@@steven5054 Steven, sugar, if you ever get confused about a love interest’s signals, just ask for a yes or a no, it’s hot, really, to be asked directly and clearly for your consent. It shows care. It shows you’re not a bumbling, malicious little cave troll looking for a hole to put his genitals in.
@@arsefff Most of us are born with the capacity for empathy. Some are not. Women have higher average empathy. Conservative men have the lowest amount of empathy of all groups of people. That's not a coincidence. Couple that with pro-psychopathy notions like "facts don't care about your feelings" (as if feeling stuff is a negative.. I guess it seems like that for conservatives who only have fear, disgust and rage as their emotions.) Add on top of that the fact that conservatives have larger amygdalas, which are parts of the brain responsible for fear, disgust, anxiety and all that reactionary stuff... And you get the conservative male... If you ever get super furious when someone cuts you off in traffic or speeds past you on the highway, your amygdala is probably large and you should keep that stuff under control. If any challenge to your claims makes you angry, probably got a big amygdala. If being told that you should wear a mask turns you into a raging lunatic and the next 3 years of your life is spent raging against it to the point where being an antimasker becomes fundamental to your identity, probably got a massive huuuuuuge amygdala. If you've been _scared_ of transgender people, amygdala big. Conservatives are lesser organisms both in genetic and societal terms. Often raised by similarly inept parents, they live their lives thinking that sharing and caring is evil. In fact, the notion of taxation SCARES them... Touching the rich's wealth is terrifying and a slippery slope to fullblown communism in their minds.. Even though the biggest boom of commerce happened when the rich got boned the hardest with taxation.. Facts don't really matter to these people when they feel they're right though.... You could say their feels don't care about facts. The existence of lefties makes them stockpile weapons to feel safe.. They plan to build doomsday bunkers and they've already picked out what food buckets they're going to stock their bunker with... They rampaged when their great leader didn't win the election cause they were TERRIFIED of _Joe Biden._ General empathy isn't overly present in these people biologically, and it's discouraged socially... You love your family and god, that's it. Everyone else is your competition. Rally 'round the family, pocket full of shells! Like Jesus intended!
I was sexually assaulted two weeks between my 21st birthday. I was in the US Army at the time. Now, was that a crime against my father? Or the US Army? Actually, in that time and context, it was me who committed a crime. If I reported the assault and named the perpetrator, I would be punished for causing harm to the rapist. That was 40 years ago. I never married (the assault had a big part in that), so who do I belong to? I'm 62 now. JP has little understanding of the diversity of experience, And what does he have to say about men who experience sexual trauma? The VA calls it military sexual trauma (MST) In absolute terms, the number of men veterans who experienced MST is much higher (in absolute terms) than women veterans. Slightly pushy? When he pushes you down, one hand around your throat, the other over your mouth and nose, and your only desire is live through it and get home.
@@Ozhull seeing as it was held on the daily wire im not shocked by her disheartening behavior. self loathing & seeking validation... she needs to get a grip girl
Well said! It's complicated for him, perhaps, because he can't simply empathise and have compassion, and truly put himself in someone's shoes. It has to be about him, or conceptual extensions of him, for it to make sense to him, it seems. Maybe...? I'm not sure. Any thoughts?
@@Terra_Lopez He has always had this position, even in the women in workplace/makeup interview, he doesn't understand consent. According to him; "we don't know where the boundaries are". One example, staring. If someone thinks your behavior is inappropriate and asks you to stop, it's enough. Same with personal space. None of these need any amount of physical touch, still there is a form of consent needed to engage in those behaviors. Then like with any legal issues, the processing can be really difficult but that's also the case in sexual violence. He seems to want there to be an objective rule and to be the arbiter of said rule. Sh!t, he has 24 already.
@@justanothernick3984 He doesn't understand what the boundaries are.. I'm not even kidding. He has a pattern even in his practice of running into trouble with female clients, it seems like he just has a complete inability to understand women.
@@gracieb.3054 "Objectively offensive" - are you for real? What is offensive to one person, is not necessarily offensive to another. Therefore, when offense is taken, it is purely subjective. Very telling when someone will support cancel culture and determine that their view of what's offensive should be applied universally. Very authoritarian and dangerous.
@@sphtpfhorbrains3592So would you say child trafficking is objectively offensive, or is it ok if not everyone thinks so? Moral relativism is also dangerous. Also, is your username supposed to look as though it says "shit for brains? Just curious.
He does have some disturbing ideas. The thing I find most troubling about him is the ardor of his fans / followers. They pretty much worship him. If you try to point out anything even slightly negative about him, they just completely lose their minds. He has so many inconsistent positions, some of which are completely contradictory. He’s definitely a dumb person’s smart person.
@@lim4275 he's Andrew Tate in a bad suit. And while I loathe Andrew Tate, he's way smarter than Peterson. If only we could see Peterson handcuffed and dragged off to jail.
And if they are victims they need to convince men, who we have told to ignore "me too" , because "something something woke something something Amber heard, so believe nothing"
I love the pretentiousness of Peterson when he throws out the word sophistication while he himself is a drug addict and crank oh and a gaslighting fascist.
@@lucasfreer2785 you seem to forget the part that is sole focus seems to be on blaming the victim in a rather indirect way. Just because he throws out “it can happen to anybody” is utterly meaningless when you factor in his sole focus.
@@lucasfreer2785He says it in the same way white supremacists say that systemic racism doesn't exist because a handful of individual black people are prejudiced against white people. He's also a quack & a grifter who pushes conspiracy theories & encourages incel mythology. You might as well be brown-nosing for Alex Jones.
I love that his impression was so detailed that he failed to finish a single statement. But he does need work on the hand signs. It's lacking in authenticity due to the missing jedi mind tricks.
There's being so ignorant to one's own ignorance that one simply ignores any opportunity to grow.. and then there's remaining indifferent to one's own indifference that making a difference in another's life is a joy one will never know.
So wild that confused and stupid men and boys come to this "sage" for his "wisdom.". I dunno about you, but if I am taking advice from someone on how to live, how to think, and what to believe, I am going to pick someone who has something I want. Faith, serenity, a lasting peace that I want in my life. This "man" lives in perpetual darkness, he's got none of the light that Jung claimed was the very essence of masculinity, he's got nothing worth having. He is a miserable creature that's created miserable children. He's got nothing of value for anybody, and it's truly sad that fools turn to him and take his advice. He doesn't know how to live, let alone how to live a good life.
oh I STRONGLY disagree! wait, Emma is that quavering old canadian guy right? I’ll have to re-watch to double check, but my impression was that the Emma dude was a total lunatic
I want JP to have a Freaky Friday and wake up as a young woman going to college, or a single mom working at a restaurant, or a woman who travels alone for work, or a young girl at home with her father, or literally any situation where he is a woman or girl who is not safe by herself in a room she can lock securely from the inside. After six months of interaction with "unsophisticated men", I truly wonder what he'd say.
Alone with her father? I do not think that is a universal experience of dread for most kids male or female. You might be projecting your family experience in the universal experience. Second men experience insecurity in all the same situations. As children they are little and without power and are often scared. As they grow up they experience bulling threats of violence and a similar risk of abduction and murder. The chance of rape declines into the late teenage years just to be replaced with increased likelihood of competition violence and murder. The common argument is that this violence and fear doesn't count because other men were doing this. But experience it as an individual. Everyone else is not you and that you share a one dimensional trait with them is no consultation.
California has just legalized relationships between adults and children as long as the child is, and I quote directly from the legislation... a 'willing participant'
@@pamelaibarra790 Oh, she would be justified in sticking an ice pick into his eye... well, through his eye sock and into the area where his 'brain' is.
So what if the men in her life do NOT come to her defense? If her brother, father, husband or family friend assaults her and they want her to keep it quiet? Does she just...stay silent? How dare JP, how DARE he!
It's almost like Jordan hasn't thought this through to the end.. Instead just applied his idiocy to the one woman in his life, his daughter.. "This solves the problem for my immediate family, thus it must solve the problem for all worthy families. Those, for whom this does nothing, deserve nothing."
It gets even worse than that, what if it’s the men in her life who are the abusers? Because all too often, abuse starts at home, with fathers, cousins, brothers, uncles, raping girls. Then what? What will recourse do they have then?
He’s saying that what constitutes abuse ought to be agreed upon by relevant actors in society. In this case it was a woman who was the abused, and if the abuse is to be societally legitimized, it ought to be recognized by men (the woman’s protectors) also- just as well as women. Now, I don’t wholeheartedly appreciate how Peterson went about articulating this idea but I understand what he is saying, and I don’t see it as misogynistic.
According to Peterson, a young woman is expected to not only be in charge of her own behavior but also the behavior of the young man she’s just met. That seems like a lot of responsibility!
@@timdahuman9781eew gross, I’m not aware of that. I’ll watch if I can find it. But one thing about David that you may have misread is that he doesn’t get combative EVER. He destroys with reason in a friendly way with a smile on his face. If a viewer is watching only for emotion and not laser focused on content of his words one would mistakenly believe that David Pakman was in agreement with his guest. Check with yourself about what you focus on and I will check David’s podcast with Scott Galloway.
@@timdahuman9781older JP made a lot of sense on certain subject. Even then he was a bit out there on religion IMO but recent JP is off the rails. It may be the content that you are watching and depend on if it’s old or new.
The first case of marital rape in the United States was 1978 Also, I need someone to get a head count on the number of times Jordan Peterson says "it's really complicated" about things that nobody else thinks is complicated
Unmarried women just got the right to birth control, currently only legal for married women. And it was a hard fight to make it illegal to rape your wife.
Decent guys seek consent, and decent girls set limits and communicate them. Lines get blurred, and behaviour change though, whenever one or both parties are under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs). In your opinion: Would an intoxicated 16 year old girl be able to set limits, and will she remember later what she had been communicating? Alcohol effects people in different ways by lowering inhibitions. Typically men gain confidence, and women become loose. Some become aggressive and violent, and when in that state, will a man be seeking consent?
Well, looks like it's been a year since I wrote this. Don't even know what the video was about, but I am not subjecting myself to more JP. I'd say, in terms of consent, if the established boundaries have changed for someone when they happen to be drunk, you don't take advantage of that. You respect their established wishes expressed while sober. Regarding drunk people pushing established boundaries, we don't make excuses for driving while drunk because we were too drunk to know better. The same goes for sexual assault.
I feel like it's become even more relevant now because conservatives are saying the quiet part out loud now and being openly misogynistic... And of course pushing to take away freedoms like access to healthcare that were fought for before. We're literally going backwards, and we need feminism to push back
And why it needs to be deliberately pushed on people all the more. There aren’t feminists and normal people, there are normal people and anti-feminists.
You needs at least a couple of books to get anywhere near such an extreme conclusion. How about we all clean up our room and think of lobsters instead?
what the fuck, what's next? Police not being able to shoot whoever they want without consequence? Republicans being held accountable for the lies they tell? This country really is running towards ruin.
When I was 15 and 16 I was taken advantage of sexually several times. I was quite unsophisticated and had extremely low self esteem so I did not push back in these situations. The idea of telling an adult man no, and the uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation that would follow that “no” seemed like a worse option. But that just means it was my fault, right? Unfortunately I didn’t have any brothers to help me learn. Which means my parents friend and my best friend’s stepdad couldn’t be blamed for what they did with me. It’s completely my fault. I should have been more sophisticated. Well. I sure am now.
I am so sorry no one defended you. I hope you have gotten some therapy; what you describe suggests that you were "groomed" by you parents to accept abuse. There are groups for survivors of sexual assault and child abuse. Many face this in their 30's, 40's or later.
This points to the heart of the flaw in his logic: children are inherently “unsophisticated” by design, which is why they are more often preyed upon. Secondly, not everyone has a male relative, because apparently only men can protect women but men can’t possibly be held accountable?? The most egregious part is that he paints young women & girls who are victims as “unsophisticated” but not LITERAL TROGLODYTE PEDO/R4P*ST SCUM like ok so all men are perfect and yet women are meant to be super-meta perfect by age 6 to fend off said men. The mental gymnastics is tiring…. 🧀 also what a great name you have it was really fun to read you must really love cheese!! Gave me a hoot.
Yes or no. Do women have agency? If women do have agency, then, why does asking a woman for her account about what she did automatically mean "victim blaming"? Whenever I see the term "victim blaming" I see (self identified 'victims') engaging in a behavior which I would identify as . So... Do women have agency or not?
Yeah, abusers always single out the most vulnerable. It is entirely the fault of the perpetrator: not the sophistication or lack thereof of the victim..
It's simple guys. If a woman says no at any point then you are done and need to walkway. Doesn't matter if you are at the bar, at her house in the bed or even butt naked in the middle of having sex. If she says no or even seems the least bit uncomfortable you wrap it up and go to the bathroom or home and handle the situation yourself. If you can't handle that then you need to seek clinical help.
@@PakeezSlayer This is not the epic burn you think it is. There's actual footage of Peterson talking about how he's seen as the pseudo intellectual hero of the incels. Piers mogan asks him if he is exactly that. And he agrees that he is and gets quite emotional about it. So shush silly incel boy. 🤣🤣
@@MissSpookyMooky Point is you use these words, which by the way are meant to describe modern day school shooters who live in their mothers basements and think the world owes them a favor, except towards those who have been branded by social media as a problem for having a different opinion and not falling for your mentally ill ideologies, now nobody is saying feminism is a problem but now you want to call anyone trying to better their mental health and recapture their masclinity as an 'incel' AFTER the fact. Perhaps it would benefit you to sit and listen instead of crying and slapping labels on everything like some sort of psychopath who locks themself in an echochamber and can't deal with the fact that a different way of thinking exists
This also reminds me of every time an attack on a woman makes the news, clueless men in positions of power or influence say how terrible it is because, after all, they have a wife, daughter, sister, etc. Your level of empathy toward women should not be determined by the presence of women in your life!
its easier to empathize that way since you can kinda imagine urself in the victims place more. The fact that you interpret that as negative shows me that you are a narcissist or a psych
@@sainttheresetaylor2054 some people have trouble empathizing. including me. Everyone i know tells me i dont feel sympathy or empathy. Its not intentional though i try my best to empathize with people and sometimes i end saying weird shit thy sounds wrong yet helps me empathize
Imagine a woman who came to him for therapy after having suffered a sexual assault. "I think healing can only begin when you start to think about this less as an assault against your own humanity and personhood and more as an assault against your husband's assets."
Bro said if a woman has even a remote interest in a man then a claim of rape is questionable because when does consent start and stop is unclear. When consent starts and stops is never unclear because it always stops at “no” and there is too many examples of when consent starts but the main one is “yes”.
@The Invisible Woman and like... does he think people in relationships can't rape each other? Just because you've had sex before and will definitely want to in the future, does not mean you want it all of the time. There will be times where one of you just doesn't want to, for whatever reason, and that's fucking fine. Consent is so fucking easy. Is my partner responding positively to my advances? Yes? Keep going. No? Stop. Not sure? Ask.
@@amylake9064 Actually, Yes, he does believe that partners in a relationship can't be raped by their partner, because partnership (to him) is servitude to the wants and needs of the man. He believes that it is the responsibility of the woman to perform her womanly duties on demand in order to keep his ego fully intact, without question. He is a twisted fuckhead, and he should be in a mental institution instead of giving young men advice on life.
@@amylake9064 It's only called "complex" by people who have some shady shit in their past tbh.. Just like how everything morally dubious is "complex"... "I only drove 80mph in the school zone cause I had to take a dump, officer... Surely you can see the complexity?" no... Poop in your car while keeping within the speed limit... Or find some other way to get the job done without breaking the law... Putting people at risk because you gotta poop, stop and think about it.. Not hard to figure out what's right or wrong there.. Traffic rules are not complex.. And consent is considerably LESS complex even just on an empathy level... You don't have sex with people who aren't into it unless you're into having sex with people who aren't into it, AKA being into being a sadistic rapist. Jordan has 100% raped women. 100% guaranteed, that's why he's calling consent complex, that's why he's calling rape complex. It's not complex. Rape is brutality, the degree of the brutality matters, but it's not like there's a good rapist out there because "at least she didn't cry, so I guess I'm not really a rapist, it's complex." Nah, still a rapist. Just left a woman confused and maybe even feeling somewhat to blame for not being more clear... Jordan wants all bad men to be seen as misunderstood, and all women to be seen as misunderstanders...
@@hojosconsal9913 He says birth control makes women act more like men, and that women on it mimic infertility thus making them more attracted to men with narrower jaws and feminine features and that it is therefore unnatural and contributed to issues with modern dating (which as you can guess is not backed up by data or any evidence and in-fact sounds a whole like the pseudo-science and phrenology nonsense spread on Incel forums). He also claims the introduction of birth control was a mistake as a part of women's liberation because women were then able to have more casual sex and that made them more promiscuous bringing negative consequences society and making women unhappier. I am genuinely surprised that any women listens to this hack.
So basically he's saying that the only reason a woman's father or brothers, or other male family, will care that she got raped is if they view it as an offense against themselves instead of her. What a low view he has of men, he's basically saying men can't feel compassion or concern for anyone unless it personally hurts them.
Bizarre like, he argues that rape is solved by the fact that it enrages brothers and fathers and male friends and family, and uh, they presumably go out and beat up the attacker? Half or more of the women I've known intimately enough for them to want to tell me about such things have lived through sexual violence. How many then had their brothers, fathers, etc go out and get vigilante justice against the perpetrator? I mean, none, as far as I know? Supposedly in early human civilization, serially sexually violent men would wind up mysteriously dying during hunting trips. But these days, we literally live in a society, men might still have that urge to solve such problems directly, but they also have families they know would be worse off if and when they got locked up for doing that. So, it doesn't happen JP always argues so forcefully with the most flawed and just on it's face, just entirely wrong points-of-view. It's literally like listening to a 15-year-old boy, completely confident in his own correctness, entirely oblivious to the fact that he's seeing things through an entirely untempered and autistic lens
This. The man shares 99% of his ideas with those macho motivational coaches and pick-up artists, but since he also happens to be an academic, he knows how to talk like one and he can paint that crap with intellectual sounding arguments. He shouldn't be part of any debate about women. You don't invite pro-pedophila intellectuals at debates about pedophilia.
@@buttlord4204 exactly, it's like he's living in some world where there's no police, no law, where people just go out and exact vigilante justice. Delusional doesn't even begin to cover it.
@@Ellieempress They've learned not to interact with actual opponents. Instead, they field softballs from an imaginary inquisitor OR a supplicant from the Amen Chorus 🤡
Peterson is saying only men have the right to determine if a woman has been raped. This is, of course, misogynistic and totally insane, because rape is legally defined; it shouldn't matter whether people in rape victims' lives acknowledge that they were raped. Also, what if a woman has no men in her life? If we follow Peterson's ideas, such women will have no legal recourse if they are raped.
He's also saying that as a man, he wouldn't "in principle" defend a woman's right to not get raped unless he had ownership of her.... wolf in asshole's clothing
Well I'll put it this way: when I was growing up in a fundamentalist cult, the translation of the Bible they used, used the word "owner" instead of husband. This was in the 1990s, and I doubt they've changed it to this day.
What a woman wants sexually from a man could easily be seen as assault or rape if she determines that's how it should be defined. Women have been asked to be slapped, choked, tied up, etc. A man who would refuse would be looked on as a pathetic wimp, too afraid to take control, but man who does so and gets blamed for sexual assault would be seen as a rapist. This is the reality that this channel would NEVER delve into. The narrative of women as the perpetual victim must be maintained.
@@incipidsigninsetup do you know what the definition you're missing that makes your whole example absolutely silly? You explicitly stated, in those situations they asked. It's the consent that makes the difference, that's the whole point
@B it's not silly at all. You are ignorant to how some women weaponize sexual encounters, and for that, you should be grateful. There are plenty of men out there who know exactly what I'm talking about.
He gives the illusion of being smart by talking in a way that’s hard for most of us to understand. When in reality he doesn’t understand what he’s talking about either.
@@CF-3300 Seriously! And the story about his grandma? How to be a savant in the psychological sciences; Use absolutely meaningless word salad to give the impression of complex and academic thought Slip in some freudian, oedipal ramblings that disgust and intrigue, because disgust and intrigue is how psychology gets popular, by showing daring and faux “nuance” Insist that the cultural establishment is correct but the scientific method and consensus themselves are not, another faux nuance while reassuring the powerful, who can elevate your career despite your anti-academia Punch down against other, smaller movements like feminism, intersectional or not, trans rights, black lives matter, because you must have something to debate, and what else is easy to debate on air than already tirelessly debated schools of thought? He is a mastermind, but not in the sciences, in grifting. Less legitimate, even, than John Money himself.
My son was listening to this segment with me and said (he may have been quoting someone else) that Peterson just spatters words through a swastika-shaped screen to create a Rorschach test for potential followers.
Rape is about power and dominance that results in a violent crime. To introduce it as a lack of communication and sophistication by the victim is a massive red herring.
Tell that to Mary Kay LeTourneau. Then tell that to her fellow nonmale p3d0 Simone deBeauvoir who invented feminism to cover up her lust for underage boys.
His Objectivist principles preclude empathy. Everything must be transactional in his worldview, because it supports capitalism's hegemony and that's the only thing rightwingers actually care about.
you know what pretty famously can cause that, is opiate abuse. it can like, close your heart, if you know what I mean. I have always suspected his "benzodiazapine" addiction was his cowardly, dishonest way of concealing his actual addiction, to both opiates and benzos. Which makes a lot more sense in the context of him flying to Russia to be knocked out for a week to go through withdrawal without feeling it, like the coward he is. Benzo w/d can be dangerous, but what it isn't, is particularly psychically painful. Can cause seizures, in those predisposed, but the suffering is nil, no sleep for a couple days, feeling a little bit on edge. Bit opiate withdrawal plunges you into darkness. Even that, anybody who would be worth taking advice from can appreciate the pain, deal with is, look at the psychic state like a rare bird showing up in your yard or something, just observe it while it lasts. But his lack of insight and faith, that darkness is too much for him to bear. Like the coward he is, he demanded access to a shortcut through it all. Little man has a lot to say about the heroes journey, all jacked straight from the pages of Joseph Campbell's books because he truly does not grasp Carl Jung's thought despite supposedly specializing in it... but he himself has no ability to walk through those dark places, let alone cross through them, learn something transformative, and come out the other side better for it
@@john.premose His transactional world view is pretty much the extent at which his mind can operate.. Once he has to take feelings into account, his whole thing just crumbles. That's actual complexity that he doesn't have the capacity to tackle. That's why sociopaths like Jordan and Shapiro work outside of human psychology and disregard people's quality of life completely. They literally lack the ability to understand emotion. Jordan is so inept at understanding it that he just cries for no reason ALL THE TIME. Hilarious. Easy to make a moral framework if you care nothing about other people and disregard their feelings and emotions fully just to favor your own disciples... "Hey guys, consent is complex, listen to daddy, it's complex." Meanwhile, good people go "No means no."
I thought the 2-Face Suit was just a meme, but this guy really is a villain from Gotham. Emma raises an interesting point. What happens when a man is violated? Does the act cancel itself out since there's no property damage?
When has sexual assault against males ever been taken seriously, especially when done by women? In England, it's legally impossible for a woman to rape a man. The maximum sentence for rape is life in the UK. The maximum for sexual assault (which is at most what women raping men would be classed as) is 10 years.
@@demJem09 No because Peterson isn't stating that rape is only a crime if men gain to lose from it. His point is that it's fundamentally true that the sexual revolution shifted rape from a property crime to a violation of sexual consent, but that maybe even that is not enough to stop rape. That there exists men who objectify women to such a degree that only the pushback from other men will stop them from raping. When it comes to men being sexually assaulted, society at large doesn't give a shit in the first place.
Emma nailed it. Jordan Peterson is just showing his own inability to sympathize with women and extending that shortcoming to some naturalistic assumption about men in general. This means he must also believe that there's a good, or at very least understandably compulsory, reason for men to not be able to sympathize with women. And he's so far past having already reflexively justified his blatant misogyny that he's struggling to not word it in a way which even he's aware sounds dehumanizing to the person he's speaking to.
Great point. This is really well explained, and an important point. My friend, who is/was a JP fan, finds it almost impossible to understand anyone who is not just like himself. So people like me, or women in general, he just doesn't understand, and he always assumes we are just like him in how we think and process information.
In one of his old videos JP just realized his wife is wise and smart and has valid thoughts and feelings after 20+ years of marriage. He needs to get off the internet.
Even putting aside the property concept, he clearly doesn't see women as having any agency. He thinks the only way to prevent rape is by having men be angry. As tho only the anger of men makes a crime valid. His misogyny and narcissism is off the charts. It's insane how often he calls literally anyone who doesn't like him narcissistic, when I don't think I've heard a more narcissistic person speak.
Humans are naturally patriarchal and hierarchical. Men need to protect their women. Promiscuity is wrong for both men and women, and leads to single motherhood, STDs, psychological issues, rape.
I hate to break it to you buddy with without men enforcing laws / families protecting their women there’s nothing which presents a women from being r*ped
He definitively sees no value in women. When he was let's say "sane" or less crazy, he was already claiming that women now having jobs and ambitions was taking away the jobs and ambitions of men since men are the saviors of women and if women are not there passively waiting to be saved, what is a man's life? According to him, women should go back to be damsels in distress, forced to give themselves to the man saving them from whatever. No choice, the man who came to their rescue is the one assigned to them, he deserved them. That is order. Otherwise females are chaos. That weird guy really had such crazy sexist ideas...
Thats not what he said. He said if you watch his whole show that when a mother is raped the kids are affected as well as the husband, and Sam and the ignorant cast of charactors fail to acknowledge that the rapist is being sentenced on behalf of the family's suffering as well.. It's called a deliberating mispreterial dummys!! This is our current justice system, and they wanna over throw it!!
I think, on some level, Peterson denies the validity of women's issues, merely seeing them as a histrionic distraction from the REAL issues - cultural Marxism, wokeism and men being sad.
What's insidious about Peterson and these other guys is that they'll say something that feels true or might be partly true, and they'll ride that horse of half-truth deep into the woods of their ideology. So, it's true that naive and unsophisticated people often don't know how to assert needs and boundaries or read another person's signals, and that this often results in confusion, hurt, and harm. That is indeed a genuine problem! Peterson's solution for this is to just take society back to the 1950s (at least)---rather than, say, advocate for better widespread psychoeducation in consent, boundaries, safe sex, and good communication.
He literally looks like a movie villain now. Sitting in some wooden mansion with dark victorian furniture, in a constricting, dark and shiny suit, looking serious, fighting against empathy and justice.
"That complicates things" is petersonian for "I know what I want is evil and thus I will indirectly advocate for the evil that was banal and widely accepted in the past because I am uncomfoprtable with a society that is different than the one I grew up in because I don't want to have to come to grips that things I was told as a kid by my parents to be good were actually bad"
I started work in a UK bank just after they lifted the marriage bar.. .women lost their jobs when they got married, and even just engaged, in some professions, until 1972.
@@sirphineasluciusambercromb9114 Yes, indeed. When I think back, and realise what I witnessed in my own lifetime, it does shock me. And I fear the likes of Jordan Peterson would have us right back there again in a heartbeat.
I literally had my jaw drop open in shock as he started to say that he was going to "push back" against the idea that women aren't property and that it is "complicated". I don't know why I'm so shocked when conservatives say the quiet part out loud. It's just so crazy to hear them say it. Unbelievable.
So true. And what makes it even more illogical is that in some Arabic countries where women are treated like property, rape victims are still stoned to death due to “sexual immorality”. Nothing he’s saying makes any sense.
Is it a requirement that someone be legitimately retarded to be a Seder fan? At no point did Peterson say he was going to push back against the idea that women aren't property. You have to be sub-70 IQ or radically dishonest to interpret his words that way.
Peterson’s views on most all subjects are ‘complicated!’ However…his words remind me of people reading the Bible…and how different people will interpret the same passages of scripture differently…unless they have been indoctrinated by their religious teachings to interpret scripture one certain way! Learning everything out of some book never brings about wisdom! This is where I see that Peterson is in short supply!
The statement that a woman should be classified as property " to get men on her side " in a case of assault and rape is not only ridiculous and awful but saying men in general need it to be that way in order for them to believe her or care. Every time Jordy boy says these things it just reveals more about his own sickness.
These bozos really, REALLY are not good faith advocates for men when their entire message is about how men shouldn't be held to the standards of decent adequately-socialized adults. One's friends do not make one worse.
@@immanuelcunt7296 right....I bet no one in the comments section actually watched the podcast. That whole segment was littlerally discussing how the lefts "consent" frame work isn't enough to protect women and is to simplistic of a concept to accurately guide men and women through complex sexual interactions between each other. Women often feel taken advantage of even though the "consent" rule wasn't violated and women have deal with the fall out from that, but of course people hear what they want to hear because it fits the narratives they already have in their heads I guess. Smh.
"Sympathy for that perspective." Meaning what? I feel sorry you have that opinion? "Sophisticated women." Stunning. STUNNING that he thinks he can categorise women fending off harassers and rapists into sophisticated versus unsophisticated.
This was as recent as the 90's. Stepfather beat and raped my mother in our home, and the police did nothing. We live in Washington State. Police would say, 'it's a family matter', and left her & us 3 daughters in the home with the monster. She never even had her own bank account, let alone a credit card. People STILL think like this, and it's disgusting. Stepfather is free, living with his next victim, same town. Mom died at 54. Nobody gives a shit.
@@duranpredur1098 Ya he's being interviewed and won't even let the interviewer finish the question before diving into his narrative about women being property. Smh people actually listen to this guy
Much more so with women. If one pays close enough attention, even those women who would seem to be in partial agreement with him, or apologists for the patriarchy and chauvinists still have their sentences finished by Peterskin. He incessantly interrupts, but more egregious is how he reframes and twists each woman's words to comport with his own twisted ideas and worldview. It would appear he needs agreement and validation 100%, or else he becomes quite hostile. He somehow believes he can speak for a woman's POV more clearly, and concisely. He's insufferable.
Exactly, blame the person who doesn’t help themselves. If they don’t help themselves it’s their fault right? So if a person gets raped it’s not right, but I don’t feel sorry for them because it was there fault to begin with. Those dresses and skirts. A man is a man. I’ve heard this shit for so long it makes me want to puke, it’s disgusting and they don’t know it’s disgusting.
That's not what he did. If you're unwilling to examine a situation and see how it came about, you're not going to be able to solve it. As a matter of fact, much of trauma has to do with being psychologically distressed at the notion that if it happened once, it can happen again. And, logically, the best treatment for that would be delineating the causal chain of events that led to an incident and learning how to make it less likely to happen. Because when you learn how to avoid potential recurrences of traumatic experiences, you'll obviously be less anxious and afraid, and feel better. That's not blaming the victim. What it is, is an analysis of the situation such that we can figure out how to make it less likely to occur.
@@immanuelcunt7296 "What it is, is an analysis of the situation such that we can figure out how to make it less likely to occur." Ok, and what's his solution?
@@vowel8280 Partly assertiveness training on the part of the women, as well as an increased degree of caution surrounding things like letting a delivery driver into one's home when they're alone, and partly better socialization and learning to recognize subtle cues on the part of the men. I mean, that's kind of obvious from what he's saying lol.
Oh, I understood that as 'anyone who is 17 does not have the mind space to defend themselves properly'. All young people need to know how to set their bounders firmly.
Jordan's take on "the pill makes it more complicated" is an innate dismissal that women (or anyone, really) has the right to say no. Because he says that aside from not wanting to get pregnant, just saying "I don't want to have sex" isn't good enough. Not consenting isn't, for Jordan Peterson, good enough reason to forego forcing someone to have sex. This isn't any revelation, but it does reinforce what we already know: there's something deeply wrong with Jordan Peterson.
I remember when I first heard of him way back, somehow landing on his Amazon page, looking at the free pages of some book "he" wrote. It was literally just him re-writing the Jungian concepts that Joseph Campbell has famously written about, except with all the elegance removed and all these extraneous words shoehorned in all slapdash and crappy. He really is a pseudointellectual, maybe got a little smarts sure, but zero wisdom, zero emotional intelligence, nothing worth saying.
Can't wait to abuse his butt and then tell him it was fine because he is sexually active. I mean if he didn't want it, why would he be sexually active in his life as a whole? Him being sexually active really makes it complicated.
You’re absolutely right. Simply not wanting to have sex is not a valid reason for a woman to say no. Somehow, it’s all about hurting the man’s fee fees.
You’re absolutely right. Simply not wanting to have sex is not a valid reason for a woman to say no. Somehow, it’s all about hurting the man’s fee fees.
I'll help you understand. They think they are "endowed by gawd", with "unalienable rights." These loons actually see themselves as the inheritors of gawds wisdom and laws, and almost invariably revert back to Old Testament beliefs when it comes to anyone's rights but their 'own'.
You mean because of its racist and antisemitic history of being used by non-men of non-color to justify hate crimes and lynching of men of color? That is literally why it was invented in the first place. It is why Leo Frank and Emmett Till were sent to early graves at the hands of lying terrorists who were neither male nor of color. Yt feminism just kept the ball rolling for this racist Misandrist stereotype of men of color being inherently criminal. It is why “toxic masculinity“ is a Misandrist slur a form of verbal terrorism, not protected by the first amendment. It is how Joe Biden was able to pass the crime bill of 1994 and make it a crime to be a black man in America.
If it makes you feel any better, Peterson's popularity and public image have declined drastically thanks to his own narcissism and the rise of progressive/leftist commentators.
Some on the far right don't like him. They call him Jordan Peterstein because he defended the jews of Israel. Thing is, they would agree with him on this.
My 63 year old father loves him and Andrew Tate. He also is pushing his views on his new fiance's daughter. It is SOOO fucked. You have no idea. JDP and Tate are reaching many many men.
@psychicbyinternet Beat me to it. The lack of intelligence needed to even attempt such a basic, obvious verbal conjuring trick, is staggering. And some people consider this tool to be the most important public intellectual of our age. Hell's bells.
this is the guy who went on joe rogan's podcast to literally advocate for state-mandated girlfriends for lonely men, and then got immediately slam dunked by joe. he has NEVER believed in consent, he's ideologically against the premise as a whole.
Im preplexed and shocked that he said this ,He definitely turned to a hardcote conservative, I'm hopefully waiting for him to lose his license and crumble into nothing, fingers crossed 🤞
@@yishnir “He teaches that the rape of a woman should only be a crime if it offends a male in the woman’s life…” - You are being completely absurd. No, he does not teach that and hasn’t said absolutely anything of the sort. How can someone have such poor listening comprehension? It’s incredible. Reminds me of that British interviewer that interviewed Peterson… “so what you’re really saying is that [insert something completely unrelated to anything Peterson said].” Instead of being stuck in an echo chamber listening to “commentaries on someone’s interviews” go and listen to his actual interview. It’s really easy to find. Get out of the echo chamber.
@@russ_6214 "You're taking him out of context" Been hearing that for years from Peterson fanboys. Maybe you're the ones who aren't hearing him in context? Get out of the echo chamber
@@steven5054 You are literally listening to a political commentary from an exclusively leftist RU-vid channel while I am telling you to go watch the actual interview which I have done before seeing this video pop into my suggestion. If you watch the actual interview there is not a chance in hell (unless you have a severe mental handicap resulting in your inability to comprehend basic information) that you would conclude that this is what he said. I guarantee you that you hadn’t watched the actual interview and are responding solely to leftist comments in this video “interpreting” the interview. So yes, you are stuck in a liberal echo chamber.
Emma.....AWESOME job not letting them interrupt you! I know it's not malicious on their part (or I imagine as much) but even from friends/coworkers, it's obnoxious, good job keeping on with your thought!
Dear god I feel bad for the abused women who came to him in his clinical practice - what kind of witch doctorie were they subjected to? The sooner they lift his licence the better.
In the 1980s they literally had a 12 step program for women who were sexually exploited by their therapists , That's how Prevalent it was . To think that these individuals actually get to make decisions that determine somebody's destiny legally , All they have to do is sign a piece of paper and make a diagnosis and it will affect legal proceedings , Most of it is completely theoretical Yet it is presented as in disputable fact in a court of law
@@eugenewaterslide7328 If you know the context that will make Peterson's comments seem less horrid, please speak up and provide it here. Otherwise, nobody is going to waste their time consuming more Peterson ramblings chasing down this phantom 'context' his fans are always citing whenever the guy says something reprehensible.
Jordan saying only “sophisticated women” (again, a high status only confirmed on her via men - sophistication is apparently unobtainable on her own merits) know “how to say no,“ deflects from the fact that rape is about not taking no for an answer, no matter who it’s coming from. The WHOLE POINT of what makes rape bad, is that you’ve fundamentally ignored that other person’s choice. And what the actual with him saying things are complicated, when they’re not even remotely complicated? Dude is WEIRD, man. Dude is weird.
"I dreamed I saw my maternal grandmother sitting by the bank of a swimming pool, that was also a river. In real life, she had been a victim of Alzheimer’s disease, and had regressed, before her death, to a semi-conscious state. In the dream, as well, she had lost her capacity for self-control. Her genital region was exposed, dimly; it had the appearance of a thick mat of hair. She was stroking herself, absent-mindedly. She walked over to me, with a handful of pubic hair, compacted into something resembling a large artist’s paint-brush. She pushed this at my face. I raised my arm, several times, to deflect her hand; finally, unwilling to hurt her, or interfere with her any farther, I let her have her way. She stroked my face with the brush, gently, and said, like a child, “isn’t it soft?” I looked at her ruined face and said, “yes, Grandma, it’s soft." -Jordan B. Peterson, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief
How can someone be in the same room with JP and not insult him? He opens his mouth and stupid shit comes out. Just imagine being a teenage girl and JP is your therapist!
As an academic researcher, I seriously doubt JP had a thriving private practice on the side where he personally treated all these "cases" he keeps conveniently using to support his points. It is quite possible he is fabricating these cases, knowing that the confidentiality that would be extended to patients makes it impossible for anyone to check these claims.
From what I’ve come to understand he was not a very good psychologist and in fact some of his patients even complained that he wasn’t even remotely trying to help them.
@@theQuestion626 Yeah, Caelan Conrad just put up a video called, "Jordan Peterson's Rise to Relevancy." It has the most detail I've seen yet on the private practice side of JP's grift, assuming it is accurate. Pretty interesting.
@@aecnqewimnazxclwdxl I’ve watched the video that you mentioned and it first I was quite skeptical but after doing some Google searches, along with reading Peterson’s psychological assessments, I found it perfect that a transgendered woman would be the one to literally pop a hole in the bubble of fantasy that Peterson was a exceptional therapist.
As well as his theoretical background which is also fabricated. He has read none of the books he talks about, and i am pretty sure his credentials are completely made up. In one of his oldest "lectures" online he talks about Freud and claims that Freud's theories were about multiple spiritual entities residing in the mind. Peterson is most ridiculous impostor i have ever seen.
Every time JP didn’t let that woman finish her thought, I wanted to shout at him. Woman: “and there’s also the threat of physical violence, which is understandably frighteni-“ JP: “well, it’s a complicated thing, right? If we teach women from an early age to appeal to the man’s ego, relations will improve, blah blah blah and so on.”
Considering the fact that in his original "12 Rules for Life" he talks about a female client of his, who confided in him that she thinks she was raped, in order to use her as an anecdotal "point", I'm already well aware that he had some "questionable" ideas of "consent", especially when it comes to patient confidentiality (assuming she actually exists). I mean in the book he basically says he mentally berated his female client during the therapy session for questioning whether she was raped or not - saying that she was "yearning for daddy", trying to play the victim card towards him, and was secretly a feminist wanting to fight the patriarchy, despite her not getting close to saying any of that and also being a successful business woman. However, in that same book, Peterson also describes a time he "shared a spiritual bond" with a man who was a drunken drug dealer, who showed up to Peterson's door in the early hours of the morning to sell him a toaster - two men fighting their hardest in a cruel world. So drunken drug dealer, who clearly just wanted to get money from Peterson for "reasons"? A true bond - a connection between spirits! A successful business woman who paid to have a private therapy session with Peterson and confides in him that she thinks she might have been raped by someone? No connection or empathy what so ever. Also it's important to note that the book was done BEFORE he went to Russia to put himself in a coma to avoid having to deal with the withdrawal symptoms of benzos, possibly turning his brain into further mush.
@@dynamicworlds1 and patients who experience that from a therapist can blame themselves and literally kill themselves. It's extremely dangerous to pull that shit.
@dynamicworlds9027 I think he's lying, he lied about C-16, he'll say anything to further indoctrinate young boys and men and he'll lie to keep the money coming in.
@Roger McMillan , The lady in OP's comment actually sued Mr. Peterson because she was easily identified by her friends and family... Or was that another one of his clients? It doesn't matter... what matters is he _is_ condescending to them in his own thoughts as shown by his stories _of_ them. He hasn't used his practice in many years now... one of the reasons the Ontario licensing board wants to revoke it... the other reason is the multitude of complaints about Mr. Peterson's conduct on twitter, on youtube, and in his various talks. As these paragraphs signify: You know it isn't obvious to me that that offers women enough defence, you know, and so the counter argument might be if untrammeled[1] sexual access to a young woman[2] is a crime. In order for that to be recognized as a crime properly it has to be viewed as something that will bring the males on her side to her defence in principle.[3] Now, maybe not right? Because you could say we could set up a society where merely quote transgressing the rights of a woman to say no is sufficient.[4] But it's not obvious to me that that's sufficient. Like maybe sufficient means not only do you violate the integrity of the woman[5] in a fundamental sense but you enrage all of her male protectors[6] and then that's enough of a barrier because god only knows how much barrier we need and obviously -- well you just laid out a bunch of problems, especially now that the pill introduces.[7] And we should stress that that problem women have in saying no once they are on the pill[8] is that it's instantly personal and that means the woman has to deliver a pretty hard blow. And that's especially problematic if she's somewhat potentially interested in the guy, right? How do I say no without hurting his feelings, alienating, and making him into an enemy, looking like a prude, and I mean when you are 16 how you -- you don't know the answer to any of those questions.[9][10] Like you are not sophisticated enough to."[11] I can count on my hands the pro-SA apologies he brought up here... Which The Majority Report Mocks him for doing...
@@dynamicworlds1 that’s why i think his license is up for revoking! if you are a health professional, specialist, you have a responsibility. he wants to be a celebrity who appears intellectual but he’s obviously not in his right mind, whatever is left of it. i’d be horrified if he was my psychologist or psychiatrist. thank god mine DOES understand my personal experiences…it’s very hard to share things with these people so he’s aware he has the most vulnerable of patients at times, and this rhetoric couldn’t possibly heal them or help aid in finding coping mechanisms when he blames the victims!! just awful.
He has a daughter. His own daughter may have been damaged and hurt by her relationship with him. Misogynists are rarely in healthy relationships with their own daughters. Misogynists are more likely to abuse their own female relatives than non-misogynistic people are.
@@futurestoryteller That doesn't matter. I remember asking a female friend why when women like sex so much don't they go home more often with guys from bars, and she says you never know what the guy is like. I've had uncomfortable experiences with women but at no time did I EVER feel unsafe. Whereas a woman can feel unsafe just having made a bad choice on going on a date.
@@mikearchibald744 If they were really so discerning "it's not creepy if they're handsome" wouldn't exist. Besides I thought it _was_ a thing that people have sex on first dates now. I get that there's like a six degrees of separation thing; you only need to run into so many guys before you've ran into the worst kind of guy anyway, but isn't this kind of a "learned helplessness" situation, like, I could be wrong about this, but isn't the only woman who escaped from Ted Bundy also the only woman who fought back? Maybe if women are afraid of men, but you're not afraid of women it's not that women have an appropriate level of fear towards men but that you're a bit naive about the likelihood of encountering dangerous women.
What JP is implying in this segment is more insulting and misandrist than anything ever said by any "feminazi". He's saying that men are fundamentally selfish and do not give a shit about other people unless it somehow affects them. This guy is a role model for thousands of young men and THIS is what he thinks about men. It's depressing
I also like Emma raising the obvious question. What then is it considered when a man is raped? Jordan doesn’t seem to know thats even a thing. And I also noticed he didn’t once point out that men should be the ones who are brought up better and made to understand how to treat other people. Men who are just plain decent human beings treat everyone with respect not just women. They know how to tell when someone isn’t into them. Like normal freaking people. Jordan is far from normal.
Peterson's constituency is all the guys who can't figure it out, or won't. I'm glad women are breaking free and these guys are starting to get left out of the gene pool. That's what most of the incel issue is-- guys that refuse to get clue.
I think he would say that violence against the man is in itself sufficient to warrant it being taken seriously. I.e. society would/should only care about violence to the extent it is seen as victimizing men, whether it is direct (i.e. man is raped) or indirect (man's wife, daughter, sister is raped). That's just how effing patriarchal his world view is.
@@stevenhaas9622 honestly, there's just as much chance of him saying that sexual violence against a man is sufficient enough to be considered a crime as him stating that only a low status male would allow himself to be assaulted and thus they are complicit in their own assault. He does tend to support hierarchical structures more than he does men in general.
About time JPs license was discontinued. Praying for the poor "patients" who sought his help, especially the young women. No amount of re-education would be able to rehabilitate him for practise. Sam's impression is bang-on. Also, JP seems to be saying that if a woman has no men left in her life (ie - her father has died) then she can't really be raped anyway, sophisticated or not.
could you imagine being a seriously abused woman who is finally getting some help with that trauma and your therapist turns out to be Jordan Peterson lol.
@@emilianosintarias7337 I think so. Dr. Peterson says it only indirectly, but the basic problem is that only men were considered full human beings and women were not (in some minds this has not changed...). Empathy for a non-human on the level for a fellow human? Nonsensical. And since, according to this logic, men are sentient and thinking human beings, they can be empathized with.
It would probably be one of the best things for an abused woman. Rather than a therapist that just feeds the victimhood mentality, he will be empathetic, but then put forward meaningful, practical solutions for moving forward, rather than just wallowing in the abuse, as it seems you feel would be more beneficial.
@@mdale814 What do you mean by "feeds the victimhood mentality"? A person who has been raped or sexually assaulted IS a victim and a survivor. It is a traumatic event that can result in permant damage, especially psychiatric damage.
@@mdale814 ... every therapist puts foward meaningful and practical solutions for moving foward. That's the entire goal of EVERY therapy. Meanwhile Jordan Peterson, who'll get his license revoked soon, would sit there, look at the woman, and think about how this wouldn't have happened if she wasn’t so freaking "uneducated". Yeah, totally one of the best things that could happen to her.
You know, we never shamed jp for getting himself put in a medical coma to avoid working on his addiction. his whole schtick is personal responsibility, and he is objectively causing harm
A couple years ago I heard this woman say she just loved Jordan Peterson and could listen to him talk all day. I can't help but think about her listening to this clip.
Maybe she'd be able to see past the dishonest framing from Seder and co to understand what is actually being said here, instead of the smooth brain straw man of it.
@@pitpride1220 The easiest one is the attempt to portray Peterson's position as arguing that women should be considered property. That's a straw man constructed for morons to run with.
@@mdale814 Its hinted at though not said expressly. It's one thing that Petersom does quite well. Using nebulous language that can infer different meanings. I'll grant you that it's not clear. But that's actually part of the problem. He also has a habit of claiming things are complicated for a couple of reasons. One to avoid having to be concise and come to a solution. The other to avoid being nailed down on a thread that he's incorrect about. He also uses the appeal to tradition fallacy and great man theory quite a bit.
I'm glad that Sam pointed out the unstated assumption built into Peterson's argument: Whether rape is truly illegal depends upon the whims of the men who necessarily control women's lives. In Peterson's world, women are vulnerable to sexual assault only to the extent that they are insubordinate to the men whose duty is to dominate them.
That's religious zealotry of the Xtian kind. Peterson is always conflicted between his indoctrination into Catholic fundamentalism and rational ''scientific'' thoughts. Everything he says paints a confused brain that could never quite get rid of the indoctrination and go all the way to the rational, scientific side of things. Hence all the contradictions and mental breakdowns and frequent crying in public when his drivels are confronted with any energetic reality checks.
No. Men do not fear women, the way women fear men---physically. Men are stronger and generally larger than women, this is intrinsic to our coexistence as a species. The laws and the justice system as it is structured & enforced in the western world, are clearly not enough to deter these crimes from happening since they only continue. Consequently, more laws and more police and more prisons and more laws, are possibly creating matters even worse----by taking the power & positive influence potential out of every citizens' hand, dismantling community-togetherness and the comradery of neighborhoods looking out for one another.
"Whether rape is truly illegal depends upon the whims of the men who necessarily control women's lives. " - No, the whims of society at large. Which is correct. That was the issue with marital rape. It could technically be a crime in many places, but it just wasn't taken seriously by society.
Normally I feel like "patriarchy" isn't too useful of a term these days, but in this case? It fits perfectly. That's just a horrifyingly skewed perspective, and it actually lines up with what most people think about when they hear the term "patriarchy". It's unsettling to see that some people actually still think that way.
This guy is one of the most popular commentators in the United States, and you just identified that how ideology lines up perfectly with patriarchy. You seem to not understand your own knee-jerk reaction to feminist ideas even as you simultaneously agree with them. Might be time to re-examine that
@@sayeedkizuk5822 Lmao dude that was one of the most obvious logical fallacies in the book. The idea that popularity equals correctness of thought or action. For a supposed fanboy of philosophy you put no effort into analyzing the people and ideals you come upon rationally.
Honestly!! How else but a coddles life nestled in the arms of a patriarchy that insists white cisgender men can do no harm can he say this bullshit with a straight face? How else but constant admiration and praise can someone so confidently spit in the face of the psychological sciences? In the face of the scientific method itself? How else but under the protective wing of the most entitled men on the planet can he debate where consent begins and ends?
@@sayeedkizuk5822 It's a knee-jerk reaction to want more effective terminology to be used when we're trying to communicate the current problems with society? Because I've thought about it a lot after witnessing a lot of reactions to the term and how poorly understood it often is, not to mention how often people fail to properly define it. Currently it seems no more effective in making progress than when religious people talk about some vague "sin" concept as the "real" cause of human suffering. I feel like even a simple change from saying "the patriarchy" to saying "patriarchal ideas" would work wonders. The current status quo is so toxic to both men and women, if we keep blindly using a term that makes those men feel like the enemy to the point of going on the defensive, how are we going to help everyone who needs to be helped? I imagine even as far as Peterson's followers go, only a small number of them have been exposed to the conversation seen here, and a lot of those who haven't heard it would probably be put off by it. If we make it clear that those are the sorts of ideas we're fighting against, then we'll be able to separate those who are misguided from those who are genuinely dedicated to causing harm.
