Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Feminism / Misandry / History / Sexual Harassment

rss feed Print
 1   2   3 
Feminism / Misandry / History / Sexual Harassment
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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
Member #12,293
October 2010

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
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

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
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

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.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

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
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

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? ::)

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / them / their

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

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
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

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.

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / them / their

Polybios
Member #12,293
October 2010

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

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

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
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

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
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

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. ::)

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.
they / them / their

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

{"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
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

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
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

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
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

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

Being an asshat is not a disorder.

Edgar Reynaldo
Major Reynaldo
May 2007
avatar

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

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
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

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

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Post Reply
 1   2   3 


Go to: