Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Interesting interview alright. I doubt much of the commentary would chime with his opening remarks about how some men need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.

I took him to mean that more men need to be assertive in their lives. Taking responsibility for their lives and their choices in life. Being less willing to be walked over by other people... which is actually something I've noticed a lot of 30something men doing.

Is his comment that lots of men go through life without hearing complements true? He based that assertion on the fact that so many men take validation from his lectures. Is that the experience of many posters here?

I can recall many compliments throughout my childhood, but in school, everything was about what I did wrong. There was very little in the way of positive feedback or constructive criticism. We had to learn exactly the way the teachers expected or we were faulty. In my teens and later in my 20s, I don't remember being complimented at all, except from close friends for minor things... and when I started working, any achievement was expected of you rather than a point of excellence to be complimented over.

Fact is, I have a memory of gaining my first management position in Australia, and my superior telling me "well done", "I deserved it" etc.. and I remember getting tears in my eyes (I was 30 at this stage). Compliments were rare, and even to this day, I tend to shy away from them.

I can't speak for other people on this. I do think that the areas of HRM or psychology changed the way things were done prior to twenty years ago. I find (while I was a teacher) that teens/Uni students are given much more encouragement than I saw when I went through it myself.

newport2

Deleted User wrote: »

I can recall many compliments throughout my childhood, but in school, everything was about what I did wrong. There was very little in the way of positive feedback or constructive criticism. We had to learn exactly the way the teachers expected or we were faulty. In my teens and later in my 20s, I don't remember being complimented at all, except from close friends for minor things... and when I started working, any achievement was expected of you rather than a point of excellence to be complimented over.

I posted this before on another thread, but I think this is a big factor and ties in with Peterson's point somewhat

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/educ...hool-1.1591232

"The recent study, at the University of Kent, revealed that boys are falling behind girls because they are constantly being told they are not up to scratch. The research, which involved about 600 children aged four to 10, found that boys felt their teachers and parents did not expect them to do as well as girls, and lost their motivation or confidence as a result.
Tests showed belief in their own academic inferiority could translate into lower school grades among boys. The results, published in the Child Development journal, showed that by the time boys are seven years old they equate girls with higher achievement at school. Girls believe they are higher achievers by the time they have reached the age of four."

“Our research showed that from the age of four, girls thought they were better than boys at school, believing they understood their work better, did better, were more motivated and better behaved. From the age of seven, boys rated themselves collectively as worse than girls."

"“In a follow-up study,” she says, “we showed that when children were reminded of this stereotype and asked to sit a test of reading, writing and maths, boys did worse compared to a control group of similar boys who were not reminded of the stereotype.
“Girls were not affected by being reminded that they were expected to be better than boys; that is, they didn’t get better. In a second follow-up experiment, we told children that girls and boys were expected to do equally well. This made boys do better and didn’t affect girls; that is, they didn’t get worse.”"

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I took him to mean that more men need to be assertive in their lives. Taking responsibility for their lives and their choices in life. Being less willing to be walked over by other people... which is actually something I've noticed a lot of 30something men doing.

Is that in any way specific to men?

I would think it's something to do with baby boomers living longer and accumulating so much power and wealth over the last few decades. Probably through advances in healthcare and prolonged peacetime. 60 used to be old age. Now60 can be part of middle age. Older people set teh political agenda in a way they never could have in the past by virtue of their being alive longer.

In any case, is it anything specific to men or just younger people in general?

Deleted User wrote:

I can recall many compliments throughout my childhood, but in school, everything was about what I did wrong. There was very little in the way of positive feedback or constructive criticism. We had to learn exactly the way the teachers expected or we were faulty. In my teens and later in my 20s, I don't remember being complimented at all, except from close friends for minor things... and when I started working, any achievement was expected of you rather than a point of excellence to be complimented over.

Fact is, I have a memory of gaining my first management position in Australia, and my superior telling me "well done", "I deserved it" etc.. and I remember getting tears in my eyes (I was 30 at this stage). Compliments were rare, and even to this day, I tend to shy away from them.

That's really sad.
What about parents, sports coaches, or any extracurricular stuff in school? Hobbies etc? Is it a true representation of your childhood or is it the way you remember it?

Deleted User wrote:

I can't speak for other people on this. I do think that the areas of HRM or psychology changed the way things were done prior to twenty years ago. I find (while I was a teacher) that teens/Uni students are given much more encouragement than I saw when I went through it myself.

That sounds like a positive change.

When I see portrayals of growing up in olden times (20th century) I dont see a lot of encouragement for children. Where do you see it fitting with medals for participation?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that in any way specific to men?

Did I (or him) suggest that it was? The message was just directed at men.

I would think it's something to do with baby boomers living longer and accumulating so much power and wealth over the last few decades. Probably through advances in healthcare and prolonged peacetime. 60 used to be old age. Now60 can be part of middle age. Older people set teh political agenda in a way they never could have in the past by virtue of their being alive longer.

Whereas I thought it was more about men being assertive and standing up for themselves regarding their rights... Perhaps to stop the progression of feminism in society from harming essential male rights.

That's really sad.
What about parents, sports coaches, or any extracurricular stuff in school? Hobbies etc? Is it a true representation of your childhood or is it the way you remember it?

I was convinced that I was an introvert, so my hobbies were mainly solo activities. Not much involvement with authority figures. I won a number of country level chess competitions, received the awards, but have no memory of much encouragement from others regarding it.

And yes, its a true representation. I've already had the long talks with my family (as an adult) about my childhood to compare facts with false memories.

That sounds like a positive change.
When I see portrayals of growing up in olden times (20th century) I dont see a lot of encouragement for children. Where do you see it fitting with medals for participation?

I have a small cabinet in my house which is full of medals, trophies and such for athletics (cross country running) and chess/strategy competitions. I wouldn't connect those objects with encouragement. TBH I always got the impression that the organizers of the competitions were just going through the motions rather than any genuine interest in the participants unless their own child was somehow involved.

Just my experience.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is his comment that lots of men go through life without hearing complements true? He based that assertion on the fact that so many men take validation from his lectures. Is that the experience of many posters here?

Personally, I didn't feel particularly attached to the "I am a MAN" philosophy and my sense of identity hasn't ever been strongly tied to my race or gender.

I wasn't aware of hearing too many compliments etc growing up but I don't know if that was down to my gender or what it was all about. It's hard to remember something like that.

Different people from different walks of life are going to have a broad range of views there but I have heard a few people talk about an "Empathy Gap" between men and women. This basically asserts that people have more empathy for the plight of women in general than they do for the plight of men in general. Make whatever you will of that.

I would guess that a section of Peterson's audience are young white men who have bought into the idea of "identity" at a time when unfortunately being a "white male" is seen as almost sinful in their social circles.

If they are taking a lot of the anti-white, anti-male rhetoric that is going around recently to heart then you can imagine what it must feel like to them to have a well-spoken and successful man throw them a few words of comfort and encouragement their way. It's almost like a lifeline.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

Did I (or him) suggest that it was? The message was just directed at men.

No. That's why I asked you if it was specific to men or not. I thought that messages should be directed at everyone equally. That was the attitude when discussing encouraging women I to science. As with that discussion, I have no problem with directing messages to specific groups.

Deleted User wrote:

Whereas I thought it was more about men being assertive and standing up for themselves regarding their rights... Perhaps to stop the progression of feminism in society from harming essential male rights.

Lol. Peterson can be all things to all men. Fair play I suppose.

Deleted User wrote:

I was convinced that I was an introvert, so my hobbies were mainly solo activities. Not much involvement with authority figures. I won a number of country level chess competitions, received the awards, but have no memory of much encouragement from others regarding it.

And yes, its a true representation. I've already had the long talks with my family (as an adult) about my childhood to compare facts with false memories.

I have a small cabinet in my house which is full of medals, trophies and such for athletics (cross country running) and chess/strategy competitions. I wouldn't connect those objects with encouragement. TBH I always got the impression that the organizers of the competitions were just going through the motions rather than any genuine interest in the participants unless their own child was somehow involved.

Fair enough. I doubt you can win a cabinet full of medals without being encouraged or congratulated. Fair enough if that's your experience. My experience was full of encouragement and challenges from peers and coaches. The critique in team sports in training and matches is continuous so you're constantly being challenged and encouraged.

So do you think there was more encouragement in the past for young men and women? Was it better or worse in the past?

silverharp

is there a conflation between individual encouragement and societal noise? its clear successful boys have been encouraged either at home or in school, they get the degree, ace the milk rounds and get on the conveyer belt of success. These boys/men are immune to general societal criticism and any harpy teachers they may have come across in school.
Its down the pyramid where issues could arise, one, the negative societal attitudes to men in the media etc. or the fact that there isn't a "go dude ra ra!" the way there is with girls.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No. That's why I asked you if it was specific to men or not. I thought that messages should be directed at everyone equally. That was the attitude when discussing encouraging women I to science. As with that discussion, I have no problem with directing messages to specific groups.

The difference being that the encouragement for women to enter science was financially supported and was under the guise of equality, whereas here we just have an author directing some advice towards men.

Lol. Peterson can be all things to all men. Fair play I suppose.

People look at any philosophy the same way. Just because one person see's Buddha, Karl Jung or others one way doesn't mean everyone does. Or has to.

Fair enough. I doubt you can win a cabinet full of medals without being encouraged or congratulated.

Encouragment without the feeling of being encouraged is worthless.

Fair enough if that's your experience. My experience was full of encouragement and challenges from peers and coaches. The critique in team sports in training and matches is continuous so you're constantly being challenged and encouraged.

Fair enough. Team sports are different to what I experienced. My coaches focused on objectives and when that objective was reached, there was always another one after. And plenty of small failures to set the tone of always trying harder.

It's one of the reasons I avoided sports like the plague when I became an adult.

So do you think there was more encouragement in the past for young men and women? Was it better or worse in the past?

Nope. I suspect expectations held the rule. You met the expectations of those in authority or you failed. There have always been certain popular areas which garnered more attention when you were good at it. And in turn, those people would get more encouragement to succeed, because of the more apparent rewards for all those involved.

I'd expect it to be worse in the past. The changes in knowledge about learning, team building, motivation etc all have had major influences over the way those in authority approach encouragement and expectations. We've gone well past Maslow at this stage.

backspin.

newport2 wrote: »

I posted this before on another thread, but I think this is a big factor and ties in with Peterson's point somewhat

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/educ...hool-1.1591232

"The recent study, at the University of Kent, revealed that boys are falling behind girls because they are constantly being told they are not up to scratch. The research, which involved about 600 children aged four to 10, found that boys felt their teachers and parents did not expect them to do as well as girls, and lost their motivation or confidence as a result.
Tests showed belief in their own academic inferiority could translate into lower school grades among boys. The results, published in the Child Development journal, showed that by the time boys are seven years old they equate girls with higher achievement at school. Girls believe they are higher achievers by the time they have reached the age of four."

“Our research showed that from the age of four, girls thought they were better than boys at school, believing they understood their work better, did better, were more motivated and better behaved. From the age of seven, boys rated themselves collectively as worse than girls."

"“In a follow-up study,” she says, “we showed that when children were reminded of this stereotype and asked to sit a test of reading, writing and maths, boys did worse compared to a control group of similar boys who were not reminded of the stereotype.
“Girls were not affected by being reminded that they were expected to be better than boys; that is, they didn’t get better. In a second follow-up experiment, we told children that girls and boys were expected to do equally well. This made boys do better and didn’t affect girls; that is, they didn’t get worse.”"

That sounds like an interesting study. Pity rte or some of our newspapers wouldn't do a piece on it. Seems these days girls outperforming boys is considered almost desirable.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

The difference being that the encouragement for women to enter science was financially supported and was under the guise of equality, whereas here we just have an author directing some advice towards men.

Ok. That nuance wasn't part of the discussion at the time. We'll assume is not just a post hoc qualification because it aimed at men in this instance.

Deleted User wrote:

People look at any philosophy the same way. Just because one person see's Buddha, Karl Jung or others one way doesn't mean everyone does. Or has to.

True. Given there was so much support for the points Peterson was making, it would be interesting to know if he was making the points people liked, or if everyone likes their own interpretation of what he said.

Deleted User wrote:

Encouragment without the feeling of being encouraged is worthless.

This sounds like a problem with the encouragee more than anything. In what ways would you be encouraged without feeling encouraged?

Deleted User wrote:

Fair enough. Team sports are different to what I experienced. My coaches focused on objectives and when that objective was reached, there was always another one after. And plenty of small failures to set the tone of always trying harder.

It's one of the reasons I avoided sports like the plague when I became an adult.

Do you mean you avoided team sports or the sports you played when you were younger?

I think team sports play a hugely positive role (for boys who want to be part of it). I watched a show about football hooligans the other night. It was typical channel 5 stuff but I couldn't help seeing that the guys were really missing something from their lives and hooliganism met that need. They had a team, a community, shared goal, automatic acceptance within the group despite their differences. The funny part was where they switched from football to nationalistic politics (EDL type groups) because football hooliganism was being too closely monitored by police.

The thing that struck me was they get the same things from hooliganism as i got from team sports. Encouragement from peers and role models included.

I suppose the reason this point about encouragement sticks out to me is because these discussions are usually framed in terms of how things are getting worse for men. So if as you say (and I agree) this is a case of things improving and men are getting more encouragement, and encouragement is important, I would have thought there would be evidence of the improvement

The J Stands for Jay

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The thing that gets me about the whole lack of women in the top jobs is that it assumes that all men are equal. It's like as if, every man has equal chance to reach those dizzying heights of top management. It totally ignores the millions of men who work in those companies who haven't the ambition, drive, education, intelligence or ability to get there. Instead, there must be some underhand reasons why women can't get there..

I feel like reregistering so I can like this twice.

deaddonkey15

newport2 wrote: »

I posted this before on another thread, but I think this is a big factor and ties in with Peterson's point somewhat

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/educ...hool-1.1591232

"The recent study, at the University of Kent, revealed that boys are falling behind girls because they are constantly being told they are not up to scratch. The research, which involved about 600 children aged four to 10, found that boys felt their teachers and parents did not expect them to do as well as girls, and lost their motivation or confidence as a result.
Tests showed belief in their own academic inferiority could translate into lower school grades among boys. The results, published in the Child Development journal, showed that by the time boys are seven years old they equate girls with higher achievement at school. Girls believe they are higher achievers by the time they have reached the age of four."

“Our research showed that from the age of four, girls thought they were better than boys at school, believing they understood their work better, did better, were more motivated and better behaved. From the age of seven, boys rated themselves collectively as worse than girls."

"“In a follow-up study,” she says, “we showed that when children were reminded of this stereotype and asked to sit a test of reading, writing and maths, boys did worse compared to a control group of similar boys who were not reminded of the stereotype.
“Girls were not affected by being reminded that they were expected to be better than boys; that is, they didn’t get better. In a second follow-up experiment, we told children that girls and boys were expected to do equally well. This made boys do better and didn’t affect girls; that is, they didn’t get worse.”"

I found this part quite interesting. I certainly had the impression back in primary school that girls were naturally smarter and better at school. Always seemed to have tidier desks and neater handwriting too. In contrast I considered the boys in my class (and myself to an extent) to be academically inferior. Whether that impression was subconsciously coming from teachers, parents, older children or whether it was because that's the way my class actually was, I'm not too sure. It only became apparent to me as I got older that boys (myself included) do have the capacity to match and surpass girls academically.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. That nuance wasn't part of the discussion at the time. We'll assume is not just a post hoc qualification because it aimed at men in this instance.

I don't see it that way. You raised the comparison with the Female science awards.

True. Given there was so much support for the points Peterson was making, it would be interesting to know if he was making the points people liked, or if everyone likes their own interpretation of what he said.

TBH I don't think it matters. He proposes ideas from the research he has done in these areas. His fans probably like him because he can refer to statistical evidence to support what he says. Probably. I don't know since I'm not a fan. I've just watched the one video and I liked what I heard.

This sounds like a problem with the encouragee more than anything. In what ways would you be encouraged without feeling encouraged?

Err... Nah. Going off track with this.

Do you mean you avoided team sports or the sports you played when you were younger?

I was bullied relentlessly in School and invariably the people who bullied me were part of those team sports. No interest in placing myself in their scopes.

I suppose the reason this point about encouragement sticks out to me is because these discussions are usually framed in terms of how things are getting worse for men. So if as you say (and I agree) this is a case of things improving and men are getting more encouragement, and encouragement is important, I would have thought there would be evidence of the improvement

In terms of men, business theory has encouraged the belief in treating employees better, and encouragement is definitely a large part of that, to help the retention of staff.

For boys, though, I would imagine that the environment has become much worse considering the focus on improving female grades, and the promotion of "fixing" the negative characteristics of being male while at school.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

I don't see it that way. You raised the comparison with the Female science awards.

Read it again. I'm assuming it's not a post hoc qualification.

Deleted User wrote:

TBH I don't think it matters. He proposes ideas from the research he has done in these areas. His fans probably like him because he can refer to statistical evidence to support what he says. Probably. I don't know since I'm not a fan. I've just watched the one video and I liked what I heard.

You don't think if it matters whether or not people are 'agreeing' with Peterson even if they don't actually know what he's saying? Surely it does matter. If you can use any interpretation of Peterson, then you could use him today anything.

Deleted User wrote:

Err... Nah. Going off track with this.

Naturally you don't have to say anything. I think it's fair to say that if you were encouraged but didn't feel encouraged , then that's a 'you problem'. It might not be fair to say you were never encouraged. It's your experience. I find it hard to believe there are men who are never really encouraged throughout their lives.

Deleted User wrote:

I was bullied relentlessly in School and invariably the people who bullied me were part of those team sports. No interest in placing myself in their scopes.

Ok. It would be weird if you joined a school sports team again. Presumably the grown men down your adult local sports clubs would be welcoming, but that's a separate issue.

I can't really say I identify with that experience so I can't really comment

Deleted User wrote:

For boys, though, I would imagine that the environment has become much worse considering the focus on improving female grades, and the promotion of "fixing" the negative characteristics of being male while at school.

In what way are they trying to fix the negative characteristics of being male in school? How could they do things better for boys in school? And who is 'they'?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Naturally you don't have to say anything. I think it's fair to say that if you were encouraged but didn't feel encouraged , then that's a 'you problem'. It might not be fair to say you were never encouraged. It's your experience. I find it hard to believe there are men who are never really encouraged throughout their lives.

You know it's funny. When it comes to responding to your posts, I always feel a serious hesitation about doing so. Gotta listen to that inner voice more.

/sigh. It's just so difficult to have a discussion with you. You win.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote:

You know it's funny. When it comes to responding to your posts, I always feel a serious hesitation about doing so. Gotta listen to that inner voice more.

/sigh. It's just so difficult to have a discussion with you. You win.

Oh for God sake. You agree that there are men who aren't encouraged throughout their lives. Then you say you are one of them because you were encouraged but you didn't FEEL encouraged. I wonder if it's my fault for not making you FEEL terribly clever by just agreeing and back slapping, even when you contradictions yourself within 2 posts.

Another man would use the word 'snowflake' or is it 'church of victimhood'? Respond to what you want it's a bloody waste of time and a shame when the men's movement is such a feeble response to the real challenges that face men. Especially considering how many men feel traditional masculinity is under threat but aren't within an assessment roar of the traditional masculinity they seem to feel the need to defend.

I asked you some simple and real questions. You're not obliged to answer anything but don't for a second think I ended the dialogue. Maybe I should have just chimed in and said how Peterson is wonderful and everything he said is inspired - even if I didn't know what he was saying. That might have encouraged those in need.

Standman

No

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

I found this part quite interesting. I certainly had the impression back in primary school that girls were naturally smarter and better at school. Always seemed to have tidier desks and neater handwriting too. In contrast I considered the boys in my class (and myself to an extent) to be academically inferior. Whether that impression was subconsciously coming from teachers, parents, older children or whether it was because that's the way my class actually was, I'm not too sure. It only became apparent to me as I got older that boys (myself included) do have the capacity to match and surpass girls academically.

Never consciously had that impression when I was in primary school, but thinking back now it's obvious that it was true. Girls were more enthusiastic about schoolwork, more prone to be "teacher's pets", and took pride in neatness as you pointed out.

Having said that, I remember hearing "boys are better than girls" being said amongst my group of friends (all boys) once or twice, and that was the general sentiment. Being good at schoolwork didn't come into the equation. While there were some enjoyable elements, class was basically something you had to sit through until you could go outside and play. We were more concerned with who was good at football, who was funny, etc.

silverharp

I went to an all boys school until inter cert so it wasn't a thing, I either felt I was competing against everyone in the class or everyone in the Leaving Cert, but being a boy had no bearing on what I thought about school

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Personally, I didn't feel particularly attached to the "I am a MAN" philosophy and my sense of identity hasn't ever been strongly tied to my race or gender.

If you don't get your sense of identity from things that are objectively true about yourself, then where do you get your sense of identity?

Saruhashi wrote:

Different people from different walks of life are going to have a broad range of views there but I have heard a few people talk about an "Empathy Gap" between men and women. This basically asserts that people have more empathy for the plight of women in general than they do for the plight of men in general. Make whatever you will of that.

One reason I can see for an 'empathy gap' is illustrated by the recent sexual harassment issues. Where mostly women used #metoo to highlight instances where they were uncomfortable and made clear that they didn't want to be treated like that again, the thread in this forum was stocked with men who said they were touched up by women while working as bar staff - but they didn't see anything wrong with it so they didn't want anything to change. If you were to empathise with both mesaages, one would is more likely to result in change. One message encourages activity, the other doesn't.

Saruhashi wrote:

I would guess that a section of Peterson's audience are young white men who have bought into the idea of "identity" at a time when unfortunately being a "white male" is seen as almost sinful in their social circles.

I can't really understand this idea that whiteness and maleness are seen as almost sinful. I don't know whether it happens around me and it doesn't effect me or if it's just not happening in my social circle.

Saruhashi wrote:

If they are taking a lot of the anti-white, anti-male rhetoric that is going around recently to heart then you can imagine what it must feel like to them to have a well-spoken and successful man throw them a few words of comfort and encouragement their way. It's almost like a lifeline.

What exactly are we talking about here? Is here an analogous situation to illustrate the point?
Are there Man United fans who take criticism of Man Utd to heart too?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

is there a conflation between individual encouragement and societal noise? its clear successful boys have been encouraged either at home or in school, they get the degree, ace the milk rounds and get on the conveyer belt of success. These boys/men are immune to general societal criticism and any harpy teachers they may have come across in school. Its down the pyramid where issues could arise, one, the negative societal attitudes to men in the media etc. or the fact that there isn't a "go dude ra ra!" the way there is with girls.

For the successful boys, where does the encouragement come from? Is it possible that some people are simply more likely to deflect complements and absorb criticism?

It's clear that down people can be encouraged without feeling encouraged so what needs tonne spent for those people?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

For the successful boys, where does the encouragement come from? Is it possible that some people are simply more likely to deflect complements and absorb criticism?

It's clear that down people can be encouraged without feeling encouraged so what needs tonne spent for those people?

nature/nurture, some have to fight their home or school environment or both possibly so in some cases maybe they don't depend on 3rd party personal encouragement, they just have a natural go get 'em attitude.
There is a class expectations issue here, grow up in a middle class area and conversations generally revolve around the assumption that you will do something useful after school and the parents will generally support it. Its why people strive to live in nice areas and send their kids to good schools so the that the peer group is a positive influence or not a negative influence on their kids.

we are back to society could at least control the media or political messages that it sends out. Its clear boys as a group aren't encouraged publicly but girls are. This needs to stop.

Pawwed Rig

silverharp wrote: »

more for information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Just got around to watching this last night. Jaysus she fairly heckled him throughout and read her own meanings into everything he said.
Half the time she would ask a question and actually not allow him to answer.

silverharp

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Just got around to watching this last night. Jaysus she fairly heckled him throughout and read her own meanings into everything he said.
Half the time she would ask a question and actually not allow him to answer.

she got a lot of heat after. It goes to show jurnos are so ideologically driven these days that they cant actually do a good job.

hots

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Just got around to watching this last night. Jaysus she fairly heckled him throughout and read her own meanings into everything he said.
Half the time she would ask a question and actually not allow him to answer.

I thought he handled her very well, not a huge fan of everything he says but he handled that reasonably and with a smile on his face.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you don't get your sense of identity from things that are objectively true about yourself, then where do you get your sense of identity?

I don't know. What I do know is that when someone talks about "Men" being in charge of FTSE 100 companies they aren't talking about me.

Even if they are talking about "Men" who could BECOME the CEOs of FTSE 100 companies I know that they STILL aren't talking about me.

What use is that identity when declaring it tells you nothing about me?
"I am a man". OK. So what?

I don't know where I get it from. I know I don't really identify with billionaires or world leaders so there's a bit of a weirdness for me then someone says "women only make up 7% of top CEOs, is that fair". Maybe? I make up 0% of CEOs... is that fair?

One reason I can see for an 'empathy gap' is illustrated by the recent sexual harassment issues. Where mostly women used #metoo to highlight instances where they were uncomfortable and made clear that they didn't want to be treated like that again, the thread in this forum was stocked with men who said they were touched up by women while working as bar staff - but they didn't see anything wrong with it so they didn't want anything to change. If you were to empathise with both mesaages, one would is more likely to result in change. One message encourages activity, the other doesn't.

Sure. Like I said, some people say there is an "empathy gap" and you can make whatever you will of that.

If some people think that society doesn't care about them so much because of their gender then it follows that they will appreciate someone like Dr Peterson who seems to care deeply about their problems.

I can't really understand this idea that whiteness and maleness are seen as almost sinful. I don't know whether it happens around me and it doesn't effect me or if it's just not happening in my social circle.

It's not happening in my social circle either but does that mean is isn't happening? A very quick and easy Google search suggests that it is happening to some extent. I am certainly familiar with terms like "toxic masculinity" and I am familiar with criticisms of "Whiteness" despite never having actively sought these out.

In articles I have read these terms are blurred to the extent that criticisms of toxic masculinity and criticisms of Whiteness certainly come across as criticisms of men and/or white people. Oftentimes these criticisms are so ridiculously unfair that they border on bullying.

If one identifies as strongly, as Intersectional Feminists seem to do, with their race or gender then this kind of bullying can have a profoundly negative impact.

For example: "It's Impossible for Women to be Sexist Towards Men" http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

That's straight up bullying on the basis of gender, in my view. Men can be accused of Sexism, a label with very negative connotations, but women simply cannot even be sexist at all, ever.

Again, if this message goes mainstream (from an Irish perspective I think the Irish Examiner would be kind of mainstream and the writer is certainly a mainstream author in Ireland) then I understand. Not only would young men would be crying out for someone like Dr Peterson to offer a different view but they also need someone who could thoroughly destroy morons like Louise O'Neill in public debate.

Despite her idiot views, she has the platform and she gets to have it unchallenged. Is that fair?

What exactly are we talking about here? Is here an analogous situation to illustrate the point?
Are there Man United fans who take criticism of Man Utd to heart too?

Sure, I'd imagine there are Man Utd fans who would take criticism of Man Utd to heart. I bet they'd take harsh or unfair criticism to heart.

I would even bet that if mainstream culture had a trend towards unfair criticism of Man Utd fans and they were given no right of reply then they'd be overjoyed to have someone come in and publicly dismantle their detractors.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

nature/nurture, some have to fight their home or school environment or both possibly so in some cases maybe they don't depend on 3rd party personal encouragement, they just have a natural go get 'em attitude. There is a class expectations issue here, grow up in a middle class area and conversations generally revolve around the assumption that you will do something useful after school and the parents will generally support it. Its why people strive to live in nice areas and send their kids to good schools so the that the peer group is a positive influence or not a negative influence on their kids.

I completely agree with the class angle and the expectations placed on people through their environment - social learning theory. I think you see it when you're out and about too. The way people speak to their children is markedly different by class. I lived in a deprived a real in the north east of England for a couple of years as a student and it was shocking to hear people speak (or shout in most cases). I actually heard a child ask a question and his dad gave him a sarcastic and we're and told him to 'shut up you daft cnut'. The habit of shouting down the street at each other was alien to me too. And I was woken at the same time each morning as the man next door shouted at his kids to get up and get ready for school.

Is there also a gender issue at play?

silverharp wrote:

we are back to society could at least control the media or political messages that it sends out. Its clear boys as a group aren't encouraged publicly but girls are. This needs to stop.

A few questions:
How should the media or political messages be controlled?
In what ways is it clear that boys went encouraged?
How should boys be encouraged publicly?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I completely agree with the class angle and the expectations placed on people through their environment - social learning theory. I think you see it when you're out and about too. The way people speak to their children is markedly different by class. I lived in a deprived a real in the north east of England for a couple of years as a student and it was shocking to hear people speak (or shout in most cases). I actually heard a child ask a question and his dad gave him a sarcastic and we're and told him to 'shut up you daft cnut'. The habit of shouting down the street at each other was alien to me too. And I was woken at the same time each morning as the man next door shouted at his kids to get up and get ready for school.

Is there also a gender issue at play?

Sounds like something you would come across in Dublin but by definition you only hear the loud ones. I'd imagine there is a significant group that aren't negative but just don't have the social capital to be positive or they are positive but cant actually help.

I didn't get the gender question? in relation to how the kids are treated by or the gender of the parents?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A few questions:
How should the media or political messages be controlled?
In what ways is it clear that boys went encouraged?
How should boys be encouraged publicly?

I didn't say controlled, just that it should change , no sane parent favours one gender over another so they have skin in the game when society is sending out messages to their kids, but as things stand the message is controlled by relatively small groups of people. That's why people like JP are part of the story in raising questions about the current consensus to start a conversation.

edit
for your other points, encourage boys to be career minded, if there is money/time spent "to get girls into Stem" then put the same money into encouraging boys. Its probably a mystery to many boys as well and maybe intimidated

As for encouraged publicly who knows, the ditching of supremicist feminism would be a good start

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

I didn't say controlled, just that it should change , no sane parent favours one gender over another so they have skin in the game when society is sending out messages to their kids, but as things stand the message is controlled by relatively small groups of people. That's why people like JP are part of the story in raising questions about the current consensus to start a conversation.

I think a big difference is that parents see their children as individuals but the groups sending out the messages just see the kids as "boy" or "girl".

It's apparent in the Channel Four interview that Peterson is trying to think of how certain ideas can affect people at an individual level but the interviewer is only focused on "Women" and "Men".

When she looks at fixing "Men's Problems" she has to ask the question "well what's in it for Women". This ignores the fact that she personally probably doesn't want a useless man as a partner.

So she probably wants a confident and competent and successful partner BUT she doesn't see that her partners success would probably come at the expense of other people, some of whom would be women. If he is going for jobs and promotions and being the successful candidate then surely women are missing out if any of the unsuccessful candidates are women.

From a group perspective demanding equality between "Men" and "Women" makes obvious sense. Even controlling the outcomes so that "Men" and "Women" have equal levels success can make sense if you ignore the fact that people are individuals.

I still wonder WHY people can't see how wrong this is when it is finally pointed out to them.

Let's say I am going for a promotion in work that comes with a significant pay rise. However I am in competition with 3 other women for the promotion. Let's also say that there are already 4 people at the tier I will be promoted to but all of them are men.

From a group perspective it's an easy answer give one of the "Women" the job because we already have enough "Men".

On an individual level though that simply doesn't work.

My partner, a woman, might be encouraging me to go for that promotion. If I get it we can have a nicer vacation this year, buy a nice car next year and move to a nicer house in 5 years. We could also invest more in our childs future.

Upon finding out the other candidates are Women, should my partner insist that I stand down because it's time to give Women a chance? It makes no sense that she would do that. It's not in her interests as an individual woman to do that. Yes it is a benefit to women "on average" but realistically only the individual woman who wins the promotion feels the tangible effects.

On a fundamental level, I feel that Feminism is actually asking individual men and women to sacrifice "for the greater good".

Eventually "yes but your son is a boy so he can't have this opportunity" will be met with a backlash and it seems like JP is teaching people exactly how to argue back against collectivist viewpoints.

silverharp

fully agree, this is why this neo marxism is a crock, it breaks down at the individual level and a devotee has to have 2 contradictory positions in their head at the same time.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

I don't know. What I do know is that when someone talks about "Men" being in charge of FTSE 100 companies they aren't talking about me.

Even if they are talking about "Men" who could BECOME the CEOs of FTSE 100 companies I know that they STILL aren't talking about me.

I don't know where I get it from. I know I don't really identify with billionaires or world leaders so there's a bit of a weirdness for me then someone says "women only make up 7% of top CEOs, is that fair". Maybe? I make up 0% of CEOs... is that fair?

So do you take criticism of make rapists personally? Men make up a greater percentage of rapists and you make up zero percent of rapists. So do you take discussion of male rapists, personally?

Is it possible that you're identifying with the negative and dismiss the positive?

Saruhashi wrote:

What use is that identity when declaring it tells you nothing about me? "I am a man". OK. So what?

If you were to describe your identity, would your be set be in the top 5 things?

Saruhashi wrote:

Sure. Like I said, some people say there is an "empathy gap" and you can make whatever you will of that.

I'm seeing that a lot. It exists and it disadvantages men, but when it comes to identifying what it is, it can be whatever you want it to be.

Saruhashi wrote:

If some people think that society doesn't care about them so much because of their gender then it follows that they will appreciate someone like Dr Peterson who seems to care deeply about their problems.

It's not happening in my social circle either but does that mean is isn't happening? A very quick and easy Google search suggests that it is happening to some extent. I am certainly familiar with terms like "toxic masculinity" and I am familiar with criticisms of "Whiteness" despite never having actively sought these out.

As we both agree it doesn't happen in our social circle, why are we able to either socialise within circles that don't condemn toxic masculinity or whiteness? I'd propose that it's out there in the ether but we simply don't feel injured by it. Confirmation bias is enough to make sure you register it but probably don't register similar representations of other groups.

Do you register the same discomfort with totty women in action movies or grid girls in motor racing? I doubt it. Though the view on men is given more directly and the view of women is given more indirectly, you could take similar umbrage to he way men, women, blacks are represented. How common is the sassy, ghetto-queen jobsworth at the DMV or receptionist, in American TV? If you were a black woman, I presume you would have noticed.

Saruhashi wrote:

In articles I have read these terms are blurred to the extent that criticisms of toxic masculinity and criticisms of Whiteness certainly come across as criticisms of men and/or white people. Oftentimes these criticisms are so ridiculously unfair that they border on bullying.

I can't say I have experienced that. I either haven't read articles like that or I have read them and dismissed them. I either case, I don't remember

Saruhashi wrote:

If one identifies as strongly, as Intersectional Feminists seem to do, with their race or gender then this kind of bullying can have a profoundly negative impact.

Old on. You're ascribing identification with race or gender to intersectional feminists but also saying it's a big problem for men. So is it

Saruhashi wrote:

Sure, I'd imagine there are Man Utd fans who would take criticism of Man Utd to heart. I bet they'd take harsh or unfair criticism to heart.

I would even bet that if mainstream culture had a trend towards unfair criticism of Man Utd fans and they were given no right of reply then they'd be overjoyed to have someone come in and publicly dismantle their detractors.

Can the gender stuff be so easily compared to sports team preference? If it's just 'us against them' then you're free to interpret things however you like. In that case the more negatively you're perceived, the better. Religions thrive on the attitude that everyone is out to get them. Is that why posters seem happy to freely interpret Peterson and aren't that worried about figuring out the point he was actually making?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

Sounds like something you would come across in Dublin but by definition you only hear the loud ones. I'd imagine there is a significant group that aren't negative but just don't have the social capital to be positive or they are positive but cant actually help.

I can see it happening in older areas. What do you mean by don't have the 'social capital'to be positive?

silverharp wrote:

I didn't get the gender question? in relation to how the kids are treated by or the gender of the parents?

I mean in relation to how kids are treated? I remember being encouraged to play sports and I remember girls being discouraged from playing some sports because it didn't fit their gender.

silverharp wrote:

I didn't say controlled, just that it should change , no sane parent favours one gender over another so they have skin in the game when society is sending out messages to their kids, but as things stand the message is controlled by relatively small groups of people. That's why people like JP are part of the story in raising questions about the current consensus to start a conversation.

Well you did say 'control'. " society could at least control the media or political messages that it sends out". Did you misspeak or do you think someone should control the media or political messages that it sends out?

Assuming it should change without being controlled, how would that be

silverharp wrote:

we are back to society could at least control the media or political messages that it sends out. Its clear boys as a group aren't encouraged publicly but girls are. This needs to stop.

silverharp wrote:

edit for your other points, encourage boys to be career minded, if there is money/time spent "to get girls into Stem" then put the same money into encouraging boys. Its probably a mystery to many boys as well and maybe intimidated

Are we just talking about careers here?

Is there a problem with getting boys into STEM? I have no problem with advertising STEM to boys. I know it was regularly suggested to us in an all boys school in the leaving cert cycle. You could say we were encouraged towards stem subjects, though I don't think that's a popular thing to say.

silverharp wrote:

As for encouraged publicly who knows, the ditching of supremicist feminism would be a good start

As I mentioned before, would you also ditch the dolly birds from action movies and grid girls from mirror sport in case it creates a similar problem for girls?

givyjoe

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

fully agree, this is why this neo marxism is a crock, it breaks down at the individual level and a devotee has to have 2 contradictory positions in their head at the same time.

I think it can work well as a way to make people either feel good about themselves or to help people cope with life by creating an "us vs them" mentality.

It's a very difficult thing to practice in everyday life.

A parent with more than one child, for example, has to decide what to do if one of their children achieves notable success. Do you reward only the child who earned the achievement? Do you reward all of the children even though only one of them earned it? Do you not reward them for successes at all?

More complex again if you have a combination of boys and girls AND you also believe that The Patriarchy is working against the girls.

Does a woman working a minimum wage job alongside men who are also on minimum wage REALLY believe that she should go home early because on average women get paid 25% less than men for the same work?

Maybe the "Girl Power" message feels good in the moment but you're gonna look dumb when you say "my 8 hour shift should only be 6 hours because men get paid 25% more" and it's pointed out that everyone on the shop floor is on the exact same wages as you.

I think this is what the Channel Four presenter was aiming for. The "feel good" message.

I think people will have these conversations, like they had, online and the Feminists will lose over and over again. Mainly because people have time to gather their thoughts and snappy buzzwords won't work because you'll get called out on your BS.

On live TV though, or in snarky articles with closed comment sections, or in Twitter threads where opposing views are preemptively blocked there is a "feel good" factor in believing that someone who is "anti-Feminist" just got owned.

She thought she would run rings around him with the "so you are saying X" efforts when he really said Y as it's really like asking him his opinion and then turning to the audience and saying "hahaha look at what this moron believes" while presenting them with an inaccurate representation. Due to time constraints it's easy to eat up the time with this. I was surprised that the final word wasn't the interviewer sarcastically saying "we should be like the lobsters" as she shakes her head and rolls her eyes.

It just didn't work here and she ended up making herself look like a total fool.

Mostly that just came from the fact that he had too much opportunity to reply and his replies were calm and clear.

If she would have been a bit more aggressive and a bit more mocking and a bit less willing to let him speak they would have held it up as "Jordan Peterson just got DESTROYED on British TV".

A lot of the "celebrity" Feminists work this way. They don't get into discussions because they always get dismantled so they act as a salve for Feminists who do get repeatedly burned when they try to have the discussion.

You got wrecked by anti-Feminists in a discussion thread? That's OK because Louise O'Neill just tweeted an absolute zinger against MRAs and she's got them all blocked so no opposing views!

Did a female gamer just shred your feminist criticism of video games? Don't worry, here's an article from The Guardian explaining how 40 year old manbabies are crying that games have women in them now! Comments are closed so the article won't be completely debunked within the first 5 comments! Hooray!

That was the goal here, in my opinion. Sick of seeing Jordan Peterson referenced as it's explained to over and over in great detail how your political views are total garbage? Don't worry! Here's a strong woman calling him alt-right, transphobic and showing how he thinks Lobsters are Humans. All while he can't get a word in.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can see it happening in older areas. What do you mean by don't have the 'social capital'to be positive?

for example education level to help their kids, or for instance I'd ask my kids what they want to be when they grow up and I'd give suggestions like doctor, engineer, dentist so in a subtle way Im pointing them in a wide but particular direction. I know doctors , vets etc so later I could get my kids to meet them ask them what their area is like and any tips. Not all parents have that form of social capital

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I mean in relation to how kids are treated? I remember being encouraged to play sports and I remember girls being discouraged from playing some sports because it didn't fit their gender.

I wouldn't be well versed in the dynamic, there might be an element of the father son soccer thing but sports on their own don't point people in the right direction, in working class areas there are a lot of one parent families and dysfunctional role models. In London, working class white males are the worst performing group, so what would that tell you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well you did say 'control'. " society could at least control the media or political messages that it sends out". Did you misspeak or do you think someone should control the media or political messages that it sends out?

just take it as needs to change, and I am assuming the change will be bottom up instead of top down. If the "gov" ever became aware that they have been sold a pup then it would behove them to undo certain policies and change the stage.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are we just talking about careers here?

Is there a problem with getting boys into STEM? I have no problem with advertising STEM to boys. I know it was regularly suggested to us in an all boys school in the leaving cert cycle. You could say we were encouraged towards stem subjects, though I don't think that's a popular thing to say. ?

for men plugging into a viable career/job is vital, anything else on top of that is icing. There probably is a problem getting working class boys into STEM so honestly I'd prefer a bit more of the old left right divide based on class instead of this gendered one where elite and powerful women are being oppressed by working class boys which is obviously a crock no?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As I mentioned before, would you also ditch the dolly birds from action movies and grid girls from mirror sport in case it creates a similar problem for girls?

free market, I wouldn't expect an overly prudish society to be the answer

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do you take criticism of make rapists personally? Men make up a greater percentage of rapists and you make up zero percent of rapists. So do you take discussion of male rapists, personally?

Nope.

Is it possible that you're identifying with the negative and dismiss the positive?

Nope.

If you were to describe your identity, would your be set be in the top 5 things?

On an anonymous forum my top 5 things that describe my identity would make me not anonymous.

I am Saruhashi. My gender is Saruhashi. My race is Saruhashi. All opinions are my own. That's all you need to know.

I'm seeing that a lot. It exists and it disadvantages men, but when it comes to identifying what it is, it can be whatever you want it to be.

You've identified it yourself. It exists and it disadvantages men. What more do you want? I can't force you to read up on it or do anything about it. So do nothing. That's fine.

As we both agree it doesn't happen in our social circle, why are we able to either socialise within circles that don't condemn toxic masculinity or whiteness? I'd propose that it's out there in the ether but we simply don't feel injured by it. Confirmation bias is enough to make sure you register it but probably don't register similar representations of other groups.

Do you register the same discomfort with totty women in action movies or grid girls in motor racing? I doubt it. Though the view on men is given more directly and the view of women is given more indirectly, you could take similar umbrage to he way men, women, blacks are represented. How common is the sassy, ghetto-queen jobsworth at the DMV or receptionist, in American TV? If you were a black woman, I presume you would have noticed.

For me? Too old. My friends have been my friends for a long time.

Young people might see it differently. Dr Peterson seems to feel that a lot of the young men at his talks suffer from being condemned on account of their race or gender. I don't believe he is lying.

I don't really mind portrayals of anyone in media. If I think it's worthy of criticism I will criticize it. If I think someone else's criticism is rubbish I will argue against it.

I think there is a broad range of portrayals of all kinds of people in media. Some good, some bad. There are a broad range of opinions on those portrayals. Some good, some bad.

I can't say I have experienced that. I either haven't read articles like that or I have read them and dismissed them. I either case, I don't remember

OK. So....?

Old on. You're ascribing identification with race or gender to intersectional feminists but also saying it's a big problem for men. So is it

Yes. Identity politics is a problem. Creating in-groups and out-groups causes issues and tends to foster bigotry especially in impressionable people.

It's a problem if young men feel put upon simply because they are men and they can't see themselves as individuals not defined by gender.

I look at arguments and give my thoughts. That's all.

Can the gender stuff be so easily compared to sports team preference? If it's just 'us against them' then you're free to interpret things however you like. In that case the more negatively you're perceived, the better. Religions thrive on the attitude that everyone is out to get them. Is that why posters seem happy to freely interpret Peterson and aren't that worried about figuring out the point he was actually making?

Probably not. It's a good entry level argument though.

You underestimate people's freedom to interpret things however they like. Impressionable people can be indoctrinated and it can be difficult to undo that. This works for all groups. Feminists or Peterson fans. It can happen to anyone.

What point was he actually making?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

for example education level to help their kids, or for instance I'd ask my kids what they want to be when they grow up and I'd give suggestions like doctor, engineer, dentist so in a subtle way Im pointing them in a wide but particular direction. I know doctors , vets etc so later I could get my kids to meet them ask them what their area is like and any tips. Not all parents have that form of social capital

Ok gotcha. I agree. But that makes it a socioeconomic status issue rather than a gender issue.

silverharp wrote:

I wouldn't be well versed in the dynamic, there might be an element of the father son soccer thing but sports on their own don't point people in the right direction, in working class areas there are a lot of one parent families and dysfunctional role models. In London, working class white males are the worst performing group, so what would that tell you?

I was asking if there's a gender issue in the above issue of general encouragement. I wouldn't expect any single issue (including career) to point people on the right track. This is another case of us all seeing whatever we want in Peterson's speech. I took encouragement in the broad sense to include all areas of life. You seem to be seeing the discussion primarily about careers.


So to ask the question directly, do you think there's a difference in the way boys and girls are encouraged throughout their lives in different areas of their lives and is the difference a problem?

silverharp wrote:

just take it as needs to change, and I am assuming the change will be bottom up instead of top down. If the "gov" ever became aware that they have been sold a pup then it would behove them to undo certain policies and change the stage.

Ok. Bottom up which would presumably mean people creating a market incentive to be positive towards men. I'm remembering the International Men's Day in November and it was very hard to get any kind of clear support for the day. Presumably that's exactly the kind of positive media you're talking about. Did you support IMD when you had the chance to be positive or negative about it?

silverharp wrote:

for men plugging into a viable career/job is vital, anything else on top of that is icing. There probably is a problem getting working class boys into STEM so honestly I'd prefer a bit more of the old left right divide based on class instead of this gendered one where elite and powerful women are being oppressed by working class boys which is obviously a crock no?

Do you really see career/job as the main thing and everything else is just icing? That's an extraordinary narrow view of life.

silverharp wrote:

free market, I wouldn't expect an overly prudish society to be the answer

Even if that media portrayal is as harmful to women in a similar way to however you feel the media is harmful to men now?

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

Nope.
Nope.

Ok. I'm struggling to see why you brought it up if it's not something you would identify with either way.

Saruhashi wrote:

On an anonymous forum my top 5 things that describe my identity would make me not anonymous. I am Saruhashi. My gender is Saruhashi. My race is Saruhashi. All opinions are my own. That's all you need to know.

Oh here I didn't ask you to identify yourself. I asked if you were to identify yourself, would gender be in the top 5 things for example? Im not asking you to give away any information that you haven't already volunteered. It's a hypothetical question about how far your gender would be down the list of self identifiers.

Saruhashi wrote:

You've identified it yourself. It exists and it disadvantages men. What more do you want? I can't force you to read up on it or do anything about it. So do nothing. That's fine.

Saruhashi wrote:

I don't really mind portrayals of anyone in media. If I think it's worthy of criticism I will criticize it. If I think someone else's criticism is rubbish I will argue against it.

I suppose I'm taking a broader interpretation of 'media' than you are. So you don't mind representations of femininity through the dolly birds but object to any negative portrayals of masculinity? Where's the consistent thread?

Saruhashi wrote:

I think there is a broad range of portrayals of all kinds of people in media. Some good, some bad. There are a broad range of opinions on those portrayals. Some good, some bad.

Do you personally think you're taking a consistent approach to those with you opinion of portrayals of general in media? It's ok you're not, I just can't see how it's consistent when you object to linking toxic masculinity to men in media but don't also object to linking dolly birds to femininity in media.

Saruhashi wrote:

You underestimate people's freedom to interpret things however they like. Impressionable people can be indoctrinated and it can be difficult to undo that. This works for all groups. Feminists or Peterson fans. It can happen to anyone.

What point was he actually making?

Well I took one interpretation and Klaz took another interpretation and they didn't think it was important to find out what his objective point was. Silverharp seems to feel it's all about careers. I thought it meant encouragement in the broad sense including all areas of life and development because he didn't limit it to any particular area.

I don't know what his point was for sure. I wonder if anyone has read his books or lectures where he might have expanded on it. Surely he had a discreet point. He seems quite precise in his language so I would have thought he meant something specific rather than just anyone's interpretation.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok gotcha. I agree. But that makes it a socioeconomic status issue rather than a gender issue.

indeed but it means that socioeconomically deprived boys maybe losing out more because these boys are considered to be part of the patriarchy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was asking if there's a gender issue in the above issue of general encouragement. I wouldn't expect any single issue (including career) to point people on the right track. This is another case of us all seeing whatever we want in Peterson's speech. I took encouragement in the broad sense to include all areas of life. You seem to be seeing the discussion primarily about careers.

One of JP's points is that men need to find their place in the hierarchy and try move up it, that means career by and large, there are other issues im sure but a major part of the interview revolved around the pay gap , so jobs and money seems to be what interests everyone.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So to ask the question directly, do you think there's a difference in the way boys and girls are encouraged throughout their lives in different areas of their lives and is the difference a problem?

Its very general, boys and girls are different so I wouldn't expect them to be encouraged exactly the same way and a lot might depend on the economic status of the parents. it was brought up and hard to argue with that women have a shorter biological clock so that could influence career and life choices.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Bottom up which would presumably mean people creating a market incentive to be positive towards men. I'm remembering the International Men's Day in November and it was very hard to get any kind of clear support for the day. Presumably that's exactly the kind of positive media you're talking about. Did you support IMD when you had the chance to be positive or negative about it?

It needs to be a 365 deal, I don't remember anything about IMD last year.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you really see career/job as the main thing and everything else is just icing? That's an extraordinary narrow view of life.

its one of those fundamental things in life that men need to be economically active, if they aren't what are they, rich playboys? have you ever met well rounded man who has been unemployed all their life? it needs to be something everyman can aspire to and be rewarded if they work hard.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Even if that media portrayal is as harmful to women in a similar way to however you feel the media is harmful to men now?

I find it hard to link the 2 , there is no social commentary with the women and its small private events which I for example wouldn't see versus relentless argumentation in the media. Instagram is infinitely more damaging to women one would think?

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I suppose I'm taking a broader interpretation of 'media' than you are. So you don't mind representations of femininity through the dolly birds but object to any negative portrayals of masculinity? Where's the consistent thread?

Do you personally think you're taking a consistent approach to those with you opinion of portrayals of general in media? It's ok you're not, I just can't see how it's consistent when you object to linking toxic masculinity to men in media but don't also object to linking dolly birds to femininity in media.

No. I don't object to or openly endorse any specific portrayals of men or women in media. I think media should be free to do it's own things and explore it's own perspectives.

I could take an example like The Sopranos or Gone Girl, that both have negative portrayals of both masculinity and femininity and society at large, and say that they are both good and interesting pieces of media/entertainment/art.

If I disagree with a perspective or portrayal I will say so. I will not object to the existence of these portrayals. I will, however, object to efforts to stifle or silence debate or discussion on these perspectives.

I did not say I object to any portrayals in media.

I said... please pay attention to this... that I understand why Jordan Peterson has young men coming up to him to say that they have never been given any encouragement or compliments etc.

I am explaining WHY I think it is happening. I am not saying what I think is good or bad or objectionable in media.

I feel like some young lads are too wrapped up in their own form of identity politics and so they may take criticisms of masculinity and whiteness personally.

So if a young man sits down and watches a TV show that portrays all men as terrible humans then I would say they shouldn't read too much into it. Certainly they shouldn't feel like it's a commentary on them. They should criticize it if they feel a need but also need to take some responsibility for their own self-esteem. Maybe JP would disagree with me on that. That would be fine.

I am speculating on why he finds himself speaking in front of audiences of seemingly disillusioned young men.

You have a TERRIBLE habit of twisting the things that people say and making it seem like they are making a point that they are not making.

I thought that maybe the Channel Four video shared could even be a "holy crap I am just like that" moment when you see how bad the interviewer is and maybe you get a little bit of self awareness.

A discussion with you feels like this.

I say X.
Then you say "so you are saying Y"
So then I have to explain myself but you've broken it all out into multiple quotes so that gets increasingly difficult with each reply.

It feels like I spend most of the time explaining why I haven't said the things that you are saying I've said.

To me it looks like people are making arguments against a Marxist or Feminist worldview and you have taken it upon yourself to distort the arguments rather than address them.

"I understand why young dudes feel bad about themselves in todays world"
"SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT DOLLY BIRDS ARE OK!"

What? Urgh. So tiresome.

Well I took one interpretation and Klaz took another interpretation and they didn't think it was important to find out what his objective point was. Silverharp seems to feel it's all about careers. I thought it meant encouragement in the broad sense including all areas of life and development because he didn't limit it to any particular area.

I don't know what his point was for sure. I wonder if anyone has read his books or lectures where he might have expanded on it. Surely he had a discreet point. He seems quite precise in his language so I would have thought he meant something specific rather than just anyone's interpretation.

Well I suppose different people have different views and different opinions. I wonder if we are the first humans to come to realize this?

Personally I think the conversation covered a wide variety of points and there's no reason why different people couldn't take away something different to chew on.

You seem genuinely miffed that everyone posting here doesn't have the exact same point of view on everything.

I'm waiting for you to say "well the locals here are not going to agree with you on THAT" as if I am suddenly going to drop my personal opinions and bow down to "The Regulars".

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

indeed but it means that socioeconomically deprived boys maybe losing out more because these boys are considered to be part of the patriarchy

Maybe boys are missing out more because they're considered part of patriarchy? I think you're scratching around looking for a gender issue in a class issue. I can safely say I dont know anyone who has ever acted to disadvantage their male children because of patriarchy.

silverharp wrote:

One of JP's points is that men need to find their place in the hierarchy and try move up it, that means career by and large, there are other issues im sure but a major part of the interview revolved around the pay gap , so jobs and money seems to be what interests everyone.

I don't think Peterson was dying to link it exclusively to career as you are. But Peterson is all things to all men so everyone's interpretation arms equally valid, even Peterson's interpretation presumably.

silverharp wrote:

Its very general, boys and girls are different so I wouldn't expect them to be encouraged exactly the same way and a lot might depend on the economic status of the parents. it was brought up and hard to argue with that women have a shorter biological clock so that could influence career and life choices.

Now you're being too loose with Peterson's point here. He was talking about literal encouragement rather than career choices.

So is there a difference in the way boys and girls are encouraged through out their childhood and adolescence and im asking in relation to their broader life and development rather than just career.

silverharp wrote:

It needs to be a 365 deal, I don't remember anything about IMD last year.

Lol. It was November 19 last year. Its one of those days to raise awareness of the issues faced by a specific group, discuss it in media, radio print etc. It's not really something that could be sustained for every group 365. It was an opportunity to side men's issues with a Wider audience than usual. Are you sure you don't remember it?

Would that be the kind of bottom up change you'd like to see? If not could you elaborate on what kind of bottom up change you're talking about in media and politics?

silverharp wrote:

its one of those fundamental things in life that men need to be economically active, if they aren't what are they, rich playboys? have you ever met well rounded man who has been unemployed all their life? it needs to be something everyman can aspire to and be rewarded if they work hard.

'Men' need to be economically active or 'people' need to be economically active?

silverharp wrote:

I find it hard to link the 2 , there is no social commentary with the women and its small private events which I for example wouldn't see versus relentless argumentation in the media. Instagram is infinitely more damaging to women one would think?

You don't link the portrayals of masculinity in media and portrayals of femininity in media? Mass media like movies for example?

I think if you take an objective approach, your take exception to one dimensional portrayals of groups other than just men. If you don't see any issue with totty birds in action movie media, but do see all the issues with 'toxic masculinity' in print media, then I think you're not being object, whether you know it or not

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think if you take an objective approach, your take exception to one dimensional portrayals of groups other than just men. If you don't see any issue with totty birds in action movie media, but do see all the issues with 'toxic masculinity' in print media, then I think you're not being object, whether you know it or not

Hahahahaha. That is RIDICULOUS.

So you are making a comparison between objectified women in movies and articles in print media criticizing men?

There is a massive difference between someone deciding to put a strip club scene into a movie as an excuse to show titties on screen and someone deciding to write a Guardian article that is designed to tear down masculinity.

I can think of one easy way that they are not the same.

If you are showing "totty birds" in action movie media then the general feeling is that this is being done in a way that says "you know what's awesome? Guns and explosions and cars and women! These are all awesome things! Look at them! Look how amazing they are!"

Now, yes, this may objectify women to an extent but it is hardly a criticism of women and hardly meant to tear down femininity.

If you are writing an article that says women can't be sexist towards men because that's impossible or, even worse, writing an article that implies men are encouraging Rape Culture then that is NOTHING like a director deciding to put hot women in his movie.

Action Movie: Hot women are awesome, look how awesome they are.
Feminist Article: Men need to take responsibility for rape.

Totally the same thing. Definitely. I can't see any difference there.

Unless... you are making a leap here and saying that "hot and fit women are awesome" is equal to saying "ugly fat women are gross"? In which case I could kind of see the point as the presence of beautiful women could be seen as a criticism of normal and/or unattractive women. Maybe. Not really though if you think about it.

I think articles that specifically call out Masculinity and Whiteness are be a bit more direct, in all fairness.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe boys are missing out more because they're considered part of patriarchy? I think you're scratching around looking for a gender issue in a class issue. I can safely say I dont know anyone who has ever acted to disadvantage their male children because of patriarchy.

??? that makes no sense, "society" maybe be is the point as its geared to promoting girls at the margin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think Peterson was dying to link it exclusively to career as you are. But Peterson is all things to all men so everyone's interpretation arms equally valid, even Peterson's interpretation presumably.

your attempting some kind of smear here, so ill ignore this comment

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now you're being too loose with Peterson's point here. He was talking about literal encouragement rather than career choices.

So is there a difference in the way boys and girls are encouraged through out their childhood and adolescence and im asking in relation to their broader life and development rather than just career.

Are you asking me to make a guess at what happens on average or analyse Peterson's comments based on one interview? or is it an "ought" question?
Nobody is suggesting anyone be held back because of their gender and its up to the individual what they should want to do given their own reality and place in life.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. It was November 19 last year. Its one of those days to raise awareness of the issues faced by a specific group, discuss it in media, radio print etc. It's not really something that could be sustained for every group 365. It was an opportunity to side men's issues with a Wider audience than usual. Are you sure you don't remember it?

I remember the day, I don't remember at this stage any particular thing that was advanced on that day. the only thing I remember from late last year was the "man down" awareness event but I don't remember now if the 2 were related.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Would that be the kind of bottom up change you'd like to see? If not could you elaborate on what kind of bottom up change you're talking about in media and politics?

a cultural shift, how exactly I don't know but opposition media challenging mainstream is good, the anarchy of twitter and other social media to push back against establishment views. Maybe the next generation will challenge politicians for them to change. A good mantra is politics is downstream from culture

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

'Men' need to be economically active or 'people' need to be economically active?

on one level perhaps, but women have more options here. Men are judged more by women in this area than vice versa when it comes to dating/marriage.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You don't link the portrayals of masculinity in media and portrayals of femininity in media? Mass media like movies for example?

I think if you take an objective approach, your take exception to one dimensional portrayals of groups other than just men. If you don't see any issue with totty birds in action movie media, but do see all the issues with 'toxic masculinity' in print media, then I think you're not being object, whether you know it or not

when I mean media im thinking News, reporting of politics, current affairs that kind of thing, I don't know how much movies matter, obviously "team feminism" sees it as important that women are seen in a particular way and lots of movies are battlegrounds in the culture wars. By and large though I think movies /tv shows lag culture and I don't think they can lead so not really bothered. I'd exercise my market power by not paying to watch something where the makers thought they were making a point I don't agree with because I probably wouldn't enjoy the content.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

So you are making a comparison between objectified women in movies and articles in print media criticizing men?

Yep

Saruhashi wrote:

There is a massive difference between someone deciding to put a strip club scene into a movie as an excuse to show titties on screen and someone deciding to write a Guardian article that is designed to tear down masculinity.

I'll tell you how they compare. They're both designed to take a one dimensional view of the gender to sell more copies. If you were as sensitive to portrayals of femininity as you clearly are to portrayals of masculinity, then you'd see a comparison. Neither is designed to complement the steippers or the 'toxic' men.

Saruhashi wrote:

If you are showing "totty birds" in action movie media then the general feeling is that this is being done in a way that says "you know what's awesome? Guns and explosions and cars and women! These are all awesome things! Look at them! Look how amazing they are!"

That's a very opaque way to portray it. Are you deliberately ignoring the context of women in men's media? Horny and up for it, always on for a bit of action or else a bitch for not being up for it. There's usually more to the characters than that but it's a fair generalisation.

Saruhashi wrote:

Now, yes, this may objectify women to an extent but it is hardly a criticism of women and hardly meant to tear down femininity.

And do you see any problem with that at all? Any harm done? But articles that reduce men to one dimension are all wrong and harmful? How can one cause harm and the other doesn't.

Saruhashi wrote:

If you are writing an article that says women can't be sexist towards men because that's impossible or, even worse, writing an article that implies men are encouraging Rape Culture then that is NOTHING like a director deciding to put hot women in his movie.

Saruhashi wrote:

Action Movie: Hot women are awesome, look how awesome they are. Feminist Article: Men need to take responsibility for rape.

Putting sexy women in your movie and reducing them to one dimensional characters based on feminimity will sell more copies if aimed at men.
Reduce men to to one dimensional characters and give out about masculinity will sell more copies if aimed at women (and I suspect men who disagree) I have never had a woman mention Louise O Neill to me. Sometimes I wonder if the Men in there threads would ever miss a LON article.

In either case they're reducing a gender to sell more copies.

Saruhashi wrote:

I think articles that specifically call out Masculinity and Whiteness are be a bit more direct, in all fairness.

Yes. The method is different. More direct with men. The fact that it's less direct doesn't mean it can be swept under the carpet. How one could be good and the other bad? It takes cognitive dissonance to make that work.

I see the 2 issues as having the same effect, to diminish the gender to sell more copies.

You take exception to one and enjoy the other so you don't apply the same standard to both as far as I can see

Triceratops Ballet

Saruhashi wrote: »

Action Movie: Hot women are awesome, look how awesome they are.
Feminist Article: Men need to take responsibility for rape.

If you find it hard to compare the "hot woman" with "all men are rapists" type articles, maybe compare her instead to the "gormless man" stereotype we see so often in advertising. Both the "hot woman" and the "gormless man" do a disservice to the group they are supposed to represent, they're both negative and over time could have an impact on how people perceive themselves.

I think the point is what the image of "hot women" as (essentially) props in movies says to women, not what it says to men, and that what it says to women about themselves may be damaging in the same way that what articles about toxic masculinity etc say to men.

To men it might say "hot women are awesome" to women it might say you're just a prop and you're only worthwhile if you're hot, just sit there and look pretty some dude will be along to rescue you now in a few minutes and he'll put you in his hot car and list you off in a list of his nice things.
If the female character has no story arc or agency of her own she is just a prop. Why do you think Wonder Woman and characters like Katniss etc have become so popular? Because women and girls want to see themselves represented as something other than the "hot woman".
I think it's arguable that the drip drip message the "hot woman" sends to women and girls could be damaging to their self esteem in the same way as the drip drip message of all men are evil could be damaging to the self esteem of men and boys.

I'm not saying it is or it isn't but it's at least possible, worthy of consideration and not totally ridiculous.
It's not really a competition about who has it worse tho, everyone has it bad in different ways.

Saruhashi

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

If you find it hard to compare the "hot woman" with "all men are rapists" type articles, maybe compare her instead to the "gormless man" stereotype we see so often in advertising. Both the "hot woman" and the "gormless man" do a disservice to the group they are supposed to represent, they're both negative and over time could have an impact on how people perceive themselves.

I think the point is what the image of "hot women" as (essentially) props in movies says to women, not what it says to men, and that what it says to women about themselves may be damaging in the same way that what articles about toxic masculinity etc say to men.

To men it might say "hot women are awesome" to women it might say you're just a prop and you're only worthwhile if you're hot, just sit there and look pretty some dude will be along to rescue you now in a few minutes and he'll put you in his hot car and list you off in a list of his nice things.
If the female character has no story arc or agency of her own she is just a prop. Why do you think Wonder Woman and characters like Katniss etc have become so popular? Because women and girls want to see themselves represented as something other than the "hot woman".
I think it's arguable that the drip drip message the "hot woman" sends to women and girls could be damaging to their self esteem in the same way as the drip drip message of all men are evil could be damaging to the self esteem of men and boys.

I'm not saying it is or it isn't but it's at least possible, worthy of consideration and not totally ridiculous.
It's not really a competition about who has it worse tho, everyone has it bad in different ways.

Bringing the "gormless man" archetype into the conversation to sub for the "rape culture enabler" is a significant shifting of the goal posts.

I feel like I'd rather be considered gormless (which I sometimes am, to be fair) than be considered a potential rapist or even an indirect cause of rape.

The "hot woman stereotype vs the gormless man stereotype" is a completely different conversation to the "hot woman stereotype vs the man who enables rape culture stereotype".

I don't know why you've made that substitution to be honest.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yep

I'll tell you how they compare. They're both designed to take a one dimensional view of the gender to sell more copies. If you were as sensitive to portrayals of femininity as you clearly are to portrayals of masculinity, then you'd see a comparison. Neither is designed to complement the steippers or the 'toxic' men.

That's a very opaque way to portray it. Are you deliberately ignoring the context of women in men's media? Horny and up for it, always on for a bit of action or else a bitch for not being up for it. There's usually more to the characters than that but it's a fair generalisation.

And do you see any problem with that at all? Any harm done? But articles that reduce men to one dimension are all wrong and harmful? How can one cause harm and the other doesn't.

Putting sexy women in your movie and reducing them to one dimensional characters based on feminimity will sell more copies if aimed at men.
Reduce men to to one dimensional characters and give out about masculinity will sell more copies if aimed at women (and I suspect men who disagree) I have never had a woman mention Louise O Neill to me. Sometimes I wonder if the Men in there threads would ever miss a LON article.

In either case they're reducing a gender to sell more copies.

Yes. The method is different. More direct with men. The fact that it's less direct doesn't mean it can be swept under the carpet. How one could be good and the other bad? It takes cognitive dissonance to make that work.

I see the 2 issues as having the same effect, to diminish the gender to sell more copies.

You take exception to one and enjoy the other so you don't apply the same standard to both as far as I can see

I can't believe that we are seriously entertaining the idea that this is a valid comparison.

Sure I can agree that reducing groups down to a one dimensional description is bad but I am not going to entertain the idea that being reduced down to "hot" is the same as being reduced down to "toxic".

I see a distinctive difference there and not a difference that can be waved away.

If a parent had 2 kids and constantly and publicly referred to one of them as "the smart one" and referred to the other as "the ugly one" your main issue would be that the children are reduced to one word descriptions? Possibly that would even be your only issue.

So sorry kid number one, you are defined only by your intelligence.
You have the same problem kid two, you are defined only by your hideous appearance.

It's absurd. But that's where you've gone with this.

"I'm sick of men being portrayed as potential rapists!"
"Oh yeah? Well women are always portrayed as hot! It's just as bad!"

Triceratops Ballet

Saruhashi wrote: »

Bringing the "gormless man" archetype into the conversation to sub for the "rape culture enabler" is a significant shifting of the goal posts.

I feel like I'd rather be considered gormless (which I sometimes am, to be fair) than be considered a potential rapist or even an indirect cause of rape.

The "hot woman stereotype vs the gormless man stereotype" is a completely different conversation to the "hot woman stereotype vs the man who enables rape culture stereotype".

I don't know why you've made that substitution to be honest.

It's not shifting the goalposts, the point is not about what the message is, its that the message may or may not be harmful to the self esteem of the people the message is about.

Ed asked if posters were as concerned about negative messages in the media about women, or if they only think there is a problem with negative messages about men. Not are the messages about women better or worse than those about men.
If you believe in equality one would argue you would probably find both problematic.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And do you see any problem with that at all? Any harm done? But articles that reduce men to one dimension are all wrong and harmful? How can one cause harm and the other doesn't.

I have never had a woman mention Louise O Neill to me. Sometimes I wonder if the Men in there threads would ever miss a LON article.

I'm sure that they do cause harm and I hear people talking about how objectification of women causes harm all the time.

However, when Jordan Peterson says that young men come up to him saying that they never get any encouragement or positive complements and I say that maybe it's because some men are sensitive to negative media messages you are up in my face trying to out me as some hypocrite.

I never said objectification of women wasn't harmful but I did say that such objectification is not used as a condemnation of women and femininity.

I hear women talking about Louise O'Neill all the time. Most of them like that she is pushing the "girl power" narrative and they enjoy that she has a go at men and MRAs etc.

It's odd that you never seem to have seen the articles or have heard of the people involved when these conversations get going but you still want to come in like you are prepared for the discussion.

"I've never seen those articles". "I've never heard of that guy". "Well nobody that I know has experienced this". But you totally know what you are talking about, right?

I never once said I approve of negative or inaccurate portrayals of women in media.

I said I understand why JP might see a lot of men at his events who are very low on self esteem etc.

I don't see how forcing me into a conversation about negative portrayals of women helps to explain why he has so many people like that looking up to him and seeing him as a kind of lifeline.

Saruhashi

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's not shifting the goalposts, the point is not about what the message is, its that the message may or may not be harmful to the self esteem of the people the message is about.

Ed asked if posters were as concerned about negative messages in the media about women, or if they only think there is a problem with negative messages about men. Not are the messages about women better or worse than those about men.
If you believe in equality one would argue you would probably find both problematic.

And "Ed" already damn well knows that the answer to that question is no I don't think it's only a problem when it's done to men.

This conversation has gone from "why do men tell Jordan Peterson that they feel unappreciated and neglected" to "do you think only negative depictions of men are bad cos women are depicted negatively all the time".

I tried to answer a question about WHY men feel low self esteem but actually it turned into an accusation that I only care when it happens to men. WTF?

It absolutely is shifting the goal posts.

Q: Why do men feel low self esteem according to Jordan Peterson?
A: I think it's because of negativity and accusatory dialogue in media.
Q: Oh yeah well women get negative treatment to! You're saying that's fine!?

I was answering WHY something happens and it was turned into an accusation that I ignore a completely different thing that is happening.

That's not shifting the goal posts?

Triceratops Ballet

Saruhashi wrote: »

And "Ed" already damn well knows that the answer to that question is no I don't think it's only a problem when it's done to men.

This conversation has gone from "why do men tell Jordan Peterson that they feel unappreciated and neglected" to "do you think only negative depictions of men are bad cos women are depicted negatively all the time".

I tried to answer a question about WHY men feel low self esteem but actually it turned into an accusation that I only care when it happens to men. WTF?

It absolutely is shifting the goal posts.

Q: Why do men feel low self esteem according to Jordan Peterson?
A: I think it's because of negativity and accusatory dialogue in media.
Q: Oh yeah well women get negative treatment to! You're saying that's fine!?

I was answering WHY something happens and it was turned into an accusation that I ignore a completely different thing that is happening.

That's not shifting the goal posts?

Fair enough, I wasn't part of the original conversation, I was purely talking about the perceptions of men/women in the media bit and responding to your "hot girl is awesome" post so I dont see it as shifting goalposts.