining". Meanwhile, as others have mentioned, he also seems to think activism/protesting is worthless and has somehow managed to dismiss the Civil Rights Movement in the process, which is baffling to the degree that I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. I can hardly see how he's pushing a call for action rather than a call for complacency, or else regression.
Now, I would also suggest what's controversial about saying what you've described, beyond just being wrong, is him using a fucking antisemitic conspiracy theory to say it.
I would say it is pretty clear that the problem people have is his assertion that "makeup is a sexual display", hence the "logic" of rest of his argument falls apart.
The implication of hypocrisy also follows the "she was asking for it" line of logic, so even if one concedes that men might perceive makeup as a sexual display directed at them, this is not a good line of reasoning to go down when discussing sexual harassment in the workplace.
It is a question of interpretation because I have seen different interpretations from those who like Jordan. Even with these interpretations that I have read, it is still not clear and what he actually means. Cultural Marxism is the appropriation of Marxist ideals in use of identity politics by the oppressed to the oppressors? That's fucking dumb. Oppressed groups have existed for millennia, well before Marx. It's a common phenomena. Why not call it social justice? Why give it a negative connotation? Shoildnoppressed groups not strive for equality?
Do you have a link to the other video?
Honestly, this guy is fucking mental. The fact that he's taken seriously by anyone boggles my mind
Let me break it down for you.
You said this:
-Makeup is a sexual display
-Women who wear makeup and don't want attention are hypocrites
I said that, by that logic:
-Men who tell women to wear makeup are telling women to display themselves sexually, which would be sexual harassment (to this you agreed)
Peterson blames women wearing makeup for sexual harassment in the workplace. However:
-If men telling women to wear makeup is sexual harassment, and they say that to women who don't wear makeup, then makeup does not factor in those situations as being the cause of sexual harassment
But if Peterson were right
-Any work environment that in any way pressures women into wearing makeup would be encouraging sexual harassment - considering how many of them do, that would mean the blame is on the business for encouraging such an environment
I was just taking Peterson's logic further than he did. If you think I was making wild assumptions, blame Peterson for giving me such a weak foundation to work with.
You're tired because you're continually trying to justify flawed, sexist logic despite supposedly disagreeing with it. Trying to argue both sides must be hard.
You know, even in Lausanne, they have official resources for women who have experienced sexual harassment at work. One of these sites has a list of common myths about sexual harassment and whether women invite such behavior:
In other words, advancing an argument that suggests that women's dress or attitude is in part responsible for their being harassed is not only victim blaming, but also completely ignores reality. In Switzerland, at any rate, there is evidence that women who dress less provocatively are still more harassed than their colleagues.
There's really no way to support Peterson on this issue when looking at the established guidelines on sexual harassment.
I can't stop laughing at this.
Look at this genius! What intellect!
The problem with this line of thought is that it goes with the assumption that oppressed peoples are all just sitting around being lazy victims, that they aren't struggling and working hard to overcome their oppression and make things better for their own lives and others. Furthermore, stuff like 'take matters into your own hands' or 'do the best you can' are really just vague sentiments that don't compel one to action any more than the notion of complaining about things. Change and action doesn't take place simply through people intangibly 'doing their best' or whatever. It's systematic, organized coalitions of people who are all dissatisfied with the way things are, and this can be through activism or through people merely expressing their dissatisfaction in large enough numbers where their voices are heard, so to speak.
It's basically a bigoted stance - the idea that people who complain about the oppression they face are just lazy victims.
Dear God, one last time: there's no causation that make up leads to harassment. Peterson agreed to a vague "more likely", at no point he blames women wearing makeup for sexual harassment. You make an incorrect assumption after I stated that there's no established causal link and nobody in the video argues there is one multiple times throughout the thread.
You cannot reverse the presumed causal link with counterexample where none exists. Please, stop, I don't have energy for this.
Also I do not myself state that women wearing makeup are more probable to get harassed in real workplace situation. There are dozens of factors, in my opinion this argument only has value if discussed as a raw biological phenomenon of sexual display over which we luckily (or not) have layers of other societal cultural and other norms that may overshadow the raw impact of the act.
IlI have no problem with the statements that women with makeup do look sexier and do invite more raw sexuality into the workplace at a basic instinct level. But that's not a bad or unacceptable thing at all, we're all sexual beings after all.
Ah, so he's a "Presuppositional apologist"
Add it to the pile of garbage ideas this guy excretes and loves
Did Peterson say that women who wear makeup and don't want sexual harassment in the work place are hypocritical?
Well he's an atheist - so it's not really clear what he's trying to say here. The dude is insane and has an incoherent worldview.
Right, but when you hear him talk about the Bible and Christianity, it's pretty clear it's all just myths and metaphors to him. He doesn't believe any of it actually happened.
He's not an atheist. He's said multiple times he believes in God. Jump to 4:45 of this video.
Last edited:
Did he actually come out and say he's an atheist? He has talked about how Christianity was a bulwark against the tragic life before and that without it, we have Marxism or whatever. I don't remember the exact quote.
I haven't listened to the rest of this yet but he says he's Christian
Then why would he clearly state that god necessitates epistemology? Why else would he state what most atheists consider to be nonsense?
Somewhat hypocritical - yes he did.
If you don't understand the gradations and you are still stuck on makeup I'm sorry for you but I'm done discussing this non-issue.
In what sense is he not an atheist? He doesn't literally believe God exists, he thinks the Bible is a book of made-up stories where people write to confront some universal psychological problems (or whatever) and that the idea of God stems from those same roots. It's not clear what he's trying to say in that tweet (it never really is clear with him ever). But the dude has a very postmodern take on what "truth" is: he could very well be saying you can't prove anything because God does not exist (since proof is impossible without God and he seems to think God is a myth).
I meant Peterson not the poster, sorry if it was poorly worded
- Status