Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jordan Peterson interview on C4
Options
Comments
-
silverharp wrote: »I'm not a member of any group though, I'm just critical of modern feminism. As for spending a long time badmouthing LON, I havnt really because I don't read her stuff , Ill assume though she just parrots the type of feminism one sees on the internet.
If you say he says that, I havnt heard Peterson say that
how do we know LON wants to improve society in a way that society actually improves?, Stalin wanted to improve society, Mao wanted to improve society.... how would LON change society for the better ?
And there was me thinking you supported men’s rights when you weren’t crying about the success of the feminists. My mistake.
Put your house in Perfect order before you criticise others is part of the clean your room hype. Surprised you missed it since it’s a fairly central part of the self improvement jazz. I suppose you don’t need to know what Peterson says to know he’s right lol.
Whether something is beneficial will always be subjective. Sone things will be beneficial to some and not to others. All this dancing around do you can avoid saying you agree with societal improvement.
Tidying your room won’t help solve the problems for men in family courts. But that would mean talking the LON approach snd actively trying to improve society and putting Peterson and his ‘clean your room’ sermons on mute for a wee while.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »And there was me thinking you supported men’s rights when you weren’t crying about the success of the feminists. My mistake.
Put your house in Perfect order before you criticise others is part of the clean your room hype. Surprised you missed it since it’s a fairly central part of the self improvement jazz. I suppose you don’t need to know what Peterson says to know he’s right lol.
Whether something is beneficial will always be subjective. Sone things will be beneficial to some and not to others. All this dancing around do you can avoid saying you agree with societal improvement.
Tidying your room won’t help solve the problems for men in family courts. But that would mean talking the LON approach snd actively trying to improve society and putting Peterson and his ‘clean your room’ sermons on mute for a wee while.
I'd wish them well on the basis that there does not appear to legal equality in certain areas, and we are all about the equality
As for Peterson I doubt he was so binary , fixing yourself before trying to fix the world is a message as old as the hills but I'd imagine the meaning is where is your time and energy devoted to, I remember him saying that it would be difficult to have good mental health unless you have certain basics in place. I assume you would concur that you should have good mental health before spending all your time trying "to fix the world"?
As for LON and feminism I don't think its a useful set of ideas to improve society because it has a flawed base therefore a lot of its ideas are going to be flawed.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
So you’ve wriggled and danced around the issue for posts and posts. So ultimately, do you support societal improvement on fathers rights ala LON or self improvement ala Peterson.0
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »So you’ve wriggled and danced around the issue for posts and posts. So ultimately, do you support societal improvement on fathers rights ala LON or self improvement ala Peterson.
I'm not wiggling, my problem with feminists in particular is that they are blaming their woes on men but don't have a viable solution. Society is basically meritocratic , if a woman wants to be a brain surgeon or shop assistant or a mother or both, they are free to compete with men or partner up ideally on the mothering front.
If on the other hand feminists want equality of outcome , this is not meritocratic therefore I would disagree with anything venturing into this area.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »So you’ve wriggled and danced around the issue for posts and posts. So ultimately, do you support societal improvement on fathers rights ala LON or self improvement ala Peterson.
Societal improvement without first exploring the self-improvement route is doomed to failure.
To take the example you give, if a father is unhappy with his level of input and access to his child's life then this is the consequence of a long chain of events that occurred before the legislative policy ever became a factor. He should first look at whether his lack of rights is real or imaginary. Given the circumstances is he really being denied his rights or are his expectations unreasonable?
He should then look at why the mother of the child does not consider him worthy of the rights which he feels he deserves, dispassionately assess whether he is in fact worthy of them or not. If he is not then he should self-improve so that he becomes worthy.
If he is or becomes worthy and is still denied then he should look at the reasons why the mother doesn't see this worthiness and make steps to convince her of the value he can give to the child.
Trying to bring about top-down change to benefit the position you find yourself in without thorough self-examination is not a good long-term strategy. The failings that you have that brought about the bad outcomes that you are experiencing will remain unaddressed and will bring about future bad outcomes.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's grand.silverharp wrote: »El_Duderino 09 wrote: »So you’ve wriggled and danced around the issue for posts and posts. So ultimately, do you support societal improvement on fathers rights ala LON or self improvement ala Peterson.
I'm not wiggling, my problem with feminists in particular is that they are blaming their woes on men but don't have a viable solution. Society is basically meritocratic , if a woman wants to be a brain surgeon or shop assistant or a mother or both, they are free to compete with men or partner up ideally on the mothering front.
If on the other hand feminists want equality of outcome , this is not meritocratic therefore I would disagree with anything venturing into this area.
Now if you'd read the question I asked and have a shot at answering it. You'll make yourself dizzy from all the wriggling and zig zagging Its the same question I've been asking in each of a number of posts.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »So you’ve wriggled and danced around the issue for posts and posts. So ultimately, do you support societal improvement on fathers rights ala LON or self improvement ala Peterson.
Societal improvement without first exploring the self-improvement route is doomed to failure.
To take the example you give, if a father is unhappy with his level of input and access to his child's life then this is the consequence of a long chain of events that occurred before the legislative policy ever became a factor. He should first look at whether his lack of rights is real or imaginary. Given the circumstances is he really being denied his rights or are his expectations unreasonable?
He should then look at why the mother of the child does not consider him worthy of the rights which he feels he deserves, dispassionately assess whether he is in fact worthy of them or not. If he is not then he should self-improve so that he becomes worthy.
If he is or becomes worthy and is still denied then he should look at the reasons why the mother doesn't see this worthiness and make steps to convince her of the value he can give to the child.
Trying to bring about top-down change to benefit the position you find yourself in without thorough self-examination is not a good long-term strategy. The failings that you have that brought about the bad outcomes that you are experiencing will remain unaddressed and will bring about future bad outcomes.
I can't argue with much of that. Self improvement is good. But it won't change the family court system.
I think it's not a coincidence that people have spent so long railing against the dreaded feminists and all their successes in changing society. But men notice societal problems that affect men but it's difficult to then do a complete 180° turn and start supporting similar activism in to tackle male issues as the dreaded feminists have done for women's issues.
So along comes Peterson and tells men they're definitely the oppressed ones. Even though the feminists claim they have problems, the men have the REAL problems. And the most important part of the sales pitch is not to try to fix the problems that are affecting them, instead they should buy a self help book. And would you believe it, Peterson happens to be, at this very moment, selling a self help book that'll cure what ails ya.
I've no problem with the self help in Peterson's philosophy. Its the fact that he downplays activism because it's not what he's selling at the moment.0 -
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I can't argue with much of that. Self improvement is good. But it won't change the family court system.
I think it's not a coincidence that people have spent so long railing against the dreaded feminists and all their successes in changing society. But men notice societal problems that affect men but it's difficult to then do a complete 180° turn and start supporting similar activism in to tackle male issues as the dreaded feminists have done for women's issues.
So along comes Peterson and tells men they're definitely the oppressed ones. Even though the feminists claim they have problems, the men have the REAL problems. And the most important part of the sales pitch is not to try to fix the problems that are affecting them, instead they should buy a self help book. And would you believe it, Peterson happens to be, at this very moment, selling a self help book that'll cure what ails ya.
I've no problem with the self help in Peterson's philosophy. Its the fact that he downplays activism because it's not what he's selling at the moment.
Just to clarify the statements of what a hypothetical father should do in the above example is my opinion of what would bring about the best outcome for him. The question of what he is morally obligated to do in any set of circumstances is completely separate.
Self-improvement is certainly good and the best outcome for the individual with regard to the family court system in most cases is that they never have to go near it. Any solution brought about by compromise is likely to be respected by both parties a lot more than one brought about by decree.
I don't undertand the sentence with the 180 degree turn comment in it, could you clarify.
I haven't seen where does Peterson tell men that they are the oppressed ones with the "REAL" problems? The portion of his writings that I have read haven't included that message.
I have read where he tells people that their best opportunity to produce positive outcomes from situations they find themselves in that they want to change is to use introspection as to how they got there, dispassionate assessment of their expectations and self-improvement to make themselves worthy and capable of achieving improvement in their situation as the first steps to achieveing the change that they desire.
I would add to the above that even if all attempts at self-improvement and compromise are unsuccesful and the issue progresses to the family courts the non-custodial father would be in a better position to get the best from whatever the outcome of the family court is if he had taken those steps first.
Peterson claims to have received thousands of thanks from people who feel they have benefited from the advice he gives so if this is true then he could reasonably consider that trying to promote his philosophy is an altruistic action as well as undeniably very profitable. O'Neill earns money from newspaper columns where she promotes activism and this equally could be altruistic in that she believes that the type of activism that she promotes benefits people or motivated more by a desire for gain. In either case they both have a right to make their living any way they choose.
At a quick glance there are a number of sources of people thanking Peterson, some of which state they are female, which gives credence to his claim to have helped people.
Poll of people helped by Jordan Peterson’s Philosophy
Thank you, Dr. Peterson
Undoubtedly other people feel grateful for the work that O'Neill does but I don't know what claims she has made to that effect so I haven't done a search to verify.
If you agree with the main theme in my previous post that a non-custodial father not happy with his situation from your example is benefitted from following a course of action that is close to my interpretation of what Peterson advises would you also agree that (to stick to the example you started with) in the case of O'Neill, who believes that factors like patriarchy and gender pay gap affect her negatively, an individual would also be best served by taking the exact same set of steps as described above for the father.
i.e. first honestly examining if her disadvantage is real or imaginary, assessing whether her expectations are realistic, is she worthy of what she feels she is being denied and if not trying to become worthy and finally act towards the people and entities who are denying her what she deserves such that she makes her worthiness apparent to them.
Again I re-iterate that this is not a moral case of what she (or the father) should have to do, merely a blueprint for a course of action likely to benefit them most.
Having first carried out these steps to their conclusion if the father and O'Neill in the hypothetical example we are dealing with are still unhappy with their situation they could well both best be served by pursuing activism to enact top-down change and would both be in a better position to deal with the success or failure of their efforts than if they had not followed the introspection and self-improvement route prior to embarking on it.
My initial comment on this interview was on O'Neill's lack of self-awareness because in a discussion about whether or not it is better to always start with ourselves when trying to improve our lives she completely ignored this aspect of the debate and focused solely on the failings of society that she wanted to bring about top-down change to correct.
This is not any sort of argument that she had not, prior to embarking on activism, fully introspected and improved such that activism was then the best route for her to go down but she did not give any indication that this was the case.
A much more interesting discussion could have been had if O'Neill had addressed the issue that the host introduced and given her opinion on it.
- She might have discussed the steps she had taken on a personal level prior to embarking on activism and shared some of the insights she gained and how they helped her get to the place where she is today and how they either changed or re-enforced her prior beliefs and assumptions.
- She might have discussed why she believed that the philosophy that it is always best to start with ourselves when trying to improve our lives is flawed and given arguments why this was the case.
Instead she took the premise "in order to effectively fix X it is best first to do Y" and answered it with "look how broken X is" which is a circular argument.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
Peterson tells you to get your house in Perfect order before you criticise others .
Perfect order? I think you are adding that adjective there my son.0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »That's grand.
Now if you'd read the question I asked and have a shot at answering it. You'll make yourself dizzy from all the wriggling and zig zagging Its the same question I've been asking in each of a number of posts.
remind me?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
I don't undertand the sentence with the 180 degree turn comment in it, could you clarify
Sure. There are threads and threads based on complaining and grumbling about feminists as all the ways they have successfully changed society through activism. One solution would be to encourage men’s rights supporters to become active and address men’s issues. But the criticism of feminism has become such a circle jerk that it includes opposition to everything and anything feminists do.
Have you ever read the ambivalence and outright opposition to things like International Men’s Day on these threads? Funny enough, the feminists who post here are supportive of actively raising awareness of men’s issues. The opposition largely comes from the people who are most active in the men’s rights thread. The one that stands out most to me is one of the most active posters on men’s rights who said the only use of international men’s day is to ‘smoke out’ feminists who oppose it. The clown didn’t notice their own post was talking down IMD. Any opposition on that occasion came from supposed men’s rights supporters but they’re primarily anti feminists. Ironic, eh?
Men’s rights seems to be more concerned with grumbling about feminists and whatever they do. It has gone so far that it’s difficult to get men’s activism off the ground. It would take a complete 180 turn to get men’s rights activism off the ground because of the opposition to activism masquerading as pro men’s rights.
Peterson offers a self help programme. He doesn’t sell activism so he doesn’t encourage activism. It’s a perfect fit for the ones who have conflated anti feminism with pro men.
Self help is grand to an extent. There are dozens of people selling self help. I think self help wont change a legal problem like the bias in the family court. All the self help in the world won’t raise public awareness of an issue, it won’t bring about attitudinal or societal change or change legislation.
Just because activism isn’t part of what Peterson’s selling, doesn’t mean it ought to be dismissed.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
Peterson tells you to get your house in Perfect order before you criticise others .
Perfect order? I think you are adding that adjective there my son.
It’s the title of a chapter in his latest self help book according to Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Rules_for_Life
No need to thank me, my son.0 -
silverharp wrote: »El_Duderino 09 wrote: »That's grand.
Now if you'd read the question I asked and have a shot at answering it. You'll make yourself dizzy from all the wriggling and zig zagging Its the same question I've been asking in each of a number of posts.
remind me?
No problem. It’s the same question I asked in each message I posted in response to you yesterday.
Here it is.El_Duderino 09 wrote: »So you’ve wriggled and danced around the issue for posts and posts. So ultimately, do you support societal improvement on fathers rights ala LON or self improvement ala Peterson.
Let me help you focus your attention. There’s no need to go off into feminism or anything else. The issue at hand in this case is fathers rights in the family court.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »No problem. It’s the same question I asked in each message I posted in response to you yesterday.
Here it is.
Let me help you focus your attention. There’s no need to go off into feminism or anything else. The issue at hand in this case is fathers rights in the family court.
the feminism was thrown in there so you cant take it out now. OK, so in the case of a wide ranging tirade against men by feminists, in this case I would say fix yourselves, for example go study STEM and stop bitching from the gender studies dept.
In the case of father's rights or an equivalent issue of importance to women, say reproductive rights, by all means try to get bad laws changed if that's how you see them. I don't see a contraction or dichotomy, if its something specific then its not either or. you do see that distinction?A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »El_Duderino 09 wrote: »No problem. It’s the same question I asked in each message I posted in response to you yesterday.
Here it is.
Let me help you focus your attention. There’s no need to go off into feminism or anything else. The issue at hand in this case is fathers rights in the family court.
the feminism was thrown in there so you cant take it out now. OK, so in the case of a wide ranging tirade against men by feminists, in this case I would say fix yourselves, for example go study STEM and stop bitching from the gender studies dept.
In the case of father's rights or an equivalent issue of importance to women, say reproductive rights, by all means try to get bad laws changed if that's how you see them. I don't see a contraction or dichotomy, if its something specific then its not either or. you do see that distinction?
As you keep demonstrating, self improvement is for the other side.
So to bring it back to the discussion, while Peterson's correct and LON is wrong, when it comes to an issue that's important to you it all goes out the window. Peterson sells self improvement, LON sells societal improvement. And you're willing to switch sides and take the LON approach, never acknowledge that her approach is the one you're take, and still fail to see the dichotomy.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »As you keep demonstrating, self improvement is for the other side.
So to bring it back to the discussion, while Peterson's correct and LON is wrong, when it comes to an issue that's important to you it all goes out the window. Peterson sells self improvement, LON sells societal improvement. And you're willing to switch sides and take the LON approach, never acknowledge that her approach is the one you're take, and still fail to see the dichotomy.
the likes of LON sell victimhood , a lot of pouting and goals which are more like slogans than actual "improvements" that people can understand, that is different to focused single issues which generally involve a simple law change or judicial change. "Bringing down the Patriarchy" is a word bubble not something to be taken seriously.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
silverharp wrote: »El_Duderino 09 wrote: »As you keep demonstrating, self improvement is for the other side.
So to bring it back to the discussion, while Peterson's correct and LON is wrong, when it comes to an issue that's important to you it all goes out the window. Peterson sells self improvement, LON sells societal improvement. And you're willing to switch sides and take the LON approach, never acknowledge that her approach is the one you're take, and still fail to see the dichotomy.
the likes of LON sell victimhood , a lot of pouting and goals which are more like slogans than actual "improvements" that people can understand, that is different to focused single issues which generally involve a simple law change or judicial change. "Bringing down the Patriarchy" is a word bubble not something to be taken seriously.
Dance silverharp, dance.
Activism is LON's brand, not Peterson's. You'd choose LON's approach but never acknowledge it.
Im just seeing how far out of your way you'll go to stick to the line Peterson right, LON wrong.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Dance silverharp, dance.
Activism is LON's brand, not Peterson's. You'd choose LON's approach but never acknowledge it.
Im just seeing how far out of your way you'll go to stick to the line Peterson right, LON wrong.
you are trying to sell a false dichotomy, if you want me to believe that Peterson would hypothetically go up to every activist group on the planet and tell them to fix themselves first then I have a strawman factory you might be interested in buying.
let me repeat if someone's primary stance in life can be summed up by "bring down the Patriarchy" they most likely should go off and fix themselves, lose a bit of weight, learn something useful in college, that kind of thing. Not to be compared with reasonable activism for a specific change in a specific law or policy.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
For anyone who's actually interested in Peterson's views on activism here's a video with a competent interviewer who presses him on it. Amazingly his position is slightly more nuanced than Duderinos so-what-you're-saying carry on might suggest
0 -
Advertisement
-
So he believes in ancient knowledge of DNA helix structure?0
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Sure. There are threads and threads based on complaining and grumbling about feminists as all the ways they have successfully changed society through activism. One solution would be to encourage men’s rights supporters to become active and address men’s issues. But the criticism of feminism has become such a circle jerk that it includes opposition to everything and anything feminists do.
Have you ever read the ambivalence and outright opposition to things like International Men’s Day on these threads? Funny enough, the feminists who post here are supportive of actively raising awareness of men’s issues. The opposition largely comes from the people who are most active in the men’s rights thread. The one that stands out most to me is one of the most active posters on men’s rights who said the only use of international men’s day is to ‘smoke out’ feminists who oppose it. The clown didn’t notice their own post was talking down IMD. Any opposition on that occasion came from supposed men’s rights supporters but they’re primarily anti feminists. Ironic, eh?
Men’s rights seems to be more concerned with grumbling about feminists and whatever they do. It has gone so far that it’s difficult to get men’s activism off the ground. It would take a complete 180 turn to get men’s rights activism off the ground because of the opposition to activism masquerading as pro men’s rights.
Peterson offers a self help programme. He doesn’t sell activism so he doesn’t encourage activism. It’s a perfect fit for the ones who have conflated anti feminism with pro men.
Self help is grand to an extent. There are dozens of people selling self help. I think self help wont change a legal problem like the bias in the family court. All the self help in the world won’t raise public awareness of an issue, it won’t bring about attitudinal or societal change or change legislation.
Just because activism isn’t part of what Peterson’s selling, doesn’t mean it ought to be dismissed.
Thanks for the clarification.
I haven't read about International Men's Day so I am not aware of what you describe above but your description is quite subjective.
Would you also agree with the converse of your statement:
"activism is grand to an extent ... dozens of people are selling activism
... Self-improvement shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't part of what O'Neill is selling"
Peterson has discussed why he feels activism is over-emphasized and makes his case for it (see Bambi's video above for example). On the BBC program O'Neill didn't make any coherent argument about why or if she feels self-improvement is over-emphasized despite appearing on a discussion program with this as the stated topic. I'm not very familiar with her output so if you know of somewhere else where she addresses this please let me know.
Peterson makes some salient points in that video about activism but I think misses the main issue of why an over-emphasis on activism is likely to have bad effects.
I think Peterson makes a strong case that his philosophical position is effective at enabling individuals to take unilateral action to create better outcomes for themselves in most circumstances but in order to assess what the likely outcome of an over-emphasis on activism is we should also consider a wider perspective and look at the effects on all parties in the case of a conflict that is resolved by law.
Looking at the example of the non-custodial father that we were discussing I put forward the opinion that the best outcomes available to him (and also to the mother and child) are very likely to occur in a situation where the issue of access or guardianship can be resolved between the responsible parties without the intervention of the family courts.
There are a lot of reasons to favour conciliatory, compromise solutions between the people who are most likely have their own interests and the interests of the child at heart to dictats handed down by the blunt instrument of the law.
So in this example the self-improvement route (followed by one or both of the parties) brings about what I argue in the paragraph above is likely to be a better solution than the outcome that would have been achieved by the result of having the law that is handed down by the courts more favourable to party A and less favourable to party B or vice versa.
If compromise is not reached or is not reachable then in this situation the opportunity for the best category of solutions to the conflict has already been lost. The issue at this stage is which party will be advantaged over the other in what is largely a zero-sum game. In this situation the course of action that leads to the best outcome for the individual could be to be the more effective activist such that the law decides in their favour but it is easy to see that this is (1) a non-ideal outcome compared to a compromise solution and (2) only positive for them at the expense of negative consequences for the other party.
On this basis I would say that it is preferable to emphasize self-improvement as it increases the probability of the best type of outcomes and incentivises co-operation whereas solutions that are achieved by the force of law are sub-optimal and incentivise conflict and advantage for one only at the expense of the other. As Peterson says in the video there are clearly situations where political activism is justified but I agree with him that it is over-emphasized by many for some of the reasons he gives as well as the reason above.0 -
So he believes in ancient knowledge of DNA helix structure?
Yeah ancient Egyptions and aboriginies in Australia.
Look at this beauty no wonder the incel heads love him.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465?s=200 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
So along comes Peterson and tells men they're definitely the oppressed ones
I'd be interested in seeing where he says this exact phrase0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Dunno about feminists and Islam being bedfellows, sounds one helluva stretch to me. The ancient DNA stuff is beyond a stretch*. Interestingly the majority of converts to Islam are women. 75% or higher. This is just in the UK. Given Islam has gender roles that are more "old fashioned", more "patriarchal" this surprised me. Even more so as Christian/Jewish women don't have to convert to marry a Muslim man, whereas Christian/Jewish men can't marry a Muslim woman if they don't convert. One might have expected upon any brief thought on the matter that if more men actually wanted a return to old style gender roles they'd be the ones, rather than women doing the converting in more numbers. It could simply be that in the face of the modern world and the various pressures on women to succeed in all things like some Tampax advert and the pressures of beauty standards that such a conversion feels "easier", even safer. Whereas men taking on an actual patriarchal role is more responsibility and more difficult.Yeah ancient Egyptions and aboriginies in Australia.
Look at this beauty no wonder the incel heads love him.
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465?s=20
*the simplest and least crazy explanation is the world is full of things that wrap around other things; vines, snakes, worms, weaving rope etc, so it became a minor thematic device in some cultures. That DNA is kinda similar is just plain coincidence.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Mostly women convert if they have got into a relationship.Dunno about feminists and Islam being bedfellows, sounds one helluva stretch to me. The ancient DNA stuff is beyond a stretch*. Interestingly the majority of converts to Islam are women. 75% or higher. This is just in the UK. Given Islam has gender roles that are more "old fashioned", more "patriarchal" this surprised me. Even more so as Christian/Jewish women don't have to convert to marry a Muslim man, whereas Christian/Jewish men can't marry a Muslim woman if they don't convert. One might have expected upon any brief thought on the matter that if more men actually wanted a return to old style gender roles they'd be the ones, rather than women doing the converting in more numbers. It could simply be that in the face of the modern world and the various pressures on women to succeed in all things like some Tampax advert and the pressures of beauty standards that such a conversion feels "easier", even safer. Whereas men taking on an actual patriarchal role is more responsibility and more difficult.
.
Excluding that, I imagine similar rates of conversion.0 -
silverharp wrote: »El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Dance silverharp, dance.
Activism is LON's brand, not Peterson's. You'd choose LON's approach but never acknowledge it.
Im just seeing how far out of your way you'll go to stick to the line Peterson right, LON wrong.
you are trying to sell a false dichotomy, if you want me to believe that Peterson would hypothetically go up to every activist group on the planet and tell them to fix themselves first then I have a strawman factory you might be interested in buying.
let me repeat if someone's primary stance in life can be summed up by "bring down the Patriarchy" they most likely should go off and fix themselves, lose a bit of weight, learn something useful in college, that kind of thing. Not to be compared with reasonable activism for a specific change in a specific law or policy.
When it suits you it's reasonable activism for change in specific laws. When you don't benefit from it you're happy to lump it into 'bring down the patriarchy.
Peterson talks in Bambi's video below about his derision of activism and young people. They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves. He doesn't use the word 'millennials' or say 'back in my day things were done right' but it's the sentiment.
Its as new and interesting as any old man who complains that football was better back in his day, summers were longer and the sun shone every day, and you could get a quart of sweets for truppence_ha'penny.
What's impressive is that he's selling memories of the good ole days to people who are too young to remember them. Did anyone enjoy watching Bill O'Reilly on fox news? I used to keep an eye to see what he was selling to his viewers and it's the same flavour of rose tinted history. The way forwards is backwards. Granted he's eloquent compared to the fox news boys, but it's similar stuff.0 -
Look at this beauty no wonder the incel heads love him.
Why would the incels love him? he would be the first to tell them to get their act together, lose the weight, take a hammer to the games consols go out and get a job and stop being entitled man babies.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »When it suits you it's reasonable activism for change in specific laws. When you don't benefit from it you're happy to lump it into 'bring down the patriarchy.
Peterson talks in Bambi's video below about his derision of activism and young people. They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves. He doesn't use the word 'millennials' or say 'back in my day things were done right' but it's the sentiment.
Its as new and interesting as any old man who complains that football was better back in his day, summers were longer and the sun shone every day, and you could get a quart of sweets for truppence_ha'penny.
What's impressive is that he's selling memories of the good ole days to people who are too young to remember them. Did anyone enjoy watching Bill O'Reilly on fox news? I used to keep an eye to see what he was selling to his viewers and it's the same flavour of rose tinted history. The way forwards is backwards. Granted he's eloquent compared to the fox news boys, but it's similar stuff.
he has a point, if a group of people get involved in activism to save their local hospital or school or to highlight a particular illness, suicide maybe, that makes sense, they are active people in their community who have a stake in whatever the issue is.
On the other hand someone overly obsessed with "bringing down the Patriarchy" is more likely than not just an internally unhappy person who is blaming men or whatnot for their problems.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Advertisement
-
Thanks for the clarification.
I haven't read about International Men's Day so I am not aware of what you describe above but your description is quite subjective.
Would you also agree with the converse of your statement:
"activism is grand to an extent ... dozens of people are selling activism
... Self-improvement shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't part of what O'Neill is selling"
Peterson has discussed why he feels activism is over-emphasized and makes his case for it (see Bambi's video above for example). On the BBC program O'Neill didn't make any coherent argument about why or if she feels self-improvement is over-emphasized despite appearing on a discussion program with this as the stated topic. I'm not very familiar with her output so if you know of somewhere else where she addresses this please let me know.
Peterson makes some salient points in that video about activism but I think misses the main issue of why an over-emphasis on activism is likely to have bad effects.
I think Peterson makes a strong case that his philosophical position is effective at enabling individuals to take unilateral action to create better outcomes for themselves in most circumstances but in order to assess what the likely outcome of an over-emphasis on activism is we should also consider a wider perspective and look at the effects on all parties in the case of a conflict that is resolved by law.
Looking at the example of the non-custodial father that we were discussing I put forward the opinion that the best outcomes available to him (and also to the mother and child) are very likely to occur in a situation where the issue of access or guardianship can be resolved between the responsible parties without the intervention of the family courts.
There are a lot of reasons to favour conciliatory, compromise solutions between the people who are most likely have their own interests and the interests of the child at heart to dictats handed down by the blunt instrument of the law.
So in this example the self-improvement route (followed by one or both of the parties) brings about what I argue in the paragraph above is likely to be a better solution than the outcome that would have been achieved by the result of having the law that is handed down by the courts more favourable to party A and less favourable to party B or vice versa.
If compromise is not reached or is not reachable then in this situation the opportunity for the best category of solutions to the conflict has already been lost. The issue at this stage is which party will be advantaged over the other in what is largely a zero-sum game. In this situation the course of action that leads to the best outcome for the individual could be to be the more effective activist such that the law decides in their favour but it is easy to see that this is (1) a non-ideal outcome compared to a compromise solution and (2) only positive for them at the expense of negative consequences for the other party.
On this basis I would say that it is preferable to emphasize self-improvement as it increases the probability of the best type of outcomes and incentivises co-operation whereas solutions that are achieved by the force of law are sub-optimal and incentivise conflict and advantage for one only at the expense of the other. As Peterson says in the video there are clearly situations where political activism is justified but I agree with him that it is over-emphasized by many for some of the reasons he gives as well as the reason above.
"Would you also agree with the converse of your statement:
"activism is grand to an extent ... dozens of people are selling activism
... Self-improvement shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't part of what O'Neill is selling"
Yes. I've said it a few times that I'm fine with both the Peterson approach and the LON approach. Self improvement and societal improvement.
And I also think the optimal solution is to work out an equitable agreement between the parents without court involvement. And at the moment we have a family court system which does not treat men's be women equally. So all the self Improvement in the world won't address that inequality.
Peterson ,when pressed, will concede that activism is sometimes called for. He then goes on to say it shouldn't be done by young people because they're too stupid and inexperienced to know anything about it. He's not selling a societal help manual, he's selling self help manual. Its fine for him to emphasise the product he's selling over the rival products, but it's not really ok for him to convince his flock that his product is the only one on the market.
I'll see if I can fish out the IMD thread. Its a hoot to see that all and any criticism comes from men. Any women who contributed were in favour of it. The conflation of anti Feminism with men's rights is interesting in and of itself.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-rE03PGQfA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x3hFZx1_VU
Advertisement