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

Wibbs

maybe

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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.

I agree 100% TB that both cliches all too often trotted out are not helpful at all. However I would agree with S that while being reduced to "hot" is bad enough on more than a few levels, the "gormless/toxic" attribution is pretty bloody bad. For a start TB, "hot" with all its daftness and issues along for the ride is a positive trait(if one is deemed to have it), gormless/toxic are both negatives. One is an attribute one sex are asked to live up to, the other is an attribute one sex is to live down to. If you see what I mean?

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

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".

A valid comparison? Yes.

The same? No.

The example of men you have used is worse than totty birds in movies. If you cant see a problem with one and take grave exception to the other, then I don't think you're applying a generalisable principle. You're looking for offense to men ( and have found a legitimate example) and are happy to wave away the other.

It's interesting that you're looking at both situations from a male perspective. Men feel bad about themselves when they read about toxic masculinity and men think dolly birds are awesome, like car chases and explosions and big boobs.

The obvious way to look at both issues would be to see the effect of. Dolly birds on men as on women, and the effect of articles on toxic masculinity on men and women.

But you're only considering the men's side and coming to the conclusion you would expect if you only considering half the evidence.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

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

Ah ok. Society rather than the individual. I think society is disadvantaging people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. That's the big issue I don't know if society has a preference for men or women from those backgrounds. Any specific examples you can think of?

silverharp wrote:

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

I was being facetious alright. Im amused and bemused that there was so much agreement that Peterson is right in what he's saying but no apparent agreement on what he was saying. Has anyone brash him speak about this topic of encouragement in longer format? Does anyone here know what his specic point was? Everyone seems to be impressed with his own interpretation but surely he had specific point.

silverharp wrote:

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.

It's an 'is' question. Im asking if there is a difference in the way men's And women are encouraged throughout their development into adulthood. Are women given more encouragement than men or vise versa. I'm not limiting the question to careers btw. Peterson said lots of men are getting no encouragement throughout their development and that's why they like his lectures so much. I suppose I'm asking if that's specific to boys and if so, how?

silverharp wrote:

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.

Is man down the suicide awareness campaign? Is that something you would support?

silverharp wrote:

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

I don't bother with twitter and Facebook precisely because of the anarchy so I'm not really well versed in that. I
But what I do know is that it provides an equal opportunity for MRA to get their message out there. Isn't this the kind of bottom up change you're talking about

But I do like podcasts and that's a completely unpoliced media. Anyone can make a podcast about anything they want (within reason). If

silverharp wrote:

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.

silverharp wrote:

A good mantra is politics is downstream from culture

Now this, I find hard to reconcile.

You understand that politics is downstream of culture. Media is an interplay of art reflecting culture and culture reflecting art. How could you exclude artistic representations of culture, like movies, when you know that culture influences politics?

Movies and TV shows reflect current and ongoing issues for the people at the time. Are you equally not bothered about the bumbling men characters in soaps for example? I remember a heated discussion on the dad in Peppa Pig. I dont recall anyone saying that TV lags culture so they're not bothered about it.

Likewise, if the market likes the bumbling dad characters, are you fine with them?

El_Duderino 09

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 be fair TB, gormless dad/dolly birds is a much better analogy

Saruhashi wrote:

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".

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

Sure. Consider the goal posts shifted. There's no reason to only use the rape analogy. You used the rapist example as an analogy to hot women in movies. I said I doubt you're taking a consistent approach so this provides a much better test of that assertion. Bumbling dad is a much closer fit to hot women.

Saruhashi wrote:

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

Because it's a better analogy. It would be difficult to be opposed one and support the other and have a consistent basis for both.

Would you oppose one and not the other? What do other posters think?

JRant

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah ok. Society rather than the individual. I think society is disadvantaging people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. That's the big issue I don't know if society has a preference for men or women from those backgrounds. Any specific examples you can think of?



I was being facetious alright. Im amused and bemused that there was so much agreement that Peterson is right in what he's saying but no apparent agreement on what he was saying. Has anyone brash him speak about this topic of encouragement in longer format? Does anyone here know what his specic point was? Everyone seems to be impressed with his own interpretation but surely he had specific point.



It's an 'is' question. Im asking if there is a difference in the way men's And women are encouraged throughout their development into adulthood. Are women given more encouragement than men or vise versa. I'm not limiting the question to careers btw. Peterson said lots of men are getting no encouragement throughout their development and that's why they like his lectures so much. I suppose I'm asking if that's specific to boys and if so, how?



Is man down the suicide awareness campaign? Is that something you would support?


I don't bother with twitter and Facebook precisely because of the anarchy so I'm not really well versed in that. I
But what I do know is that it provides an equal opportunity for MRA to get their message out there. Isn't this the kind of bottom up change you're talking about

But I do like podcasts and that's a completely unpoliced media. Anyone can make a podcast about anything they want (within reason). If





Now this, I find hard to reconcile.

You understand that politics is downstream of culture. Media is an interplay of art reflecting culture and culture reflecting art. How could you exclude artistic representations of culture, like movies, when you know that culture influences politics?

Movies and TV shows reflect current and ongoing issues for the people at the time. Are you equally not bothered about the bumbling men characters in soaps for example? I remember a heated discussion on the dad in Peppa Pig. I dont recall anyone saying that TV lags culture so they're not bothered about it.

Likewise, if the market likes the bumbling dad characters, are you fine with them?

Classic El Dude, absolutely classic. I believe an apt description of the above would be 'word salad'.

Peterson's main argument is that people, especially but not solely young men, need responsibility in their lives. That is, they need encouragement to take on responsibility in their lives. As he rightly points out, someone else's rights are your responsibilities but at present the conversation is solely based on rights and nothing to the responsibilities that come with them.

Now, if I may suggest something as it is clearly a matter of great personal interest to you, why don't you start another thread about female portrayal in movies as this clearly isn't the right one for such a discussion. Some might say it may even be preceived as derailing the topic at hand but I couldn't possibly comment on that.

Panthro

maybe

JRant wrote: »

Now, if I may suggest something as it is clearly a matter of great personal interest to you, why don't you start another thread about female portrayal in movies as this clearly isn't the right one for such a discussion. Some might say it may even be preceived as derailing the topic at hand but I couldn't possibly comment on that.

Good Lord yes, this sounds like a great idea.

Wibbs

maybe

JRant wrote: »

Now, if I may suggest something as it is clearly a matter of great personal interest to you, why don't you start another thread about female portrayal in movies as this clearly isn't the right one for such a discussion. Some might say it may even be preceived as derailing the topic at hand but I couldn't possibly comment on that.

As it happens J, some naive and trusting person gave me of all bloody people the option of comment in our forum(Clearly drink was taken) and I agree. So yeah, take that to another new thread, where no doubt it will be a cause of much debate and that would be great, but let's dial it back here? Please and Thanks.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah ok. Society rather than the individual. I think society is disadvantaging people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. That's the big issue I don't know if society has a preference for men or women from those backgrounds. Any specific examples you can think of?

sure there is, in countries like the US or UK there are all kinds of legs up for ethnic minorities or women, the white male tends to e excluded from these.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's an 'is' question. Im asking if there is a difference in the way men's And women are encouraged throughout their development into adulthood. Are women given more encouragement than men or vise versa. I'm not limiting the question to careers btw. Peterson said lots of men are getting no encouragement throughout their development and that's why they like his lectures so much. I suppose I'm asking if that's specific to boys and if so, how?

society seems to encourage women and shame men.

NI24

silverharp wrote: »

more for information

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

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.  Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.  If he had just come out and said it I might have respect for his honesty, but of course that would be admitting that men have it easier than women and we can't have that now can we?

silverharp

NI24 wrote: »

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.  Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.  If he had just come out and said it I might have respect for his honesty, but of course that would be admitting that men have it easier than women and we can't have that now can we?

"are you saying" male privilege is real.......:D

im not sure what your point is, he was pretty clear in saying what he wanted to say and he said women shouldnt give up

Kidchameleon

NI24 wrote: »

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.

Its more about keeping things civil. He has a fairly solid pair of balls in fairness to him. In another part of the interview he said that men and women have the same average IQ which is of course not true. Any "study" that claims this can usually be found to have the results skewed to prop up women. A fair and unbiased study of IQ will find that men on average score four points above women. Men on average have larger brains physically and men have also had to evolve better problem solving attributes due to our place in the social structure as hunter's. Four IQ points is nothing in the grand scale of things but imagine Peterson stated the fact that men have higher IQ's than women? He would have been publicly hanged after that interview.

NI24 wrote: »

Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

Obstacles like having a baby? Don't have one then, problem solved.

silverharp

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its more about keeping things civil. He has a fairly solid pair of balls in fairness to him. In another part of the interview he said that men and women have the same average IQ which is of course not true. Any "study" that claims this can usually be found to have the results skewed to prop up women. A fair and unbiased study of IQ will find that men on average score four points above women. Men on average have larger brains physically and men have also had to evolve better problem solving attributes due to our place in the social structure as hunter's. Four IQ points is nothing in the grand scale of things but imagine Peterson stated the fact that men have higher IQ's than women? He would have been publicly hanged after that interview.

in terms of the interview it wasnt a hill worth dying on it, he did mention i think that there is some debate over the numbers at the high end but as newman seemed ot be only interested in CEO's then it wasnt important to the discussion

The J Stands for Jay

NI24 wrote: »

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.  Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.  If he had just come out and said it I might have respect for his honesty, but of course that would be admitting that men have it easier than women and we can't have that now can we?

In this country, women earn more than men until they come to the age demographic which is most likely to start having children. Can't figure out what the obstacle may be here...

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.  Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.  If he had just come out and said it I might have respect for his honesty, but of course that would be admitting that men have it easier than women and we can't have that now can we?

Eh, no!. I’m calling BS on this bit. Women who are willing to work as hard and are willing to accept the exact same outcomes and risks as men do not have more obstacles. Possibly slightly different obstacles in some of the cases but more? That would be some leap. If anything men are expected to make significantly more sacrifices, in particular when it comes to family life, than women for an equivalent outcome

El_Duderino 09

JRant wrote:

Now, if I may suggest something as it is clearly a matter of great personal interest to you, why don't you start another thread about female portrayal in movies as this clearly isn't the right one for such a discussion. Some might say it may even be preceived as derailing the topic at hand but I couldn't possibly comment on that.

I'm using portrayals of males and females in media to see what the standard for bad/good, is. It's proving very hard to pin down which is interesting in and of itself.

If you think female portrayal in movies is of great personal interest to me, then you've missed my point. It's simply an analogy to male portrayals in media, which posters feel is bad. I'm trying to parse out whether reasoning is generalisable to other portrayals in media, in which case it would might be a good principle, or would just apply to boys, which probably isn't a good principle.

You can post anything you like, but if you're going to quote me asking a number of questions, it might be more interesting to address some of those questions.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

sure there is, in countries like the US or UK there are all kinds of legs up for ethnic minorities or women, the white male tends to e excluded from these.

If these are the most specific examples you're going to mention then it's not really much to go on. Pity we never got to the principal of what's good and bad in media portrayal of men/women.

NI24

NI24 wrote: »

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.  Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.  If he had just come out and said it I might have respect for his honesty, but of course that would be admitting that men have it easier than women and we can't have that now can we?

I'd suggest that there is some social conditioning there and it's coming from society rather than artificial obstacles to either gender. Society has it's own perceptions regarding the roles that men and women perform. I've read dozens of books regarding social change (and organizational change) and I've yet to find a clear indication of how social change can be forced to occur. Except through natural change over time. And we have seen that over the last thirty years. The changes in law and the pressure from education/media have pushed the changes in our perception regarding the roles of women in the workplace. Equality of opportunity is here. For women.

There is a tendency to look into the past and connect it with the present. That women were discriminated against in the past cannot be argued against, and that seems to be seen as a valid justification for claims that there exists real discrimination or "obstacles" for women today.

But, it really depends on what industry/career that women are seeking to join.

If you look at any area where physical attributes are important, then women will have natural obstacles to their career. The Military, Fire department, The police, etc. There are genuine obstacles to women simply because most women do not have the physical ability (even with extensive training) to meet the demands of the job. Instead, they will be encouraged to participate in the less physical areas such as administration, logistics, etc. However, I would also point out that there's quite a few men out there who also don't meet those physical requirements too. So It's not based on gender as such, but rather the basic physical requirements.

Whereas, if you look at any industry/career where the physical requirements are low, and the mental requirements are higher, you won't find any real obstacles to women... Or for men (except for emotional or empathy roles).

The fact is that if you look at industries individually, you'll find that women face no real obstacles connected to their gender. They face the same challenges as men. Competition, aggression (occasionally), long hours, a demand for loyalty and commitment, etc.

The real problem, though, is that many women do not want to compete on a level playing field. They don't want to do their official 8 hours with the extra 3 hours added on without overtime, they don't want to work weekends, they don't want the stress of competing with 7 other people for the same position (based on their performance, attitude, and commitment), and more importantly, they don't want a position that has more work for marginally more salary. The truth of the matter is that women do not see the ladder of promotion as being fair because men have accepted it. Very few men see it as being fair... but they accept it as a fact of life. Work hard now, and much later, gain the rewards. Women have been taught to believe that life should be fair. But then, Life isn't fair.

Now... There are a great number of women who do succeed in this environment, but if you check the research, it's because they take on "male" characteristics of competitiveness and acceptance of these difficulties. Some of them will have married and had children, but most will have the same issues as their male counterparts. Bad health, divorces, distance from their children, etc. The costs for the higher positions in any industry are equal for the genders.

And oddly enough these women gain such criticism from their own gender because they've accepted the "male" requirements for success. But in reality, the requirements aren't male. the requirements are simply the requirements for success.

Which is why we continue to hear about these obstacles for women. "They" (Feminists, and womens organisations") don't want women to have to compete.

The truth is that women have as much opportunity to fill a position, as I do (once we remove education and actual experience from the equation)... and promotion will depend on performance beyond the minimum required to keep the position...

storker

silverharp wrote: »

"are you saying" male privilege is real.......:D

im not sure what your point is, he was pretty clear in saying what he wanted to say and he said women shouldnt give up

He also said that in he often works to help his female clients/patients succeed.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If these are the most specific examples you're going to mention then it's not really much to go on. Pity we never got to the principal of what's good and bad in media portrayal of men/women.

how specific do you want, i could give you individual stories but the you would just say they are anecdotal . What I said is true , you will find programs to deal with minorities and programs to deal with women, who is left out fo these circles?

the consensus on the thread was start a new one to deal with media portrayals

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If these are the most specific examples you're going to mention then it's not really much to go on. Pity we never got to the principal of what's good and bad in media portrayal of men/women.

Getting tired of this to be honest.

The conversation was never about good and/or bad portrayals of men and/or women in media. It was you who dragged the conversation off on that tangent. For what purpose I don't know.

The discussion was about why young men are going up to Peterson after his talks and telling him the feel low self esteem etc.

Now I speculated on why that is but I never said what I thought was a good or bad portrayal of men. I said that if these young lads are too invested in their identity as "men" then certain messages about men could be damaging. I wasn't even talking about TV shows or movies or other fiction I was talking about social commentary and opinions of men.

Whether I personally think portrayals of men in media are good or bad is neither here nor there the question was why Peterson encounters so many young men who feel so disillusioned and beaten down.

There was no need, actually, to bring portrayals of women into it at all. But when you decided to bring that up your best example for bad portrayals was that they have hot women in action films.

So then we are just talking past each other. I say "maybe articles with a YES ALL MEN point of view are harming these young lads" and you're response is "what about hot women in movies? Do you only care about one and not the other?"

The conversation at this point is me repeatedly, maybe 4 or 5 times now, having to restate my original point and you repeatedly ignoring that.

Your only goal seems to be to drag the conversation off topic and then insist that it was always about the new topic.

You say "pity we never got to the principal of what's good and bad in media portrayal of men/women" but the conversation was never about that to begin with.

YOU made it about that because you couldn't accept the answer that maybe lads feel run down because they feel like society is ether against them or doesn't care about the.

Now you could say "well those lads are wrong to feel that way" but it doesn't explain WHY they feel that way.

That's what you want to do though so how about I play along?

I think that a media message that "all men are potential rapists" is more damaging that a media message that "all women are have hot bodies, nice titties and great hair". OK. Now what?

I think if the media says "yes, all men are responsible for Rape Culture" then it's not as bad as the media saying "women should hit the gym in February so that they will be beach body ready in August". OK. Now what?

Once you are done giving your opinion on that can you maybe commit to reading posts properly in future so that posters don't have to waste time explaining to you exactly what they meant over and over again?

If you need to ask for clarification just quote the specific text and ask "what do you mean by that". Don't even bother giving your opinion on what you think someone may or may not have said until you have established exactly what has been said. Just ask for clarification first.

A: I think X.
B: So you are saying Y?
A: No, said X.
B: Well if you are saying Y then I have to disagree.
A: No, I said X.
B: Well I don't really understand why you think Y.

Please stop this.

Let me help you.

If someone says "I think X" then you can say "can you be a bit clearer about that". You don't need to twist their words into something else and then argue against the new twisted interpretation. Just ask them to confirm what they mean by X without putting a spin on it.

Saruhashi

JRant wrote: »

Peterson's main argument is that people, especially but not solely young men, need responsibility in their lives. That is, they need encouragement to take on responsibility in their lives. As he rightly points out, someone else's rights are your responsibilities but at present the conversation is solely based on rights and nothing to the responsibilities that come with them.

Since the thread is about sexism against men, I think it's fair enough to point out that as soon as someone like Peterson comes along and tries to help men out there is a backlash against them.

The Channel Four lady was going all out to try to discredit him and obfuscate his points.

It really makes no sense though.

In the beginning he even tries to appeal to her perspective as a woman by saying if we don't help men then women will be unhappy too as their partners are not being helped out. She doesn't really acknowledge the point though.

Maybe too many people have bought into the idea that there is a war on between "Men" and "Women". For them, it follows that you aren't going to win the war by helping the enemy.

If you choose the side of "Women" an then enter a battlefield like "The Gender Pay Gap" then anything outside of "hinder men" or "make it easier for women" is not going to help you win the battle.

In that context, if someone like Peterson says "well maybe men are more willing to fight" then the answer is "well maybe women shouldn't have to fight".

That, in my view, is a big aspect of sexism against men. Men are expected to fight more only to be told they deserve less, while women are asking why they should have to fight at all as they proceed to demand more.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Im amused and bemused that there was so much agreement that Peterson is right in what he's saying but no apparent agreement on what he was saying. Has anyone brash him speak about this topic of encouragement in longer format? Does anyone here know what his specic point was? Everyone seems to be impressed with his own interpretation but surely he had specific point.

This was already explained to you. So why bring it up again?

Peterson made multiple points covering multiple different topics and multiple different aspects of issues.

There was no specific single unifying point.

That's why one person might say "he said this thing that really got me thinking" and another person might say "he said this other thing that really got me thinking too".

I'm not sure that Peterson would be quite so interesting if the had only a singular point to make and he just repeated it over and over.

How would that even promote discussion?

I don't bother with twitter and Facebook precisely because of the anarchy so I'm not really well versed in that.

Right so you aren't "well versed". So why don't you read up before you make comments?

Since you aren't well versed then why don't you take a little bit more time to think about your points?

Since you aren't well versed why don't you ask people what they mean, instead of assuming what they mean and running the risk of getting it wrong?

JRant

Saruhashi wrote: »

Since the thread is about sexism against men, I think it's fair enough to point out that as soon as someone like Peterson comes along and tries to help men out there is a backlash against them.

The Channel Four lady was going all out to try to discredit him and obfuscate his points.

It really makes no sense though.

In the beginning he even tries to appeal to her perspective as a woman by saying if we don't help men then women will be unhappy too as their partners are not being helped out. She doesn't really acknowledge the point though.

Maybe too many people have bought into the idea that there is a war on between "Men" and "Women". For them, it follows that you aren't going to win the war by helping the enemy.

If you choose the side of "Women" an then enter a battlefield like "The Gender Pay Gap" then anything outside of "hinder men" or "make it easier for women" is not going to help you win the battle.

In that context, if someone like Peterson says "well maybe men are more willing to fight" then the answer is "well maybe women shouldn't have to fight".

That, in my view, is a big aspect of sexism against men. Men are expected to fight more only to be told they deserve less, while women are asking why they should have to fight at all as they proceed to demand more.

Very much so. At one point she even interjects to ask what's in it for women and why should they care. I mean if that's the level of discourse that a main stream media presenter can get away with then it tells you how far the poisonous "men v women" has spread.

Imagine the ****-storm if a male presenter asked a #metoo proponent why should men care and what's in it for them.

That's the type of conversation that these idiotic gender warriors love to partake in and it's a race to the bottom IMO. They want everyone divided into nice little groups with sub-groups and sub sub-groups, all with the agenda of making anyone not in "their" group as the 'Other'. Women have it harder than men. Black women have it harder than white women. Black transgender women have it harder than black women. This intersectionality nonsense is a decent into sheer madness.

tritium

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?

Let’s extend that so. For successful women, why doesn’t the bias and obstruction were told women face hold them back? Is it possible some people are just more likely to perceive obstacles and miss opportunity? Is it possible some people aren’t willing to pay the same price for opportunity but can’t accept their own choices?

It’s clear that there are very successful women in all spheres so why can’t other women tap into whatever they’re doing right if they genuinely want that level of success?

Well, any thoughts ED?

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

The discussion was about why young men are going up to Peterson after his talks and telling him the feel low self esteem etc.

Yes. I then asked what was causing the low self esteem. You said media portrayals of men contributed. I asked more about what the standards for good or bad in media portrayals are and this eas

Saruhashi wrote:

The conversation was never about good and/or bad portrayals of men and/or women in media. It was you who dragged the conversation off on that tangent. For what purpose I don't know.

I switched to !ore general protrayals of men/women in media because (as I said several times) I was trying to see if there is a generalisable principal for what's objectionable to you. We Haven't seen any evidence of one. As soon as we got to a close analogy of portrayals of men and women brought up by TB bumbling dad/hot women, the conversation was abandoned and declared it of bounds. That in itself is interesting.

Saruhashi wrote:

Now I speculated on why that is but I never said what I thought was a good or bad portrayal of men. I said that if these young lads are too invested in their identity as "men" then certain messages about men could be damaging. I wasn't even talking about TV shows or movies or other fiction I was talking about social commentary and opinions of men.

Now, I'm often called dishonest but can you honestly day you weren't using the rape articles as a bad portrayal of men? A portrayal which has a negative effect on men's self esteem?

Saruhashi wrote:

Whether I personally think portrayals of men in media are good or bad is neither here nor there the question was why Peterson encounters so many young men who feel so disillusioned and beaten down.

Portrayals of men in rape articles was part of your answer to the question of why Peterson encounters those disillusioned men.

Saruhashi wrote:

There was no need, actually, to bring portrayals of women into it at all. But when you decided to bring that up your best example for bad portrayals was that they have hot women in action films.

Portrayals of women was to test whether there is a generalisable principal at play or not (I've said this loads of times).

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

how specific do you want, i could give you individual stories but the you would just say they are anecdotal . What I said is true , you will find programs to deal with minorities and programs to deal with women, who is left out fo these circles?

Pity you didn't continue to try to recall your opinion on IMD. I went to the trouble of looking up your comment as it stuck out in my mind as unfortunately typical.

silverharp wrote:

if it [REFERRING TO IMD] has any use its to smoke out the misandrists and feminists, they will invariably make some dumb comments that will show them in a bad light.

So while you might support 'man down' you took the opportunity to give your view on IMD and it wasn't positive or supportive.

silverharp wrote:

the consensus on the thread was start a new one to deal with media portrayals

Funny, whenever negative media portrayals are brought up and everyone nods along in agreement, there doesn't seem to be any need to start a new thread. As I said before, I was trying to sell if there was a generalisable principle at play. I've no interest in starting a new thread. If there was an easily identifiable generalisable principle, it would be easy to identify. Instead of identifying the principle, the discussion was abandoned. That's interesting, even if inconclusive.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pity you didn't continue to try to recall your opinion on IMD. I went to the trouble of looking up your comment as it stuck out in my mind as unfortunately typical.



So while you might support 'man down' you took the opportunity to give your view on IMD and it wasn't positive or supportive.



Funny, whenever negative media portrayals are brought up and everyone nods along in agreement, there doesn't seem to be any need to start a new thread. As I said before, I was trying to sell if there was a generalisable principle at play. I've no interest in starting a new thread. If there was an easily identifiable generalisable principle, it would be easy to identify. Instead of identifying the principle, the discussion was abandoned. That's interesting, even if inconclusive.

Well look, one 20 min interview seems to have been more cathartic then some limited street theatre . everything has its place but on line is where it is at. I'd wager in 6 mths time this interview will still be memorable

but what you want to talk about seems to only tangentially relevant . tv and and movies is interesting as its own topic but I dont believe it has any real bearing on the lives of men or women. the current affairs, political media and news media is far more interesting.
A contrast occurred to me about the last US election and it was the way Hillary could play the women's card and be an inspiration to girls whereas people would have thought it was weird if somehow Trump had played a male card. th media only ever talks about female role models, you simply dont hear anything about male role models, it might come up in passing as an issue with single mothers but otherwise groups of men are only ever shamed "angry white men" " basement dwellers" "creeps" "sexists"

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

Well look, one 20 min interview seems to have been more cathartic then some limited street theatre . everything has its place but on line is where it is at. I'd wager in 6 mths time this interview will still be memorable

Limited street theatre? Oh are you saying media like movies and tv are unimportant to culture as opposed to LON's (and street theatre). How much time does the average person spend watching TV and movies compared to reading gender identity articles. Actually, I would believe you spend more time reading LON and gender identity stuff than other people. But I'd wager that that most people get more media than simply reading the national paper.

I know, I know. You don't want to discuss any media except the specific media that you're comfortable with. The idea that TV and movies are almost irrelevant to culture is a new one on me. But it doesn't seem that anyone is willing to discuss it so there's no point asking any more questions.

silverharp wrote:

but what you want to talk about seems to only tangentially relevant . tv and and movies is interesting as its own topic but I dont believe it has any real bearing on the lives of men or women. the current affairs, political media and news media is far more interesting. A contrast occurred to me about the last US election and it was the way Hillary could play the women's card and be an inspiration to girls whereas people would have thought it was weird if somehow Trump had played a male card. th media only ever talks about female role models, you simply dont hear anything about male role models, it might come up in passing as an issue with single mothers but otherwise groups of men are only ever shamed "angry white men" " basement dwellers" "creeps" "sexists"

Ha. So Hillary Clinton is relevant to the discussion, but TV and movies aren't. Ok you make the rules (as you go along apparently).

Trump played by his own rules. He could have tried to inspire young boys. I have to say I think you picked about the least likely example of a man to inspire other men. Trump is one person who has never seemed to care about helping others.

I think it's more a reflection of the media you consume. I like rugby and listen to rugby media like podcasts. Those men spend loads of time inspiring young men and being role models to young men. They do underage coaching throughout the country which is a massive inspiration to those boys and men who they coach.

I'm watching the snooker this week and they have segments throughout the week where people ask the professionals specific questions about how to improve their game and how to get into professional snooker. The questions were asked almost exclusively by men, through a male presenter, and answered by male professionals.

Now, I'll be very surprised if you accept those examples because reasons. I do however think that if you don't see men offer inspiration and encouragement to other men, you're either looking at the wrong media or making sure to ignore it when you come across it, because do see loads of it.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. So Hillary Clinton is relevant to the discussion, but TV and movies aren't. Ok you make the rules (as you go along apparently).

Trump played by his own rules. He could have tried to inspire young boys. I have to say I think you picked about the least likely example of a man to inspire other men. Trump is one person who has never seemed to care about helping others.

I think it's more a reflection of the media you consume. I like rugby and listen to rugby media like podcasts. Those men spend loads of time inspiring young men and being role models to young men. They do underage coaching throughout the country which is a massive inspiration to those boys and men who they coach.

I'm watching the snooker this week and they have segments throughout the week where people ask the professionals specific questions about how to improve their game and how to get into professional snooker. The questions were asked almost exclusively by men, through a male presenter, and answered by male professionals.

Now, I'll be very surprised if you accept those examples because reasons. I do however think that if you don't see men offer inspiration and encouragement to other men, you're either looking at the wrong media or making sure to ignore it when you come across it, because do see loads of it.

I think fiction versus non fiction is an important distinction im not making up the rules so how a female politician like Hillary conducted herself is noteworthy i remember her and Obama making pay gap speeches that our interviewer Cathy Newman would have been happy with. As for trump, it doesnt matter, no male or female politician ever suggests they are running to advance men or boys

sports is at best tangental , its hardly a philisophical system

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

I think fiction versus non fiction is an important distinction im not making up the rules so how a female politician like Hillary conducted herself is noteworthy i remember her and Obama making pay gap speeches that our interviewer Cathy Newman would have been happy with. As for trump, it doesnt matter, no male or female politician ever suggests they are running to advance men or boys

Ah, so it's fiction Vs non fiction. If you're honestly suggesting that art and fiction aren't an important method of representing culture, then I think it's fair to say you're making this up as you go along. But that's ok. You tell me what's in and out of bounds.

silverharp wrote:

sports is at best tangental , its hardly a philisophical system

Of course its only tangential to you because I keep finding you framing all these discussions within careers. But i keep reminding you that jobs and careers aren't the only aspect of young men's development and life in general.

I heard Jamie Heaslip (very successful Leinster and Ireland rugby player) on 'the left wing' podcast last week. He was talking about his approach to rugby and life in general. His dad was an Irish army ranger and he instilled a very disciplined approach to life. The line that stuck out to me was 'talent is meaningless without discipline'.

He spoke about his balance in life between disciplined work ethic and taking time to appreciate your life as you go along. He comes across as a really laid back guy so it was surprising to hear him speak so strongly about discipline. It was a really interesting and inspiring and generalisable to any aspect you want to excel at in life.

Now I took that to be a a positive message coming from an admiral man and an excellent role model. Im really sorry to think you would be happier with a Message from Donald Trump than 'at best tangential' real life role model for young men like Jamie Heaslip.

If you're determined to be the victim, there's little that will convince you otherwise. I see lots of great male role models in my life. Im sorry you don't have the same experience.

backspin.

JRant wrote: »

Very much so. At one point she even interjects to ask what's in it for women and why should they care. I mean if that's the level of discourse that a main stream media presenter can get away with then it tells you how far the poisonous "men v women" has spread.

Imagine the ****-storm if a male presenter asked a #metoo proponent why should men care and what's in it for them.

That's the type of conversation that these idiotic gender warriors love to partake in and it's a race to the bottom IMO. They want everyone divided into nice little groups with sub-groups and sub sub-groups, all with the agenda of making anyone not in "their" group as the 'Other'. Women have it harder than men. Black women have it harder than white women. Black transgender women have it harder than black women. This intersectionality nonsense is a decent into sheer madness.

The left don't like to see one of their own humiliated like Cathy Newman was. I notice they are trying to make misogyny against Cathy the story now and hold Peterson responsible. They can't argue the points so go for the man. I hope he isn't censored over this.

Saruhashi

backspin. wrote: »

The left don't like to see one of their own humiliated like Cathy Newman was. I notice they are trying to make misogyny against Cathy the story now and hold Peterson responsible. They can't argue the points so go for the man. I hope he isn't censored over this.

That is so predictable. Its pretty bad if she is getting abuse over the interview but how can we reasonably expect to control EVERYONE online?

It was one of the final points she pressed him on too. That his "followers" abuse people that he has arguments/debates with.

Problem is that it's almost an admission that he is right. So they will say that, although he is right, there are faceless individuals somewhere online abusing his opponents so he can't speak because of that.

Therefore his opponents go unchallenged.

Funny that they never bring up the abuse Dr Peterson receives. Surely that's an argument for shutting down his opponents?

Pawwed Rig

Saruhashi wrote: »

That is so predictable. Its pretty bad if she is getting abuse over the interview but how can we reasonably expect to control EVERYONE online?

sticks and stones?? These guys on all sides need to grow up and take a bit of criticism.

JRant

backspin. wrote: »

The left don't like to see one of their own humiliated like Cathy Newman was. I notice they are trying to make misogyny against Cathy the story now and hold Peterson responsible. They can't argue the points so go for the man. I hope he isn't censored over this.

I've seen some mention of it alright and it's completely predictable. It will be used against him to try get his views off the airwaves. They can't let someone like him go around deconstructing their sound bites and "feelz".

py2006

I think if that interview lasted much longer she wasn't far off saying, "Yea, but you smell...".

NI24

McGaggs wrote: »

NI24 wrote: »

It's too bad he didn't have the balls to say that gender equality really is a myth.  Even when women fight as hard as men they have obstacles that men will never have and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage.  If he had just come out and said it I might have respect for his honesty, but of course that would be admitting that men have it easier than women and we can't have that now can we?

In this country, women earn more than men until they come to the age demographic which is most likely to start having children. Can't figure out what the obstacle may be here...

You answered your own question in this statement.  Women still have to carry and feed a baby for nine months if they want children.  Men have no such responsibilities.  That is a huge, life changing obstacle.  To pretend that it doesn't affect a woman's career is BS.  In fact, you admitted it in your post without acknowledging that it is an obstacle.

givyjoe

NI24 wrote: »

You answered your own question in this statement.  Women still have to carry and feed a baby for nine months if they want children.  Men have no such responsibilities.  That is a huge, life changing obstacle.  To pretend that it doesn't affect a woman's career is BS.  In fact, you admitted it in your post without acknowledging that it is an obstacle.

As others have already said, simply remove the 'obstacle' by deciding NOT to have children.

Although, it doesn't seem to have been an obstacle to the Kiwi Prime Minister. Perhaps women should man, sorry 'woman up' and stop making excuses.

py2006

NI24 wrote: »

You answered your own question in this statement.  Women still have to carry and feed a baby for nine months if they want children.  Men have no such responsibilities.  That is a huge, life changing obstacle.  To pretend that it doesn't affect a woman's career is BS.  In fact, you admitted it in your post without acknowledging that it is an obstacle.

Eh I don't think that needed pointing out to him

NI24

py2006 wrote: »

Eh I don't think that needed pointing out to him

Then why did he respond to my post?  He could have just agreed and left it.

silverharp

NI24 wrote: »

You answered your own question in this statement.  Women still have to carry and feed a baby for nine months if they want children.  Men have no such responsibilities.  That is a huge, life changing obstacle.  To pretend that it doesn't affect a woman's career is BS.  In fact, you admitted it in your post without acknowledging that it is an obstacle.

I find this kind of feminist deconstructionism toxic. Men and women complement each other, the pay gap is about as silly as discussing the 100mtr olympics gap or the ability to have babies gap

NI24

silverharp wrote: »

I find this kind of feminist deconstructionism toxic. Men and women complement each other, the pay gap is about as silly as discussing the 100mtr olympics gap or the ability to have babies gap

It's not silly if you're an ambitious woman who wants to compete and have a family.

silverharp

NI24 wrote: »

It's not silly if you're an ambitious woman who wants to compete and have a family.

either woman up as was suggested earlier, marry down so you can have a house husband or stop being so agreeable and compete like men.

NI24

silverharp wrote: »

either woman up as was suggested earlier, marry down so you can have a house husband or stop being so agreeable and compete like men.

Ah typical patronizing from a man who doesn't have to make such sacrifices.   Btw, having a house husband won't remove the obstacle.  The baby still has to be born.

givyjoe

NI24 wrote: »

It's not silly if you're an ambitious woman who wants to compete and have a family.

Then what exactly do you propose? Pretend as though you weren't off for 9 months (while the men AND women who weren't on maternity leave continued to work) and still get the promo which other men or women may deserve more than you?

Want 'it all'? Then campaign for better parental leave so that your other half can take a transfer of the balance of your maternity leave allowing you back to work earlier, where you can compete for the promotion/success that you want.

NI24

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd suggest that there is some social conditioning there and it's coming from society rather than artificial obstacles to either gender. Society has it's own perceptions regarding the roles that men and women perform. I've read dozens of books regarding social change (and organizational change) and I've yet to find a clear indication of how social change can be forced to occur. Except through natural change over time. And we have seen that over the last thirty years. The changes in law and the pressure from education/media have pushed the changes in our perception regarding the roles of women in the workplace. Equality of opportunity is here. For women.

There is a tendency to look into the past and connect it with the present. That women were discriminated against in the past cannot be argued against, and that seems to be seen as a valid justification for claims that there exists real discrimination or "obstacles" for women today.

But, it really depends on what industry/career that women are seeking to join.

If you look at any area where physical attributes are important, then women will have natural obstacles to their career. The Military, Fire department, The police, etc. There are genuine obstacles to women simply because most women do not have the physical ability (even with extensive training) to meet the demands of the job. Instead, they will be encouraged to participate in the less physical areas such as administration, logistics, etc. However, I would also point out that there's quite a few men out there who also don't meet those physical requirements too. So It's not based on gender as such, but rather the basic physical requirements.

Whereas, if you look at any industry/career where the physical requirements are low, and the mental requirements are higher, you won't find any real obstacles to women... Or for men (except for emotional or empathy roles).

The fact is that if you look at industries individually, you'll find that women face no real obstacles connected to their gender. They face the same challenges as men. Competition, aggression (occasionally), long hours, a demand for loyalty and commitment, etc.

The real problem, though, is that many women do not want to compete on a level playing field. They don't want to do their official 8 hours with the extra 3 hours added on without overtime, they don't want to work weekends, they don't want the stress of competing with 7 other people for the same position (based on their performance, attitude, and commitment), and more importantly, they don't want a position that has more work for marginally more salary. The truth of the matter is that women do not see the ladder of promotion as being fair because men have accepted it. Very few men see it as being fair... but they accept it as a fact of life. Work hard now, and much later, gain the rewards. Women have been taught to believe that life should be fair. But then, Life isn't fair.

Now... There are a great number of women who do succeed in this environment, but if you check the research, it's because they take on "male" characteristics of competitiveness and acceptance of these difficulties. Some of them will have married and had children, but most will have the same issues as their male counterparts. Bad health, divorces, distance from their children, etc. The costs for the higher positions in any industry are equal for the genders.

And oddly enough these women gain such criticism from their own gender because they've accepted the "male" requirements for success. But in reality, the requirements aren't male. the requirements are simply the requirements for success.

Which is why we continue to hear about these obstacles for women. "They" (Feminists, and womens organisations") don't want women to have to compete.

The truth is that women have as much opportunity to fill a position, as I do (once we remove education and actual experience from the equation)... and promotion will depend on performance beyond the minimum required to keep the position...

Competing against men physically is so far out of my expectations that I wasn't even thinking of it, but thank you for reminding me of yet another obstacle.

silverharp

NI24 wrote: »

Ah typical patronizing from a man who doesn't have to make such sacrifices.   Btw, having a house husband won't remove the obstacle.  The baby still has to be born.

you cant deny reality and on an overall basis , men don't have it better. The woman gets to be the prime parent, in any split up the woman generally gets to dictate the terms of child custody and men have to financially support women. I know plenty of women with high powered jobs and having babies didn't hurt their careers.
The problem is comparing groups and assigning reasoning to them that you cant possibly know. For a start families don't aim to maximise income, secondly married women can take on jobs that they wouldn't be able to do if they had to be the prime earner.
This isn't the problem its made out to be

manonboard

This recent discussion turn, reminded me of this quote by Eckhart Tolle.

I've frequently observed this phenomenon in my mind, and i think it occurs hugely in the radical feminist narrative, and i'll expect the same in men from any efforts to help them too.

NI24

silverharp wrote: »

NI24 wrote: »

Ah typical patronizing from a man who doesn't have to make such sacrifices.   Btw, having a house husband won't remove the obstacle.  The baby still has to be born.

you cant deny reality and on an overall basis , men don't have it better. The woman gets to be the prime parent, in any split up the woman generally gets to dictate the terms of child custody and men have to financially support women. I know plenty of women with high powered jobs and having babies didn't hurt their careers.
The problem is comparing groups and assigning reasoning to them that you cant possibly know. For a start families don't aim to maximise income, secondly married women can take on jobs that they wouldn't be able to do if they had to be the prime earner.
This isn't the problem its made out to be

Ah more patronizing from a man who has no idea what he's talking about.  But please tell my sister that her taking time off to deliver her baby and recover from it and the effect it had on her career isn't a problem.  She'll laugh in your face.  But I find it hilarious when you lecture someone on making assumptions when you did just that in your post multiple times.  You have no idea if families aim to maximize income or that women with high powered jobs who have children don't suffer career setbacks.

manonboard

NI24 wrote: »

It's not silly if you're an ambitious woman who wants to compete and have a family.

Why do you feel that such a resource consuming, high career distracting goal should not interfere with other goals in their life such as wanting to climb a corporate ladder?

I took 3 years out to further a goal i had, which required intense training. It also frequently requires me to devote time, resources, and mental attention to maintain it so i can benefit from this. One of the costs i pay is that I have less time, resources, and mental energy to compete in work. So I've had to let go of the career goal I previously wanted.

Why do you think think this applies differently to having family?

I know when i have family, i will also lose time, resources and attention to my existing goal, and more of my career goals, so i can spend time with my family.

I will choose to do it because i set my priorities, and know each will affect the other.

Could you clarify (if) why you think having a family for women is an exception to this dynamic that should be eliminated by further external support/chances?

NI24

givyjoe wrote: »

Then what exactly do you propose? Pretend as though you weren't off for 9 months (while the men AND women who weren't on maternity leave continued to work) and still get the promo which other men or women may deserve more than you?

You don't get it.  There are no solutions.  Gender equality is a myth as I said the first time and if this Peterson guy had any guts he'd come out and say it.