Feminism / Misandry / History / Sexual Harassment
bamccaig

Stumbled across this interesting video that allegedly shows an uncut version of a Jordan Peterson interview where he touches on some ideas I've tried covering here in the past.

video

I find it so baffling that people are so ideological with regards to feminism. You can't even have a conversation with them. A goddamn respected doctor of psychology and university professor is questioned by the media when he makes a very careful statement about sex!

And it's not just the media. You do it too. Why? Why are you unable to recognize that women wearing make-up, skirts, and high-heels at work is sexual in nature. That they then receive sexual advances in return is not then surprising, is it? Who is being harassed? A well-intentioned man responding to an outward display of sexuality in the workplace and being vilified for it? Or the woman provoking a sexual response in the workplace and crying victim when she gets it?

Another interesting Jordan Peterson clip that was new to me, but again covers and refutes the twisted narrative of history that feminists and SJWs preach:

video

These topics are very important to discuss. Don't avoid them just because they're controversial. Those are the ideas that most need to be discussed.

Matthew Leverton

If a man or woman dresses inappropriately at work then they deserve to be reprimanded. End of story. Not going to go into the details of what that is or isn't with bambam. And I'm not going to watch the videos because bambam is crazy.

And here's this simple rule: don't hit on people at work regardless of what they are or aren't doing. Despite what your little brain is telling you.

bamccaig

Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto (as well as a practising clinician). You're not watching me. You're watching a very intelligent, well-researched, well-read academic.

Men hit on women. Women attract men. Therefore, the equivalent of men asking women out at work is women being sexually attractive at work (by design), as opposed to trying to look like every other person in the office regardless of gender.

The point that Jordan made is that we don't yet know the rules. We're brand new to having women working alongside men, and so far it hasn't been going very well. That's all that we really know for sure.

We don't know what is fair. That we aren't even allowed to discuss it is alarming. It should be scientists and psychologists telling us what behaviour is harassment and what is not. It should outrage everyone that science is being hindered by universities according to several reputable professors.

And if you want the future to have any hope of being a good one you should be fighting for knowledge and truth to win the day. Scientists are fucking around with viruses in a laboratory all over this planet. Do you want them to be guided by facts and truths or do you want them to be guided by feelings? :P

Append:

P.S., I am crazy. >:( All weekend I have been crippled again with clinical depression and recurring suicidal ideation. Unfortunately for you it's not the kind of crazy that makes me an unreliable source of ideas.

Chris Katko
bamccaig said:

clinical depression

Do you go to a therapist? Is it in regard to some situation of your life, or lack of progress toward goals/expectations for your life?

And here's this simple rule: don't hit on people at work regardless of what they are or aren't doing.

The super-strange fact of life is, people are attracted to people near them. :o

Matthew Leverton

people are attracted to people near them

Until they are in a relationship and then they are repelled by those same people. >:(

bamccaig

And here's this simple rule: don't hit on people at work regardless of what they are or aren't doing.

That's extremely limiting. How many people meet their significant others at work? I did. With a strict rule like that we never could have met. It's far more complicated than that. Of course, some people can get around it by never interacting with women at work. Many people don't have that option though.

That's not at all fair to men though (and it's not good for women either). In trying to protect women, as usual, we've blown way past what is fair and reasonable and gone straight to blaming men for everything before even attempting to understand what happened.

The only way to truly protect women is to understand and fix the root of the problem. All of the emotional responses we have are misguided and do more harm than good to women as well as men.

Anybody that thinks this is simple doesn't understand the problem. :)

Wrapped in a spoiler tag because it's diverging from the OP. :)

Do you go to a therapist? Is it in regard to some situation of your life, or lack of progress toward goals/expectations for your life?

No, I do not. It is not easy to access mental health services... I pretty much need referrals from my general practitioner, and I guess I haven't really hit a bar that he thinks qualifies... Ultimately that's what I want, but first I have to convince an overwhelmed health care system that it should take its time with me.

And mental health is not exactly a science yet so there isn't going to be a consistent set of services available globally... We can't even bring enough medical doctors this far North to service everybody so I imagine the shortage of psychiatrists and psychologists is that much worse. I'm not even convinced that full mental health assessment and treatment is even available where I am. I somewhat doubt we have amazing psychologists in my small city. :P

I am also acquaintances with a couple of people that work in the mental health ward of the hospital. They don't have anything good to say about it. The system is completely broken.

My GP keeps wanting to connect me with a "counsellor" at additions services. Which I was perfectly happy to do originally, but they have proven ineffective at communicating with me. And this is my problem with generic "counsellors". They don't possibly have the education and experience necessary to even communicate with somebody like me effectively.

The call literally stalled with "How do you want me to help you?" That's difficult to answer considering you aren't who I wanted help from. I did my best to explain my situation hoping she'd have the professional knowledge to understand how to help me or redirect me to somebody that could, but she just repeated the question. Then suggested I think about it for our next call. The next call went exactly like that. After about 3 or 4 calls chatting about how to even help me, with no help from her, we agreed to close my file. The doctor wants me to return to them again, apparently forgetting that we tried it before and they failed to help me. So I'm stuck in these useless loops.

Also, I don't think that mental health services are generally covered by public healthcare. So I'd have to pay out of pocket for it, and I can't afford it. Where I come from we can't just continue to borrow money we'll never be able to afford to pay back. We actually need a plan to pay it back right away. ???

LennyLen
bamccaig said:

It's far more complicated than that.

Yes, it is.

A lot of couples meet in the workplace and do so successfully. On the other hand though, a lot of sexual harassment suits arise because one person completely misread the other person, so unless you're really good at reading signals from other people, it's safer to avoid workplace relationships.

Quote:

Of course, some people can get around it by never interacting with women at work.

That's like avoiding sunburn by never leaving the house. Yes, it will work, but it's an extreme method, and there are plenty of better ways.

Quote:

The only way to truly protect women is to understand and fix the root of the problem

It's not about protecting women. They're quite capable of protecting themself. It's about treating people (all people) with respect in an appropriate way.

Quote:

Also, I don't think that mental health services are generally covered by public healthcare. So I'd have to pay out of pocket for it, and I can't afford it

Look to see if there are specific clinics that deal with specific areas - anxiety, depression, etc.

It never initially occurred to see my GP about mental health issues, so I paid to privately see a psychiatrist. One of the things he initially diagnosed me with was anxiety disorder, and he also worked at the Anxiety Disorder's Unit of the local health board, and so referred me there and continued to treat me there for free, not just for the anxiety, but also for depression, OCD and Autism.

He worked with me two or three times a month for about 18 months and I definitely wouldn't have been able to continue to see him privately for that long as it was too expensive, and if I had gone to my GP first, waiting for a referral to see a DHB psychiatrist would probably have taken too long (my mental health declined very rapidly, and that was with treatment).

Matthew Leverton
bamccaig said:

That's extremely limiting. How many people meet their significant others at work? I did. With a strict rule like that we never could have met.

You don't have to hit on people during work hours at the work office to know if they like you. Organize a team after-hours social event and gradually see what's there. Yes, I can hear you preemptively complaining that you can still be accused in that setting. Sure, anything is possible, but at least you have acted appropriately. That's all you can control.

And of course, don't chase after someone who isn't your peer. It's never appropriate to begin a relationship with somebody who reports to you (or you report to). Doesn't matter if it's consensual.

bamccaig
LennyLen said:

A lot of couples meet in the workplace and do so successfully. On the other hand though, a lot of sexual harassment suits arise because one person completely misread the other person, so unless you're really good at reading signals from other people, it's safer to avoid workplace relationships.

I had no idea how bad I was at reading signals from others until I realized I was autistic. :) Which was like this year. 33 years of well-intended ignorance before that.

LennyLen said:

It's not about protecting women. They're quite capable of protecting themself. It's about treating people (all people) with respect in an appropriate way.

The funny thing is that in the 70's women fought for the freedom to come and go as they pleased instead of having curfews to keep them safe at night on campus. Women literally fought for the right to risk being raped on campus by having the freedom to be responsible for their own safety.

Fast-forward 50 years and rape is allegedly out of control on college campuses, women are calling for "safe spaces" where they can be sheltered from reality, and seemingly nothing they try does any good! The evidence would seem to indicate that women cannot take care of themselves. At least, in general. ::) Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of women that can and do take care of themselves, but I certainly don't think it's something that can be relied upon.

If you give most women some sensible advice to address the alleged problem of rape on campus, like don't go out alone, don't go home with strangers, don't invite boys into your room if you don't intend to have sex with them, etc., they'll tell you that it's not their responsibility to keep themselves safe. In their mind they just shouldn't be raped and so there's no reason to take any precautions because precautions shouldn't be necessary.

So what is their brilliant solution to end rape on campus? Well of course we need to tell boys not to rape. Why didn't I think of that? When you tell them that you can't stop every man from raping they lose their shit. They cannot comprehend it. They refuse to take any responsibility for their own safety, and they're outraged at the suggestion that they should participate in their own safety.

And the feminists from the 70's that fought for the freedom to risk rape are dumbfounded at why women today are all acting like children.

But no, no, I'm sure it's fine. Nevermind that college professors are pointing out that things are wrong. Let's just keep going this way. I'm sure it'll be fine, just like the climate.

Matthew Leverton

If the precaution is don't be a woman, never leave the house, or wrap yourself in an unflattering Trump flag if you do go out, then the precaution is bogus.

And yes, there are smart things to do. If there are precautions you can take to avoid being assaulted without it lowering your quality of life, then do them. However ultimately, nobody deserves to be assaulted or should bear any blame if they do, regardless of what precautions were or weren't taken. It unequivocally is always 100% the assaulting person's fault. *

The reason why women often get mad when precautions are talked about is because it's coming from men who are actually trying to shift the blame. There are good and healthy ways to discuss self-defense, situational awareness, etc. that don't put blame on the victims.

(* I'm not talking about situations where the accuser purposefully and intentionally is trying to get the accused in trouble. I feel confident that is not the norm, but is still reason why all accusations need to be proven in court.)

bamccaig

If the precaution is don't be a woman, never leave the house, or wrap yourself in an unflattering Trump flag if you do go out, then the precaution is bogus.

The precaution is use fucking common sense. Men are assaulted far more often than women are. They just complain about it a lot less often. Do you know what men do to protect themselves if there are risks around? Of course you do. I'm sure you do them too, unless you've never felt danger ever in your life. We anticipate the unexpected. We avoid the unknown. We plan our actions and try to be aware of what's going on around us. If men have to do all of that why shouldn't women?

The idea that you shouldn't need to take any precautions because in a perfect world you wouldn't need to is ridiculous. This isn't a perfect world. I am just one of billions that requires mental health assessment and treatment and I cannot even access it even when asking the system for it. There are countless wild animals out there of both sexes walking on two legs that thrive on harming other people. The world is not safe, and we're a very long ways away from making it safe. Expecting women to play a role in their safety is not bogus.

There is no way for us as a society to prevent 100% of rapes. What women argue is needed is teaching boys not to rape. They somehow think we aren't already doing that. Which is extremely frustrating for men. Inevitably constructive people trying to address the problem arrive at the same conclusion: since we don't know who the rapists are, and can't predict who is a threat and who isn't, the only way to prevent rape is for potential victims to avoid being vulnerable enough to be raped. Which means we need to teach women to avoid dangers.

It appears to me that rape basically ruins every person's life. Surely it's worth taking ANY AND ALL precautions to avoid it then, even if it means restricting your own freedom in life to stay safe.

That might not be fair, but life most assuredly is not fair. It beats repeating themselves over and over and expecting a different result. Talk about crazy.

However ultimately, nobody deserves to be assaulted or should bear any blame if they do, regardless of what precautions were or weren't taken. It unequivocally is always 100% the assaulting person's fault. *

Kumbaya. That was beautiful. It's bullshit because men are assaulted on a daily basis and we readily blame them and expect them to take care of themselves. Especially if they're poor.

Hell, if a man being abused by his wife calls the police the police are more likely to arrest HIM than her.

https://malepsychology.org.uk/2019/06/15/its-easier-to-blame-men-than-to-see-men-as-victims/

Men need to be seen as human to solve any of these problems. You can keep with your ignorant shutting down of male voices and propping up of female voices, but the problems will continue to get worse because we're not even asking the right questions, let alone testing the right hypotheses.

The reason why women often get mad when precautions are talked about is because it's coming from men who are actually trying to shift the blame. There are good and healthy ways to discuss self-defense, situational awareness, etc. that don't put blame on the victims.

video

What's actually happening is that we're rapidly changing society with technology without understanding its implications, and things are inevitably going wrong as an unanticipated consequence of the technology. And we're not talking about it. We're not even allowed to talk about it. Instead we're waiting until somebody does something that somebody doesn't like and we're mobbing them. And it's working out very poorly.

Matthew Leverton

Essentially I disagree with your basic premise that women collectively don't think it's smart to take precautions, and so the anger you build up on that false premise isn't really worth arguing about.

Also, different groups of women can even hold contradictory views on a subject without themselves being internally consistent. There is no human hive mind.

bamccaig

Also, different groups of women can even hold contradictory views on a subject without themselves being internally consistent. There is no human hive mind.

You're absolutely correct. Feminism doesn't even speak for the majority of women, even though it talks over all of them.

Edgar Reynaldo

Brandon, why don't you just admit you're a chauvinist pig already. Males are not being 'opressed' by women's sexuality in the work place. Just learn some fucking respect and be polite and maybe they'll give you a pass for being such a chicken-wuss.

:-*

bamccaig

I'm not chauvinistic. I'm happily married to a modern woman who has all of the freedom in the world. You?

Dr. Peterson is also not chauvinistic. Maybe, just maybe, watch the goddamned videos so you know what I'm actually talking about and if you disagree with what the professor said then feel free to explain your argument. If you're not going to discuss the OP then why are you even posting, either of you?

:-*

piccolo

you humans live backwards it is the females that should be hunting the males. the males should be hunting God. it is what you learn from God that attracts the females because the females can sense God but not locate and understand. this is the males job and the very thing that the female is naturally attracted too

Erin Maus

I've gotten cat called outside my apartment while walking my dog in the afternoon (I live in a gentrified area in the center of a city). I've been catcalled on the way to my old job (a couple blocks from my apartment).

???

Guess I'm asking for it.

Spoiler: Since I'm trans, getting catcalled inherently could easily turn violent if for some reason they find out I am AMAB. ::)

bamccaig
Erin Maus said:

Guess I'm asking for it.

Do you know what I think is really shitty? Women (and I guess some trans people) are under the impression that they can send whatever sex signals they want to whoever they want on the street or in the workplace and be left alone. That's not how that works. If you call everybody up on the telephone somebody is bound to answer. Don't send out the message that you're sexually receptive if you don't want for the people around you to receive it. Seems simple to me.

I don't know where women got it in their head that they have the right to do and say anything and men can't respond to it. It's absolutely ridiculous, and it's sexist to suppress men's lived experiences. If men are catcalling women on the street don't you think perhaps the women are making the men excited? Don't you think that would be extremely uncomfortable for an involuntary celibate to be at work trying to do a job to earn a living and have attractive women out of his league walking by all day flashing their business?

Instead of fighting with men, as usual, why not try actually communicating with them? Find common ground. See if you can't get through to them by listening to some of their gripes about women!

Girls and women do have some control over whether they get catcalled or not. They just don't particularly like exercising it because it limits their freedom to be as distracting as possible for men. :P

Of course, Feminism has really shot itself in the foot. If you tell men that women are just as strong as men, just as capable, etc., which was the Feminist doctrine I was taught when I was in school, then you better expect men to treat women like they can take care of themselves (just like everybody, women included, treats men). There once was a time that everybody understood that women are weak and vulnerable, and we as a society did lots to protect them. They were encouraged to wear subdued clothing most days so as not to attract unwanted attention.

Then women rose up, insisting they were not children and could take care of themselves. And here we are. The point being that it isn't just women's discomfort that matters. Men's feelings should be respected as well. There is currently none of that. Which I think is another reason why men would catcall even knowing that it was upsetting because why not? Men get shit it on all day every day by everybody and nobody cares. I imagine some take the opportunity to throw it back.

At the end of the day we're still apes. Don't forget that.

If scientists were to reason that catcalling is an unprovoked, abusive form of communication then I would 100% stand behind the idea that it's abusive and wrong and should not be tolerated. That isn't what happened though. The science is not being done of these issues. It's not allowed to be. The powers that be don't want certain questions being answered with the truth. And that's very problematic.

We need to be steered by knowledge and wisdom, not feeling and emotion. When men and women interact there are always at least two lived experiences to consider, not just one.

Note: I am autistic. I generally do not catcall outwardly. Though I do regularly think it internally, and have probably on rare occasion even attempted to express it out loud (whether a soft beep on the horn or saying "daaaamn" out loud, which from me is more of a whisper anyway). I don't think women would be overly intimidated by me doing it (I'm only 145 lbs, most women probably weigh more than me). I can understand how women might be intimidated by a big, ugly, 300 lb man doing it though. However, if it's only problematic when big, scary men do it then I think we need to again question whether the problem is the man's behaviour or that women are just weak and vulnerable in society, and they're projecting their fears onto others.

In other words, I have no real strong feelings about catcalling. I probably haven't done anything that qualifies in a decade. That said, if ever I do catcall it is 100% provoked. I'm not going around just harassing random women. She would have had to tease it out of me. And I would maintain that if she's allowed to dress that way and distract me then I should be allowed to call out to her to express how sexy she looks. And if she doesn't want that then she can always not dress sexily on the street or in the office. Seems simple enough.

It turns out you don't have to dress sexily all the time. In fact, it may be best reserved for your bedroom or perhaps a nightclub (if your intention is to attract a sexual partner). :) If you just want to go and dance and have fun I recommend wearing baggy rags. The men will probably leave you completely alone.

Erin Maus

I was wearing a conservative maxi dress near my apartment and going to work I was wearing jeans, a blazer, and a dress shirt.

Matthew Leverton

How dare you wear that. >:(

bamccaig

Without being able to see what you looked like I think it's unreasonable to expect me to judge it over the Internet. :P I am assuming that you provoked the response, but for all I know the guy just got out of prison. :P

My question for you would be are you offended that they're catcalling at all, or are you just scared they'll discover you're AMAB? If there was zero chance of a hate crime would you still be upset by it?

Part of communicating is making the other person understand you. Far too often women just accuse men of bad things and don't even attempt to communicate. Which CANNOT be taken for granted. I'm autistic. I don't even know how NT men feel, let alone how NT women feel. And it's very difficult for me to judge from appearances how somebody is feeling.

For example, we recently got some really shitty news that my wife's friend's infant daughter was diagnosed with a rare disease and isn't expected to live past 3 or so. I can understand that the news is tragic. However, I am not really capable of "feeling" it. My wife helped to spread the word by calling several people, and each time she would break into tears as they picked up the phone.

To my autistic brain it appeared that she was faking crying for sympathy because she would very quickly transition between seemingly fine, and then all of a sudden cry again when she picked up the phone, and then again after another sentence or so she'd be fine again. It took conscious effort trying to not upset her for me to wrap my head around the fact that she was so sensitive that she kept breaking down at the thought of it. Something that I am not capable of doing, and something that I do not predict in others.

I think that women far too often expect men to be able to relate to their experiences, not understanding that it's completely foreign to them. Perhaps we can't understand because we're different, and instead of talking each other's language we're speaking our own and getting nowhere. :) Which is all the more reason for more science and less feelings. Feelings just get hurt here, but science can progress.

Append:

I also think that Feminism does a great disservice to women by teaching false narratives that men may then try to understand women through, which if the original narrative is incorrect is going to guarantee that any understanding gained through it will also be incorrect. Perhaps women need to lay out all of their assumptions on the table to fully explain how they feel and why to men that cannot understand.

Append:

More on the subject from the professor:

video

Why doesn't somebody actually try engaging in the conversation? :P Watch the video. Acknowledge his expertise. And let me know what you think about it. You don't have to agree with it or like it. Just tell me what you do think. Have an actual conversation instead of just ganging up to try to tell me I'm a bad man. ::)

Polybios
bamccaig said:

That's not how that works. (...) Don't send out the message that you're sexually receptive if you don't want for the people around you to receive it. Seems simple to me.

Yeah, (implicit) human communication, especially about relations and sex, is always unambiguous, crystal-clear and without misunderstanding. ::)

As everyone knows, the one and only way for women to dress is to cover every square inch of skin (and their hair). >:(

bamccaig

My wife just called me. Apparently she just got felt up at work. >:( The dude apparently said she had big boobies.

Oh, it was a 4 year old at the childcare centre she works at. Fucking animal. >:(

Append:

Also catcalling specifically was already addressed by the factual feminist (Christina Hoff Sommers):

video

And more from Peterson:

video

Matthew Leverton

Getting into a debate on whether or not some women like it, what their clothes are or aren't saying is besides the point. The reality is that catcalling someone is always disgusting because you do it with knowledge that there is a good chance that it is unwanted and will cause harm or discomfort. End of story. Doesn't matter what you think or if somehow your view is the correct one.

Rule #1: Respect others.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if you didn't already know that.

And there's a reason why certain topics don't deserve discussion ... because if you give someone an inch then they'll take a mile. Sure, ultimately, there's a more nuanced discussion here. But the pigs take any type of concession to mean that they are free to act like however they would like and shift the blame to their victims.

bamccaig

The problem is by ignoring the videos you're completely missing all of the points. You're not even discussing the topic. You're just repeating false Feminist talking points. Which just go right through me because I know it's all bullshit.

Who are these "pigs"? What will they do if you don't discuss the topic at all? Do you think that these "pigs" are going to listen to calls to stop acting the way they do? What punishment do you think is fitting for catcalling? Should it be criminal? Would it be a monetary fine or jail time?

Matthew Leverton

I'm discussing the topic right now. If you've done a poor job in recapping the videos, then try again. From my value system, everything you say is nonsense. I don't need a feminist or anti-feminist telling me to respect others.

Catcalling would fall under a general civil offense. The victim would be required to take the person to court and sue for damages. We don't need any specific laws against it, although of course there are criminal ramifications for bona fide sexual harassment. The burden of proof would likely be too great for a successful accusation, unless there was repeated stalking-like behavior.

But ultimately, there's simply no point in having a discussion if we don't hold the same axioms. I believe in respecting others. If you don't, then why bother discussing anything with you that builds on that?

How I take "respecting others":

It is not reasonable to assume that upon wearing clothing that meets or exceeds the widely accepted social standards of decency that you should be harassed by simply walking on a public sidewalk. It is not reasonable for a person to have to go out of his or her way to avoid all means of general offense to every possible human. We could never leave the house.

But catcalling is directed at a single individual. Unless you have prior knowledge that such a targeted, direct controversial action is wanted, then you are at fault for willingly causing potentially harm.

Likewise, if a woman were to specifically accept a dinner invitation with you and your wife, and she knew that you are an abnormal person who was unable to maintain any level of sexual restraint, then that woman should go out of her way to dress extra unsexy so as to not offend you in your ill condition.

Or to use other examples, if you invite over an alcoholic or simply somebody who hates alcohol to your house, then hide your alcohol from plain site and don't drink in front of that person. It's just about common decency. There are no feministic underlying principles to that.

Polybios

There should be a rule requiring summaries of videos that are meant as part of an argument to a discussion. >:(

I've now watched the first video and it's been a complete waste of time.

Since bambam did not provide a summary, I'll do it. Peterson's point is (more or less):

  • make-up (e.g. lipstick and rouge) and high heels are sexualized

  • while high heels are considered okay, negligees aren't, but we do not know where exactly the line is

  • we do not know whether e.g. make-up and high heels contribute to sexual harassment in the work place, because

  • we do not know what rules govern interactions between men and women in the workplace (since women have only been there for 40 years or so)

  • he, of course, prefers freedom to wear make-up, but thinks it makes sexual harassment more likely

  • he does not want to get rid of the flirtatiousness between men and women, however, one should note that one is "playing with fire" when flirting at the work-place, because there are no clear common rules for that [he said that many times that's why I repeat it once :P]

  • he identifies as "sexually conservative" (as in: do not have sex on the first date)

  • he feels (US) society is not able to have an adult conversation about sex

  • he thinks "outraged mob activism does not translate very well into intelligent policy"

Like I said, waste of time.

bamccaig

The point of the thread is to watch the videos and discuss them. ::) It's not like each video is an hour long. Most of them are 5 minutes. Trying to summarize them runs the risk of me misrepresenting the ideas, and importantly it becomes me saying it instead of him (I'm just some programmer, whereas he's a respected academic and psychologist). It's better if you watch the video and form your own ideas about what he said. You did a pretty good job of summarizing the subject matter, but you've done a piss poor job of explaining why it's a waste of time to discuss. I agree that I did a poor job of explaining the videos, but that's because I intended for us to actually watch them and discuss them. It's not hard to identify what he's saying that is so remarkable in each one if you're familiar with the political climate.

The professor is Canadian. He's not just talking about the US. It applies to Canada, and most certainly the UK and Germany and most every other Western nation on the planet.

You have a professional psychologist and academic stating that we have no idea how for men and women to work together peacefully, yet here we are trying and failing anyway. Shouldn't that cause alarm that a psychologist and professor of psychology is telling us that we don't have this figured out yet, but lawmakers and corporations are acting like it IS figured out and their actions are targeting mostly men.

There are plenty of people asserting what the rules should be, but it's coming from biased activists instead of the scientific community so it's worthless. Alarmingly though many organizations and companies are starting to adopt controversial polices around this. For example, no hugs at work. That's a perfectly reasonable rule for the creepy IT guy and the secretary, but what about a couple of women hugging? Is that OK? What about two men hugging? What about a gay man hugging a straight man? To suggest that any of this is simple is absurd. It's extremely complicated, and we are nowhere close to figuring it out yet. Women have already taken aim several times at men's behaviour, but it seem science isn't allowed to question women's behaviour in return? Why not?

All Jordan said is that we don't know what the rules should be. Technology has rapidly changed our world, and suddenly the rules for women have changed. And we really don't know what the implications are of it. It needs to be studied and debated, but that isn't allowed right now because it's politically incorrect to question women in 2021. People are getting "cancelled" or having their reputations and lives ruined over this shit. It's not nothing. It's very important to have this right. Getting this wrong is surely going to lead to even bigger problems down the road.

There should be nothing even controversial here. We're talking about doing science versus not doing science. Surely, science is the rational approach, no?

Chris Katko

Remember, when you can't win an argument, make sure you never even watch the video. ::)

When did you all become members of my childhood church? Be careful not to see the bad information that will cause you to sin.

Matthew Leverton

I don't understand your statement. Bambam did watch the video...

LennyLen
bamccaig said:

Shouldn't that cause alarm that a psychologist and professor of psychology is telling us that we don't have this figured out yet

Not necessarily. Sometimes very smart people have very stupid opinions. If a general consensus of psychologists agreed with him, then perhaps there would be cause for alarm.

Erin Maus

I did watch the Vice interview. ::)

Maybe if you worked in a diverse workplace and lived in a diverse environment you'd see how it's full of crap.

This expert is sexually frustrated. He's like Freud, he sees sex in everything. To him, everyone should be as unattractive as possible because wHeRe dO yOu dRaW tHe lInE. He doesn't understand the difference physical aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction. Pathetic.

For example, I wore make-up as a 'cisgender male pressenting person'. How does that fit in to his whole, "make up is SEXUAL" thing? Oh right, it doesn't. Hint: women wear make up to cover acne and blemishes because they're embarrassing! Not to be sexually attractive. Why do you think male actors wear make up? To look sexy? ::)

Polybios
bamccaig said:

and importantly it becomes me saying it instead of him

Not if you make clear that you provide a summary. There is even "indirect speech" as a language means to make clear it's not your own statement.

Quote:

but you've done a piss poor job of explaining why it's a waste of time to discuss.

Not to discuss but to watch. Watching it took me about 40x longer than reading my own summary does. And there were lots of repetitions. Terribly inefficient. Besides, his statements appeared not that revolutionary to me.

Quote:

Shouldn't that cause alarm that a psychologist and professor of psychology

Not at all. Professors do all kinds of weird things. Psychologists even more so. Psychology as a science has had serious replication problems and is mostly based on examining ... psychology students. So its claim to be a "science" is ... problematic. But he does not even hint at empirical research. So for this case, I don't see why his views should carry more weight than some average better-educated John Doe stating his opinion.

Erin Maus said:

Hint: women wear make up to cover acne and blemishes because they're embarrassing! Not to be sexually attractive. Why do you think male actors wear make up? To look sexy?

I guess there's more than reason why you could wear (different kinds of) make up. He mentions lipstick, rouge, and high heels. I do not think any of this typically covers acne or blemishes. But, yes, often it may be due to the reasons you mention.

Quote:

He doesn't understand the difference physical attraction and sexual attraction. Pathetic.

Neither do I and the first few Google results were not that enlightening either, would you care to explain? :)

Erin Maus

The nuance is physical attraction is present without inherent sexual attraction. It might be easier to understand in the sense of a heterosexual woman seeinganother woman as beautiful - there's no sexual attraction there, just the acknowledge of aesthetic qualities the other woman possesses. It's less obvious among heterosexual men between men for social reasons.

I don't feel sexual attraction, for example.

Maybe searching for it in context with asexual might be easier. I call it physical attraction but the correct term might be aesthetic attraction, not entirely sure.

Polybios

Thanks! Yes, I found "aesthetic attraction" and wondered whether this was what you meant. Ok, got it now.

bamccaig
Erin Maus said:

Maybe if you worked in a diverse workplace and lived in a diverse environment you'd see how it's full of crap.

I would think that somebody whose experiences are often dismissed would be more careful to acknowledge other people's experiences, even if they don't agree with them. :) But I guess if you don't think that's appropriate then so be it.

Erin Maus said:

This expert is sexually frustrated.

A long-term married man, with a full family, and a great education and career (and now thanks to his YouTube fame, extreme wealth) is sexually frustrated? ??? Are any cis-gendered men not sexually frustrated according to SJWs? This man is not only married long-term, but has the money to land most woman on the planet now. I don't think he's sexually frustrated[1], or if he is what does that say about the rest of us?

What he is is a conservative thinker. And I don't agree with everything he believes. I cherry-pick good ideas from everywhere, and dismiss bad ideas. He's also religious, which I find baffling (much as I do with ML). But just because some of his ideas might be bad doesn't mean that most of his ideas aren't worth thinking about. All of us have good ideas and bad ideas.

Not to mention he's a goddamned respected psychologist. He's probably qualified to read you or I, but I doubt the reverse is true.

He's also very popular. Meaning a LOT of people have listening to his lectures, and it resonates with them. But his ideas are not politically correct. This is huge because people usually align with political correctness to avoid trouble. That so many people are willing to break from PC culture to listen to Peterson is very important. Even if he were to be wrong, there are a lot of people that believe in him, and so it's worth being familiar with him anyway.

Erin Maus said:

He's like Freud, he sees sex in everything. To him, everyone should be as unattractive as possible because wHeRe dO yOu dRaW tHe lInE.

He doesn't generally align with Freud from what I've observed of him. He appears very well read, and appears to have a very strong understanding of all of the different great psychology thinkers that have arisen over the years. If you'd listen to him with an open mind instead you'd see that he's no fool. He's very, very careful about what he thinks and what he says, and he knows exactly what he's saying, and if you think he screwed up it's more likely that you did (but, much like me, he'll readily admit when he's made a mistake too; which is very important).

Erin Maus said:

He doesn't understand the difference physical aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction. Pathetic.

Is this "aesthetic attraction" something recognized by psychologists as a real thing, or is it the invention of social justice warriors to explain away their mental disorders? When I tried Googling it all I could find was LGBTQWTFBBQ+ propaganda for it.

Erin Maus said:

For example, I wore make-up as a 'cisgender male pressenting person'. How does that fit in to his whole, "make up is SEXUAL" thing? Oh right, it doesn't.

Women wear makeup to appear sexually attractive. You wear makeup to model yourself after women. You may not have a sexual motivation, but the women you're modelling do whether they know it or not. Of course, makeup is now universal. Women no longer wear it for special occasions. They wear it every day. Many girls and women won't leave the house without it (which is really harmful to their self esteem, and should NOT be encouraged, IMO).

Erin Maus said:

Hint: women wear make up to cover acne and blemishes because they're embarrassing! Not to be sexually attractive. Why do you think male actors wear make up? To look sexy? ::)

Hint: women wear makeup to make themselves look more sexually attractive (and that's the same reason they use it to cover acne and blemishes, which do NOT look sexually attractive). Makeup is essentially used to cover up the natural flaws of all people, and instead make them all appear consistently youthful, healthy, and therefore sexually attractive.

Why do male actors wear make up? Because TV cameras pick up the glare of the lights off of sweat, and ruin the shot (I suppose it's not even about the camera; because surely stage actors also wear makeup, but it's also probably to control light on the set and/or to get in character and mask the flaws of the actor). All people on TV generally wear make-up to help the camera clearly pick them up, and to make them again look consistently sexually attractive (because sex sells).

Polybios said:

Not to discuss but to watch. Watching it took me about 40x longer than reading my own summary does. And there were lots of repetitions. Terribly inefficient.

You're assuming that I have the same capacity for summarizing a video as you do. If I would have summarized it I would have written a novel, as usual. We are different people with different skillsets. :)

Polybios said:

Besides, his statements appeared not that revolutionary to me.

You think it's not all that revolutionary to suggest that society is entirely wrong about the direction we're going[2]?

Polybios said:

Psychology as a science has had serious replication problems and is mostly based on examining ... psychology students. So its claim to be a "science" is ... problematic.

I 100% agree that it's problematic that the social sciences are not at all scientific. That really, really needs to change. Which means we need for gender studies to be shut down (or at least overhaul it with some cis-gendered males to balance out the lunatic feminist doctrine). ;)

Of course, that doesn't mean that no science is ever done in psychology. It's just really hard to do science with something as complex as the human body or mind. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I have news for you: aesthetic attraction and no hugs at work is also not science though.

Polybios said:

But he does not even hint at empirical research. So for this case, I don't see why his views should carry more weight than some average better-educated John Doe stating his opinion.

Great! Can you link to the better-educated John Doe's opinion please?

Erin Maus said:

The nuance is physical attraction is present without inherent sexual attraction. It might be easier to understand in the sense of a heterosexual woman seeinganother woman as beautiful - there's no sexual attraction there, just the acknowledge of aesthetic qualities the other woman possesses. It's less obvious among heterosexual men between men for social reasons.

That is not attraction. That is merely acknowledging the aesthetic qualities of something. The way that a straight woman looks at other beautiful women is completely different than the way that straight men look at women. Which should be obvious: straight women look at other women as the competition. For women makeup, hair, clothes is largely about keeping up with the women around them so that they have at least an equal chance of mating or acquiring social power.

Which I guess you might not be able to understand if you haven't been a straight male yourself (much as women do not understand men). I'm just speculating of course.

I can recognize that other men are sexually attractive without myself being sexually attracted to them. It's still sexual attraction regardless of my orientation (and I likewise see the other men as my competition).

References

  1. I am sexually frustrated, but I don't think that helps you any. I'm not a single, incel anymore struggling to understand women. I understand women better today than 10 years ago, but I also acknowledge that there are things I still am unable to understand about them (whether due to autism or simply being male). I'm married to a wonderful woman though. I have a wife who loves me and I love her more. My frustration is due to a disorder that my wife has. Completely unrelated to feminism. ::)
  2. I was trying to think of the right word for here, and forgot before I posted...still not sure what I was looking for so this will have to do.
Matthew Leverton

There's definitely a difference between dressing for confidence and dressing for sexy time reasons... And to say that all people who wear makeup are doing it for sexual attraction implicitly or explicitly is simply wrong. It's not even an interesting academic thought exercise.

You just keep coming back to treating humans as instinctual beasts who are incapable of higher thought. I wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. Our ability to think and reason can trump our primitive instincts or sexual desires.

bamccaig

There's definitely a difference between dressing for confidence and dressing for sexy time reasons... And to say that all people who wear makeup are doing it for sexual attraction implicitly or explicitly is simply wrong. It's not even an interesting academic thought exercise.

It's NOT that every person wearing makeup is doing it for sexual purposes. It's that regardless of WHY you're wearing makeup or "dressing up" (as women like to call it when they get dolled up) you're sending sexual signals to everyone around you. The reason being that makeup is used in part to cover imperfections in the skin, but additionally to add colours: red lips, blush. These are the natural responses that women's face's have while they're sexually receptive, which is a signal for males to make their move basically. Makeup allows women to always look like that, and so they do, because to our brains (which evolved to identify attractive mates) tell us that it's beautiful. Enlarging the eyes eye shadow and other eye makeup is to appear more youthful, which is also sexualized whether women realize it or not.

Most women are applying makeup for their own comfort to fit in a society where almost all women wear makeup and it's a lot easier to fit in if you do. It's not at all intended to be sexual for most of them. That said, it is still sending sexual signals to men around them that they're sexually receptive. At the end of the day we're still animals, even if relatively intelligent (which can very greatly, with men at the TOP as well as the BOTTOM), not playdough dolls that God made. ::)

And we naturally respond to our environment whether you realize you do or not. You may think that it's an intelligent, conscious move to do so, but there's a lot more natural human behaviour at play than you realize. For example, I'm not stupid, but I lack most normal responses to social interaction. After 34 years of trial and error I can fake them with my intelligence, but it's extremely exhausting to do and it doesn't pass as a normal person for very long, and I can only do it for short periods of time before burning out. Neurotypical people can do this all day long and enjoy doing it. The reason being that their brains developed to understand these things implicitly. It's like NT people have a program in their brain to process human interactions and understand them, whereas that program was never copied into my brain. Instead of just getting these answers delivered to my intelligence to be assessed I have to first expend a ton of energy consciously analyzing the sensory inputs I received to try to make sense of them. And then once I think I understand what is going on then I can further use my intelligence to devise a response. The problem is I'm often wrong or my response is often considered inappropriate by others. But I assure you I'm oblivious.

Take the dumbest man you've ever met in your life. Do you think that this comes naturally to him? No, obviously not, if you're being honest. I've met some really, really stupid people in my life, and I'm sure you have too.

Wearing makeup is sending sexual signals whether women intend to or not. The question is, when men respond to those signals are the men in the wrong for responding or are the women wrong for having sent the signals at all?

Peterson (nor I) asserted whether it's right or wrong to do. All that Peterson did is point out that we don't fully understand the implications of it. Yet we're making decisions to punish people for their behaviours as if we did understand it. It shouldn't take a great thinker to realize that hurting people without justification is wrong.

???

You just keep coming back to treating humans as instinctual beasts who are incapable of higher thought. I wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. Our ability to think and reason can trump our primitive instincts or sexual desires.

You're incorrectly judging me from prejudice. I do not believe that humans are just mindless animals. I never did. That said, you cannot dismiss our nature either. We're only able to override it so much. And even then only if we know we need or want to. Which we wouldn't here because we don't understand this. Technology has changed too fast and our brains (which took millions of years to evolve the way that they did) cannot keep up.

Erin Maus

1. Almost everything about human behavior can be reduced (incorrectly) to sexual behaviors.

2. Human nature is a made up concept. There is no such thing as 'human nature'.

Also, something the video misses is how sexual assault is often about power dynamics and not sexual gratification or impulses. You should know more than most men can be victims of sexual assault, and it can be from other cishet men. ::)

Matthew Leverton
bamccaig said:

The reason being that makeup is used in part to cover imperfections in the skin, but additionally to add colours: red lips, blush. These are the natural responses that women's face's have while they're sexually receptive

But why are you fixated on makeup? Maybe I am doing a bad job of interpreting your logic, but it seems to be like:

  • Women put on lipstick

  • Some people find it attractive

  • Blame women for sending mixed signals

  • ???

  • Profit

Most people wear natural looking lipstick because they actually just want to look more presentable (in the same way I don't wear my shirt on backwards) but keeping in a natural way, not because they want to trick you with fake sex signals. If a goth puts on black lipstick and somebody finds that attractive was it still done for sexual purposes? She has actually made herself look less "reproductive," whatever that means. But she has still managed to become more sexually attractive to somebody. Guess what? These aren't signals of "rape me" to people with a goth fetish!

I brush my teeth several times a day. By your apparent logic it's because I want women to jump into bed with me. If I didn't brush my teeth, I would be less sexually attractive. Therefore by brushing my teeth I am sending signals, whether I like it or not, that I want to have sex.

That is a stupid line of thought. You could make everything about sex because ultimately anything we do makes us more sexually attractive to somebody given that there is a fetish for everything and that without sex there is no reproduction and the human race ends.

Your Freudian logic assumes any type of possible reproductive or sexual association is causation. You know what? Sometimes things are just coincidence or as simple as they appear. After you make everything about sex, it becomes meaningless and powerless type of argument for any specific scenario.

bamccaig

{"name":"f87c63fb46e2f65e6df1d0f72bc47162.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/8\/9831135fc7cffa468f7fb22c04f3508c.jpg","w":1982,"h":2477,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/8\/9831135fc7cffa468f7fb22c04f3508c"}f87c63fb46e2f65e6df1d0f72bc47162.jpg

Nope, surely Goth can't be sexualized at all. I'm sure most women when they do goth they go for the unattractive look, eh? ::) Care to cite any examples of unattractive goth makeup on girls/women?

Erin Maus said:

1. Almost everything about human behavior can be reduced (incorrectly) to sexual behaviors.[citation needed]

2. Human nature is a made up concept. There is no such thing as 'human nature'.[citation needed]

{"name":"b8edcfd6dd79720249b61853c178e8dca5-surejan.rhorizontal.w700.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/1\/116cedc656d8401ea2df855d993b5d38.jpg","w":381,"h":254,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/1\/116cedc656d8401ea2df855d993b5d38"}b8edcfd6dd79720249b61853c178e8dca5-surejan.rhorizontal.w700.jpg

Erin Maus said:

Also, something the video misses is how sexual assault is often about power dynamics and not sexual gratification or impulses. You should know more than most men can be victims of sexual assault, and it can be from other cishet men. ::)

The thread is about sexual harassment, not about sexual assault. I'm happy to discuss sexual assault too, but since nobody here appears capable of following the discussion as it is you should start a new thread if you want to discuss something else.

Matthew Leverton
bamccaig said:

Care to cite any examples of unattractive goth makeup on girls/women?

Yes, I find all goth makeup unattractive, including that clown picture you displayed. If it's what she likes and gives her confidence in her appearance, then good for her. Doesn't send me any sex-me signals.

May I remind you that you wrote:

bamccaig said:

to add colours: red lips, blush. These are the natural responses that women's face's have while they're sexually receptive

Makeup sends sexual signals because of that--imitating sexual receptiveness--in your words. So even if a woman literally covers up your imaginary sexual receptive signs with obvious unnatural black makeup, they still are increasing their sexual attractiveness? You cannot seriously have it both ways. But you can because you are sexualizing everything.

It's not the woman's fault if you make up imaginary sexual signals. It's your fault. Educate yourself on what harassment is. If you have a disorder where you cannot treat women with respect at work, then you should talk with HR and find alternative work arrangements, such as working from home.

bamccaig

Yes, I find all goth makeup unattractive, including that clown picture you displayed. If it's what she likes and gives her confidence in her appearance, then good for her. Doesn't send me any sex-me signals.

You not finding it attractive doesn't mean that it isn't still sending sex signals.

May I remind you that you wrote:

May I remind you that I was paraphrasing the professor in the video, which you apparently didn't even watch.

I also said:

bamccaig said:

Enlarging the eyes eye shadow and other eye makeup is to appear more youthful, which is also sexualized whether women realize it or not.

Turns out there are a lot of different signals. Perhaps I didn't even list them all! :o I wouldn't even know them all. In fact, I'd be terrible at identifying what they are. I was again paraphrasing the professor to the best of my ability.

Makeup sends sexual signals because of that--imitating sexual receptiveness--in your words.

Not only that. Makeup also serves to make you appear younger and therefore more sexually attractive. That's why women make their eyes larger. But they have countless tricks for doing this with their entire face.

So even if a woman literally covers up your imaginary sexual receptive signs with obvious unnatural black makeup, they still are increasing their sexual attractiveness?

You're thinking way too simply. This is far more complex than that.

It's not the woman's fault if you make up imaginary sexual signals. It's your fault. Educate yourself on what harassment is.

I didn't make up anything. I paraphrased a goddamned university professor. You didn't bother to watch the videos that we are supposed to be discussing here so it's no surprise you have nothing contsructive to add. Since you joined this thread, admittedly ignoring the OP, the only thing you've done is accuse me of chauvinism. Go fuck yourself. I consider that harassment.

If you have a disorder where you cannot treat women with respect at work, then you should talk with HR and find alternative work arrangements, such as working from home.

I get along just fine with women at work. This thread has NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. This thread is about Dr. Jordan B. Peterson and his statements on sexual signalling in the workplace. Get out of 2011 and join us in 2021.

Matthew Leverton

The "if you" is a conditional statement directed at anybody to whom it applies. I did not say "since you" nor did I imply it.

But I get it. He thinks everything is a sexual signal. I disagree. I think people can infer sexuality from anything that turns them on.

The solution is to not act upon every sexual impulse you have because it's quite frankly impossible to set up a realistic work environment where nobody is sexuality attracted to anybody.

bamccaig

If you have a disorder where you cannot treat women with respect at work, then you should talk with HR and find alternative work arrangements, such as working from home.

It's also worth pointing out that the people who may have these communication deficits are not necessarily aware of them. I certainly had no idea how bad mine were until I realized I likely have ASD. And it didn't occur to anybody in the situation to ask those questions. It was just about finger pointing. Amusingly, the woman that I did have an altercation with at work years ago is close acquaintances/distant friends with my now wife. :D

Less amusingly, shortly after that altercation (it was her last day so this doesn't involve her anymore) I began being harassed by the other developers in the company.

It wasn't until years later that I was told by one of them that the development manager had warned him when he was hired that I was trouble and to avoid me. And so he was a dick to me because the manager basically told him to be. Many years later he came to regret it as he learned the roles were reversed and apologized. We ended up being good in the end. :)

The reason the manager didn't like me was because he had a big ego, and he perceived me as a threat. He eventually admitted to it himself (though more vaguely) and apologized. We're good again.

For people like this, they can't ask HR for other arrangements because they don't know that they need them. In the current climate if they make the wrong mistake they're going to get mobbed, and it will be too late for HR arrangements. And possibly too late for the individual's reputation, and therefore livelihood, and therefore productive participation in society.

I don't think that making a mistake at work is worthy of ruining somebody's life. I reckon everybody should get over it and move on. But that's just me. You might think that getting another job is easy, but let me assure you for somebody like me it is not.

LennyLen

If you have a disorder where you cannot treat women with respect at work

Being an asshat is not a disorder.

Edgar Reynaldo

This is a non-problem for everyone but you bambams. It's called being a grown up.

bamccaig

Ooooooh, that must be why Peterson is now making millions of dollars from YouTube, and why his book sales are in the millions. :P People really care about what he has to say because nobody else is either smart enough or brave enough to say it.

I guarantee every man that has ever been harassed by his employer because of a false harassment claim cares about this. This is a problem for all of the innocent people that are getting "cancelled".

Matthew Leverton

Pandering to get rich from gullible or desperate people? Could that be a thing? ???

bamccaig

Who hurt you, Matthew? ???

Matthew Leverton

There was this one girl in grade school... She didn't give me a valentine. :'(

Thread #618339. Printed from Allegro.cc