I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence by pointing out how idiotic these claims are under the assumption that’s it’s completely obvious. I post them to highlight the recourse to oppressive conservative values in regard to gender relations and sexual assault. Perhaps though he’s just muttering to himself (given he’s been accused of sexual harassment three times).
Do you think that changing a law dissolves societal values, especially in a democratic system? Did decriminalisation of homosexuality mean that sexual minorities no longer experienced disadvantage or prejudice?
Exactly my point Changing laws do not really help in bringing equity. They actually never did.
Nor silencing / censoring traditionalist peeps like JP.
Words are more powerful than laws these days, and action / participation is much more powerful and educational than mere law silencing opinions.
On that, we’re on the same front, and I firmly stand against what JP is believing in [when it’s about sex, genders, traditional values, so forth] cuz’ I don’t hold them, I can’t defend a man that doesn’t hold my values, nor can I banish him into the void. In a lot of sense, JP is like me nowadays - a ideologist. He’s on the conservative side, I’m on the progressive. Some pirates still hold to some traditional values [like I do, when I talked about those traditional cloths], but that doesn’t stop them from supporting a more inclusive and progressive society, because in the end it’s about true Freedom
And yes, you can be dual. You can support traditional values for yourself, and in the same time uphold progressive ideas for others. But you must understand that JP is on the same side with us on that kind of freedom to talk, or at least that`s what he’s saying / supporting nowadays. I can’t be sure anymore due to his personal action against universities free-speech.
Nevertheless, this discussion is only conservative values vs progressive values, dunno if it will lead anywhere
A fair point, Stefan, well made. I’m not trying to stop JP from speaking, obviously how could I and i don’t even think such a thing would be desirable. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, or at least damn good one. If some of my posts have intimated otherwise that is probably due to poor wording on my part.
As for the free speech support JP offers to the world…well, i’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of his motivations generally, and his state of mind (which is ironic)…but assuming the best of him, then i would agree that free speech is important in a healthy society and to that end i have no issue with him.
Totally feel you on this one. We can hope he does what he says he tries to do.
I didn’t even blink when I saw him trying to stop universities for adopting a gender-study course. Even though some academic studies are big hoaxes and create havoc, that doesn’t mean all of the courses start with the idea of bringing havoc or destroying worlds.
I mean, that’s the main idea of creating a course - especially a social one - to understand the new social trends, social changes, and adapt, and provide answers, create balance and so forth.
What I feel it needs to happen is a major change in the educational system to counter stupid studies.
But imho, gender studies courses can have all the benefit and answers we need to adapt future generations in understanding social constructs, and social freedoms of choosing.
Later edit: And I really feel that’s the reason [a lot of stupid studies, lack of realistic studies in education systems] why current generations are not really inclusive and safe. We are standing on broken studies and broken education, no real equity, and closed-source knowledge.
Extreme capitalism has plagued even the public education systems, and that’s the main reason we still have discrimination nowadays… because all of the knowledge & quality knowledge - that should be free in the education systems - is trapped under Patents & unbearable prices.
“It isn’t a theory, it’s actually data driven by tens of thousands of surveys.”
Peterson seems a tad confused as to what makes something a scientific theory lol.
The conclusions one comes to from looking at data is the definition of a theory. Anything else is either a hypothesis or an ideology.
Of course people sometimes come to the wrong conclusions, read patterns into data that aren’t there, miss patterns that are there, misinterpret the patterns, etc.
Here’s Peterson talking about those accusations. All found to be baseless.
It’s also clear that the standard now is that no man in any position of authority can ever afford to take the risk of being alone with a female student or fellow worker, particularly if they have views unpopular with SJW’s. This is standard advice straight out of HR departments now.
Consider what that means for men and women working together. It dictates a permanent rift, and probably more to the detriment of women than men.
Also, try to not insult our intelligence by confusing a twitter conversation with actual claims or oppression.
It’s a conversation or speculation even, not at a political level, but at a psycho-social level.
It’s part of a larger conversation that goes something like this:
The “socially sanctioned construct” obviously being marriage, used to work out in simpler times, when life was hard and men&women paired up, typically living in crowded larger family groups, to start a family together. Marriage made it clear who was committed to who, in the eyes of the local community, who actually had to physically interact with each other, and depended on each other to get by.
Sure, that didn’t always work out well, and sometimes there was abuse, but everyone being all up in everyone else’s business and women ruling the home, tended to sort that out. Then we got a middle class, and people lived in atomic family units, and all the usual social constraints fell by the way, what with all the privacy and such, and the concepts of religion and marriage declined.
There is no going back.
Around then we also got the pill and far more independent women. Great. Good stuff. Freedom rules, but how are sexual relations supposed to work if any scorned, embarrassed (or even mentally ill) women can just draw on the full force of our legal institutions or kangaroo courts in universities to destroy a mans life (the reverse just gets laughed at) with zero repercussions even if they are actually proven to have lied, or even worse, deliberately use this as a legal strategy in separation procedures (sadly, divorce lawyers now routinely advise taking out protection orders, just as strategy regardless of actual events) ?
Are you even capable of having that conversation @PLB ?
What I expect from you in response to this, is that you will fly off into a tangent about how awful sexual assault is, and maybe how unlikely false accusations are or accuse me of being an MRA. It’s utterly predictable, utterly besides the point, and exactly the problem Peterson talks about in the video above. The conversation about how men and women can live and work well together is impossible to have in the presence of SJW politically correct BS.
Meanwhile, we’re screwing up our children:
Don’t confuse the map with the territory.
Just talking through ideas doesn’t make them real.
It used to be how we figured things out together.
We used to be able to do hypothetical’s.
Now that gets you lynched in the court of public opinion.
He was responding to the casual claim of it being “just a theory”. Actually it’s been replicated by numerous groups of scientists in large scale cross cultural studies, who were trying to disprove it (as they should)
I’ve seen similar outcomes in Australian education department studies on how to promote women in STEM fields. The most equal countries were Pakistan and Iran with really close to 50:50, while countries with the greatest individual freedoms, like Sweden have more like 92:8. Australia is only a little above that despite decades of incentives and campaigns, and during the same period that women grew to dominate in fields like medicine, psychology, law, veterinary etc.
Andrew, nobody said his views are “just a theory”. The woman in the discussion merely points out the fact the Peterson and she lean towards different theories when they look at scientific data, to explain why a pattern occurs. Nobody in the video voiced claimed or insinuated that his views are not based on the data. I think in this instance he was coming off as a bit defensive for no apparent reason.
It’s an interesting debate between the evolutionary and the socialisation type theories about gendered behaviour. I personally suspect there is some merit in both and that peoples life choices are influenced by a combination of both. Also don’t forget the strong influence parents and family are, being the primary role models. My hypothesis is that not just media role models and representation, but also parental role models might be able to partially explain why “the personality differences in Skandinavia have increased rather than decrease, and the proportion of women who are choosing STEM fields has decreased rather than increased”.
His point actually is that the influence IS from both, but that when you reduce the social pressure by freeing up decisions and saying you can be whatever you want, that then the remaining evolutionary or biological preferences come to dominate. In related evaluation, a preference for people vs. things shows up as the largest measured women vs. men personality difference, with a whole standard deviation of difference across the population (cross culturally), giving a causative basis for the career choice effect, including the reverse trend in professions like nursing and psychology that are shifting towards being nearly all women in the most egalitarian of countries.
The real interesting question to me is, why this seems to bother some people so much. Like, why does it matter if men and women actually have different preferences? Like, so what? Why shouldn’t they?
Perversely, ignoring this understanding has largely prevented educational organizations from actually making progress in changing those trends despite decades of encouragement and incentives. Acknowledging this cause would have opened them up to ideas such as hybrid professions like nursing technologists and more socially oriented software engineering.
There are actually some small signs of this getting through. My daughter is studying a Cyber Security and Behavior degree mixing software and psychology, while my son is studying Nursing and Business Administration. Both seem like excellent choices given their individual personalities.
Wouldn’t matter to me. What matters to me is that traditionally female professions such as kindergarten, childcare, primary teaching, nursing, cleaning etc and of course home-making are considered less worthy (by society in general, not just by men). This is reflected in, or perhaps caused by their low pay. This is the wage gap that bothers me. Kindergarten teachers should be paid as much as University Professors! It’s the hardest kind of teaching job there is!
It would be terrible to ‘destroy’ (lose his job) a mans life for this.
Most of those were perpetrated by men.
Your concerns are reasonable Andrew, i understand that the scenario you describe above is potentially a problem and i’m not ignoring it or suggesting it’s not real but in comparison to the number of women being murdered and other acts of violence and sexual assault committed against them by men, can you not see how being worried about the ramifications for a man of a false accusation of sexual harassment is just a tad…weird?
How about we both stop trying to guess what we’re going to say?
Peterson is saying he was thinking out loud in that Vice interview, it was just ideas, right? Ok, fine. But it was a formal interview. Doesn’t that seem to be an odd forum for tossing around ideas to you? But if you want to put it down to thinking out loud, ok, lets allow him that.
Personally, i don’t see the issue as being as much of a problem as is made out. We are renegotiating our gender relations. The rules are pretty simple in the workplace. Don’t be a dick. Don’t sexually harass women. How about that for a starting point?
I’ll happily not quote his twitter feed if you think it inappropriate. Could i request however, that you , in return, not post YouTube videos to make his point? I know the one above is only 15min long (thank you for that) but i just don’t think, generally speaking, it’s an efficient way to continue the discussion. I’m sure you can find transcripts of his more important lectures and shows. Agreed?
Not at all weird.
I don’t want to consider it as a competition to see who’s group has suffered the most. That’s useless. It doesn’t solve anything. We have to focus on how we connect and have the conversation how that’s supposed to work harmoniously. The alternative, is that those groups you don’t like such as MRA’s, the red pill crowd, incels, mgtows etc will just keep growing, and then things will get really messed up. You seem to think they are a cause of problems. I think they are a symptom.