Social Jordan Peterson Savagely Rips Apart New APA Guides on Toxic Mascuilinity

Fronk said:
One of my main gripes with social constructionism is that it often presupposes that because something is "socially constructed" it can then be "deconstructed". All it can point to is cultural and historical variation, but somewhere it also has to reject an objective reality to make it fit. It has to reject so many things it often steers itself into absurdity. Add on top of this the constant redefinition of concepts like class, etnicity, race etc. and you will understand why it's such a mess to decipher. Especially class and it's relation to social stratification and how it fits into relations of power has been abused. Marx would be turning in his grave.

I mean if we are "deconstructing" every definable concept we can find in society, then what are we left with? It won't ever work. You will only end up in the state of endless redefinition of the concepts you use, becuase there will always be "social constructs" to "deconstruct" since "social constructs" are what constitutes human relations. How can we be without it? We have to literally reject reality to make it fit, we don't, and never will operate, like the "deconstructers" want us too.
Click to expand...

The goal is "transhumanism" or something. :confused:
 
Rod1 said:
You mean broken homes.
Click to expand...
It's the same thing in many ways. Anyhow broken homes is the biggest factor in anti social and risky behavior according to Jordan
 
Well, it appears the broken clock is right this time.
 
Here's a thing I can't wrap my head around re: people like TS.

Part of "toxic masculinity" is the willingness and ability to abandon children. That lack of positive masculine influence allows for toxic masculinity to be more prevalent in that child's life. That is because "toxic" masculinity is found in a lack of positive/fruitful masculine archetypes. The very result of being abandoned is often anger, inability to know how to rightly handle difficult issues, and so forth. It is easy to solve problems with gratuitous violence or vitriol when there is no positive male influence to teach you right/wrong times to use it. So on and so forth....

But understanding that the vacuum allows for toxicity does not, in and of itself, negate that toxic masculinity is also taught. For instance, a father is also fails to educate on right/wrong times to use physical aggression. And the very men who would abandon a household are by-in-large the type of men who would impart toxicity to begin with (as proven by their initial action).

So Peterson's foundation is a faulty one. His position appears (in this excerpt) to be that if only men were around more, boys would be less problematic/toxic. The fact that young boys who are not given proper guidance (either via the default due to a vacuum of positive-masculinity, or the reality of negative masculinity) is still the charge against his position. He fails to negate that position.
 
the term 'toxic masculinity' should be barred from rational discourse.

Even criticizing it has a dumbing down effect.
 
Off topic, but Taleb just blocked Peterson.
unknown.png
 
Juventud said:
There's nothing masculine about Jordan Peterson or is there listening to him.

If you need someone like Peterson to tell you how to be a man you're already a lost cause.
Click to expand...

Jordan Peterson is the ultimate self-help guru of this effete generation.
 
Zankou said:
Sure, it's the opposite because it makes sense for them as life goals, relative to some shitty sub-level existence that society insists they are supposed to accept and believe is tolerable. That's exactly why low-status people tend to prefer the higher reproduction, burn fast + high risk approach, even though in the abstract you might expect them to more risk averse given how little they have. They aren't, because they tend to just opt out entirely.

At higher socioeconomic levels, by contrast, people tend to be frantically trying to get one percentage higher relative to others by grinding it out. Hence modern South Korea, Japan, where people basically don't reproduce anymore. Something like 1.15 average per couple.

People who perceive themselves as 'winners' or potential winners in neo-liberal economies are much less likely to rock the boat relative to what society demands. The more personally invested you are in defending and ascending your status, the less likely you are to step out of line, and the more you are likely to "Zucc it up" in the public eye. It's when people give up on that type of unified status competition that they tend to engage in 'problematic' behaviors, which include things like reproducing a ton and (most important!) *skipping out on being stuck with the legal, economic, and social consequences of that reproduction*. People who are still invested in ascending the unified status system can't skip out so easily. It is the singular mission of neoliberal ideology to ensure that every living human being is slaving away as hard as they can to ascend the unified status system, with no 'problematic' beings or opt-outs.

Basically different strategies for different life outlooks. They all make sense from a game theory perspective.

You are right that the APA can't endorse criminal or antisocial behavior, but the flipside is that the APA instead is uncritically promoting and replicating typical neoliberal social control politics (particularly by assimilating all social identities to a neutered and freely interchangeable norm), while pretending that by doing so it is actually taking an apolitical "God handed this down from the heavens, it's empirical science" stance that nobody could reasonably disagree with. Of course that's no different from what it's done in the past, often in deeply reactionary contexts (e.g., treating homosexuality as mental illness). It's just how the APA does things.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I don't think the problematic members of society have really "opted out" of the rat race so much as they've figured out new paths to compete in. When I think of those who have opted out, I think of some counter-cultural, hippy artist types that actively reject the present system of status-seeking and accumulating capital and assets. But the aggressive, violent men with tons of kids and no steady job are very much into accumulating capital and seeking status, they just don't do it through traditional, accepted means.

And yeah, making statements about human behavior is always going to be rightly met with suspicion. And obviously psychology and psychiatry have a long and often spotty history. But at the same time, we have to take make decisions about where we want to go and drawing upon the best research to draw broad conclusions is the best we can do. I don't agree with the postmodern, Foucaultian view of questioning absolutely everything any institution says as this creates inaction and apathy. I think we should proceed with caution but proceed nonetheless.
 
Wet Blanket said:
Peterson couldn't rip a tissue.
Click to expand...

Based on his personal affect I tend to believe that in the same way a lot of these anti-gay zealots are closeted homosexuals burning up with lust for dicks so too is Peterson a rabid male activist suffering from gender dysphoria and a constant, secret desire to put on high heels and a dress.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Based on his personal affect I tend to believe that in the same way a lot of these anti-gay zealots are closeted homosexuals burning up with lust for dicks so too is Peterson a rabid male activist suffering from gender dysphoria and a constant, secret desire to put on high heels and a dress.
Click to expand...

Which is sad if true.... because I'm sure he'd look nice in a slick pantsuit or sundress with some stylish strappy kicks.

Sam Harris... however.... would look terrible.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Based on his personal affect I tend to believe that in the same way a lot of these anti-gay zealots are closeted homosexuals burning up with lust for dicks so too is Peterson a rabid male activist suffering from gender dysphoria and a constant, secret desire to put on high heels and a dress.
Click to expand...

Hah! That would indeed explain a lot.
 
MilesAbove said:
Here's a thing I can't wrap my head around re: people like TS.

Part of "toxic masculinity" is the willingness and ability to abandon children. That lack of positive masculine influence allows for toxic masculinity to be more prevalent in that child's life. That is because "toxic" masculinity is found in a lack of positive/fruitful masculine archetypes. The very result of being abandoned is often anger, inability to know how to rightly handle difficult issues, and so forth. It is easy to solve problems with gratuitous violence or vitriol when there is no positive male influence to teach you right/wrong times to use it. So on and so forth....

But understanding that the vacuum allows for toxicity does not, in and of itself, negate that toxic masculinity is also taught. For instance, a father is also fails to educate on right/wrong times to use physical aggression. And the very men who would abandon a household are by-in-large the type of men who would impart toxicity to begin with (as proven by their initial action).

So Peterson's foundation is a faulty one. His position appears (in this excerpt) to be that if only men were around more, boys would be less problematic/toxic. The fact that young boys who are not given proper guidance (either via the default due to a vacuum of positive-masculinity, or the reality of negative masculinity) is still the charge against his position. He fails to negate that position.
Click to expand...

What you're saying makes sense, but it ignores the fact that effective and needed male socialization and normal male behavior is being attacked as the cause of "toxic masculinity" when all the evidence suggests the opposite. The whole movement is decidedly anti-male.

  • Teaching a boy that he shouldn't let his emotions get in the way of his success is deemed "toxic"
  • Allowing boys to play-fight so they can understand their physical abilities and how to relate to other males physically is deemed "toxic"
  • Teaching a boy to be bold with women and make the first move is deemed "toxic"
  • Teaching a boy that he is, by nature, stronger and bigger than most women and hence has an obligation to help them when they are in danger is deemed "toxic."
None of these are bad, in fact they help a boy achieve and become a great man. They are deemed bad because they are areas where men show advantages over women, and we can't have men being better at anything.

The feminist logic is: Rape is bad, and men are much better at rape, so anything that a mis better at is also bad and related to rape.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Based on his personal affect I tend to believe that in the same way a lot of these anti-gay zealots are closeted homosexuals burning up with lust for dicks so too is Peterson a rabid male activist suffering from gender dysphoria and a constant, secret desire to put on high heels and a dress.
Click to expand...
It's not secret...

 
djacobox372 said:
What you're saying makes sense, but it ignores the fact that effective and needed male socialization and normal male behavior is being attacked as the cause of "toxic masculinity" when all the evidence suggests the opposite. The whole movement is decidedly anti-male.

  • Teaching a boy that he shouldn't let his emotions get in the way of his success is deemed "toxic"
Click to expand...
Not quite. Teaching boys to manage their emotions responsibly is not toxic. Teaching boys to ignore/tamp down their emotions is.

djacobox372 said:
Allowing boys to play-fight so they can understand their physical abilities and how to relate to other males physically is deemed "toxic"
Click to expand...
Teaching boys to play fight is not toxic. Teaching boys to bully others is.

djacobox372 said:
  • Teaching a boy to be bold with women and make the first move is deemed "toxic"
Click to expand...
Teaching boys to approach the women they're interested in is not toxic. Teaching boys to disregard a woman's openly stated lack of interest and force the situation is.

djacobox372 said:
None of these are bad, in fact they help a boy achieve and become a great man. They are deemed bad because they are areas where men show advantages over women, and we can't have men being better at anything.

The feminist logic is: Rape is bad, and men are much better at rape, so anything that a man is better at is also bad and related to rape.
Click to expand...

I can't understand why so many guys pretend that there's no difference and no extremes. At every stage of my life, guys have recognized the guy who was a creep (or even outright danger) to the women we knew. We've all recognized the guy who was belligerent sober and even worse drunk. You didn't invite him out with you because he always started shit.

I could go on but the point should be clear. As guys, we all know the guys who act a certain way that we don't want to be associated with. We spend most of our early lives learning how to avoid those guys, how to keep our female friends safe from them, how to protect our careers from their actions, etc.

Then you hop on the internet and people start acting as if they've never met that particular brand of asshole.
 
ultramanhyata said:
What in God's name was the context for this? I had never seen the photo before. Wow.
Click to expand...
The bloody postmodern neo Marxists did it!

His daughter posted it to her Instagram back in 2013 apparently.

ab4htwg2vzd11.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,238,630
Messages
55,575,825
Members
174,826
Latest member
cehuff

Share this page

Back
Top