Question for men.— Cathy Young (@CathyYoung63) February 1, 2018
Jordan Peterson said, in his interview w/Camille Paglia, that in any intellectual confrontation between men there's always an implicit option of settling things with fists; since it's not an option when arguing with a woman, men are at a disadvantage. Thoughts?
Take the poll before being influenced by my answer, revealed after the jump.
Here's the Jordan Peterson interview with Camille Paglia, in case you want to hear him explain his point before jumping to say it's "Totally nuts."
I said "a bit true/exaggerated" but considered "Absolutely true." I needed a choice between those 2 options. And I had already watched the interview, so I understood exactly what he meant.
पोस्ट्स
२२१ टिप्पण्या:
221 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Not being on Twitter I couldn't vote but as a man I know it is certainly true for me. It is an impulse...always in the deepest most reptilian part of my brain. Oddly political discussions bring it to the forefront quicker than any other.
Totally nuts
In six decades of watching business, and participating as I earned more responsibility, not a single physical altercation took place.
OK, there wasn’t enough information in the original tweet. Specifically the word “crazy,” The answer is yes it’s so true that there shouldn’t be any argument. You can’t punch a woman for saying and doing stuff that would cause a fistfight among men. The only thing you can do is find a way to remove them from your life. I am sure Bill Clinton could write a masters thesis on this.
Men have. of course learned to temper their behavior with other men. It keeps gunfire from breaking out on the streets non stop. I have been saying this for years and years. And most men don’t beat women, so the lack of physical altercations doesn’t make it less true.
Things are settled with bets.
Argue with a woman? What if she cries?
Moral arguments aren't aimed at agreement but at whether you and the other guy can respect each other's positions.
If you can't, either leave or don't bring it up again.
(the is-ought gap doesn't exist; it's a different genre.)
Islam has a solution for this, wife beating is allowed. Christian men stuck in a situation like this either have to find a way out, or have their souls crushed.
I learned the answer to this in seventh grade.
Girl whacks you in the arm. Laughs. "You can't hit me, I'm a girl"
Repeat ad nauseum.
What to do? Hit her and you're a monster. Get help from authority and you're a pussy.
Solution? Avoidance. Warn your peers, discuss strategy. Conclusion - "she's crazy!" As life went on, we were proven right by events.
I listened to it three times and never heard the term "intellectual confrontation." I like Cathy but it's a blatantly unfair way to present JP's point, with which I agree (I would have voted crazy w/o watching it because of Cathy's distortion even though I am a huge fan of JP).
Note that Feminists have realized that they can take this weapon to an extra degree by removing their clothes; just Google Naked Screaming Feminists to see some recent examples (the 120 nude women screaming last year in Argentina outside the President's Palace).
What kind of self-respecting male cop wants to start wading in to beat heads to break up that kind of protest. It's completely emasculating.
Peterson isn't saying that men do come to blows when the conversation goes to far. He's saying that the theoretical possibility of coming to blows is somewhere in the minds of men when they talk to other men and it affects the conversation so that it doesn't get to a level of abuse that women — knowing the man can never hit them no matter what they do — may reach.
Obviously, some men do hit women, but that's a different problem, and it's a problem that JP can be criticized for not talking about there.
And the original question says “intellectual” argument. HA HA HA HA! If you are making the man want to hit you, it’s not an “intellectual argument” you are probably trying to browbeat him by ignoring his points and insisting on yours without, you know, providing an intellectual justification based in reason and fact.
"Things are settled with bets."
Remember when Romney tried that with Rick Perry?
Men try very hard not to reach that point, but yes, it is used by some men as an implied threat, especially by big, dumb former football players that have no other way to command the outcome.
but that’s a different problem, and it's a problem that JP can be criticized for not talking about there.
Yes, the problems facing decent men may not be discussed without smearing them with the behavior of their troglodyte brethren, on account of women’s issues are of primary importance, and so any negative impact on women, however tangential to the original discussion must be brought to the fore.
There is another aspect to Dr. Peterson's logic:
Civilized men are repulsed by the thought of hitting a woman.
Getting into an angry argument with a woman may generate violent thoughts which act like a brake on a chainsaw. Men can become immobilized by self-hatred for the thought of possibly hitting a woman.
Sociopaths (such as rapists) do not have that brake. They even bite women on the lip and calmly tell them to put some ice on it.
The construct is false. Men can, and historically do, beat the shit out of women. The modern presumption is that the man is always wrong. And, of course, the anti-social behavior of men is legislated against, while the anti-social behavior of women is celebrated in story and song. Many was the time I was tempted to slug my ex - but I was always afraid that once that first punch landed home I wouldn’t be able to stop.
Women know they can push and push and not get into a physical confrontation. They also know they can withhold the pussy so that keeps men from pushing too far.
So complete disadvantage.
Men try very hard not to reach that point, but yes, it is used by some men as an implied threat,
Violent men are so much easier to cut out of your life than your average termagant.
My little sister (the homecoming queen) had just left a high school party with her boyfriend (super nice guy) and they passed by an unknown street thug who said something demeaning. My sister, who might have had a beer or two and in a spirit of fun, insulted him right back. The thug got up and punched out her boyfriend. My sister was absolutely devastated.
I have seen less nice women in public put their husbands/boyfriends in the same type of absolute peril by insulting another guy in his face a way that the husband/boyfriend knowns a man cannot do w/o inviting a fight.
Women by definition can’t speak “fightin’ words,” so when they say things that would get any man punched and the puncher would be acquitted by any jury, just like in the westerns, well the man is at fault. Not saying he’s not.
I guess this is why they hire so many bouncers for physics conventions. Otherwise, the string theory panels would look like the knife-fight scene from "Beat It."
I said "a bit true/exaggerated" - my boss gets away with a lot more BS micromanagement before the males bring it up because when we have confronted her, she either blames us for not hearing her correctly or we are told we are incompetent or she gets all weepy and emotional and then what do we do? You can't fight tears with (metaphorical) fists. It just doesn't work. I'm three years from retirement (one year from being eligible so I have to be relatively good in that time) so it is a tough call for me as to should I find another job or just stick it out. Those that can leave have or are actively looking. The place is gutting itself because of the poison she exudes but her bosses thinks she walks on water. In ,y last confrontation with her, she observed that I seemed agitated and did not understand why. With a male, I would have responded "Because this is fracking stupid and it worries me that you don't understand how the fracking budget works and you are an idiot." Then we could really get down to it and have a discussion. But with women... call a woman an idiot and you don't get very far. Maybe a harassment charge...
Fransisco D...perfect!
It is the belief amongst women that they cannot be hit that leads them to say things they know, in a moment of calm reflection, they should never say.
It is not that men punch each other often - but rather the understanding that it could happen - that keeps men constrained.
The issue also reminds me of the famous point when Gore tries to physically intimidate Bush at the debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUcyfKESts
I think Bush's reaction was hillarious and probably got him enough extra votes to tip the election. With just that quick dismissive double-take, Bush said (1) WTF, do you think we're actually going to have a physical confrontation here, and (2) are you really stupid enough to think you would win it?, and proved himself easily the more alpha of the two.
I wonder what Ms Young's position is on putting women in combat roles, since it's likely to involve settling with fists, knives, machetes?
Same thing applies to any confrontation between someone from a privileged group and someone from a group with a lower privilege level, although the "assumed potential escalation" may not be physical. Blacks and whites, gays and straights, women and men, etc.
Very interesting watching the impact of that on the Democratic Party.
I wish more arguments were settled with fists, or at least the threat of fisticuffs.
I get so sick of people questioning the motives of those they disagree with, a tactic especially pervasive on the left. When a leftist is losing an argument, he will usually resort to the racist accusation. If those who are accused of racism would just say, "You're calling me a racist? That's insulting. I want to meet you behind the building and we'll settle this with our fists, because you insulted my honor," this tactic would not be used so much.
Interesting. I voted "a bit true-exaggerated" but also felt like it was a little more true than that and maybe "absolutely true." Those two together are delightful. I refer to Paglia as the most interesting living American. I'm aware of the buzz around Peterson but I haven't really looking into his work yet. They seem like a great match for a conversation and I'll look into that interview/conversation later, just as soon as I knock out this hearing in Paris, TX this morning, a place I have never been.
Primal and absolutely true.
Truth avenger
Correct. But the future will be worse still since boys no longer fight with their fists. They have been taught to be girls and taught well.
Perhaps I have never feared an argument with a woman because unlike many men, I will hit a women if I think that I am losing an argument with her. But I will hit her just hard enough to win. I am not a savage.
Peterson, being an effete cosmopolitan intellectual and a Canadian, will not do this.
Male strength is the result of evolution. Nothing could be more natural. Deal with it.
“Democrats take offense at...” is another kind of “intellectual confrontation” I guess.
And did you know that to think for yourself, and to question and try to understand the issues to the best of your God given abilities is to be “anti-intellectual”?
I remember well when my younger sister first learned to exploit this disparity in our status. I was stronger, but I was not allowed to use my strength against her. Growing up in our home there were two TVs. The nice one upstairs and the older one downstairs. Everyone except for me was upstairs watching Moby Dick and I was downstairs watching a football game. (Had my dad been home, the football game would have been on upstairs and the movie on downstairs. He wasn't home.) My sister was dissatisfied with her seating position upstairs, so she came downstairs and changed the channel to the movie -- a clear violation of house TV rules! I switched it back and told her she could watch the movie upstairs. She explained that she couldn't sit comfortably upstairs and would scream if I didn't let her watch the movie. She screamed for 10 minutes before I relented and let her have her way. I was bigger and stronger, but I couldn't use that power to force her to shut up -- and she knew it. (She also knew our mother was too involved in watching the movie to do anything about it.)
I taught at an urban university for eight years. In that time, we three knock down, drag them out fights in our classrooms. In each case, it was two women fighting.
Mr. Peterson is discussing a fundamental fact of human nature, here. An absolutely true fundamental difference between men and women. (lightbulb!) I think I'll pay more attention to this guy. Feminists would make more sense if any of them knew and understood exactly what he is talking about.
In my advanced age, I have come to appreciate people who are purposefully confrontational. From time to time, someone will confront me with something I am doing that he doesn't like, and we will hash it out rationally on the spot and that's that. Yes, its usually a male person who behaves like this.
If its a male person that doesn't have the courage to confront me with the same transgression, and chooses instead to talk behind my back about it to anyone who'll listen, well then I have no respect for him- he's a pussy.
Reminds me of the famous William F Buckley - Gore Vidal debate. No actual fists, but a sudden shift from argument into vicious angry words.
Ad hominem arguments are severely limited in personal arguments between adult men. To call someone a "racist" or a "fascist" to his face is something most Lefty men are loathe to do. The Antifa activists doing it in front of cameras always strike me as trying to provoke a physical response--the exception that proves the rule.
Women are not so constrained. Or anonymous men on the internet.
Okay, here is my real argument.
Men spend a lot of time building hierarchies of men & negotiating hierarchies built by other men. The higher you are in the hierarchy, the more power you have. No need to resort to fists to win an argument, just make it clear to the person on the other end of the argument that your position in the hierarchy is higher than his.
Unless you are interested in upping your position in some kind of brawler hierarchy.
For most of human history, & in pre-Christian Europe, women had no status at all outside of family. They were thought of as mutilated, runty men.
So what is a guy supposed to do when a woman wants to argue with him? Personally, I just run away.
A man gets in your face at his own peril. You can feel free to stand your ground knowing that if he invades your space he has broken the rules and committed the offense. At that point the argument is over and the fight begins.
A woman faces no such peril with a man. He is more likely to step back, or request she do so, but at that moment he is no longer arguing but dealing with her aggressiveness. At that moment, he has stopped arguing, but she has continued.
Part of the danger of women in combat is training hundreds of thousands of young men every year to be hardened to seeing women in distress.
I watch too many crime shows. The sobbing or hysterical or paralyzed female victims just annoy me. You'd think "normal" women would object to that depiction of weakness.
It would be unfair for most men and most women to engage in physical violence against each other, given men's natural advantage in musculature and upper-body strength.
But suppose we brought back the tradition of a duel at 20 paces with guns. Would it be unfair for a man to challenge a woman to a duel, if both knew how to use guns?
And there are other ways. Remember when Bobby Riggs challenged Billie Jean King to a "battle of the sexes" of tennis? (He lost.)
In short, there are many ways that a man could challenge a woman to some kind of physical contest in which the man's upper-body strength would be irrelevant.
MikeR said...
Reminds me of the famous William F Buckley - Gore Vidal debate. No actual fists, but a sudden shift from argument into vicious angry words.
"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered.
For a subtler version of this, watch the channel 4 interview. The female interviewer feels confident to interrupt him, lean forward, and move toward his space.
JP sits back, never advances or cuts her off. Even when she says something stupid he waits a beat before answering.
At first I thought it was his Canadian-ness, but it's really a manifestation of what he's describing. He doesn't want to come off as a bully against the woman. He doesn't want his arguments to be lost in a dissection of his actions and body language toward her.
The only time I have ever seen two women physically fighting (outside of some sort of sport) it was over a guy. They weren't kidding either. We are talking the hair-pulling, eye-raking kind of fighting that women engage in when they have really lost control.
Why is this just a question for men? I answered this poll before noticing I was excluded.
I'm sure you're not the only one. How many women rushed in to vote, skewing the results?
Young herself thinks the answer is "nuts".
Blogger sinz52 said...
. . .
In short, there are many ways that a man could challenge a woman to some kind of physical contest in which the man's upper-body strength would be irrelevant.
Like chess? You have to pick and move the pieces precisely & keep track of time . . . let me look at a list of champion chess players . . . hmmm. Not many women on it. In fact there are no women on it all.
However, in the physical contest of staying alive longer, women are way ahead of men.
Buckley was ever a master of the language, and his threat of violence to Vidal was precisely what was called for.
Jersey Fled: I taught at an urban university for eight years. In that time, we three knock down, drag them out fights in our classrooms. In each case, it was two women fighting.
People sure do get passionate about their intellectual positions, don't they? Surely these were intellectual confrontations, right? I mean, this being a university and all.
EDH, are you saying I'm wrong because Buckley mentioned fists? Just checking.
There are women commenters hereon that I did not recognize as women until they made a comment stating so.
OTOH, there has never been any doubt about Inga's sex, has there?
Part of the danger of women in combat is training hundreds of thousands of young men every year to be hardened to seeing women in distress.
Soldiers are still just boys becoming men, and as much as feminists like to pretend that humanity was created in six days 6,000 years ago by a fair and loving God who made both sexes exactly the same,(except only for the visually verifiable differences, of course) and that evolution never happened, and that the minds of soldiers are as accepting of firmware updates as computers, it’s just not true.
"Yes, the problems facing decent men may not be discussed without smearing them with the behavior of their troglodyte brethren, on account of women’s issues are of primary importance, and so any negative impact on women, however tangential to the original discussion must be brought to the fore."
All I'm saying is he leaves himself open to that criticism. He could protect himself from criticism — but I don't think he wants to — but dropping in a brief line acknowledging that women do experience violence but he's not talking about those men.
And there's an elitism problem that you seem to like. When he says "men" he means the men who operated at his own level of sophistication, college professors and so forth.
And yet many men in that set do threaten their women with violence and even carry it out.
"They also know they can withhold the pussy so that keeps men from pushing too far."
Who are these women? And who are the men in relationships where they know they like sex more than she does which gives her currency she can spend on other things?
Don't men want to have sex with women who want sex too?
If not, you're on either the prostitution spectrum or the rape spectrum. Which one?
I'll say it loudn and proud.
LEFTWING BITCHES ARE CRAZY. leftwing bitches are anti-feminist and the word "Femi-Nazi" is all for you - leftwing man-hating anti-free speech anti-intellectual leftwing bitches.
just make it clear to the person on the other end of the argument that your position in the hierarchy is higher than his.
If you have reached that point, it’s already out of control, it’s like being in court, you already lost. Women bosses get to that point a lot quicker than men, in my opinion. I kind of like the Klingon dictum that if your boss is a fuckup, it’s your duty to kill him and take his job, but I can see it might have some real-world problems for productivity, since it assumes saintly honor on the part of the subordinate.
Angel-Dyne:
None of the three happened in my classroom, so I can't comment on those. In one case, I had to step in and stop a potential fight in my classroom though. It was two young women. It actually started as an intellectual argument and quickly got personal. But I think there was some baggage between the two that contributed heavily.
Althouse wrote: [Peterson is saying] that the theoretical possibility of coming to blows is somewhere in the minds of men when they talk to other men and it affects the conversation so that it doesn't get to a level of abuse that women — knowing the man can never hit them no matter what they do — may reach.
Absolutely correct. The possibility of violence, of antagonists coming to blows, is always there, and the avoidance of that possibility is the origin and purpose of courtesy.
Cathy Young is totally nuts if she truly does lean toward "totally nuts". Firstly, wishful thinking is totally nuts. If a fact of human nature — or more precisely the nature of higher primates — is distasteful to you, labeling that fact "totally nuts" is neither helpful or even honest. Self-deception is first and foremost simply deception, and therefore dishonest. Secondly, she uses debate as a weasel word and doubles down on her weaseling by qualifying debate with real, enclosed in scare quotes, no less, as if there is such a thing as unreal debate.
Debate is not at issue. Debate is an intellectual process with rules. The issue is conflict, the struggle of contending imperatives —Nature red in tooth and claw, if you will — which obeys no rules, observes no limitations. Nature favors survivors and makes no moral judgments. According to myth, we are all descended from Cain, the first murderer, and the first survivor. If the relationship between Right and Left in this republic is a debate, I see no evidence of it. Quite the contrary, HRC staked out the grounds clearly — the good people, i.e. Clinton and all those "with her", and the "basket of deplorables".
Somebody needs to clobber that bitch.
Who are these women?
Damn it Althouse! Get out of the wind!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ww_Bo5ghiw
I will totally hit a woman in self-defense. Fuck your sensibilities. If a woman is assaulting me physically, and she's serious about it, and immediate removal of myself from the situation isn't practical, I'm knocking her right to the fucking ground and giving her a swift kick to the ribs to further discourage her from getting back up. It's gonna take a serious assault to get me to do it (whereas, with a man, a single thrown punch is my cue to wreck some fool's day), but she's gonna get a lesson in evolutionary biology if she really wants it bad enough.
And yes, every argument, mano-y-mano, carries the potential for fisticuffs. Among friends, among enemies, among strangers - doesn't matter. This is why lifting weights is a good habit to get into. Others are less likely to start shit with you if they think you'll kick their ass pretty easily. Furthermore, those who achieve physical power are less likely to start shit themselves because they generally understand how much damage they can truly do if shit gets out of control.
Anyone who doubts the biological necessity of being able to quickly and decisively win a fight or discourage an opponent clearly hasn't read Ender's Game.
Certainly the danger of physical confrontation is present in male-male "discussions". Depending on the subject and the people, it may be very deep. But it is the ultimate way to resolve the conflict. Note, however, the possibility of physical confrontation will be mitigated by the sense of the change of winning such.(plus tactics like the go-crazy mode)
Female-male is much more confused. A female with or feeling she is protected by a male will ignore the possibility of the physical, as far as I can see. Certainly in literature one sees a male companion trying to hold back a female he is escorting because he knows the confrontation could go bad and she is ignoring it.
However, an unprotected female seems to work differently. As far as my experience shows, from her side the possibility of physical is recognized and may cause her to pull back in the discussion. I have known very intelligent women who said that they held back in design discussions when I thought we were all going at full brainstorming. Note that arguments between couples may leave the female feeling unprotected.
From the male side with an unprotected female. It depends on the character of the man. The assumption of the man is that he will win any physical confrontation. For some men, this means they are unrestrained. For others, the moral premise to protect the weaker will hold them back. As has been said, they will withdraw rather than get to the point where punches would be thrown.
That is my take at least.
Obviously, some men do hit women, but that's a different problem
Why is it a problem at all?
If men and women are equal, and there is no difference between them, gender being nothing more than a social construct......why can't men hit women? Especially when it's apparently OK for women to hit men?
I think it's wrong for men to hit women, but I believe that men and women are different and should be treated differently.
Is the intellectual confrontation between partners? Colleagues? Relative strangers?
I'm just here for Paglia and Peterson in a video chat.
He says something true and fascinating: sane women are too busy being normal to take down the harpies. And we're the only ones who can really do it. Boy, is that a conundrum.
As Insty is fond of quoting “An armed society is a polite society.”
Tim in Vermont, 8:01:
"Buckley was ever a master of the language, and his threat of violence to Vidal was precisely what was called for."
Agree in part. I have a problem with "you queer," but hey, it's less out of line than alleging Nazi sympathies.
I will point out though that Buckley always regretted responding in this fashion.
What really annoys me in thrillers is when the female victim knocks the perp down and then runs away, leaving her weapon and his behind. Finish him off, you stupid bitch!
Unequivocally true in my experience.
-sw
it's less out of line than alleging Nazi sympathies.
But more hurtful because it was true. Less effective now than then, though, despite PC.
While I have never done it, my understanding of man rules definitely allows the open palm slap to the face of a woman who needs it. If Humphrey Bogart or James Bond can slap a broad, the potential context for a righteous slapping exists.
That's not hitting. Punches is hitting. Kicking is hitting. A liver kite is hitting. Slapping is a signal: is this thing on? If necessary, a woman may be subdued, but this should be done in a way to avoid physical harm.
Also, ladies, say that you are confessing a vile deed to your man, such as adultery, betrayal of his cause, the covert abortion of his baby. Would you rather he slap you, or say OK, I'll be at a hotel, my lawyer will call yours?
Bill Burr No reason to hit women?
Two words: Lorena Bobbit. She got away with it. Would a man, derided and abused by a woman, be let off for a similar offense?
No.
Or how about that horrible 20 something female reporter in Philly? She stood there on youtube excoriating and abusing a handful of very large men in words that would get my ass kicked three ways to Sunday. But Dimbulb Debby doesn't consider for a moment that if ANY of these men's control slip, she will likely be in the hospital.
Women are not teaching other women self control. Discretion. Politeness. And young ladies have this incredibly deluded sense of physical immunity.
Because those young girls who abused their brothers like that should have had a run in with Mommy or Daddy Bear to inform her 'while HE can't punish you for behaving badly, SOMEONE can.'
Bill Burr says it best: A woman can throw all your clothes on the lawn and set off the sprinklers, set your new BMW on fire, and sit right next to it and LAUGH in your face because she knows if you lay a single finger on her, you are toast. No excuses. No 'irresistible impulse' like Lorena got off on. Just like drunk screwing, a man is legally and morally held to the standard of constantly being in total control...and a woman is let off the hook.
No matter how drunk you are.
No matter how incendiary the words of a woman are. If your control slips for one quarter of a second and 'bop!', you are and always will be a domestic abuser.
Keen!
This is a recent legal change and while I have daughters, I also have a son.
As usual, Chris Rock was on this issue first. He has an old line that goes something like (rough paraphrase ahead) "there's nothing crazier than a woman who knows you won't hit her."
BL: A woman who will permit herself to be slapped has set a low value on herself.
DKWalser: I remember well when my younger sister first learned to exploit this disparity in our status. I was stronger, but I was not allowed to use my strength against her.
C'mon, gentlemen. I have brothers. Spare me the "guys are always so noble and fair-fighting", which is as much shinola as the "I'm the poor, sweet gentle innocent girl" shtick. Brothers can manipulate sex-role expectations and pull the victim shit as well as any girl.
My kid brother, though he greatly improved with age, was a pestering pain in the arse when we were kids. Always barging into my room, always messing with my stuff, always blathering away and demanding attention when I just wanted to be left the hell alone with my books. When the confrontations he provoked got too heated and an adult stepped in, he'd start in with the "she started it, she's being mean 'cause she knows I won't hit a girl", and, icing on the cake, he'd start referencing entirely imaginary incidents of me beating up on him in earlier days, when he was still littler and weaker than I. Then the adult, with a sanctimonious chuckle, would say something like "see, you had it coming, sisters always think they can get away with that, then ha ha ha, little brother grows up". And little bro would stand behind them, smirking, the little shit.
Forty years later he will own up to his dishonorable maneuvers, admit that he "started it" every time, and testify that he was a lying sack about the alleged sisterly beat-downs. In recompense he likes to tell a story (much embroidered) about how I once saved him from the big neighborhood bully by running the bully down full speed on my bike. Siblings, eh?
Ms. Althouse said:
Don't men want to have sex with women who want sex too?
Yes Ms. Althouse, they do. But men happen to want her to want it more than once a fortnight, and only if he's been good.
-If he loves her, he will respect her enough to be patient and jump through her hoops.
-If she loves him, she will make herself available when he has needs, even if she isn't 100% in the mood. She might change her mind. Many women report they do.
Your brand of Feminism seems to stop at that first statement...which is little different than the Religious Matrons of Victorian Times, demanding that sexual monopoly. So this is a pure power play.
Patrice O'neal can't hit women
It seems undeniable that historically boys have been expected to develop at least a modicum of competence in personal violence; girls, not so much.
Except in contemporary Disney pictures, where girls are Empowered Disney Princess-Warriors, and boys are bumbling incompetent fools.
My partner slapped his ex-wife in an argument. He said it felt so good it scared him. The divorce was then begun and he has been married to his second wife for 40 years.
My ex-wife would go on and on until I left the house. I never hit her but might have if I had not left.
Peterson is amazing. I sent my leftist daughter a copy of his new book, wondering if she would even read it. She called me two days later to tell me she loves it.
Maybe there is hope.
Ann wrote: "Don't men want to have sex with women who want sex too?"
Of course, but some men are either too clumsy, entitled or impatient to engage in rudimentary courtship rituals. They need physical force or the presence of Arkansas state troopers to get what they want.
That type of man is a sociopath. Our jails are full of them.
I used to work with a couple of managers who were (in)famous for going at each other hammer & tongs in meetings. Co-workers who didn't know them well thought that they hated each other. The truth was that they were the best of friends.
The fact that they were friends was actually, in its strange male honor way, the reason why they could behave so rudely to each other in a public managerial setting. If they had been actual enemies or even just strangers, such behavior by another man would have led, if not to physical confrontation, then to a strained discussion in HR with a guard present. But, they were friends, & that meant that each knew the other was a pushy loudmouth who just tended to get overwrought about work issues they cared about. Well, that & that each was whatever is the male equivalent of a "drama queen".
Open palm slaps to the face hurt. Especially if you don't know what's coming after it. They count as hitting.
Obviously, some men do hit women, but that's a different problem,
Why?
Seriously, if men and women are equal, and there is no difference between a man and a woman, and gender is nothing more than a social construct...why is it OK for a man to hit a man, or a woman to hit a man, but a man must never ever hit a woman?
I think it's wrong for a man to hit a woman, but I think men and women are different and should be treated differently.
and it's a problem that JP can be criticized for not talking about there.
Of course...because everything always has to be about women.
Who are these women?
The vast majority of women for most of history. Are you seriously trying to deny that whenever possible women control access to sex?
And who are the men in relationships where they know they like sex more than she does which gives her currency she can spend on other things?
The vast majority of married men.
Don't men want to have sex with women who want sex too?
Sure...but the problem is, men want sex much more often than women do...do you deny that there is a difference in male and female sex drives?
If not, you're on either the prostitution spectrum or the rape spectrum. Which one?
It's called marriage.
reader: Open palm slaps to the face hurt. Especially if you don't know what's coming after it. They count as hitting.
The distinction here being made between slapping and hitting isn't predicated on the belief that slaps don't hurt.
"If not, you're on either the prostitution spectrum or the rape spectrum. Which one?"
Oh..it would be fun to see JP's eyes grow upon hearing that.
Jordan Peterson is open to criticism for what he doesn't say. Althouse is criticized all the time for what she chooses not to say. No fair.
Would you rather he slap you, or say OK, I'll be at a hotel, my lawyer will call yours?
Either way, she's about to get at least half of your shit.
Please come home to your daddy, and explain yourself to me
Because I and you are man and wife, tryin' to start a family
I'm beggin' you baby, cut out that off the wall jive
If you can't treat me no better, it gotta be your funeral and my trial
Peterson makes several claims. Their validity varies.
It is not true that the threat of violence is "always" there in male arguments. In the vast majority of arguments I have had, it was entirely irrelevant.
Even when the threat of violence is at least on a distant mental horizon, it is still often irrelevant to the way the dynamic plays out, due to obvious physical power differences. Weak betas usually (not "always") don't court violence against strong alphas.
But the threat of violence can be there, in a way that it cannot be in male-femal arguments, and so while the gross generalization is false, the kernel within it is a bit true.
Similarly, it is false to say that men "cannot" control crazy women, unless you define craziness by uncontrollability. There are many methods of control, and some men have applied at least some of them in some cases.
Of course, there's again a valid kernel: men cannot control crazy women the way they would control crazy men. And it is useful to call sane women's attention to the problem.
I know, I know, boring nitpicking caveats. But he should know better than to throw out iron laws of psychology. I'll be happy to argue with him. Let's have at it, Jordan.
People who work in ERs have told me that they see a fair amount of domestic abuse involving gay couples (both male and female) and the men involved are often well paid professionals who seldom bring charges against their partners. It makes sense to me. Middle class men have "never, ever hit a woman, no matter what evil and crazy thing she has done" drilled into them when they are growing up. But if you're a gay man and your lover or spouse is in your face screaming at you and you're furious and perhaps have had a few drinks, you might just lose it and punch him. And then he punches back and it's game on. So Peterson has a point.
Look at how Hillary and her followers complained about how Trump "bullied" her during the debates by simply walking up behind her, as though Trump was about to haul off and box her ears. Hillary also employed the "big bad man bullying poor me" tactic during her debates in 2000, when she was running for Senate.
If female candidates have a physical disadvantage because their voices can sound shrill and strident when they are trying to convey passion, male candidates, who can use their height to their advantage against other men, have to worry about looking like they are trying to physically intimidate women.
Open palm slaps to the face hurt. Especially if you don't know what's coming after it. They count as hitting.
Yes, and they are humiliating as well, which is their point. They might not injure like a punch or a kick, but they are absolutely designed to establish physical dominance.
Gahrie, Gahrie, didn't you listen to Peterson?
Anyway, careful, buddy. Sexuality is not one of the areas where our hostess exercises her usual reasoning powers to full effect.
The question is one of license. Are women allowed to do or say anything without the threat of any repercussions.
Many of today's women assert yes. That hitting is always wrong. That hitting never solved anything. That no one ever did anything to warrant being hit.
Men's experiences are quite different...as has been the experience of less ideological and more self reflective women. A little slap, a little fight lets a lot of the bad blood out. It is communication by body language and it includes a bit of shouting.
Which is not to say that many women have not been abused over the years. But that is the 'slap' vs 'hit' distinction. A woman slapped in a fit of temper because she fucked his best friend for a month is not the same as a Lorena Bobbit.
For myself, I don't understand slapping or hitting someone who sleeps next to you and actually cooks your food. Were you planning on a private bedroom and eating out all the time?
But what is left if a woman continues to cross lines? Break ups and divorces. But it seems that the women aren't missing monogamy that much so they'll be just fine, right?
I will point out though that Buckley always regretted responding in this fashion.
Well, Einstein thought he was wrong once, about the cosmological constant. But it turns out he was mistaken.
Also, a sharp slap to the face by a lady whose ass has just been grabbed by a Senator from Minnesota? Coulda worked wonders, and saved the moron his job.
My hot take: When you let lonely, idealistic and/or ill-intentioned and true-believing people relying upon a violent ideology make the rules regarding how the sexes should behave across an already existing sex divide, you can expect some problems.
I think that’s what Peterson is primarily objecting to, the incoherence of many of these ideas (social constructionism, critical theory, Lacan and Foucault et al and the postmodern confectionists, science denying gender theorists)
In getting rid of a lot of the religious influence on rules and laws (nuns, priests and saints...the chaste...a few big thinkers...higher incidences of homosexuality and some real radicals) making the rules, out are also thrown notions of honor, chivalry and freedom/responsibility that went with them.
The humanities and the social sciences and sciences are mostly where knowledge is being pursued in explaining who we are, how the world is and possibly how we should behave (universities...professors, some real idiots and a few big thinkers...higher incidences of homosexuality and some real radicals).
I strongly believe in standing up to the bad ideas and bad actors infesting these fields, as a lot of good will be done for most normal people in the process. But, you have to be much better than them. They have a lot of institutional authority and they have educated generations (Cathy Newman): You have to challenge their ideas and hold them to account. Clean up the humanities, give it some more rigor. No more shutting down speech you don’t like. Clean up the social sciences so it’s not a den of self selecting Leftists utopians and at least hold folks to peer review and serious statistical account. Don’t let the ideologues deny scientific inquiry.
Otherwise you back into Europe’s problems, but you talk a lot of hippie nonsense in the meantime.
The thing that the author of this survey - and many other people discussing Peterson's comments on some of these issues - don't realize is that he's talking about things at a level many people aren't fully conscious of. As a trained psychoanalyst, he talks in a number of his videos about being (or becoming) aware of your motivations and the tiny impulses or thoughts or mental images that you experience constantly while your conscious mind is focusing on other things. On a logical level (and at the level people actually operate at), it IS insane to say that every discussion has an implicit threat of violence - but our brains don't only work at the logical, conscious level. While you're focusing on your rational discussion, there's a deeper swirling layer of half-formed thoughts and ideas that we don't actually pay conscious attention to unless that idea seems useful. If you've ever suddenly had an idea in the middle of an argument of how to rephrase or reframe your position in a way that seems completely unrelated to how you've been saying things (or, as with the Buckley example, shifts the context from one realm of action to the other - mental to physical), that probably bubbled up from the unconscious percolation going on beneath the surface.
Most people aren't aware of what's going on under the conscious layer, but if you've been trained you can learn to capture at least some of it, and it gives you a powerful insight into your motivations and behavior. The uncomfortable part is that you have to accept that some of your half-formed ideas are cruel and violent - even if you would never actually act on them.
One thing I have noticed about liberal critics of Dr. Peterson's are that they seem horrified by the possibility that there's something dark - even potentially evil - below the surface of every mind. Willingness to accept that might challenge an idealistic worldview, and so many of them seem to respond with great hostility and even revulsion to his ideas.
"I don't believe in hitting women, but I know what can turn Mr. Hand into Mr. Fist."--the late great Sam Kinnison
Tim in Vermont: Also, a sharp slap to the face by a lady whose ass has just been grabbed by a Senator from Minnesota? Coulda worked wonders, and saved the moron his job.
Slaps are salutary for miscreants of both sexes, but a woman slapping a man, due to difference in strength, needs to be careful that she has the social back-up to carry her point. (This is usually available in instances of public ass-grabbing.)
Correction: "Kinison" not "Kinnison."
“Peterson isn't saying that men do come to blows when the conversation goes to far. He's saying that the theoretical possibility of coming to blows is somewhere in the minds of men when they talk to other men and it affects the conversation so that it doesn't get to a level of abuse that women — knowing the man can never hit them no matter what they do — may reach. “
Reminds me a bit of a guy I dealt with almost 30 years ago. He was 6’9”, and had rowed in college. He wasn’t in that sort of shape anymore, but still big. He was smart, but not omniscient, so I would get the better of him in discussions at times. You could tell when you were winning, because that was when he leaned over you, essentially ending the argument through physical intimidation. Which was interesting, because the subject was, nevitably, the design of network protocols, not a subject that would usually be settled through an implied threat of fisticuffs. What was funny though was the reaction of my (ex) wife. He would lean over her, and she would slide down in her chair. Then he would notice that she had strategically placed her leg between his. Ready for the one threat that every male inherently fears. I asked her about it, and her response was that, no, he didn’t really intimidate her, any more than other guys, that women live in a world where males tend to be bigger and stronger, but also programmed not to physically assault females. She always amazed me with her ability to move back and forth between being one of the guys, and having the men instinctively know that she was a woman. Something my partner couldn’t do if her life depended on it.
The thing is, males pretty much instinctively know where they are, hierarchicaly, when meeting and dealing with other males, and one aspect of that is physical. Physical size and prowess will typically jump a male several levels over where he would normally reside in the male hierarchy. So sometimes with good looks, but they tend, maybe to be indirect, through increasing status by making you more attractive to women. My partner seems to think that I should respect size and muscles more. Maybe I should. But her background is more working class than mine. Her father and brothers were tall (6’3” or so) and lifted weights a lot. And her father boxed when young. My father was an attorney, which essentially inoculated me into a philosophy that if some guy swung on me, I would be out of the hospital years before he was out of jail. And, yes, the only time in my adult life that I was physically assaulted, the guy ended up in jail - which was handy, because we were business partners, and our dispute ultimately ended up in court, where the judge tended to view resorting to violence similarly to me, that it was an indication of lack of virtue, etc. “Our class” doesn’t resort to violence, when given a legal alternative, which is to say that the arrest report essentially “othered” my former partner in the eyes of the judge, who very likely would have done what I did, which was to call 911, instead of hitting back, and let the cops do the intimidation for us.
With big males as the norm for my partner, it shouldn’t be a surprise that she went for big guys. Her ex is, even now, massive. And uses his size when dealing with other males, but has never really hit anyone since probably grade school. One of his tricks is shaking hands. He can, of course, crush the hands of most guys. Her surgeon put him in his place though when he told her ex that he (the ex) couldn’t afford to shake his hand, implying that that trick of crushing the other guy’s hand would bankrupt him, given the value of the surgeon’s hands. No surprise, he let me shake his hand, just fine, but I wasn’t going to vie for dominance through an exhibition of physical strength.
“BL: A woman who will permit herself to be slapped has set a low value on herself.”
Exactly. Women need to learn how to incapacitate a man who hits her.
@podpolia,
One thing I have noticed about liberal critics of Dr. Peterson's are that they seem horrified by the possibility that there's something dark - even potentially evil - below the surface of every mind.
"Paging Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud, please pick up the white courtesy phone."
One of the most striking features of the post-modern Left is how thoroughly Freud got airbrushed out of the picture. Freud was an absolutely essential component of all but the most "Soviet" 20th C Marxisms. The Frankfurt School & all that comes out of it, e.g the American 1960s "New Left" are unthinkable without a healthy dollop of Freud.
A lot of this female violence immunity came from (in order) Christianity and Chivalry. They were strong social constructs.
However, they came at a cost. There were roles to play.
Now, Feminism is an Ideological Buffet: "I'll take double portions of free dinners, with some wooing sauce please. Lots and lots of that 'never hit women'...could you load up a new plate? Yeah...um...no to the chasteness...no to the gentility...Domesticity? YUCK! Gobs of that 'reproductive rights'...yeah, just pile that on. No, I don't care if you give me the whole tray. Emotional support? You mean I have to share that? Nah. He can have that."
It is not so much that most women are behaving a lot worse: it is that a small number of women are behaving abominably and most women won't call then out on that. Further, that while THEY don't behave badly, most women reserve the right to behave badly.
One doesn't get the old style protections without the responsibilities.
Re face-slapping, I've read that if you slap with a slightly cupped hand, the "cup" contains air, and the trapped air adds to the impact of the slap. The KGB is reported to have perfected this little trick.
Please use this helpful hint responsibly
Most people aren’t aware of what's going on under the conscious layer, but if you've been trained you can learn to capture at least some of it, and it gives you a powerful insight into your motivations and behavior. The uncomfortable part is that you have to accept that some of your half-formed ideas are cruel and violent - even if you would never actually act on them.
It’s my opinion that that is the primary goal of this blog, to discover stuff like that. It’s one of the reason I can’t understand why people who don’t want to engage in actual debate, but would rather repeat talking points, even come here, out of all of the millions of blogs. But they are handy as experimental subjects, I guess, and they do serve as illustrations of many points.
True, but not very important. The woman's real power comes from her ability to withhold sex. (Even if sex was already off the table, it COULD happen.)
I went to Twitter, couldn't vote b/c I'm not a member, but looking at the comments it seemed to me that many people were willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting Peterson. Reminded my of the Cathy Newman interview.
Peterson was NOT saying men always, or usually, or even 'not infrequently' resort to violence, only that the subtle possibility is there even if unspoken and not consciously recognized, and that sets some bounds and direction to the argument. Whereas, most men would never get violent with a woman, and women know that, which means a woman can say things that a man would never say because he knows on a deep level it could lead to violence. That subtle caution is not there to restrain a woman.
Peterson is just much too subtle for the highly credentialed idiots in the punditocracy.
I wonder if the difference is this.
In a bitter personal argument women don't think of physical fighting. They think about how ugly and personal they will be. How bad will they try to make the other woman feel? Even in physical battle they try to mess up that pretty face and tear that nice dress and rip off that silly switch that's so obviously phony. And what you try to do, the same or more is coming back toward you. So that's parity. Men don't fight that way and so if you want to get along with them you avoid it with them. At the same time you don't want to argue in way in which the one who is physically stronger or more economically powerful automatically wins.
Of course it's true. Women know they can do all sorts of stupid, violent shit that men can't get away with and that obviously colors all sorts of interactions.
Solange Knowles Attacks Jay-Z in Elevator
It's just as true as the fact that at the bottom of nice centrist people's enthusiastic support for military intervention is the implicit understanding that it's men--other men--who will have to do that fighting (to "bring our girls back," etc).
Ann Althouse said...Obviously, some men do hit women, but that's a different problem, and it's a problem that JP can be criticized for not talking about there.
I'm glad you're better than someone who'd play the "the think you AREN'T talking about is X and that's what's really important" card, Althouse.
Stretch corollary: an armed society is a polite society.
I'm not sure that the threat of a fight, per se, exists in a man-to-man interaction. But most definitely there is a threat of an in-your-face confrontation. One might argue that an in-your-face confrontation is on the continuum toward fisticuffs, and I'd have to agree with that.
With regard to women, however, I was raised in the South and being a gentleman—particularly with respect to ladies—was inculcated in me from the time I could reason and understand. And I can truly say that over a professional career that lasted forty years, I NEVER was even tempted to get in-your-face with a woman over some kind of work matter. I can also truly say that there were a number of occasions in which I got in-your-face with male colleagues. And while I regretted it—and usually apologized—work is no place for snowflakes and a lot of people (including me) are not nearly as smart and perspicacious as they think they are.
I always found that competent people (male or female) could make their points and move things ahead by the strength of their persuasive skills and the character and the rightness of their arguments.
Maybe that's just me …
Sometimes you gotta slap a dame in the face to knock some sense in to her. Just ask Bogey.
“The thing that the author of this survey - and many other people discussing Peterson's comments on some of these issues - don't realize is that he's talking about things at a level many people aren't fully conscious of.”
Males must know, instinctively, where they are in the male hierarchy, vis a vie, other males, at all times, for self preservation. If you look at other mammal species, dominance fights rarely involve males very far apart in the hierarchy, and that is because it is too dangerous. The young male bucks may try themselves against each other, but would never challenge the adult bucks for dominance, because they likely wouldn’t survive the challenge. It is just too inefficient, too dangerous, not to know who you can challenge, and survive the challenge. This is root programming for, at least, most mammals. Because the males who didn’t have this instinct tended to die off without leaving progeny - Darwin at work. Even the biggest weren’t always the biggest - at one tine they were adolescents, and had to know when to yield, in order to live long enough to grow into their size. And it is because it is such low level programming, that we often don’t know that it is there.
Camille looks rather adorable in her reaction shots.
This is a sentiment that we ALL have known for millennia that the underlying rules of civility are the Great Wall to interpersonal violence. Over time, humans have learned that there are limits to civility; a person who knows these limits, but continues to challenge these limits has to know there are consequences.
So, when JP expresses his frustration with limit crossing female aggressors, he's stating a truism that is true for ALL forms of social exchange. Indeed, watching Camille Paglia in the full video carry on about the champions of the French derived intellectual drivel, her body language suggests she completely agrees.
Professor, you thrust, or jab if you will, that JP has to acknowledge that there is violence against women is complete and utter horseshit. All people know there are incredibly violent actions at though social interactions: do not men walking in large urban areas live with the same risk of assault and mortality? There is an implicit (okay, explicit) recourse to sexism here. Unworthy.
The issue is a particular exchange with a particular person who is being unreasonable knowing they have the Power Advantage in the Exchange. The Power of a person over another is directly proportional to the Dependence of the other on the person. That is probably the only rule of sociology that stands the test of time.
My question: Is this NOT what Trump has done consistently throughout his rise to power? Was this not his great transgression when talk about and to women? He simply would not take shit.
Perhaps this is the role model for us all. It is true that we become Dependent on the perks of employment and will tolerate this shit and more to keep those perks. It is also true that it is time to stop tolerating this kind of shit, as Trump has done and return Sassy Mouth Bitch for Sassy Mouth Bitch.
But, watch the Boy Friend; there is ALWAYS a Boy Friend in such confrontations and the Boy Friend is ALWAYS ready to fight.
The full video is truly worth the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM
podpolia @9:57
Whole comment is good; I highlight this bit:
One thing I have noticed about liberal critics of Dr. Peterson's are that they seem horrified by the possibility that there's something dark - even potentially evil - below the surface of every mind. Willingness to accept that might challenge an idealistic worldview, and so many of them seem to respond with great hostility and even revulsion to his ideas.
That on the inside we're a bloody-minded lot - needing training and social coercion to live up to our "better natures" - used to be the common understanding. That it's so alien and painful to recent generations of "educated" people is truly bizarre. I think the historically brief reign of this particular idealistic worldview is coming to an end (it really can't be maintained against the scientific research), but we're going to see some crazy last-ditch battles for it in the next few years.
I'd pay good money to see a steel cage match between Jordan Peterson and Robert Wright. No sardonic humor or devastating irony allowed. Just hard punches and brute strength. They both have the lion hearts of champions, and you can bet that only one would walk out of that cage alive.
William - Peterson would kick Wright's ass.
And there are other ways. Remember when Bobby Riggs challenged Billie Jean King to a "battle of the sexes" of tennis? (He lost.)
In short, there are many ways that a man could challenge a woman to some kind of physical contest in which the man's upper-body strength would be irrelevant.
2/1/18, 7:50 AM
A man's upper-body strength is quite relevant in tennis. The Riggs-King publicity stunt changed nothing.
Didn't it recently come out that Riggs deliberately threw the match? Not long before the King match, he had decisively beaten Margaret Court, then the top ranking woman player in the world. Yet he lost to King, who was nowhere near Court in the rankings? Sure. Feminists crowed and felt good about King's win - and then men and women continued to compete separately, just like before.
Soccer does not employ the upper body, but the US Women's Olympic Soccer team was beaten by a team of 15 year old Australian boys. It's not just upper body strength that gives men a physical advantage, it's height, longer legs, bone density and let's not forget testosterone.
There is a story of two physicists as SLAC stepping outside to settle an argument with fisticuffs. Scientific arguments can become heated, I've personally been involved in face to face yelling matches after being up longer than 24 hours. There are other examples. I did the same as Ann, picked "a bit true/exaggerated" after considering "Absolutely true."
Also, you can't say "I triple-dog dare you" to a woman.
Absolutely true on some deep, primative level. I tell this to my wife every time she brags about how much she thrives on confrontation.
That on the inside we're a bloody-minded lot - needing training and social coercion to live up to our "better natures"
Humans are born as barbarians and need to be civilized.
#Chivalry #Tradition #ItsBinding
@TWW,
Also, you can't say "I triple-dog dare you" to a woman.
True dat. A gentleman always stops at "double-dog dare you" with a lady.
> Didn't it recently come out that Riggs deliberately threw the match?
Just an old rumor. The fact that Riggs beat Court is pretty irrelevant, Court had a history of choking at odd moments and was considered "fragile" in that regard. King, OTOH, was tough and aggressive and exploited Riggs' big weakness: age.
Peterson is like Paglia. Paglia is like Peterson, in principle.
And the reason... Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.
However, that changes, that should change with establishment of the Pro-Choice Church, witch hunts, public lynchings, and dodo dynasties.
Sex difference. Gender, perhaps, but chivalry doesn't apply to feminine males.
Good conversation. May there be more such.
sinz52: "It would be unfair for most men and most women to engage in physical violence against each other, given men's natural advantage in musculature and upper-body strength."
Egads!
What time are you due back at the Re-educatio....er.... "Learning" Center?
Mostly true. The idea that men are prepared to settle arguments with their fists is a bit optimistic. Perhaps Peterson is being kind or is showing that he's Canadian.
Men are more confrontational while women are more flexible to maintain relationships.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." -- Gen. Mattis
That on the inside we're a bloody-minded lot - needing training and social coercion to live up to our "better natures" - used to be the common understanding. That it's so alien and painful to recent generations of "educated" people is truly bizarre. I think the historically brief reign of this particular idealistic worldview is coming to an end (it really can't be maintained against the scientific research), but we're going to see some crazy last-ditch battles for it in the next few years.
2/1/18, 10:28 AM
The traditional Christian take that humans are fallen creatures, not irremediably bad, but in need of grace, was far more realistic about human nature than the progressive view, which sees evil as something entirely outside of oneself. It's the fault of society, the patriarchy, the capitalists, the whites or whatever the fashionable villain of the day happens to be and the evil can be eliminated if the correct policies and programs (the progressive ones) are implemented by good people (like themselves). Of course, that inevitably results in a lot of people being eliminated as well. Rousseau has a hell of a lot to answer for.
That Peterson-Paglia video is tremendously interesting and thought-provoking.
Very little commentary on the point JP made about sane women needing to deal with the crazy ones...
Why would that be?
I wanted to hear Paglia's response.
"Didn't it recently come out that Riggs deliberately threw the match?"
Men of my father's generation were incensed by the match and had to start that rumor.
I played basketball in HS. I am sure that any current college female basketball player would kick my ass in a 1:1 contest. What is the shame in that?
TWW said...
Also, you can't say "I triple-dog dare you" to a woman.
2/1/18, 10:42 AM
Untrue! Or rather, you can say it to a girl. My brother triple-dog dared me to eat a liverwurst, jelly and Cool Whip sandwich when I was 9. I did! I showed him! And then I promptly puked it all up.
Yes Ms. Althouse, they do. But men happen to want her to want it more than once a fortnight, and only if he's been good.
-If he loves her, he will respect her enough to be patient and jump through her hoops.
-If she loves him, she will make herself available when he has needs, even if she isn't 100% in the mood. She might change her mind. Many women report they do.
Your brand of Feminism seems to stop at that first statement...which is little different than the Religious Matrons of Victorian Times, demanding that sexual monopoly. So this is a pure power play.
FIDO, your point is valid. The Apostle Paul addressed this issue very well in I Corinthians. Neither husband nor wife should deny sex to their partner except for mutually agreed upon short periods for prayer. The husband's body belongs to the wife and the wife's to the husband.
Jupiter said: I wanted to hear Paglia's response.
Actually, Peterson is agreeing with something Paglia said earlier in the conversation. Around 29:15, Paglia is discussing the history of the womens studies departments in the early 1970's as being really a media stunt by university administrators to combat the low numbers of women the professorial ranks. So, they (the administrators) took women English/Literature faculty and told them to work it out what was Women Studies.
Paglia argued that ANY program based on Gender MUST offer Biology to explore the physical basis of Gender Differences. But, the women in these programs objected vehemently based on their grounding in French radical thought of power deconstructionism and post modernism: biology doesn't matter.
She says: "I could not even have a conversation with anyone of them. They were hysterical about the subject of biology. They knew NOTHING about hormones. I mean I probably got in fist fights over this (30:00). They were completely convinced that biology had nothing to do with gender differences."
As she is saying this, she raises her fists and her expression (speaking as someone who works with faces) is filled with what anyone would call anger and hostility.
So, it was Paglia that gave permission for Peterson to express his similar vexation over arguing with aggressive people who cross boundaries DARING to get hit.
It is absolutely true that it is an option between men in debate, and it serves as a kind of governor for what you can say to someone's face. I think this probably also true between women, but not being one, I can't be as sure. Socially, it is certainly true that men are at disadvantage over what can be said, but I am not all that sure that women are all that free to say things that would be over the line if a man said them- you still have to be worried about physical violence even if it is socially verboten.
iowan2 wrote...
"In six decades of watching business, and participating as I earned more responsibility, not a single physical altercation took place."
That is because pretty much all the men you have known in your adult life know where the line is. It is something we learn as teenagers.
There's a place where men persuade their fellow men with violence instead of words: it's called the ghetto.
Livermoron: Very little commentary on the point JP made about sane women needing to deal with the crazy ones...
Why would that be?
Hey, we told you not to marry that crazy bitch because she was really hawt and all your friends thought so too, but did you listen?
But seriously - having fallen afoul of crazy bitches both at university and in the work place, I don't understand 'em, and have no better idea of how to "deal" with them than you do. When I had the power to do something about them, or defend other people from their depredations, I did. I taught my children of both sexes how not to get blindsided by them, and to stand up for honest folk whom they attempt to victimize What else, exactly, do you think I should be doing?
If you want to believe that most women are are in a conspiracy to preserve female privilege (hmmm, whose writing does that remind me of?), that even if we, personally, as FIDO says above,"don't behave badly, [we] reserve the right to behave badly"...well, crazy ain't just for bitches, I guess.
This is a difficult question to answer. How many men are really intellectual? Not very many, I’m afraid. In a career in academia,
I’ve had a few purely intellectual debates that were quite enjoyable with no pugilistic subtext, including my dissertatiojn defense.
Perhaps some conference papers can be considered idealized intellectual debates.
The pugilistic threat in so called debates with faux intellectuals with alpha male pretentions was palpable. In general, I think that few people can be considered pure intellectuals, in the sense used here.
I think that Aristotle thought of rhetoric as an antidote to fighting, e.g. warfare.
I recall, back in the 70's, a "debate" I had at work, in which I made some offhand remark about "welfare mothers", and one of my co-workers gave me what amounted to a tongue-lashing to the effect that being a welfare mother had enabled her to go to college and learn computer programming, so there. The response that occurred to me, was that I had no problem with women getting paid for spreading their legs, but the payments should come from the men who got between them, and not from the taxpaying public. Something that was not wisdom but served a similar purpose kept me from saying it. My boss, also a woman, later remarked, "Well, I guess MaryAnne showed you". Indeed, she did, although it has taken decades for me to see what it was she showed me.
There's a word for men who feel the urge to settle an intellectual disagreement with violence: unpersuasive -- either that or pussy.
Absolutely true.
True, but a bit exaggerated. It's also the root cause of little man syndrome.
mockturtle said...
BL: A woman who will permit herself to be slapped has set a low value on herself.
2/1/18, 9:02 AM
What do you mean, permit herself? It's not as if one were asking permission. If words were reaching her, hands would not be needed.
Do you mean you would dodge, retreat, attempt to block, slip the blow, throw me, pull your gun and shoot me?
If not, then what do you mean? Hopefully you would *accept it,* that is, come to your senses and realize that you had deserved it (we're positing here that I did not slap you for some trivial reason, you burnt the roast or forgot my shirts).
Possibly glory in it, inasmuch as you had successfully provoked me beyond endurance, and seen that I was taking you seriously, showing that I cared enough to get that angry. (And perhaps exposed myself to liability, if you were that sort.)
It certainly wouldn't be common currency.
As for hurting... Once a very angry woman slapped me, twice, and basically confused me-I didn't realize what she had done except the second time my glasses moved. It would have been interesting to attempt to leverage her action to my advantage, but I didn't see fit to do so. Bitchez be crazy. I have always been brought up as "you don't know your own strength," so have always been very cautious in applying force.
Blogger Inga said...
“BL: A woman who will permit herself to be slapped has set a low value on herself.”
Exactly. Women need to learn how to incapacitate a man who hits her.
2/1/18, 10:08 AM
Inga: you will lose. Please. In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you, don't go there. I mean, obviously you can wait till I'm asleep, or wait twenty years and get me in the rest home, or hire it done, but don't think you'll get it done on the spot with talons and teeth, or even with your tai chi lessons.
If I slap you, this is the time for you to shut up, stop talking, be quiet, listen to me, look at me, watch me carefully, and THINK.
If I actually HIT you, look for a way out, try to escape.
If there is no way out, THEN, either prepare to endure, or look for a weapon of some kind.
To you I'm like a bear. If you try and hurt me, you'll just make me angry. PLEASE don't pump yourself (or others) up with grrl power and think that you can dispatch a guy twice your size and strength.
Blogger Gahrie said...
Would you rather he slap you, or say OK, I'll be at a hotel, my lawyer will call yours?
Either way, she's about to get at least half of your shit.
2/1/18, 9:41 AM
Gahrie, depends on whether she's sorry and wants to work it out, or not.
If it was like that, or with a guy like Bruce who'd be haha you're going to jail...well, I suppose I wouldn't discuss it on a public forum.
"Why is this just a question for men?"
Good grief..
Angel
Where did I say something to provoke this?:
If you want to believe that most women are are in a conspiracy to preserve female privilege (hmmm, whose writing does that remind me of?), that even if we, personally, as FIDO says above,"don't behave badly, [we] reserve the right to behave badly"...well, crazy ain't just for bitches, I guess.
I appreciate your comment and response...but don't put words in my mouth, please.
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
There's a place where men persuade their fellow men with violence instead of words: it's called the ghetto.
2/1/18, 11:35 AM
Tell that to Alexander Hamilton or Charles Sumner. Or to the city fathers of Carthage. Or the Mayor of Hiroshima, August 1945.
"Violence never solves anything" - what utter DOPEY horseshit! Be reverent that we have achieved a civilization where that pleasant delusion can even be attempted to be believed.
PS isn't that rayciss of you?
> There's a word for men who feel the urge to settle an intellectual disagreement with violence: unpersuasive -- either that or pussy.
I'll go with Democrat.
BL asks: What do you mean, permit herself?
I should have added: "..more than once."
Regarding slaps. If pain isn't determinative of making a slap a hit, what would be? Size differential? Upward or downward arc on the swing? Does it turn your head, rock you back, or knock you over?
BL: Had a girlfriend who had received a black belt in Tae Kwan Do.
She had a secret drug problem I was unaware of that caused some pretty strong mood swings. One day, while losing an argument, she flipped and started her TKD crap on me.
Now, I am 6'4" and weigh 235. Back then I was 210 and not long out of the Army where I had been an MP and the personal bodyguard for the CinC US Army Europe (Usareur)- the top Army Commander in Europe. I had extensive hand-to-hand (that's what mano-a-mano means, not 'man-to-man as someone posted above) trasining and other related skills.
I grabbed her mid-punch, picked her up and threw her on the bed.
She was flabbergasted. Apparently she had harbored the idea that her training made us equal physically. She was completely flummoxed by my physical control over her and small impact of what she had trained years for.
She quit TKD the following week. We would've lasted if it weren't for her speed habit, I think.
OK..after having watched the video, I agree 100% with what Jordan Peterson said. (I've agreed with almost everything I've heard the man say)
Where is the call for equality?
Men don't even have the same rights to self-defense as women do.
Men immediately size up other men in many different ways, including physical confrontation. One thing people may not understand that it is not about dominance, but survival. A dominant, alpha male can be crippled in victory over a weak beta man. Therefore, all men are afforded respect. Women don't offer that threat and in many cases appropriately live in a bubble where they are off limits.
In the white collar world, this is more muted, but in the male dominated trades and heavy industry environment, the threat of violence is always present because the job itself can do violence. Even so, actual fights are exceedingly rare. However, accidents do happen, so it's always a good idea to show proper respect and don't do stupid shit that puts others lives and limbs in danger.
NPR had a great interview with a woman trans to man. The first thing he noticed was that testosterone seemed to make him look at tits and ass like juicy meat. The other thing when he started passing as a man was the physical intimidation he felt because he was so small and weak, but lacked the social convention protection of being female. It then dawned on him that men were much more at risk of violence than women.
The convention against hitting girls is why we have cat fights. There are few permanent consequences to female aggression. As I said yesterday, this is why women are not allowed control of the nuclear football because they go from fellatrix to dropping H-bombs at the flip of a switch.
Livermoron: I appreciate your comment and response...but don't put words in my mouth, please.
Fair cop. My apologies.
Jupiter: My boss, also a woman, later remarked, "Well, I guess MaryAnne showed you". Indeed, she did, although it has taken decades for me to see what it was she showed me.
Well, what did she show you? If a woman were in the same situation, who either did what you did, or did what you first thought about doing, how would it have been different? I'm skeptical that a woman who opted for the latter in an encounter with MaryAnne would have been jollied along by MaryAnne or Boss Lady. I can also easily imagine a smarmy male boss ('cause I've worked for him) filling in for yours.
(Assuming the anecdote was apropos of the general discussion on this thread.)
The thing that served me in place of wisdom was an intuitive understanding that moving the discussion from the general to the personal was an escalation, and a dangerous one. I did not anticipate any particular danger. I was not afraid of MaryAnne. I simply knew that danger was there. I was not fighting mad, and therefore I couldn't cross that line. Nor could I think of anything else to say, so I said nothing at all. But it seemed deeply unfair to me, that MaryAnne had crossed that boundary effortlessly, she didn't even know it was there. She actually thought that the fact that a particular government program had benefited her was not merely relevant to a discussion of that program, it was dispositive. It was the *only* relevant fact. So *of course* she brought it up. And she was correct, her fact settled the issue, there was no more dispute.
"Men don't even have the same rights to self-defense as women do."
Watch little boys fight with each other. Then watch little girls fight with each other.
Notice the difference?
Little boys push, shove, punch and when it's over, it's over.
Little girls say nasty things to their girlfriends in order to exclude another girl from the group. It's almost never over.
Boys and girls fight a lot differently. It's much harder to defend against little girl fighting.
Graceful apology is very much appreciated.
Seems to be easy for people who are actually trying to learn, like Angel-Dyne.
That's what makes her a great 'teacher' here, too.
Angel, I had not read your comment when I posted mine, but I think it answers your question. BTW, that boss was a very good boss, and we had a great relationship. That was part of what astonished me. She actually thought that MaryAnne had made a telling argument in favor of God-only-knows-what, simply by leaving me no option except to shut up or call her a whore. A man might do that -- "Are you calling me a liar?" -- but it is a rare man in my experience who would do it without recognizing the danger he was courting.
Jupiter: Sounds like you started it by making a derisive remark about poor people who accept help from the government. If MaryAnn was a man, he might have socked you in the mouth or offered to step outside for making a deeply offensive remark at work in front of others. That's why we were taught back in the day not to discuss religion or politics in mixed company... a lesson for you that your Boss hinted at, but you were too thick-headed to see.
"Exactly. Women need to learn how to incapacitate a man who hits her"
If you can incapacitate a man by kneeing him in the balls or scratching his eyes, good for you. He's not going to be standing there waiting for you to do that though. In fact, if he has any brains at all, he'll anticipate that you will try to knee him in the groin. So he grabs your leg and pushes you on the ground and then kicks you. Or he grabs your wrist and twists it hard enough to break it. What do you do then, Superwoman?
Life isn't a TV show where a 95 lb. woman can disable 4 men with a few karate moves.
If a man is seriously intent on harming or killing a woman the best way she has of protecting herself is with a firearm. Yes, things can go wrong with that scenario too, but it's more likely to work than a woman thinking she can just knock him in the groin and run away.
but the problem is, men want sex much more often than women do...
This could be why Darwin invented gay men.
Good luck to JP getting sane women to control crazy ones. Isn't that the definition of crazy--no brakes available?
Every recent cop show has a female boss at some point.
@exiled on main street:If you can incapacitate a man by kneeing him in the balls
You can't. It only works that way in movies. No man likes it, but they can endure it enough to retaliate effectively. I know a woman was violently raped even though she kneed the attacker many times.
Thanks, Howard, you're a big help. It was 40 years ago, and my memory isn't what it used to be, so your speculations about what I may have said are as good a basis for discussion as any. I cannot recall a single instance of anyone, male or female, socking me in the mouth at work, but I can easily understand how it might happen where you work.
I am a little puzzled by your reference to "mixed company". That term usually refers to a mixture of the sexes. And yet, in your hypothetical, I was wise to direct my offensive remarks at someone who was not likely to assault me on the spot, as no doubt happens to you all the time.
Little girls say nasty things to their girlfriends in order to exclude another girl from the group. It's almost never over.
Little girls pull each other's hair. I know.
reader: Regarding slaps. If pain isn't determinative of making a slap a hit, what would be?
Would you rather be slapped by someone much stronger than yourself, or punched in the face with their closed fist?
Let's try again. I said, "The distinction here being made between slapping and hitting isn't predicated on the belief that slaps don't hurt."
The point in question is not "where is the line between this form of physical coercion, and that?". It's, if a situation arises in which it is necessary for a man to physically coerce a woman, what moves are acceptable? The assumptions underlying the discussion are 1)men are much physically stronger than women, and 2)there do exist situations where a decent man is justified in using physical coercion on a woman.
I think most people understand the difference between a man slapping or constraining an out-of-control or violent woman, and a man using excessive and unnecessary violence. If you think there's something interesting in niggling about the precise point on the continuum of physical force where an open-handed blow will do as much damage as a right cross, knock yourself out. But that wasn't the point being discussed.
i agree with Scott Adams. Most people feel a certain way and then think up supporting reasons. This is what passes for debate or argument. A lot of emotion is invested in people's opinions; hence the implicit threat of violence. Is it worse amongst men? I don't know.
"It's, if a situation arises in which it is necessary for a man to physically coerce a woman, what moves are acceptable?"
In the old movies, women slap men for being sexually aggressive, and men slap women because they are being hysterical. But the reality is that men are often sexually aggressive, and women are seldom if ever hysterical. Just like women don't actually faint dead away when something shocking happens. So I think slapping women, nowadays, is just asking for more trouble. Cops have to physically coerce women fairly often, and they do it by grabbing their skinny little wrists.
That is good to know, Gabriel. Since I have never attempted to knee a man in the balls I did not realize it is an ineffectual move.
Jupiter @12:46 - thanks for the response.
But it seemed deeply unfair to me, that MaryAnne had crossed that boundary effortlessly, she didn't even know it was there. She actually thought that the fact that a particular government program had benefited her was not merely relevant to a discussion of that program, it was dispositive. It was the *only* relevant fact. So *of course* she brought it up. And she was correct, her fact settled the issue, there was no more dispute.
Sound like every day of my life in our liberal academic/corporate utopia, lol. ("My opinion on a general issue is right because Personal Attribute/Experience. Any disagreement constitutes a personal attack.")
“Inga: you will lose. Please. In the bowels of Christ, I beseech you, don't go there. I mean, obviously you can wait till I'm asleep, or wait twenty years and get me in the rest home, or hire it done, but don't think you'll get it done on the spot with talons and teeth, or even with your tai chi lessons.
If I slap you, this is the time for you to shut up, stop talking, be quiet, listen to me, look at me, watch me carefully, and THINK.
If I actually HIT you, look for a way out, try to escape.
If there is no way out, THEN, either prepare to endure, or look for a weapon of some kind.
To you I'm like a bear. If you try and hurt me, you'll just make me angry. PLEASE don't pump yourself (or others) up with grrl power and think that you can dispatch a guy twice your size and strength.”
Oh sweetie, I think you’re more of a teddy bear than you let on. If you slapped me, I would wait until you fell asleep and then incapacitate you for a very long time. But I don’t think you’d ever hit someone like me, you’d be jello in my hands.
Kidding....sort of.
Or is it putty?
Angel-Dyne said...
"Sound like every day of my life in our liberal academic/corporate utopia, lol. ("My opinion on a general issue is right because Personal Attribute/Experience. Any disagreement constitutes a personal attack.")"
I think that when men say that women are stupid, or "can't think", this is what we are referring to. Women can certainly solve complicated math and engineering problems. But they also have this way of just sort of taking it for granted that their case is a special case and the rules of logic don't apply. In fact, recourse to logic is unfair and cruel. You don't have to be female to think that way, but it sure seems to help.
Jupiter: My understanding of mixed company as I was taught back in the 1960's was a random mixture of people from the general public. Un-mixed company would be friends you invite to a party. I can imagine being in an environment working around and for females why anyone might adopt by osmosis more of a cat fight insulting privilege mentality... when in Rome, etc. I'm not singling you out here because I could see myself getting "salty" working around women and getting careless with my cocksucker.
In the old movies, women slap men for being sexually aggressive, and men slap women because they are being hysterical. But the reality is that men are often sexually aggressive, and women are seldom if ever hysterical. Just like women don't actually faint dead away when something shocking happens. So I think slapping women, nowadays, is just asking for more trouble. Cops have to physically coerce women fairly often, and they do it by grabbing their skinny little wrists.
You're right, Jupiter. Surely a big, strong man can restrain a woman without having to strike her. If not, one can always run away from a 'hysterical woman'. Right? Watching some of the true police encounters with drug-induced hysteria, though, I see why tasers were invented.
> Little girls pull each other's hair. I know.
And sometimes they cut off other girls' pigtails. A girl who later became an astronaut was kicked out of the Girl Scouts for that reason.
Exactly. Women need to learn how to incapacitate a man who hits her.
Yeah. Because we men are sooooo stupid, we don't know your go-to move.
Stay out of our faces, keep your hands to yourselves and there won't be any issues.
Such big macho talk... lol.
"Crazy Harpy Sisters" would be a great name for a band.
"Little girls pull each other's hair. I know."
It depends on the meaning of the word "little."
I was thinking junior high school, when they become more sophisticated in their bullying.
"Surely a big, strong man can restrain a woman without having to strike her."
Yes indeed. It is interesting, though, that women can have guns, just like men can, but cops don't worry much about women with guns. The reality is that men are vastly more prone to violence than women are. And I am fairly sure that men think about violence a lot more than women do. The sad truth is, if a man isn't thinking about sex, there's a good chance he's thinking about violence. "Action" movies are basically violence porn with a little soft-core sex porn thrown in. Tell me, ladies; when you watch violent movies, as I assume you must from time to time, does it push your buttons? Do you identify with the person performing acts of violence? I think the question may well be relevant to the topic of this thread.
Jim at: If you have a issue with women getting into your face, you are the problem. All you have to do is say "I'm sorry, you are right, I will fix it" Works every time and it costs you nothing.
"If you can incapacitate a man by kneeing him in the balls"
Playground rules: Once a guy is kicked in the nuts, anything goes.
When I was about 10 or 11, I decided to take on the bully at summer camp. We wrestled around and it was pretty much a tie until he kneed me in the balls. Bad move!
He shamed himself in front of everyone and they were no longer afraid of him. The next day, we were doing what pre-adolescent males tend to do, throwing horse dung at each other. Without a word being said, the bully got it from everyone. The shit really flew that day.
My late sniper gun-dealer step-father in law said that he always loaded shot cartridges for the first two or three in a woman's self defense gun telling them that it would only wound, not kill the intruder. He believed that a woman would be more likely to squeeze off rounds knowing they were not going to be a killer.
Jupiter: I think that when men say that women are stupid, or "can't think", this is what we are referring to. Women can certainly solve complicated math and engineering problems. But they also have this way of just sort of taking it for granted that their case is a special case and the rules of logic don't apply. In fact, recourse to logic is unfair and cruel. You don't have to be female to think that way, but it sure seems to help.
I agree. In my own experience that sort of maddening "logic" is far more common in females than males. Don't think it's a matter of thinking "I'm a special case", though, because it also gets applied to things that don't personally affect the person. I don't get it, it drives me crazy, but there it is.
I think in the case of your MaryAnne, though, there's also the intellectual bubble problem. People become very sloppy thinkers when their ideas don't get challenged. She may well have been able, if pushed, to move from the personal (her own experience) to articulating a more general principle (this also helps other women like me, which makes it good for the broader society), but still be utterly ignorant about the premises and principles of the opposing viewpoint - because "everybody" knows that only reason anybody would think subsidizing single motherhood is a bad idea is because they're big fat meanies, so there's no need to waste time thinking through opposing views.
Oh sweetie, I think you’re more of a teddy bear than you let on.
This may be true. As I said, I've never actually slapped a woman. Way back in grade school on a field trip, a girl went nuts on me and I kinda had to fend her off; naturally Mrs. Lowitz blamed me... But women are not for hitting.
If you slapped me, I would wait until you fell asleep and then incapacitate you for a very long time.
No, exactly, didn't I say that? Kill me in my sleep.
But I don’t think you’d ever hit someone like me, you’d be jello in my hands.
Kidding....sort of.
2/1/18, 1:39 PM
Inga said...
Or is it putty?
2/1/18, 1:41 PM
Maybe putty afterwards, if you've done a good job...or two, or perhaps three. Lol, I think we understand each other!
I was debating between partially true/exaggerated and interesting idea. In the end I gave up because I didn't see the point in beating myself up over it.
Watching some of the true police encounters with drug-induced hysteria, though, I see why tasers were invented.
Yes, women's physiology, as men's physiology, can be enhanced far beyond viable limits in short bursts that would enable her or him to be a clear and progressive risk when they would not be otherwise in a natural state.
He believed that a woman would be more likely to squeeze off rounds knowing they were not going to be a killer.
2/1/18, 2:34 PM
That sounds right to me, Howard. Because, as my instructor told me, if you hesitate at all the gun will end up in his hands, not yours. I would want to stop an attacker, not kill him. I fervently hope I will never be put to the test.
Tell me, ladies; when you watch violent movies, as I assume you must from time to time, does it push your buttons? Do you identify with the person performing acts of violence?
Can't speak for other women, Jupiter, but hell yes, which is one reason why Kill Bill 1&2 and The Godfather are some of my favorite movies. I even like first-person shooter video games. But do I fantasize about doing physical harm to real people? Never.
I recommend to you all the closing scene of Mickey Spillane's I, THE JURY.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा