Great book especially with his new one coming soon. Beyond Order is being released on March 2nd, 2021.
If you haven’t read this, maybe now is the time? :)
CamelCamelCamel.
No, it's not an interpretation - it's just not true that he said that lol.
The whole interview is online, why don't you link us to when he says that?
@Autonomic: Aaaaand as we all already knew, he doesn't say any of that in the video (or anywhere else).
Why would you link it if it not only doesn't support your argument, but directly supports mine?
@wojaus: The following exchange literally happens at the timestamp linked (11m37s):
Interviewer:
If a women doesn't want sexual harassment in the workplace and wears makeup, is she being hypocritical?
Jordan:
Yeah. I do think that
@Autonomic: Cool story, really. But if you would come back to reality for a second and have a look at what HDer said:
I remember this Jordan said in an interview that women in the workplace are to be blamed for sexual harassment because they wear makeup. He thinks women wear makeup to sexually attract men so sexual harassment is justified. He doesn't believe women should be in the same workplace with men because of it. That's the most disgusting thing I have ever heard and I really hope people can resist giving this demon more money.
I really shouldn't need to go through each accusation like this, so I'm gonna make a fun little game out of it!
Now let's play round two of "DID HE SAY IT??"!
"women in the workplace are to be blamed for sexual harassment because they wear makeup." - Didn't say it.
"…sexual harassment is justified." - Didn't say it. In fact, for bonus points let's see what he actually said: https://youtu.be/xpYWwhp7XHc?t=1030
"He doesn't believe women should be in the same workplace with men because of it." - Didn't say it.
3 for 3, folks! See you next time!
closing credits
@wojaus: He's calling women hypocritical for wearing make up and then saying they don't want to be sexually harassed.
He's saying they share the blame for their own harassment. There's no other way to interpret that exchange.
@Autonomic: "He's calling women hypocritical for wearing make up and then saying they don't want to be sexually harassed."
"There's no other way to interpret that exchange." Lordy.
Nope, he's saying it's SOMEWHAT hypocritical for women to wear makeup and high heels and expect that it doesn't sexualise them. That's it. Did the Vice interviewer try to discuss the nuances of that? Nope. You, like the Vice interviewer, (as Peterson pointed out) are pushing this beyond what he's saying (while totally missing the opportunity to delve deeper into what he actually did say). Do that if you want, but understand that it's nonsensical and counter-productive.
The thing is that his approach to this issue is as a researcher and clinician, whereas most people's is emotional/political/ideological. The obvious problems that arise are that the other people 1) assume he is also being emotional/ political/ideological, and 2) then can't help but mischaracterise his points and put words in his mouth. He tries to explore a delicate and nuanced situation, and these people for whatever reason can't handle it and "RHEEEEEEEE" all over it like a bull in china shop.
If a woman doesn't want sexual harassment in the workplace and wears makeup, is she being hypocritical?
He is explicitly talking about sexual harassment in this sentence. Not sexualisation.
@Autonomic: Aaaand we're back to explaining this - you're (willfully?) misrepresenting and misconstruing things. If you listen to all of his comments on the subject (in this interview), you will get the context to that line - and then what you get is more in line with what I said before.
11:11 - "Yes or no question: Do you feel like women wearing makeup in the workplace contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace?"
Answer: "Sure it contributes."
Then at 11:37 - "Do you feel like a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace, that she is somewhat being hypocritical."
Answer: "Yeah. I do think that. I don't see how you could not think that - it's like, makeup is a sexual display, that's what it's for."
Ok, 'somewhat hypocritical'. So, specifically in what way are they being hypocritical? Well, bear with me as I break it down…
The kind of sexual harassment we're talking about here cannot happen outside of a sexualised environment (and all it takes for it to become a sexualised environment, is for one person to find the other sexually attractive - whether or not the other person feels the same). Now, someone finds a woman sexually attractive, and if the woman is wearing makeup, that CONTRIBUTES to them finding her sexually attractive (because makeup is a sexual display) [as an aside, of course it's possible people are going to find her sexually attractive even without the makeup - it's just that the question was specifically about wearing makeup, so Peterson stuck to answering that], ergo wearing makeup CONTRIBUTES to a sexualised environment - from which sexual harassment may arise.
So, so far not blaming
It is in this specific/distinct way that Peterson is saying a woman wearing makeup CONTRIBUTES to sexual harassment.
Therefore, in that specific way it is 'somewhat hypocritical' for a woman (or anyone) to say they don't want sexual harassment while also actively contributing to creating a sexualised environment. Because, to reiterate, by wearing makeup they are contributing to creating a sexualised environment. That's all. Just stating the point/fact. He doesn't go beyond that.
Now, either he felt it didn't need to be said, or he didn't get around to saying it as the interview moved on… but to spell it out: it is simply hypocritical in the strictest sense. This does not equate to "the woman is responsible for the fault of someone harassing her."
Or another way, Jordan Peterson is not saying they are to 'blame' for harassment, he is only saying that it is being somewhat hypocritical to say you don't want sexual harassment and then to also contribute to creating an environment for sexual harassment to potentially happen.
@wojaus: First of all, I fully understand his "logic". It still doesn't change anything - you're still repeating the exact same argument: that wearing makeup makes you culpable for your own harassment (partially or not).
by wearing makeup they are contributing to creating a sexualised environment. That's all. Just stating the point/fact. He doesn't go beyond that.
He directly links makeup and sexual harassment in the same sentence and specifically calls out make-up as hypocritical behaviour. Hypocritical being a key word here. What does calling something hypocritical mean? He's saying you shouldn't do it. So your argument is:
"You shouldn't wear make up in the work place, because it contributes to a sexualised environment which makes it more likely that YOU will be harassed. ergo, it was partially your own fault."
Am I wrong?
The question is, how far does this arguement go? There are hundreds of ways people make themselves appear attractive, or ways that people find others attractive. If we consider all of them to contribute to a "sexualised environment" then where does it stop? Should women not wear perfume? Should they make sure they don't exaggerate a hip swing when they walk? Should they wear stockings? Should they do up their hair?
As an aside the premise that sexual attractiveness is required for sexual harassment totally flawed. Similar to the fact that the way someone is dressed doesn't increase the chance of them sexually assaulted.
@Autonomic: Firstly, if this whole argument is down to you misunderstanding what hypocritical means…
What does calling something hypocritical mean? He's saying you shouldn't do it.
That is not what hypocritical means.
"Hypocrisy: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess." 'Should' or 'shouldn't' doesn't even come into it. Just that there is some contradiction/discordance between idea and action.
….that wearing makeup makes you culpable for your own harassment (partially or not).
No, that's not what he is saying.
I don't know how many more ways I can explain this: just because what they are doing is somewhat hypocritical, that does not also automatically equate to them being responsible for, or somehow deserving of, the fault of someone harassing them. Creating the environment for sexual harassment is hypocritical, but it is not the same as being culpable for your own harassment. They are two separate things but you keep conflating them.
"You shouldn't wear make up in the work place, because it contributes to a sexualised environment which makes it more likely that YOU will be harassed. ergo, it was partially your own fault."
No! It's only: "Makeup contributes to a sexualised environment which makes it more likely that the person wearing makeup will be harassed." End. No ergo.
There are hundreds of ways people make themselves appear attractive, or ways that people find others attractive.
If we consider all of them to contribute to a "sexualised environment" then where does it stop? Should women not wear perfume? Should they make sure they don't exaggerate a hip swing when they walk? Should they wear stockings? Should they do up their hair?"
This is exactly the point Peterson was making - Who knows. He's saying those rules haven't been established yet.
Almost everyone is responsible for sexualising the workplace, including women who wear makeup - Peterson is obviously careful to not say 'fault', because fault fundamentally requires being judged against a set of rules, and as Peterson says, he/we/society don't even know what the rules are…tldr; there can't be any 'fault' because there are currently no rules. But being responsible for sexualising the workplace is NOT the same as being responsible for the actions of people who sexually harass others.
As an aside the premise that sexual attractiveness is required for sexual harassment totally flawed.
How so? Seems to me in this case it absolutely is required. Tell me, who is going around sexually harassing people they don't find sexually attractive?
If it was the kind of sexual assault you find in a hazing, then probably it won't be a requirement.
Could Peterson have chosen to acknowledge how someone already prejudiced against him might take that exchange, and then made an effort to explain? Yes. Instead, because he was obviously pissed off by the reporter's attitude/approach to the interview/prejudice, he decided to (perhaps childishly) not help the interviewer in order and let him expose his prejudice.
@wojaus: Hypocrisy has multiple definitions :
characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
This is obviously the definition jp is using. How on earth would wearing makeup be considered a virtuous or principled act, going by your definition…? Or are you trying to say despite saying they don't want sexual harassment, they secretly do?
"Makeup contributes to a sexualised environment which makes it more likely that the person wearing makeup will be harassed." End. No ergo.
How does this NOT result in the conclusion that women share the blame for their own harassment? What other possible way is there to interpret this? Jordan peterson is asked explicitly about sexual harassment and he says makeup contributes to it. You can't ignore that.
Is this something you believe personally? That women shouldn't wear makeup if they don't want to be sexually harassed?
Tell me, who is going around sexually harassing people they don't find sexually attractive
If you're claiming only those who are attractive can be harassed then that's on you. That's obviously not the case, but I'll give you one example: making up and spreading sexual rumours about a co-worker in order to put them down.
@Autonomic: Yes, I thought the dictionary.com version I found was a bit wordy/described at a strange level of abstraction. The version you have is more succinct/not as abstract. Regardless, I'm happy with your understanding of hypocrisy (it originally looked like you believed hypocrisy meant "should not do it" - but as I said, 'should/shouldn't' don't enter into it).
How on earth would wearing makeup be considered a virtuous or principled act, going by your definition…?
1) It's not my definition.
2) It's not - it's in the 'etc', it's a behaviour/act. (luckily you found a better/more useful definition)
Or are you trying to say despite saying they don't want sexual harassment, they secretly do?
Eyeroll No, that's not what anyone is saying at all.
Is this something you believe personally? That women shouldn't wear makeup if they don't want to be sexually harassed?"
Whether or not I believe that doesn't matter/doesn't come into it, but for your benefit - No! For the zillionth time, I don't believe that, Peterson doesn't believe that. That's not the point. The point is that ANYONE who in theory does not want sexual harassment (man, woman, Muppet, whoever) cannot then also do things to sexualise the work place without being hypocritical (behaviour clashing with belief). Becaaaaause, by definition, it's impossible to have this type of sexual harassment in an environment that has not been sexualised. If it is accepted that this kind of sexual harassment can only happen in a sexualised environment, and that wearing makeup sexualises the environment, then it is hypocritical to both want a non-sexualised environment (so that sexual harassment can't happen) AND to also at the same time do things to sexualise the environment, ie wearing makeup (behaviour clashing with belief).
How does this NOT result in the conclusion that women share the blame for their own harassment?
Because, like I said earlier (and Peterson alluded to in the interview), there can be no fault/blame if there are no rules…and in this instance, there are no rules. So the woman hasn't done anything against the rules to fault her for. The only rule related to this situation is 'don't (sexually) harass people', which the harasser has done, so the harasser is at fault.
That's obviously not the case, but I'll give you one example: making up and spreading sexual rumours about a co-worker in order to put them down.
OMFG eyeroll so intense they actually spin 360 degrees, is that not in the same boat as hazing?? Yes, you can definitely use the sexual dimension specifically as a way to hurt someone without being sexually attracted to them. Is that what this whole conversation has been about though?? Is that the type of sexual harassment referred to by #metoo?? No! I thought I was being overly cautious/specific when I said originally, "The kind of sexual harassment we're talking about here cannot happen outside of a sexualised environment." But looks like you've proved me wrong.
PS. I just want to acknowledge and apologise for being snarky sometimes -it's due to frustration, but I know it's still a dick thing to do and not conducive to a good conversation.
it originally looked like you believed hypocrisy meant "should not do it" - but as I said, 'should/shouldn't' don't enter into it).
Hypocritical is a negative thing. If you're calling something hypocritical, you're saying it shouldn't be done.
OMFG eyeroll so intense they actually spin 360 degrees, is that not in the same boat as hazing?? Yes, you can definitely use the sexual dimension specifically as a way to hurt someone without being sexually attracted to them. Is that what this whole conversation has been about though?? Is that the type of sexual harassment referred to by #metoo?? No! I thought I was being overly cautious/specific when I said originally, "The kind of sexual harassment we're talking about here cannot happen outside of a sexualised environment." But looks like you've proved me wrong.
This is insane. NO, it's not hazing. It's textbook sexual harassment. No, we are not talking about "the type of sexual harassment referred to by #metoo". We're talking about sexual harassment, period. There's nothing you or Jordan Peterson has said to indicate otherwise.
Any other terms you want to re-define before we continue?
then it is hypocritical to both want a non-sexualised environment (so that sexual harassment can't happen) AND to also at the same time do things to sexualise the environment, ie wearing makeup (behaviour clashing with belief).
This logic plainly doesn't work unless you are ascribing blame for the harassment to the woman for wearing make-up.
Let's keep things simple:
Who's to blame here?
Option 1: The harasser alone, for harassing the woman
Option 2: The harasser, for harassing the woman AND the woman, for wearing make-up
Hypocritical is a negative thing. If you're calling something hypocritical, you're saying it shouldn't be done.
That's incorrect. Granted in most general conversations you will hear/participate in, 'hypocrisy' will be linked to 'shouldn't'. But it by no means is 'baked into' the meaning of the word. And in this case the interviewer loaded the word with 'should/shouldn't' and Peterson did not. As I said before, it is hypocritical in the strictest sense. And that's what I was referring to about Peterson acknowledging the interviewer was obviously misinterpreting him (I would even say it was somewhat childish and unproductive of him to do so). Is it that you can see that and willfully ignore it, or you actually can't see that?
No, we are not talking about "the type of sexual harassment referred to by #metoo". We're talking about sexual harassment, period.
Are you for real?? Do you understand and agree that there are different premises between someone sexually harassing another person because they are sexually attracted to them, and someone sexually harassing another person simply to hurt them?? I'm finding it hard to believe you are dense enough to not.
There's nothing you or Jordan Peterson has said to indicate otherwise.
Again, you cannot be serious!! The whole interview was about women being sexually harassed by men because the men found them sexually attractive. They even directly refer to #metoo! They weren't talking about heterosexual women slut shaming other heterosexual women, or football players hazing new players by making them get naked and run laps. Jesus.
I'm not 'redefining' anything!
This logic plainly doesn't work unless you are ascribing blame for the harassment to the woman for wearing make-up.
It demonstrably does not. I've explained multiple times exactly why that's incorrect. It only doesn't work if you don't understand the meaning on 'hypocrisy' - which you are clearly struggling with.
Who's to blame here?
As I said previously, option 1. Just the harasser.
@wojaus: >
That's incorrect. Granted in most general conversations you will hear/participate in, 'hypocrisy' will be linked to 'shouldn't'. But it by no means is 'baked into' the meaning of the word. And in this case the interviewer loaded the word with 'should/shouldn't' and Peterson did not. As I said before, it is hypocritical in the strictest sense. And that's what I was referring to about Peterson acknowledging the interviewer was obviously misinterpreting him (I would even say it was somewhat childish and unproductive of him to do so). Is it that you can see that and willfully ignore it, or you actually can't see that?
Give me an example of hypocrisy not being linked with "you shouldn't do it"
Are you for real?? Do you understand and agree that there are different premises between someone sexually harassing another person because they are sexually attracted to them, and someone sexually harassing another person simply to hurt them?? I'm finding it hard to believe you are dense enough to not.
I don't think you understand how varied the behaviour that constitutes sexual harassment is. I think what you're trying to talk about is a very specific type of sexual harassment - unwanted sexual advances.
Again, you cannot be serious!! The whole interview was about women being sexually harassed by men because the men found them sexually attractive. They even directly refer to #metoo!
No, it wasn't. If you think it was it should be easy to show with quotes.
They weren't talking about heterosexual women slut shaming other heterosexual women, or football players hazing new players by making them get naked and run laps. Jesus.
Neither am I. No idea what the relevance of this is. A man can make up sexual rumours about a woman.
As I said previously, option 1. Just the harasser.
Great. Logically then, if she shares no blame, then her actions did not contribute to the sexual harassment, right?
Give me an example of hypocrisy not being linked with "you shouldn't do it"
Easy: It may be hypocritical of a wolf to forego an easy meal, but I'm glad he didn't eat my child while I was away.
No, but seriously, I'll do it with the main point. The main point is that it is somewhat hypocritical to at once be against sexual harassment, and also be a contributing factor to that sexual harassment (simply by sexualising the environment). However, it turns out most people are quite happy to work in a somewhat sexualised environment…sooo would you say we shouldn't do it?
I don't think you understand how varied the behaviour that constitutes sexual harassment is. I think what you're trying to talk about is a very specific type of sexual harassment - unwanted sexual advances.
I have a pretty good understanding, thanks. And yes, that IS what we have been talking about, because the point we are arguing was about that specific type of sexual harassment.
No, it wasn't. If you think it was it should be easy to show with quotes.
1:39 - Interviewer: "Hey why don't you not grab like the ass of your co-worker."
1:43 - Peterson: "NBC has regulated hugging."
1:49 - Interviewer: "Don't you think that was like a response to these sorts of stories of generations of men taking advantage…?"
2:30 - Interviewer: "40 years ago, if I was a white man who was Jacqueline's boss, I could have done whatever I wanted, and there would be almost no recourse that a woman who was working under me could have."
6:30 - Interviewer: "Do you not think there has been any pushback against this #metoo movement at all?"
The ONLY slight deviance from that was at 6:24 Peterson mentions women manuipulating men sexually for advancement in the workplace, but they don't continue with it.
There is no way you can watch that interview and not know that any talk of sexual harassment was about women being sexually harassed by men because the men found them sexually attractive. So stop bullshitting, the interview was about that type of sexual harassment, and so that's what was being referred to in your origional comment, and so that's what we've been discussing this whole time.
Great. Logically then, if she shares no blame, then her actions did not contribute to the sexual harassment, right?
Her actions contributed only in that they helped create the sexualised environment, which is a contributing factor to the type of sexual harassment being discussed by Peterson and the interviewer. It's just a contributing factor, it's not her fault she was harassed, it's the harasser's.
Just like a kid running away from home CONTRIBUTED to the end state oh him being abducted. Like, sure it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't run away, but that doesn't mean he then should be/deserves to be abducted. It's just a contributing factor and it's not his fault he was abducted, it's the kidnapper's.
Easy: It may be hypocritical of a wolf to forego an easy meal, but I'm glad he didn't eat my child while I was away.
This is not an example of hypocrisy. There's no contradiction.
No, but seriously, I'll do it with the main point. The main point is that it is somewhat hypocritical to at once be against sexual harassment, and also be a contributing factor to that sexual harassment (simply by sexualising the environment).
I'm going to ignore the second part of your comment for a moment. What you've written here portrays hypocrisy negatively. Her actions are contradicting what she says she wants.
However, it turns out most people are quite happy to work in a somewhat sexualised environment…sooo would you say we shouldn't do it?
This sentence though, I don't understand. It seems like you're saying in this case the woman has accepted the risks of sexualising the workplace in exchange for working in a sexualised environment (because she wants to, apparently). Accepting a trade off is not hypocrisy. There's no contradiction.
It's clear you're wrong about the definition of sexual harassment, but you've clarified what you were talking about so I don't really care to discuss it further.
Finally I hard disagree that make up contributes to a sexualised environment. Even if you do accept that then you have to extend the same logic to virtually everything. Wearing suits, putting gel in your hair, wearing cologne, grooming your beard and so on. The idea that there exists some set of rigid "rules" that will solve all issues is ridiculous.
This is not an example of hypocrisy. There's no contradiction.
The contradiction is that a hungry wolf would usually take advantage of an easy meal, but for some reason this time did not. The wolf acted contrary to it's nature.
I'm going to ignore the second part of your comment for a moment. What you've written here portrays hypocrisy negatively. Her actions are contradicting what she says she wants.
I don't understand what your point is, but as far as I can see you haven't presented anything to invalidate Peterson's point. The woman in this case is being contradictory/somewhat hypocritical.
It seems like you're saying in this case the woman has accepted the risks of sexualising the workplace in exchange for working in a sexualised environment (because she wants to, apparently). Accepting a trade off is not hypocrisy.
Sorry no, I probably should have move that - I can see that it could look like I'm using it as part of my point about hypocrisy. I'm just adding a point that PEOPLE, not just women or the woman in this example, have decided/chosen not to remove sexuality from the workplace (though as an aside, apparently the Maoists did try to do that). It fits more with our points at the end.
It's clear you're wrong about the definition of sexual harassment, but you've clarified what you were talking about so I don't really care to discuss it further.
What an absolute load of nonsense. The proof that that is blatantly untrue is clear in every one of my previous posts.
Finally I hard disagree that make up contributes to a sexualised environment.
You can disagree, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong lol. Wearing makeup is a sexual display. Wearing it therefore necessarily contributes to sexualising the environment.
Even if you do accept that then you have to extend the same logic to virtually everything. Wearing suits, putting gel in your hair, wearing cologne, grooming your beard and so on.
Correct. Just because Peterson was specifically asked about women and makeup, doesn't mean almost everyone else is contributing to sexualising the work environment, too. I mean, some things would be more or less difficult to define as 'sexualising' than 'wearing makeup', but the point remains.
The idea that there exists some set of rigid "rules" that will solve all issues is ridiculous.
Correct again. As I said before, and it's right there in the video - this is another point Peterson is making. He sees this fundamental issue, and when asked, admits he doesn't know what to do about it. But working out a huge bunch of rules seems absurd, tyrannical and dehumanising.
The contradiction is that a hungry wolf would usually take advantage of an easy meal, but for some reason this time did not. The wolf acted contrary to it's nature.
Acting contrary to what's expected is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a contradiction between action and what a person claims. A wolf doesn't state anything. We have no insight into it's mind - the wolf could not be hungry, for example. I don't think animals can even be called hypocritical.
Again, hypocrisy is a negative thing. You have to acknowledge that.
You can disagree, doesn't change the fact that you're wrong lol. Wearing makeup is a sexual display. Wearing it therefore necessarily contributes to sexualising the environment.
If it's a fact, then where's the proof?
Correct. Just because Peterson was specifically asked about women and makeup, doesn't mean almost everyone else is contributing to sexualising the work environment, too. I mean, some things would be more or less difficult to define as 'sexualising' than 'wearing makeup', but the point remains.
So what's the point of this discussion? You're saying the workplace is "sexualised" by hundreds of different facets of humans behaviour (disputed) but also say it's impossible to change it.
Hypocrisy
https://medium.com/@D_writes/is-it-bad-to-be-a-hypocrite-d68…
Legit pretty good read. Man people on this website are so much better at explaining things than me -.-
Where's the proof
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/…
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/06/beauty-sidebar
Like, I could go on and on…
I still don't know if you truly don't understand, or if you are being willfully blind/ignorant. I was googling some 'proof' for you about makeup being a sexual display when I stumbled across this write-up. (I was genuinely blown away when I came across this - I've never seen such an excellent examination of this sort of thing)
https://medium.com/@philosoph316/kate-manne-jordan-peterson-…
Even though I don't like some of what he says, or disagree with a couple of things (I'm sure the same will be true for you), it is objectively very well thought out and well written, though does miss one or two things I would say.
I have not been able to effectively explain this situation to you - partly because to do so would require exactly what is written here, and I have not been up to the task. It does an excellent job of being an outside, impartial observer to your/the interviewer's POV and my/Peterson's POV on not just this particular topic, but of how we both view the world (which is obviously most of the problem here) and why we clash. If you still cannot understand (simply UNDERSTAND, you don't have to LIKE it - Peterson himself doesn't like it) his point / why he said what he said after reading this, I'm pretty sure there is nothing I can say that will help. Maybe re-watch the interview, and any of his other contentious interviews after having read, digested and really thought on what is being said in this write-up.
So what's the point of this discussion?
Just to clear up the mischaracterisation of what he said. Whether you lie, mischaracterise, misconstrue, base thoughts and actions on misunderstanding etc you foster a false view of reality to some extent, and that is not good on a lot of levels. Fair enough if that happens as a byproduct of trying to explore an idea, but I don't think that is what was happening.
And also, the whole attitude of people like you shits me, that's probably my main motivator tbh. That's almost certainly to the detriment of my ability to properly argue, but I'm not perfect.
Legit pretty good read. Man people on this website are so much better at explaining things than me -.-
Which example in there shows hypocrisy as something that shouldn't be viewed negatively? I don't buy any arguments the author themselves made - they're quite poor.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/…
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/06/beauty-sidebar
Like, I could go on and on…
There's no link made to sexual harassment.
Just to clear up the mischaracterisation of what he said. Whether you lie, mischaracterise, misconstrue, base thoughts and actions on misunderstanding etc you foster a false view of reality to some extent, and that is not good on a lot of levels. Fair enough if that happens as a byproduct of trying to explore an idea, but I don't think that is what was happening.
And also, the whole attitude of people like you shits me, that's probably my main motivator tbh. That's almost certainly to the detriment of my ability to properly argue, but I'm not perfect.
I'm not talking about this discussion with you. I'm asking what Jordan Petersons overarching argument is.
Also as an aside I can't believe how hostile you are. You can't write a paragraph without peppering in insults.
Which example in there shows hypocrisy as something that shouldn't be viewed negatively?
Here:
Journalists sometimes embed themselves into groups of white supremacists on false pretenses, pretending to also be a white supremacist in order to get an insider account.
A journalist who does so is a hypocrite. They pretended to be a white supremacist, but actually don’t believe in white supremacy at all! They treat people of different races as their equals! Hypocrite!
In this case, being a hypocrite is a very good thing, precisely because racism is wrong.
This is a classic case of hypocrisy. If doing gay stuff is so bad, how come you are doing gay stuff, hmm?
And here:
The problem with this line of argument again is that it is a logical fallacy. It might be that gay stuff is bad and they are doing it. After all, if I go around saying “murder is bad” and I’m a secret serial killer, that isn’t an argument that killing is OK!
As it turns out, gay sex isn’t morally wrong. If we say the act of having gay sex isn’t itself wrong, it’s hard to say that being a hypocrite is wrong either. Why would it be wrong to do something morally neutral?
I'm not going into this any more.
There's no link made to sexual harassment.
You asked for proof that makeup is a sexual display. I gave it.
I'm not talking about this discussion with you. I'm asking what Jordan Petersons overarching argument is.
I do not have the time or inclination to detail his whole point and all the points behind that point (I'm already sick of the rigmarole of clearing up this one little thing). But basically, his argument is something like, 'Yes, it's a conundrum, a very complex situation, and I don't even know what I would do about it, let alone what should be done about it.' All Peterson is doing is trying to explore the situation. It's the interviewer who is trying to lock Peterson into a "yes or no" / 'black or white' dynamic. And Peterson is obviously frustrated and pissed off that this guy is 1) not making a sincere attempt at an open-minded conversation about the situation, and 2)has a prejudiced view of Peterson and is often simply trying to get him with "gotchas". It's annoying and offensive both academically and personally.
Also as an aside I can't believe how hostile you are.
Not an excuse, but you can imagine how frustrating it would be trying to explain how water is wet, and the person you're explaining to stubbornly insists, "WHERE does it say 'wet' in 'water'?". I know this is not a perfect example, but it fairly accurately explains how I feel in this situation.
Journalists sometimes embed themselves into groups of white supremacists on false pretenses, pretending to also be a white supremacist in order to get an insider account.
A journalist who does so is a hypocrite. They pretended to be a white supremacist, but actually don’t believe in white supremacy at all!
This isn't hypocrisy. An undercover investigator isn't a hypocrite.
The problem with this line of argument again is that it is a logical fallacy. It might be that gay stuff is bad and they are doing it. After all, if I go around saying “murder is bad” and I’m a secret serial killer, that isn’t an argument that killing is OK!
As it turns out, gay sex isn’t morally wrong. If we say the act of having gay sex isn’t itself wrong, it’s hard to say that being a hypocrite is wrong either. Why would it be wrong to do something morally neutral?
This argument makes no logical sense. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with the morals of the action. Are you telling me you don't consider a politician engaging in gay sex while saying gay sex is wrong is not hypocritical? Or you would call him hypocritical but wouldn't tell him to change his behavior?
But basically, his argument is something like, 'Yes, it's a conundrum, a very complex situation, and I don't even know what I would do about it, let alone what should be done about it.' All Peterson is doing is trying to explore the situation.
Again, to what end? The workplace is "sexualised" by hundreds of different facets of humans behaviour (disputed) but it's also impossible to change this. Is he just pointing out an intellectual curiosity that has no bearing on real world change?
Not an excuse, but you can imagine how frustrating it would be trying to explain how water is wet, and the person you're explaining to stubbornly insists, "WHERE does it say 'wet' in 'water'?". I know this is not a perfect example, but it fairly accurately explains how I feel in this situation.
I'm dealing with someone who doesn't think calling someone a hypocrite means you're saying they should change their behavior. I have no problem holding off on the insults.
Or you would call him hypocritical but wouldn't tell him to change his behavior?
-.- le sigh
Well, I could call him hypocritical (and be technically correct) - and most people with a hint of learning and sophistication would understand what I meant, and might even laugh in high-brow at my little joke. Buuut then again I might not if I thought it wasn't worth the trouble of dealing with people such as yourself.
But really, it does my head in that you still don't understand.
Again, to what end? The workplace is "sexualised" by hundreds of different facets of humans behaviour (disputed) but it's also impossible to change this. Is he just pointing out an intellectual curiosity that has no bearing on real world change?
I'm glad you finally seem to be understanding what was actually said, and not what your ideological lens insisted was said.
I started writing out a long explanation of what happened in the interview step-by-step, to show you 'what end'. But I realised it was a ridiculous waste of my time, and if you want to know 'to what end', all you need to do is take off your 'I hate Jordan Peterson' glasses and watch the interview.
@wojaus: I think you've explained a lot of things in good faith, and its doubtful the other person is doing the same, with the amount of obtuseness apparent in their replies.
Particularly since they repeatedly copy pasted a link to a twitter of Mr Gotcha full of heavily edited clips,
Suits their purpose to discard many hours worth of discourse and context into < 90 second clips full of slurs.
And the self-uppercut of having an utterly bigoted view - "he's a Christian so (he) holds sexist/homophobic views:".
lol it's exactly what he said
Please watch the uncut version of the interview.
6:55 onwards if you just want the workplace talk. What @HDer wrote is an incorrect summary of his this interview and VICE has clearly cut the video to suit their narrative.
@arabcha: I got you bro:
https://youtu.be/xpYWwhp7XHc?t=697
Aaaand the next line is "make-up is sexual display". That's the additional context you wanted to add?
@Autonomic: Yes I wanted to add 15 seconds of context… That's why I linked a 20 minute video. I don't think there's anything horrible about what he said there. If make up isn't sexual display then what is it?
At no point does he say women shouldn't wear make up, or that sexual harrassment is justified, or that women are to blame, or that men and women shouldn't work together.
It's a conversation worth having. What's your take? Don't sexually assault someone! No shit? He says he doesn't know what the solution is, but the discussion has to begin somewhere.
@arabcha: How else can you interpret the following exchange, if not him saying women who wear make-up share the blame for their own sexual harassment?
Interviewer:
If a women doesn't want sexual harassment in the workplace and wears makeup, is she being hypocritical?
Jordan:
Yeah. I do think that
@Autonomic: He's not saying these women have sexual harrassment coming to them and they deserve it.
Do you agree that make up is a sexual display?
If so then wearing making up means you will attract attention, maybe even unwanted attention. It doesn't mean it's their fault and they deserve it. But it can be provocative.
@arabcha: He's not saying "oh they draw attention and some of that attention may be negative, totally not their own fault". He's very explicitly saying they're being hypocritical by wearing make-up and not wanting sexual harassment.
The only possible way they can be called hypocritical is if you somehow think by wearing make-up, that they share the blame in their own sexual harassment.
@Autonomic: Let me ask you this. Which woman do you think is more likely to get sexually harassed in the work place? Please answer it: Woman wearing a full Muslim burka and dorky glasses. Woman wearing tight clothes, high heels, red lip stick.
@arabcha: So you basically agree with peterson when he says that it's women's own fault they get sexually harassed? Why not just say that from the start instead of all this "oh he was taken out of context" BS.
@Autonomic: No, I think that saying it's the woman's fault that she got sexually harassed is a gross exaggeration of what he said. Answer my question please, surely you have one.
@arabcha: There is no other interpretation. I don't need to answer your "gotcha" question for you to make your point. There are only three possible answers. It'll only take you a tiny bit of effort to explore each one.
Regardless - so what if one is more likely to be harassed than the other? Does that mean they share the blame for their own harassment?
@Autonomic: Okay let's explore one of the possible answers. Let's say a woman agrees that the lady in tight clothes, high heels and red lipstick is more likely to be harassed in the workplace. Now she doesn't want to be harassed at the place she works. Then if she proceeds to wear said clothing and make up to the workplace, then in a sense she is a "hypocrite".
I don't need to explore the other two possibilities cos nobody believes that. If I covered my self in salmon and walked around bears I would be naive to think the bear wouldn't bite.
I wish we could live in a world where you could wear what you want, be what you want and say what you want without sacrificing your safety or freedom or whatever. But that's not the world we live in. Would you tell a woman to not worry about walking back to her car alone at night because no man should ever assault you? what kind of dumb shit would that be to say.
@arabcha: Again you literally just straight up believe women are at fault for their own harassment. You understood exactly what peterson was saying. There's no missing context here. Why bother with this whole song and dance?
Would you tell a woman to not worry about walking back to her car alone at night because no man should ever assault you? what kind of dumb shit would that be to say.
I wouldn't (profanity) blame HER for being assaulted
Jesus. Do you have a mum? A sister? Female friends? You're tell them to their face that it's partly their own fault if they ever get assaulted or sexually harassed in the workplace or in the street?
@Autonomic: If you play with fire you might get burnt, that's the point I'm trying to get across and that's what I think Peterson is trying to say in that short clip. It's not blaming her. How about, be cautious. If you know dressing provocatively and wearing make up gets unwanted attention then it's better to not wear it, no? Maybe. Because to expect everyone else to never harass ever again is not going to happen.
@Autonomic: Okay. Can we at least agree that sexual harassment in the work place is not an easy issue to solve. The easy answer of "just keep your words and hands to yourself" probably doesn't work. Ultimately someone decides so do the harassing, and they are in the wrong and there are due punishments. But as Peterson said, maybe there needs to be some rules, we don't know what they are, and the only way to discover a solution is to discuss these difficult problems.
@arabcha: It’s not hard to not be a pervy (profanity), inside the workplace, at school, with female friends. Should be one of the first 12 rules.
@Randolph Duke: Your comment has destroyed all pervs and ended all sexual harassment in the work place, congratulations.
The easy answer of "just keep your words and hands to yourself" probably doesn't work.
But as Peterson said, maybe there needs to be some rules, we don't know what they are
Reads like we want rules that allow some leeway. Keeping your hands to yourself and not making sexual comments in the workplace doesn’t seem that difficult to me.
@Randolph Duke: Not killing someone doesn't seem that difficult to me. Yet even with the greatest punishment as a deterrent people still do it. If the death penalty isn't enough to stop people, a sign that says keep your hands to yourself may as well be in the trash can.
@arabcha: It's impossible to totally remove harassment from the workplace. The victim is not culpable in their own harassment. The problem is people like you.
What are these rules? People like you will find a way to blame the victim no matter what. She was wearing tight clothes. If not that, she was wearing make up. She was wearing heels. Her hair was done up. She was wearing perfume. She was wearing a dress instead of pants. She laughed at their jokes and smiled which was interpreted as flirting. She visited their office with the door closed.
@Autonomic: And I suppose the answer lies within you. Let me know when you figure it out.
I'm not blaming the victim. But if you can't stop the harasser then maybe we need to find a solution elsewhere.
@arabcha: I've laid it out several times. Let me know how the conversation goes with your female family members. I'd love to hear their reactions when you tell them not to complain about sexual harassment if they wear make up.
@Autonomic: Sure. Maybe you should make a post on Reddit and tell everyone it's not okay to harrass people, I'm sure that will solve the issue.
@Autonomic: Genuinely impressed you stuck it out with these bozos for that long. You are of course correct.
There is unfortunately a section of the male population that thinks everything women do is for their benefit. Including, apparently, wearing makeup. As if they might wear makeup for their own enjoyment.
@arabcha: I’m not blaming the victim, but they should change their behaviour to not attract unwanted attention.
What’s your stance on the burka?
@Randolph Duke: It's not that they should, it's just discussing an idea. I don't have a stance on burkas.
Interviewer:
If a women doesn't want sexual harassment in the workplace and wears makeup, is she being hypocritical?
Jordan:
Yeah. I do think that
You have to read that with 14hrs of additional context from his lectures on…….
There is nothing wrong with this statement.
If you go to a risky street at night, leave a bag of cash in the car and leave, chances are you either not gonna find your car the next day or it is going to broken into and the bag of cash is gone
We live in a screwed up society, full of scums, if you don't take precaution for your own goods then it is your fault, maybe not entirely but a decision you made escalated to the problem
Thereby, it is at least partially women's fault for wearing make-up which could be translated as an indication of flirtation to many people
Of course it doesn't mean that if you don't wear make up then you don't get assaulted, but by wearing make-up, you are increasing your chance of it happening
So , it is fair to say that the statement is justified
Lol dude the clip is below. What do you think he said then?
First he claimed forty years wasn't enough time to claim that men and women can work together
Then he claimed there should be no makeup in the workplace, because it's sexually provocative
Then he said the same about high heels
And then he said that if a woman says she doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace, but also wears makeup, she's a hypocrite
Are you keeping up here or would you like me to get out a crayon and join up the dots for you
He didn't explicitly say that but he did heavily victim blame.
Link?
it's one of the dumbest takes I've ever heard.
I like Peterson, but I understand why you would have that take. However I don't believe he thinks sexual harassment is justified for women who wear makeup at all.
Vice originally cut the hell out of this interview to make Peterson look like a misogynist. The full cut release later shows there's more to the point Peterson was making (basically he was asking 'where is the line' on how you present yourself in the workplace).
He openly admits he stuffed up that interview, and that had a negative affect on the point he was making, here's the clip of him unpacking it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU6pHBs5rNY
I remember this Jordan said in an interview that women in the workplace are to be blamed for sexual harassment
You are a “lying dog-faced pony soldier”. Or your memory is as poor as the rest of us. Your serious allegation is untrue.
This is a straight up lie, please provide a link where he says this. He literally espouses equality of opportunity.
If not, you may aswell be a Russian troll
LoL way to get triggered by something you made up in your head.. not what he said at all.
lol at the MRAs downvoting any negative comment about this.
Lol at the feminists trying desperately to discredit a self help book just because they take issue with the auther using facts and reason to come to his conclusions.
Interested in what facts and logic he used to conclude that Frozen is feminist propaganda.
What did he say? I've listened to a shit load of JP interviews and never heard this… Sounds like something being misrepresented/taken out of context, like usual.
This guy has thousands thousands of hours of him just speaking out there on the internet and this clown on twitter has managed to find like 2 minutes worth of 15 sec clips that show him getting "owned"…
I watched the first one and it's literally just him agreeing with the interviewer that maybe he had a bad take and was wrong about something. It was all quite civil. He's human, sometimes we'll be wrong.
@Autonomic: Let's break it down.
He says that it was written,
"to show than a woman does not need a man to be successful"
He then claims that to be "propaganda" based on his definition (I guess the correct definition?) That it's written to serve a political purpose.
Do you disagree that a feature of the storytelling was to show that a woman does not need a man to be successful?
Or do you disagree with his definition of "propaganda"?
Or both?
@Binchicken22: By that logic all movies are propaganda.
Do you disagree that a feature of the storytelling was to show that a woman does not need a man to be successful?
It's a fun kids movie.
@Autonomic: Ok, if you look at it from the most simplistic view point then that's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to I guess.
I guess you also think that Shawshank redemption was just a "prison break movie".
@Binchicken22: If JPs point is that "all movies are propaganda" (and you're saying MY take is simplistic, lol) then why is he singling out Frozen to talk about?
@Autonomic: 3+ years ago when that was written frozen was probably still at the height of its popularity, so it was probably rather relevant at the time. That along with the comment he was replying to brought up Disney movies I guess.
Also I don't know if JP's point is "all movies are propaganda", that appears to be your interpretation.
I do however think that you could say a large percentage of movies/TV shows these days are "propoganda", if we use the definition of anything that has political connotations is "propoganda".
I really don't think that's a huge leap if you actually look past the surface of the entertainment media that's being produced today.
@Autonomic: And just out of interest, I just googled "frozen feminist".
The first two results that popped up was a guardian article fawning over the female empowerment in the movie, and an an article by "the conversation" calling it "our most important feminist movie". Both of these left wing news organisations ironically appear to have the same take as JP on it 😅.
I do however think that you could say a large percentage of movies/TV shows these days are "propoganda", if we use the definition of anything that has political connotations is "propoganda".
First of all it's propaganda, not propoganda.
"All" is hyperbole. Maybe you could find a handful of movies that can't be interpreted as "political" one way or another, but I highly doubt it.
Regardless, if JPs point is "Frozen is propaganda because all movies are propaganda" then it's just a dumb take. Obviously if you redefine propaganda to fit all movies then all movies will fit it. It's an eye rollingly obvious idea. Of course, he never ever says this, despite talking specifically about Frozen twice.
So again, why did he single out Frozen? Because it is feminist and he hates feminism. That's really all there is to it.
The first two results that popped up was a guardian article fawning over the female empowerment in the movie, and an an article by "the conversation" calling it "our most important feminist movie". Both of these left wing news organisations ironically appear to have the same take as JP on it 😅.
A movie being feminist isn't the same as being feminist propaganda any more than Cinderalla is heterosexual propaganda.
@Autonomic: Sorry about the spelling mistake, I did actually pick it up myself after proof reading, I have a bad habit of proof reading after I hit sent/post LOL…though it's usually a good indication you are winning a debate when they other side resorts to grammatical errors or personal attacks, so I'll take it as a compliment.
Anyway, I think you are grasping at straws here and I don't know exactly what you want me to say but I'll do my best.
So again, why did he single out Frozen? Because it is feminist and he hates feminism. That's really all there is to it.
Well I already went over the first part of that question so read my previous reply for that. As far as the statement that he hates feminism, well, maybe you're right. He is a man of reason and logic, reason and logic rarely make the cut in any feminist argument I've seen of late, so yeah you are right, he probably doesn't think overly highly of modern feminism. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
A movie being feminist isn't the same as being feminist propaganda any more than Cinderalla is heterosexual propaganda.
Feminism is tightly interwound with left wing politics these days, I.e gender quotas, equality of outcome being the target now that we've long had equality of opportunity etc etc. I really don't think you can say "heterosexuality" is tightly aligned with any political ideology.
@Binchicken22: If it's absurd to say Cinderella is heterosexual propaganda then it's absurd to say Frozen is feminist propaganda.
Feminism is tightly interwound with left wing politics these days, I.e gender quotas, equality of outcome being the target now that we've long had equality of opportunity etc etc
What's right wing politics entwined with?
Also you didn't my point: If Frozen is considered propaganda then all (or almost all, because I know you like to be pedantic) films are considered propaganda.
@Autonomic: If it's absurd to say Cinderella is heterosexual propaganda then it's absurd to say Frozen is feminist propaganda
I literally just explained my reasoning behind why they are not the same thing. I'll
try one more time though.
Propaganda has to have political messaging, heterosexuality is in no tangible way directly tied to any political affliations I'm aware of. So by definition, there really isn't such a thing as heterosexual propaganda.
What's right wing politics entwined with?
I would like to say logic and reason, but I'm not that naive, it is still politics after all, so I'll just say more logic and reason than left wing politics at the moment.
@Binchicken22: Cinderella and heterosexuality was just a throw away comment but you could easily argue that it's promoting a traditionalist or antifeminist message, that women DO need men (which would be squarely in the right wing camp).
I would like to say logic and reason, but I'm not that naive, it is still politics after all, so I'll just say more logic and reason than left wing politics at the moment.
Lmao
Also once again you didn't respond to my main point:
If Frozen is considered propaganda then all (or almost all, because I know you like to be pedantic) films are considered propaganda.
Have you got any evidence to back that claim up?
what is auther
Jordan's German cousin.
Not sure why you think a magnetic resonance angiogram would downvote a comment?
I had to google what MRAs meant. Why not just say it? Just asking.
LoL at all the inadequate soyboys who can't face reality..
Peterson on the Joe Rogan podcast in 2018:
“I shouldn’t say this, but I’m going to, because it’s just so goddamn funny I can’t help but say it: I’ve figured out how to monetize social justice warriors,”. If they let me speak, then I get to speak, and then I make more money on Patreon … if they protest me, then that goes up on YouTube, and my Patreon account goes WAY up.”
The guy is just a scammer making $80K+ per month on patreon by exploiting people, particularly young males, into believing his shallow bullcrap that substantially amounts to nothing more than ‘owning the libs’.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with everything he says, but he definitely isn’t just some scammer.
Why?
Because I actually tried to objectively read (listen via audiobook) then research, fact check his stuff and came to my own conclusions.
He says some whacky stuff but a lot of it is backed up by fact and science, unfortunately - even the not so pretty stuff.
Plus he definitely didn’t just get some ‘self written course he made, then pay for his own certificate’ kind of qualification.
Went to Harvard, has a PHD, look into him he’s not what you make him to be. Sure some things I disagree with completely, and his style of delivery can provoke, but it is what it is.
Don’t like the deal please move along great sir/ ma’am
Spot on
No issue with your comment bar the the last line, but surely civil discussion should be allowed, otherwise what's the point of comments on this website?
Yea fair call I just don’t think saying he’s bullshit of a scammer preying on young males is civil.
Especially when it’s just not true unfortunately.
I mean it’s not not civil, but you get me..
I get what you’re saying but my objection is that much of what he has become, which makes him all his money, is not built on his previous academic work or some expert knowledge. People constantly reference his PhD and insinuate that he is an expert in the topic that he is most famous for but he is not. His academic work is to do with personality assessment, particularly creativity in individuals, it is not what he speaks about now.
You’re right that the term ‘scammer’ is probably going too far sorry. But it really bugs me that this guy makes a fortune speaking (albeit, at times, eloquently) on topics that he is not an expert on and people defend him saying that he’s just using logic and facts. The same logic and facts he uses are the same as we hear from many other commentators and pundits who share the same political allegiances or objectives, e.g. Ben Shapiro (https://youtu.be/PagNM_oxssE), yet people don’t pretend that Shapiro is a leading academic in the field of trans issues, cancel culture, etc…
If people find something useful and positive from this book then that’s great I guess but personally I think Peterson has disingenuously invented his current fame and fortune by leveraging his academic reputation (not knowledge) and tapping into the culture wars.
I don't know many scammers who would opening admit that they are knowingly taking advantage of the situation and making money off of people. Frankly because scammers can't be exposed otherwise their scheme will no longer work.
Peterson has (on more than one occasion) admitted that the controversy caused by his own opinion and his book has gotten him into unexpected situations, such as call from some students for him to be expelled from the university he teaches at, or drowning out his voice by protesters when he tries to give a speech. The more you try to oppress people, the more they will try to push back. The fact that people are willing to paying to listen to his speech or pay to buy his book (on their own volition) does not make him a scammer.
Can we say Oprah is a scammer because she's making millions off of her loyal viewers and book deals for the things she say or the opinion/ideas she hold?
Fair enough. We can have different interpretations. But to me, what he said was quite terrifying.