The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Renard]

I think what he's trying to explain is that putting on make-up, high heels and lipstick are all actions that are inherently meant to make yourself more sexually attractive to men. It looks to me like most of the grooming women do is actually done unconsciously, they don't really know why they're doing it. If you ask them directly they'll just tell you something generic like to make themselves feel more confident. I think women are engaging in their own status battles, in which they know unconsciously that being more beautiful raises their standing. So I think he's wrong in thinking it's necessarily a sexual action on the part of the woman, it's a status action, but he's right that those things are sexual markers.

With the #metoo thing, the sexual actions of men are put under a microscope, yet there's a double standard where women are not put under the same scrutiny. So I think what Peterson is saying is either you put everyone into "work uniforms" that erase sexuality, or you accept sexuality in the workplace. I think the latter just makes more sense and it's more natural, and that comes along with stopping to demonize men for their sexuality. But again I don't agree that female grooming is a sexual action.

 

[Islam Imamate]

His philosophy is about enhancing the quality of your life regardless of the opportunities you have due your circumstances at birth, abilities and handicapps and whatever gov't is controlling your country. So it clearly goes against anyone with a worldview that says an apocalypse is coming if their candidates of choice don't win elections. It goes against a worldview that says your life isn't where it needs to be cause the 1 % aren't paying enough taxes or paying too much taxes or the military is too large or small or your country's healthcare isn't expansive or free enough. And it goes directly against the strain of right wing viewpoints which insist that if things aren't going your way it's because of immigrants from Latin America or Asia or blacks or GLBTs getting more basic rights - his objections to pronoun use are not rooted in any issue about basic rights - or because America is different now vs the 1950s. Those who are actually understanding the core of a lot of his messages will be way more likely to leave white identity victim politics behind entirely in a sort of real life version of American History X. They're not gonna be protesting about how life would be better if only all the black, brown and yellow people would just leave or disappear from their communities. Social progressives, even if they are incensed by his gender and family viewpoints, should at the very least be appreciative of this. The basic premise is fixing yourself before focusing on what governments or "the rich" - and Westerners who make above minimum wage can certainly count as "the rich" to someone - or communities of a different color/ethnicity are doing. Focus on your own issues before worrying about saving the world as so many delusional narcissists claim they can do.

To use Peterson's own words, his idea is a Darwinian truth; we know from studies on locus of control(i.e. the belief in whether oneself is the author of one's future[internal locus] or outside factors determine one's fate[external locus]), that internal locus of control is correlated with better outcomes. However, the bulk of the literature on outcomes tells us the so called Newtonian truth; that we are not in fact the authors of our future and our outcomes are deeply impacted by factors well outside our control.

I wonder if there is a way to do a WR roll call of sorts and see if there are any genuine liberal members here, Sherdoggers who are liberal/progressive on most fiscal and social issues, at least as it would be defined in America (which is admittedly fundamentally different from other industrialized nations), who are also willing to consider themselves genuine supporters of Dr Peterson's work and his message?

I consider myself a leftist and certainly seem to come off that way to most in the WR and I like Peterson. Personally I think his anti cultural Marxist rants can veer off into kooky territory but I like some of what he's said in defense of traditional family values and I like his Jungian approach to religion.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Here are some excerpts from an article by Slavoj Zizek on Jordan Peterson

The wide popularity of Jordan Peterson, a once-obscure Canadian clinical psychologist and university professor who has become beloved of the alt-right, is a proof that the liberal-conservative “silent majority” finally found its voice. Peterson, who has said that the idea of white privilege is a "Marxist lie" and theorised that "radical feminists" don't speak out about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia because of "their unconscious wish for brutal male domination", is fast becoming a mainstream commentator.

It is easy to discern the cracks in his advocacy of cold facts against “political correctness”: not only is he often relying on unverified theories, but the big problem is the paranoiac construct which he uses to interpret what he sees as facts. "Facts are facts," he likes to say, before going on to say that "the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory" and that to conceive of gender as a social construct is "as bad as claiming the world is flat".

And this is why Peterson’s outbursts have such an effect. His crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous. It is totally blind for the inner antagonisms and inconsistencies of the liberal project itself: the tension between liberals who are ready to condone racist and sexist jokes on account of the freedom of speech and the PC regulators who want to censor them as an obstacle to the freedom and dignity of the victims of such jokes has nothing to do with the authentic left.

Peterson addresses what many of us feel goes wrong in the PC universe of obsessive regulation – the problem with him does not reside in his theories but in the partial truths that sustain them. If the left is not able to address these limitations of its own project, it is fighting a lost battle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...g-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

 

[Andy Capp]

What we are seeing is unnatural and cannot truly be imposed without repression of one gender disproportionately to the other.

What we are seeing as that you are a wingnut.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

I think what he's trying to explain is that putting on make-up, high heels and lipstick are all actions that are inherently meant to make yourself more sexually attractive to men. It looks to me like most of the grooming women do is actually done unconsciously, they don't really know why they're doing it. If you ask them directly they'll just tell you something generic like to make themselves feel more confident. I think women are engaging in their own status battles, in which they know unconsciously that being more beautiful raises their standing. So I think he's wrong in thinking it's necessarily a sexual action on the part of the woman, it's a status action, but he's right that those things are sexual markers.

I think that making themselves more beautiful for confidence and making themselves more sexually attractive to men are both woven together in the pursuit of higher status. Female social hierarchies are largely based upon how attractive to men they are. Just look at how women treat each other lol.

 

[Metusalemi]

Here are some excerpts from an article by Slavoj Zizek on Jordan Peterson




http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...g-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

It's pretty sad to see a guy like Zizek writing such emotional nonsense. "Peterson uses facts against 'political correctness'". WTH? Zizek has a problem with facts now?

I know you don't like Molyneux, but this is pretty funny commentary about the article.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Fascinating conversation between these two.

 

[TheGreatA]

What we are seeing as that you are a wingnut.

What we are seeing is that you're as incapable of contributing anything meaningful to the discussion, as ever.

I'd rather be a "wingnut" than a bore.

 

[tonni]

Actually, the majority of the type of make-up applied by woman is not a sexual marker. Eyeliner, foundation, contouring, eyeshadow are used much more often than lipstick. Not all lipstick is red either, so an enhancement of sexuality is not implied.

Same with blush. It's more to recreate the look of someone that is healthy, like a person that has a natural blush from being well nourished and being outside, for example.

It's a one sided view he is presenting.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Actually, the majority of the type of make-up applied by woman is not a sexual marker. Eyeliner, foundation, contouring, eyeshadow are used much more often than lipstick. Not all lipstick is red either, so an enhancement of sexuality is not implied.

Same with blush. It's more to recreate the look of someone that is healthy, like a person that has a natural blush from being well nourished and being outside, for example.

It's a one sided view he is presenting.

You don't think eyeliner and eyeshadow make women sexually attractive?

 

[tonni]

You don't think eyeliner and eyeshadow make women sexually attractive?

I don't think it's necessarily linked to some evo-psycho concept, no, and I don't think women wear that to be sexually attractive.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I don't think it's necessarily linked to some evo-psycho concept, no, and I don't think women wear that to be sexually attractive.

Wanna know how I know you're a virgin?

 

[tonni]

Wanna know how I know you're a virgin?

No.

 

[Andy Capp]

What we are seeing is that you're as incapable of contributing anything meaningful to the discussion, as ever.

I'd rather be a "wingnut" than a bore.

"All I'm saying is that you probably shouldn't assume too much.... For example, I might not be as serious as you think."

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's pretty sad to see a guy like Zizek writing such emotional nonsense. "Peterson uses facts against 'political correctness'". WTH? Zizek has a problem with facts now?

I know you don't like Molyneux, but this is pretty funny commentary about the article.

"I want you to understand how propaganda poses as philosophy"-Stefan Molyneux

Oh the ironing.

Actually, the majority of the type of make-up applied by woman is not a sexual marker. Eyeliner, foundation, contouring, eyeshadow are used much more often than lipstick. Not all lipstick is red either, so an enhancement of sexuality is not implied.

Same with blush. It's more to recreate the look of someone that is healthy, like a person that has a natural blush from being well nourished and being outside, for example.

It's a one sided view he is presenting.

Yeah could be he's taking too narrow a look and its more to help with interpersonal interactions in general. Women judge and compliment each other constantly so women dress as much for other women as they do men in certain settings.

 

[tonni]

Yeah could be he's taking too narrow a look and its more to help with interpersonal interactions in general. Women judge and compliment each other constantly so women dress as much for other women as they do men in certain settings.

I don't think he's trying to help interpersonal interactions as much as he's trying to take the blame for sexual harassment at the work place away from the men doing the harassment.

 

[IDL]

Yeah could be he's taking too narrow a look and its more to help with interpersonal interactions in general. Women judge and compliment each other constantly so women dress as much for other women as they do men in certain settings.

I'd wager he was using an example to make a broader point in terms of sexual dynamics within the work place (which partly take place at a subconscious level), within the context of discussing expectations at a societal level.

I'd also wager that he is well aware there are different colors of lipstick, and that women consciously where make up for varying reasons.

 

[meauneau]

Actually, the majority of the type of make-up applied by woman is not a sexual marker. Eyeliner, foundation, contouring, eyeshadow are used much more often than lipstick. Not all lipstick is red either, so an enhancement of sexuality is not implied.

Same with blush. It's more to recreate the look of someone that is healthy, like a person that has a natural blush from being well nourished and being outside, for example.

It's a one sided view he is presenting.

Men are generally attracted to healthy, well nourished women.

 

[tonni]

Men are generally attracted to healthy, well nourished women.

Yes, and?

 

[meauneau]

Yes, and?

It is a way to look more attractive to men. Just like wonder bras and such.