May 23, 2018

Confronting Jordan Peterson with a statement he says he didn't make, Michelle Goldberg says "Google it!"

This video Googles it for you:



Via the Jordan Peterson SubReddit, which I'm reading this morning because it was linked in something I was reading at Slate, "Jordan Peterson Seems Like a Terrible Therapist/Therapists are supposed to empower their clients, not use them to support their own worldview."

I'll transcribe Goldberg: "Recognize how threatened some women feel when, for example, the kind of, you know, best-selling and most prominent intellectual in the world right now says in an interview, maybe if women don't want the workplace to be sexualized, they shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup."

Peterson says he didn't say that, and Goldberg's response is, "It was a Vice interview — Google it!" Okay, now I've Googled it and come up with the relevant clip:



Peterson says it's hard to know if men and women can be in the workplace together, and "We don't know what the rules are." Then he snaps out a little Socratic test: "Here's a rule: How about no makeup in the workplace?" The interviewer giggles and brushes away Peterson's suggestion that makeup is "provocative." Peterson presses him: "What's the purpose of makeup?" The interviewer professes to have no idea why women put on makeup (though I assume he's just thinking that women should be free to wear makeup if we want and it's not his place to inquire into why). Peterson sticks in his intense, crisp, challenging mode: Women wear lipstick because lips "turn red during sexual arousal." Peterson then makes it clear that he's "not saying that people shouldn't use sexual displays in the workplace." And then, on the prompting of the interviewer, he agrees that women who don't want sexual harassment in the workplace are" hypocritical" if they wear makeup.

So Goldberg did misspeak and left herself open to attack, but she would have been fine if she'd said: "if women don't want the workplace to be sexualized, they are hypocritical if they wear makeup."

How would that revised, accurate statement connect with the idea of "how threatened some women feel"? It might connected better! The disallowance of makeup in the workplace is annoying and repressive, but is it "threatening"? And yet, is it "threatening" to be called a hypocrite? Well, what's threatening is the idea that women bring sexual harassment on themselves by doing anything to make themselves sexually attractive. That really is repressive.

337 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 337 of 337
Howard said...

vaultdweller beat me to it

wwww said...

"Teller said...
Peterson's way off the mark about make-up at work. It's pencil skirts that do the damage."

My husband agrees! Professional pencil skirts.

Make-up can be used for different reasons. It can look natural. It can be a dramatic stage "make-up" look. It can be sexy. It can look professional. It can be used to cover up acne, sunspots, freckles or scars. Male politicians use make up for TV appearances.

Here's the thing about Peterson. Some people think he's saying things he is not saying. Then they over-react. Yes, he's being provocative. It's a technique to get people to think. Sometimes he goes overboard.

In the interview, he edges into something he would probably disavow, when he says yes to the question that women are hypocritical if they wear make-up to the workplace. Or, perhaps he would not disavow that, and that would mean he's not familiar with the different ways make-up can be used. It's clearly not a threat. He's a kind-of-nebbishy academic Jungian therapist who sometimes pops off in a provocative way. Why people flip out is a mystery.

He's not suggesting women should wear burkas. He's not suggesting it's ok for men to harass women in the workplace. He is saying it may not be possible for sexual signals and reactions to be removed from workplaces. I am not sure I agree with what he says, but he's not a threat to workplace safety or freedom of expression.

He's asking a question: do you want to insist on their removal? Because it could end up in gender neutering everyone, or imposing rules such as banning make-up. Do you want to neuter all gender signals in society? Do you want, in effect, a society of eunuchs?

n.n said...

He's speaking truth to Nature, and advising women to be prepared. Most men will self-moderate. Some will not. Fewer yet will be triggered.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

"He's not suggesting women should wear burkas. He's not suggesting it's ok for men to harass women in the workplace. He is saying it may not be possible for sexual signals and reactions to be removed from workplaces. I am not sure I agree with what he says, but he's not a threat to workplace safety or freedom of expression.

He's asking a question: do you want to insist on their removal? Because it could end up in gender neutering everyone, or imposing rules such as banning make-up. Do you want to neuter all gender signals in society? Do you want, in effect, a society of eunuchs?"

That's exactly it.

And it's not a difficult point to grasp. Well, you wouldn't think it would be difficult, but....

Michael K said...

A pretty good response from Peterson on the NY Times slur.

Attention Inga :

It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name).

That's what he is talking about. Evolutionary biology.

Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent. Here are some examples of the well-developed body of basic evolutionary-biological/psychological/anthropological evidence (and theory) supporting that claim.

Jaq said...

BTW, I don’t want to live i a society where “urgest” are “inexcusable,” it’s actions that are the problem, unless you want to get into the whole thought crime thing. But one cannot acknowledge that without then acknowledging that dressing provocatively is placing a burden on men in the workplace, same as their attention is placing a burden on the women.

Oh, and my god Inga, if you can’t follow what’s being said, maybe you should go sit at the little kid’s table.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Reading Nurse Ratchet's comments in this stream give me great sympathy for her husband, who wisely embraced the sweet release of death to get away from her.

What an insufferable shrew.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“He's asking a question: do you want to insist on their removal? Because it could end up in gender neutering everyone, or imposing rules such as banning make-up. Do you want to neuter all gender signals in society? Do you want, in effect, a society of eunuchs?”

The answer to that question I’m reading here in this thread by many men is yes. Men here seem to be advocating for a sexless workplace, so they won’t be triggered. I’m all for being joyful in ones sexuality and dealing with it reasonably in the workplace. Making workplace rules that prohibit any adornment of females seems retrograde. Women are attracted by sexy men, but why aren’t women calling for men to dress less attractively?

SGT Ted said...

Well, Inga, it is the point, which you then try to equate it with Islamic barbarian oppressive controlling of women sexuality, akin to enforcing the wear of a burka, in order to dismiss it as extremist.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“But one cannot acknowledge that without then acknowledging that dressing provocatively is placing a burden on men in the workplace, same as their attention is placing a burden on the women.”

Wearing red lipstick in the workplace is being provocative?

It’s a color. It’s not worn with the thought of triggering you.

Good lord.

Jaq said...

I really would like to see Althouse go up against Peterson since she has averred in the past that evolutionary biology is less a science than a collection of “Just So” stories.

Jaq said...

Like I said Inga.

wwww said...

"The answer to that question I’m reading here in this thread by many men is yes."

But Peterson isn't saying that. He's asking questions and being provocative, but he explicitly says he does not want to ban stuff like make-up from workplaces.

My guess is that he would agree that men wear suits because they are physically attractive. They emphasize broad shoulders and a downward triangle.

Jaq said...

No one is allowed to ask any questions that may lead to any questioning of the cultural authority of feminism!

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“But Peterson isn't saying that. He's asking questions and being provocative, but he explicitly says he does not want to ban stuff like make-up from workplaces.”

That fine, great, but men here seem to be saying this very thing and arguing for it.

wwww said...



People are slamming Inga, but there were some comments I read that implied women should not wear anything that might be seen as "sexual" in the workplace. That sort of thinking leads to burkas, and I agree with her that we need to reject the idea that women must dress in burlap bags if they want to go in public.

wwww said...

"That fine, great, but men here seem to be saying this very thing and arguing for it."

Agreed-- I saw some comments were headed in that direction. But Peterson doesn't do that from what I've read and seen from him.


Jaq said...

I wouldn’t say that Inga is a metaphor for childish, emotion first, no independent thinking allowed leftism, more of an exemplar.

Jaq said...

People are slamming Inga, but there were some comments I read that implied women should not wear anything that might be seen as “sexual” in the workplace.

Maybe you inferred that and it wasn’t there.

wholelottasplainin said...

Inga said...
What is it about some people that they become besotted by certain public figures? I think that’s unseemly and creepy. Peterson almost sounds like he’s becoming a messiah to some people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lolz. You mean like they did with the Lightworker Barack Obama?

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Agreed-- I saw some comments were headed in that direction. But Peterson doesn't do that from what I've read and seen from him.”

Well, maybe the men here should read Peterson more carefully. Seems like I’m not the only one who may be misunderstanding his meaning.

wwww said...



I'm no expert on Peterson, but from what I've seen, he doesn't say anything more provocative then what Desmond Morris wrote in The Naked Ape. People project on him.

He goes off the rails for me when he takes the Jungian stuff too far. I don't agree with him, but it's not outrageous.

Jaq said...

I think it’t time for a Peterson Derangement Syndrome tag.

walter said...

SGT Ted said...Women are free to tart it up and shop for mates with little to no accountability in the workplace, while men are expected to be Victorian gentlemen. Peterson is simply pointing out this hypocrisy.
--
I was on a promo shoot for a small (4 small offices and a modest conference room, financial advisory firm last week. One really "attractive" woman (no ring) was quite..err..sleek in dress...tight black dress, bright pink heels...and, of course makeup.
since she seemed to be back and forth from her office to the communal printer, I noticed not just those things..but the constant clop, clop, clop of those heels.
Heels are often noted for their leg/butt assist..but the sound on hard floors is an element to the overall effect. It would have been fun to ask the married dudes if that financial figure was helpful to their concentration efforts.

Lewis Wetzel said...


Blogger Inga said...
Who is advocating for zero sexuality in the workplace? Men or women?

The female desires to control the erotic male gaze, not eliminate it.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

The answer to that question I’m reading here in this thread by many men is yes. Men here seem to be advocating for a sexless workplace, so they won’t be triggered.

This discussion is limited by Inga's stupidity and bad faith.

It would be nice if Ann would speak up. She is a feminist. I assume she has thoughts that would add to this discussion and a lifetime of experience.


I have been sued by women as an employer. It just is not cost effective to hire millennial women.

There is nothing a small business can do but be ruined. If you pay the extortion you lose. If you pay lawyers to fight the extortion you lose.

It only takes one woman who thinks like Inga to destroy years of work and put dozens of other employees out of work as well as take a business down.

Female college graduates are an unsustainable risk at this point for a small business. It isn't fair as most of them are great people. But this is the world people like Inga create.

And in her stupidity Inga thinks it is Jordan Peterson's fault. Peterson is trying to save this awful situation.

Jaq said...

He goes off the rails for me when he takes the Jungian stuff too far.

You have said this before, and I have no idea what you are talking about specifically. I don’t thing he gives any more weight to Jung than any other text. They are just manifestations of human yearning given form.

Michael K said...

Seems like I’m not the only one who may be misunderstanding his meaning.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket, Inga ?

Achilles said...

wwww said...


People are slamming Inga, but there were some comments I read that implied women should not wear anything that might be seen as "sexual" in the workplace. That sort of thinking leads to burkas, and I agree with her that we need to reject the idea that women must dress in burlap bags if they want to go in public.

People are slamming Inga because she is being a douche imputing bad motives on people because she is too stupid to make an argument.

What Peterson and we are saying is society needs rules that are mutually beneficial to all. Having a fully functional workplace where man and women enjoy each others company and get work done is all of our goal.

But the left is trying to divide us. It is what they do. The current rules create a toxic environment between men and women at work.

Doug said...

It doesn't matter what you wear or don't, if you wear makeup or have your face covered with grease from repacking wheel bearings it's tits and ass and the twinkle in your eye that does it ladies.

wwww said...

"You have said this before, and I have no idea what you are talking about specifically. I don’t thing he gives any more weight to Jung than any other text. They are just manifestations of human yearning given form."

Here he is on You Tube talking about Jung. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSJItZFF79s

There's nothing wrong with being influence by Jung. I'm not a Jungian, so I don't agree with it, esp. when it's taken to the extreme. I'm ok with a little influence, but disagree with the underlying theory.

It's OK for people to be Jungians. I know some people who are really into it. But that's why I know where I disagree.

His Jungian beliefs are why he thinks kids are going to be more compelled by Sleeping Beauty then Frozen. From practical experience, I have seen 3 year olds much more compelled by Frozen. A lot of that is the music and better animation. He's so into his Jungian archetypes that, at times, he can't see other factors. That's fine -- he's an academic not infallible.

Jaq said...

He conflates sexual display with sexual invitation (there’s an excuse hiding in that conflation, tim).

Paging Scott Adams, paging Scot Adams! Of course sexual display is at some level an invitation, unless perhaps you are one of those crypto-creationists who believe that evolution never happened. Evolutionary biology may not be a rigorous science, but to pretend that there is nothing there, even if we don’t have the proper tools to explore it, is utter denial. Crypto-creationism>

JAORE said...

"Do we also need to ask what "sexual harassment" entails before we answer this query? I think so.

Is it someone telling a woman she looks nice, or someone asking her out? Or is it someone threatening her job or groping her?"

And then you have to ask if "someone" is tall, handsome, rich or powerful....

Henry said...

as you said, tim, it’s actions that are the problem,

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Inga said...

Women are attracted by sexy men, but why aren’t women calling for men to dress less attractively?

Because women know that if they see an attractive, well dressed man, give a quick glance at their appearance, and happen to smile*, they won't be dragged in front of HR and have their career ended. If we could have a clear, reasonable definition of sexual harassment that in no way depended on the perceptions of the person on the receiving end of the alleged harassment, then we wouldn't need to be having this discussion.


*because they are incapable of controlling themselves around men!!!

wwww said...

Vermont Tim,

If you go to You Tube, and google Jung and Peterson, you'll see a lot of Peterson's commentary on archetypes and Jung. I'd say Jung is his principle influence in his book Maps of Meaning.

I don't find Jung offensive or whatnot. I can take bits and pieces to use in my life, and find it interesting. Just not an orthodox Jungian.

Michael K said...

I am not particularly interested in Jung although I think he was less of a fraud than Freud.

Evolutionary biology is a fact. Some of the descriptions can be influenced by culture and so on but the basic facts, as stated by Peterson, are pretty clear.

Many years ago, when my wife and I were having arguments, I gave her a book called, "Why Men Are the Way They Are."

It's still in print, even though it was written 30 years ago.

Henry said...

Achilles, you do realize that you just announced publicly that you're intentionally violating title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Michael K said...

"they won't be dragged in front of HR and have their career ended"

Bingo!

Michael Douglas made a pretty good movie called "Disclosure," back in 1994.

Naturally, it was written by Michael Crichton.
I doubt it could be made today.

Achilles said...

Businesses under 500 employees should be indemnified from all lawsuits and judgements revolving around "sexual harassment" and "hostile work environment" claims.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I agree with Inga. Women shouldn't have to bind their breasts to hid their sexuality at work. Let those puppies breathe free.

Speaking of which, tomorrow I'm going to work in my M.C. Hammer pants and no underwear. And if, while sporting a massive* hard-on, any of the ladies happen to do a double-take ( my eyes are up here!!!) I'm going to file a complaint.


*well, let's just go with that for the sake of this argument.

Jaq said...

Well, I watched the video you suggested, and I can see how a religious believer would find it troublesome, his praise of Nietzsche, for example, or his treatment of religion as an evolutionary adaptation, but that doesn’t bother me. But your mileage may vary.

Achilles said...

Henry said...
Achilles, you do realize that you just announced publicly that you're intentionally violating title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

I will likely never "hire" another employee unless the rules change.

Anything in the future will use the magic term: 1099.

wwww said...



From what I've seen of Peterson, he's saying similar things to what Desmond Morris (zoologist) and Joseph Campbell wrote.

In reaction, parts of the left are flipping out. I find the reaction to be odd and inexplicable because he's not saying anything Campbell and Morris didn't say. We might disagree with aspects, but they weren't seen as outrageous.

I think Morris might have talked about make-up and sexual display in his book, The Naked Ape. Pretty sure Morris talked about high heels.

wwww said...

"Well, I watched the video you suggested, and I can see how a religious believer would find it troublesome, his praise of Nietzsche, for example, or his treatment of religion as an evolutionary adaptation, but that doesn’t bother me. But your mileage may vary."

Someone can be a Christian and a Jungian. I don't disagree with all aspects of Jung. I've been over-dosed by people who are way too into it.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“I agree with Inga. Women shouldn't have to bind their breasts to hid their sexuality at work. Let those puppies breathe free.

Speaking of which, tomorrow I'm going to work in my M.C. Hammer pants and no underwear. And if, while sporting a massive* hard-on, any of the ladies happen to do a double-take ( my eyes are up here!!!) I'm going to file a complaint.


*well, let's just go with that for the sake of this argument.”

Well, for the sake of argument, I could say, just wear tighter trousers to control that beast in your pants.🦖

Henry said...

I will likely never "hire" another employee unless the rules change.

Now that is a fair standard.

Jaq said...

I’ve been over-dosed by people who are way too into it.

Enough said.

walter said...

wwww,
If you have to say "I am not anti-Jungians", you have splainin' to do.
It's akin to "Hey..some of my best friends are Jungians".

mandrewa said...

tim in vermont: I really would like to see Althouse go up against Peterson since she has averred in the past that evolutionary biology is less a science than a collection of “Just So” stories.

I love evolutionary biology and I know a lot about evolutionary biology, but the truth is it is in considerable part "Just So" stories.

Now there are parts of evolutionary biology that are not "Just So" stories but unfortunately most of that stuff is inaccessible to the ordinary person.

Further even for the parts of evolutionary biology that are most science-like, it's always the case that the evidence for it is nothing like as strong as for say some part of physics.

Actually pretty much the same thing, that it's not really science, can be said for pretty much everything Jordan Peterson talks about. But here's the thing: most of what matters is not science. Science, real science, is an extremely powerful tool but it can only be applied to a small part of reality. There still remains that huge portion of reality and how we construct ourselves, that needs to be dealt with somehow, even if we have no way to apply science to it.

Peterson has a scientific awareness, and he uses powerful tools like multivariate statistics that are much better than the alternatives, but using multivariate statistics doesn't mean you are doing science. Using that tool means you can come up with better hypotheses plus you can almost disprove some ideas, which is no small thing, but that's about all it does.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Peterson's beliefs (as far as I can tell) are implicitly Christian. He writes that what makes a person a person is his ability to use reason and emotion in the service of his will. He does not believe, as leftist's do, that a person has no free will or that a person is a creation of society.

walter said...

Wow Lewis...that's a massive oversimplification.

Jaq said...

I meant to say “evolutionary psychology” but the same points apply.

JAORE said...

"Females are authorized to wear cosmetics with all uniforms, provided they are applied conservatively and in good taste and complement the uniform. Leaders at all levels must exercise good judgment in the enforcement of this policy."

Ho Lee Katz. Does anyone think this "standard" is uniformly understood? Good taste? Sure we ALL agree on EXACTLY what THAT is. How about "applied conservatively" or "complement the uniform."?

Good luck you leaders in that "good judgement" thing.

yark moung said...

Patrice Oneal said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtEYHfejLw0

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“He does not believe, as leftist's do, that a person has no free will or that a person is a creation of society.”

Leftists believe that a person has no free will? Are you flappin’ serious? I’ve been arguing here that men have the free will of self control and aren’t slaves to their sexual nature. Leftists believe man is a creation of the society? Really? Man is a member of the society, not a creation of it. Everyone is affected by their surroundings, everyone has the free will to decide to act in a civilized manner.

Lewis Wetzel said...

walter said...

Wow Lewis...that's a massive oversimplification.

What do you expect in a three sentence comment? :)
What am I oversimplifying (rather than simplifying), walter? Christianity? Peterson's beliefs? Leftism? All of them?

Achilles said...

We paid people to work on the floor. Roughly 10-15$ an hour.

After all of the bullshit, taxes, legal fees, management overhead the actual cost went well north of 35$ an hour.

Robots.

1099.

Leland said...

Who is advocating for zero sexuality in the workplace? Men or women?

Those being intellectually consistent. Those advocating for some sexuality while decrying sexual harassment are the hypocrites. Congratulations on finally getting to Peterson's point.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Man is a member of the society, not a creation of it."
The why do Leftists deny the humanity of a developing child?
Are you suggesting that abortion is murder? You can't be so silly that you would believe that science tells you at what stage of development a human being becomes a person?
If you believe in free will, you are well on your way to being religious, Inga. If you believe, for example, that I can freely choose to stand or sit, you believe that there can exist in the world physical work performed (measured in joules or calories or watts/second, as you like) that did not have a physical cause, and that there is a ghost in the machine.

robother said...

Goldberg Variations on a theme by Cathy Newman. "So, what you're really saying is...."

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

“The why do Leftists deny the humanity of a developing child?
Are you suggesting that abortion is murder?”

I am a leftist and I believe the embryo is a human embryo. Yes, I do think abortion is killing a living being. However if is not my place to force women to bear and give birth to children. There are many leftists who would not have an abortion themselves, but would not deny it to others. Yes it’s complicated.

“If you believe in free will, you are well on your way to being religious, Inga.”

I am a believer and I do belong to a Christian Church.

“If you believe, for example, that I can freely choose to stand or sit, you believe that there can exist in the world physical work performed (measured in joules or calories or watts/second, as you like) that did not have a physical cause, and that there is a ghost in the machine.”

Yes, one could.

Ken B said...

Tim in Vermont 12:22
Watch out. Althouse called me a fool arguing in bad faith because I mocked her ignorance of evolutionary theory, and proved it.
But that would be a fun debate, wouldn’t it?

Francisco D said...

I don't find Jung offensive or whatnot. I can take bits and pieces to use in my life, and find it interesting. Just not an orthodox Jungian."

Jung and Freud were great thinkers, for their time, but they did not create falsifiable hypotheses that could be empirically tested. Thus, their theories are not supportable, if you take a scientific approach.

Peterson recognizes the limitations of the scientific approach and tries to push the intellectual boundaries of our understanding. I appreciate his work and hope that it stimulates empirical research. You need to think at multiple levels to understand what Peterson is trying to do.

PJ said...

Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent.

If true, this is intresting as it relates to our discussion the other day about school shooters. Perhaps for adolescent males, the hope/expectation of monogamous pair bonding helps to inhibit violent behavior, and the cultural changes in the US that have had the effect of diminishing that hope/expectation have resulted in a corresponding increase in violence by members of that group. At the individual level, the correlation with broken homes and/or missing fathers would be consistent with that idea.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"Is there any makeup that is designed to make a woman less sexually attractive?"

No, but it's in the application. A woman CAN use makeup to make herself look less sexy.

Actually, I've known women who have used clothes and makeup at work to make themselves look good but plain, so to speak, that is, not garish or wildly sexual. Modest but attractive doesn't seem like a such a high hurdle to cross for workplace style.

A lot of women just want to be the center of male attention at all times, understandably, but there's no good reason they shouldn't tone it down for work. I heard second-hand about one woman who was called to HR for dressing too sexy, showing too much skin, etc. Her response was to to accuse the HR man of sexually harassing her.

bagoh20 said...

The purpose of makeup is not to be sexy. Women are already sexy to men as they are. The purpose of makeup is to be sexier. Sexier than normal or sexier than the other women, but sexier.

Bilwick said...

Haven't you heard? There is no truth but socialist truth. Right, Inga?

bagoh20 said...

Women dress sexiest to go out at night around strangers, but next sexiest effort is at work. Then comes going shopping. Then last and least sexiest effort is hanging at home with the man they love. Seems all wrong to me.

Me? I'm sexiest in the shower.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

I see Laslo has finally transitioned to Jewish.

Jaq said...

Evolution left no trace in male behavior! Only a creationist could believe that.

Tom Grey said...

"We don't know the rules"
However, if there are two guys, Alpha & Beta, and they both say the same words to a particular woman, same lack of physical contact, same distance from her, either both or neither is guilty of sexual harassment.

The current problem is that the more attractive Alpha's words are taken as a compliment, but the woman is offended by the less attractive Beta's words.

Those are NOT fair rules.

We don't know the rules -- but we all do know that most women make themselves as sexually attractive as they can. Mostly in order to get the compliments from men they want compliments from.

We need better, more clear rules.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Lewis Wetzel said...

If you believe in free will, you are well on your way to being religious, Inga. If you believe, for example, that I can freely choose to stand or sit, you believe that there can exist in the world physical work performed (measured in joules or calories or watts/second, as you like) that did not have a physical cause, and that there is a ghost in the machine.

I believe in free will. I have the ability to freely choose what I want to do. I make those choices based on deterministic and/or random processes taking place in my brain ( or maybe my gonads, or maybe my gut bacteria, depending on the type of decision being made. ) All of those things are me, and when they result in me choosing an action, it is an action that I have freely chosen.

If you believe it takes some God-given spirit, soul, or ghost in the machine to have free will, then where does that ghost get its free will? Does it have another ghost inside it? Is it ghosts all the way down? Or does it make its decisions base on its God-given instincts and intellect, the environment in which it grew up, or its current frame of mind? Every single one of those things is already determined at the time you make a decision, so how can a decision based on them be free? You might argue that your state of mind is based on your previous thoughts and decisions, which were free, thus your current choice is free. That is like a proof by induction, thus it needs a base case. How could you make your first free choice, your first free thought, when all of the inputs were determined outside your control?

Lewis Wetzel said...

For thousands of years groups of men have been working together, in sex-free environments, to achieve common goals.
Women have not.
Men know how to function in an all-male work environment. It is part of the male culture. Men do not know how to work in a mixed-sex work environment, and neither do women.

Loren W Laurent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Do women dress and wear makeup more to impress men, or other women?

In my experience it's more the latter.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Humans have free will. If you believe it is God given, fine. If you believe it’s based on your mind, your reason, your humanity, fine too. Whatever belief system you have, or don’t have, you do have free will. Exercise it over yourselves in the workplace or other places when that Jezebel makes you sweat and fidget and get feelings of a brutish nature. Don’t fall prey to your own baser instincts. You can do it!

Gahrie said...

I'll stop bitching about women putting on make up and dressing to be sexy at work if they'll let me start telling dirty jokes again.

Loren W Laurent said...

One of the reasons I chose not to go into teaching for high-school-aged children was my worry about what my slender attractive body might do to the concentration of young boys in the classroom.

I would not want to carry the burden of a young male teen glimpsing the contours of my breasts in a well-tailored blouse and then have him proceed to school up the school grounds in a spree of sexual frustration and impotent anger.

Yes: I understand the tragic deaths and terrible mayhem would not be my fault, but I am reasonably sure it would still affect me psychologically, and I have the self-knowledge not to put myself into situations that have such adverse high risks.

Part of the problem is that, even in loose-fitting clothes, the pertness of my breasts is still obvious. I would reason that a grown man should be able to handle himself appropriately with this — my eyes are up here etc etc — but I cannot expect a teenage boy to manage such stimulation, even in the classroom environment.

Especially on very warm days, where the occasional rivulet of sweat might slowly run down my chest to disappear under the neckline of my garment.

-LWL

Gahrie said...

Do women dress and wear makeup more to impress men, or other women?

In my experience it's more the latter.


They want to impress the men and they have to placate the women.

Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga...Allie Oop said...

LOL Loren! I know what you’re doing. Now men, use this as an exercise in self restraint.

wwww said...


People put on make-up for lots of reasons, and yeah, you can make yourself look ugly with it. One of my friends is a make-up artist who has worked on TV shoes and theatrical productions. You can make someone look like a zombie or create a vampire bite or whatever.

It takes a lot of work to get make-up to look beautiful but natural.

Make-up and clothing isn't conscious for a lot of people unless they're exaggerating it. It's an everyday practice for many. I think Peterson's point is that a lot of things people do are sexual signals. Make-up, heels, and ties are all sexual displays.

Gahrie said...

People are slamming Inga, but there were some comments I read that implied women should not wear anything that might be seen as "sexual" in the workplace. That sort of thinking leads to burkas, and I agree with her that we need to reject the idea that women must dress in burlap bags if they want to go in public.

There is a very large difference between burlap bags and provocative. Women want the privilege to dress provocatively and yet treat any low status men that are provoked into observing ("leering") and/or commenting on her appearance as sexual abusers.

The ugly truth that cannot be mentioned is that women don't want to work around men who act like men, they want to work around men who act like women.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Exercise it over yourselves in the workplace or other places when that Jezebel makes you sweat and fidget and get feelings of a brutish nature.
Shouldn't you be talking to the liberals in the media, academic, and politics, and not conservatives?
I do technical work. Most of my workplaces have been male-dominated to an extreme degree. When I became older and married, I began to work in a slightly less male dominated work group. Three of the eight people in my group are female, two of them married or became romantically involved with male members of my group.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Actually, I've known women who have used clothes and makeup at work to make themselves look good but plain, so to speak, that is, not garish or wildly sexual. Modest but attractive doesn't seem like a such a high hurdle to cross for workplace style. “

I was thinking earlier about the night I met my partner, almost 20 years ago. Here was a decently good looking woman, with little if any makeup, wearing a modest, conservative dress, amid a sea of women dressed to the hilt in tight skimpy cocktail dresses, high heels, and wearing a lot of makeup. It was only when I took her to the Barristers Ball six months later that I started to figure out that she could capture and control a room, if she wanted. She was dressed that night in a black designer dress that showed off her figure and dancer’s legs, and had used makeup for dramatic effect. Every male eye was on her every time she got up to dance. She learned to mute her beauty and sex appeal starting in maybe junior high school, through dress and makeup, reserving showing it off and accentuating it in only two situations - when she was out with a guy, and esp when in a monogamous relationship with him, or when being paid as a model. Unfortunately, we don’t that enough anymore- not for me, but for her. Probably for her birthday this summer - last time was Valentines Day in Vegas. Here in NW MT, there just isn’t anywhere where her dressing up wouldn’t be very much overdressed.

Jim at said...

Now men, use this as an exercise in self restraint. - Inga

Do you ever get tired of being an insufferable scold?

Michael K said...

the cultural changes in the US that have had the effect of diminishing that hope/expectation have resulted in a corresponding increase in violence by members of that group.

I think a lot of the less pleasant changes in the culture of teens is the prevalence of sexual activity among teens instead of dating.

The deferred impulses that we all had as teens before the Pill were a lot more easily controlled and I think that applies to girls, as well if not more.

It supercharges these relationships. The alpha guys are getting laid and the beta guys could not get laid in a 2 dollar whorehouse.

In the inner city, it is even worse.

Pianoman said...

Anecdote: First sexual harassment training class I went to, there was a SJW-type feminist in attendance. Wearing a red, low cut dress, of course. And when the floor was opened up for comments, she started in on how animalistic men were, how they objectified women, etc etc. Boilerplate Angry Feminist stuff.

So some guy in the crowd said, "Well, what about women who wear provocative clothing on purpose? Isn't that harassment too?"

The SJW-Feminist shouted out, "OH JESUS CHRIST, COME ON!"

And then the next guy to raise his hand and speak said, "You know what offends me? Someone who takes my Lord's name in vain."

And then ... utter silence. Pin drop silence. Mic drop stuff.

After 20 seconds or so, the instructor said, "Um .... oooookay, let's move on to the next slide."

The SJW Feminist kept her mouth shut the rest of the class. And the Christian who objected to her rants got mad props for standing up to her.

Good Times.

Gahrie said...

Do you ever get tired of being an insufferable scold?

Well, she's a woman.......so no.

Bruce Hayden said...

“There is a very large difference between burlap bags and provocative. Women want the privilege to dress provocatively and yet treat any low status men that are provoked into observing ("leering") and/or commenting on her appearance as sexual abusers.

The ugly truth that cannot be mentioned is that women don't want to work around men who act like men, they want to work around men who act like women.”

I don’t think that is quite right. Rather, I think that they want only guys that they find attractive to see their sexual allure, and want the rest of maledom to ignore it. Except, of course, it doesn’t work that way. Dressing provocably attracts the interest of many, if not most, of the unattached guys around, and a decent number of the attached ones too. Which is to say that they want the studs to notice them, but not the slobs.

wwww said...

"There is a very large difference between burlap bags and provocative. Women want the privilege to dress provocatively and yet treat any low status men that are provoked into observing ("leering") and/or commenting on her appearance as sexual abusers."


Peterson is making the point that humans have genders and make sexual signals all the time. Make-up is an everyday thing, that is, yes, also a sexual signal.

His whole point is that it's absurd to expect humans to be de-sexed people. He is saying that humans make sexual signals.

I'm not arguing that men and women should wear short shorts and yoga pants to work. Obviously people shouldn't smear on tons of unprofessional make-up. But subtle gloss and a little blush is no big deal. I'm not advocating for 6 inch heels and bras out or men in ripped-off tee shirts with guns out.

A lot of professional dress contains sexual signals, like male ties and lipstick. We shouldn't freak out about it. The nuts are the people advocating burkas to hide people or, on the other radical side-- people who think men and women should be de-sexed. Women and men should shave their hair off and dress in a gender neutral way?

No! Both of these groups are extreme. Humans are sexual beings and it's ok if women want to wear a dress to work with a little pink gloss while men look for suits and ties. A good, well-fitting looking suit is sexual. The dress and lip gloss is a sexual signal. That's ok, because we're human.

hombre said...

Inga: “Men here seem to be advocating for a sexless workplace, so they won’t be triggered.“

There is a difference between discussion and advocacy that has long been lost on you. You come here looking for a fight and confirmation bias is your ally. Yes, I know, wwww also seems to be an ally, but you are both wrong and wwww does not present as you do.

Considering the possibility that diminishing intentional or unintentional sexual signaling may reduce the problem of harassment in the work place is legitimate. Lefties are, unfortunately, more inclined to argument ad hominem., e.g., “sexist”, “racist”, “totalitarian”, etc., characterised by problematic assertions, particularly when solutions may threaten their political objectives.

Critical thinking is not only hard, but for some, hard to recognize.

Michael K said...

"Women and men should shave their hair off and dress in a gender neutral way? "

I don't know anyone not a Muslim advocating this. Sounds like a straw man to me.

Again, Peterson uses these arguments to make points, not to make new rules.

The professionally outraged, like Inga on this topic, are never satisfied because they are not really recommending a practical solution.

How about the transgender "woman" demanding a Muslim woman do a bikini wax job on "her" dick ?

Lewis Wetzel said...

Michael K wrote:
"It supercharges these relationships. The alpha guys are getting laid and the beta guys could not get laid in a 2 dollar whorehouse."

I talked to a kid just out of high school. He told me that everyone uses a dating app these days, and it causes problems because people are always trying to trade up, both males and females. They basically have a rolodex with pictures and sexy messages on their cell phone, with an ever-changing inventory. So when they are bored they go through it, send messages, and see if can do better than what they got.
It makes for a lot of jealousy & fights of the "let me look at your phone" type.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“The professionally outraged, like Inga on this topic, are never satisfied because they are not really recommending a practical solution.”

My solution is a practical one. Men, control your impulses by keeping your hands to yourself, don talk about sexual things at work. For women, don’t be sexually provocative, if you can help it. Don’t be shamed into dressing like Mother Theresa.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“How about the transgender "woman" demanding a Muslim woman do a bikini wax job on "her" dick ?”

LOL! Michael. That might be painful.

Terry said...

My solution is a practical one. Men, control your impulses by keeping your hands to yourself, don talk about sexual things at work.
Don't you mean to address this to self-described liberal feminist men? Seriously, Inga, if hard core liberal men can't do this, why would you expect misogynist conservatives to follow your rules?

Achilles said...

wwww said...

His whole point is that it's absurd to expect humans to be de-sexed people. He is saying that humans make sexual signals.

Actually his point is we need clearly defined rules that will take generations to generate and accommodate to because men and women working together is relatively new.

He also makes the point that this is impossible with people like Inga around whose sole goal is to drive a wedge between men and women and turn the issue into a political wedge.

That is why the left hates him.

They destroy everything they touch.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
“The professionally outraged, like Inga on this topic, are never satisfied because they are not really recommending a practical solution.”

My solution is a practical one. Men, control your impulses by keeping your hands to yourself, don talk about sexual things at work. For women, don’t be sexually provocative, if you can help it. Don’t be shamed into dressing like Mother Theresa.

This person voted for Bill Clinton.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“This person voted for Bill Clinton.”

You have no idea who I voted for. Furthermore, I’m trying to bring women and men together with an understanding that neither need to feel threatened or uncomfortable by the other. If you weren’t such a nutball, you might have figured this out by now.

Jaq said...

you believe that there can exist in the world physical work performed (measured in joules or calories or watts/second, as you like) that did not have a physical cause

So where is the work done when a photon decides bounce off your computer screen and display a reflection of the window behind you, (5 or 15% of the time, I forget) or to pass through the glass and interact with the material behind the glass? I don’t believe that engineers, or scientists have any way to know what an individual photon will do, it’s all about statistics and probabilities (wave functions) is there some measurable work done to make that decision?

I think that each scientific breakthrough made by this genius or that teaches us that we can’t linearly extrapolate our current understanding, for example of Newtonian Mechanics to get to General Relativity or Relativity to get the Quantum Mechanics, and the String Theory people are no closer to understanding it all than Freud was when he cried out “What do women want?”

Terry said...

So where is the work done when a photon decides bounce off your computer screen and display a reflection of the window behind you, (5 or 15% of the time, I forget) or to pass through the glass and interact with the material behind the glass?
This a bad example because perceiving a reflection involves an image, and an image can't be formed w/o an aperture. It also involves the particle/wave dual nature of light, which is counter intuitive to say the least.

Jaq said...

I have decided to believe in free will because I can’t imagine anything good coming out of believing that we have no free will, and can imagine a lot of evil.

From the HuffPo:

Still, given that we don’t have libertarian free will that sets us above causal laws, it would seem that our largely retributive moral and justice systems need to be re-evaluated, and maybe even drastically revamped.

Sure “It would seem!”

Jaq said...

This a bad example because perceiving a reflection involves an image, and an image can’t be formed w/o an aperture.

Well reflections off of a pane of glass sure mystified Isaac Newton, whose IQ was roughly double my own. The aperture has nothing to do with the photon bouncing or passing through. It’s just useful to perceive it.

t also involves the particle/wave dual nature of light, which is counter intuitive to say the least. <<- no.

Anyway, my point is that at levels beneath, not just our perception, but the theoretical ability for any scientific instrument, however constructed, to perceive, stuff goes on that we clearly do not understand, and we can’t just extrapolate from our world of macro effects, try as we might. Statistical Mechanics is pretty cool, but it can’t see past these boundaries anymore than anything else.

PackerBronco said...

Leftists believe that a person has no free will?

Pretty much. White men can't help but be racists and sexists. It's just what THEY ARE. Didn't you get the memo?

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Achilles said...

Inga said...
“This person voted for Bill Clinton.”

You have no idea who I voted for. Furthermore, I’m trying to bring women and men together with an understanding that neither need to feel threatened or uncomfortable by the other. If you weren’t such a nutball, you might have figured this out by now.

I do give you credit.

It has to be difficult to pack so much dishonesty into so few words.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“It has to be difficult to pack so much dishonesty into so few words.”

It has to be difficult keeping up your level of nuttery, but you do yeoman’s job.

Jim at said...

You have no idea who I voted for. - Inga

By your own admission, you voted for Jill Stein in 2016. In a swing state barely won by Trump.

Thank you.

Achilles said...

It is easy to understand why Inga refuses to acknowledge her vote for Bill the rapist Clinton. It makes it obvious she is a liar.

Obama creates a safe working environment for women.

Number of leftists who flagellated for months over "grab them by the pussy" tape who have condemned Obama for much worse acts caught on video:

exactly 0.

The left, just as Inga demonstrates repeatedly, don't believe a single thing they say.

Their goal is to destroy modern relationships and make these environments as toxic as possible.

mandrewa said...

This is kind of a lose-lose issue for men.

Ask yourself who wants women to be made less attractive?

Overwhelmingly, this is not men. True, it's hard on men who are sexually frustrated, but even for this group it's not so bad, I suspect, that they actually want women to become ugly.

So who does want their sisters to become ugly? Who is most likely to feel threatened by women dressing provocatively?

Peterson's point was threefold: a) women are sexual beings and the evidence for that is kind of overwhelming; b) there is a double-standard on sex being applied to men versus women; and the least obvious point, c) this is an unprecedented situation, dramatically unlike how men and women have previously organized themselves and there are probably all sorts of non-obvious consequences.

But we are missing who is likely delighted with this development and who would like to see penalties imposed on women in the workplace for dressing to be attractive.

Kansas Scout said...

So, dressing like a over sexualized tart in rediculous stilleto heals leaving nothing to the imagination means they have not contributed to the problem then common sense is finished. This kind of thinking has cut loose the anchor of sensibility and rationality.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

Stiletto heels are the devil! Just ask Melania. They sink in the wet grass of the White House Lawn and sometimes get stuck in the grating of the steps to the helicopter.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Oh Jesus Christ. Goldberg restated almost precisely what Peterson meant.

I suppose the next iteration of a grammar Nazi would be a syntax Nazi. People should be allowed to approach speaking (esp. in a contentious, hour-long debate) with a little more leeway than when writing. Does anyone disagree with that or do we have to have an argument about that, too?

ccscientist said...

At one place I worked the head secretary wore a totally seethrough black blouse (with black bra). Though technically no more showing than at the beach it was....sexy.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Who is advocating for zero sexuality in the workplace? Men or women?

Women?

But only for men.

wwww said...

""Women and men should shave their hair off and dress in a gender neutral way? "
I don't know anyone not a Muslim advocating this. Sounds like a straw man to me."

It's the logical conclusion to extreme gender-neutral thinking.

I've met more then one parent who does not think we should dress girls in pink or pastel colours or dresses or skirts. They don't want "girly" colors for girls. They want gender neutral colours. No - I don't know what they mean, or why yellow is ok but lavender is not.





SGT Ted said...

"Who is advocating for zero sexuality in the workplace? Men or women?"

Women are, but only from men they don't find attractive.

Jaq said...

Second, the Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it. We don’t want to alienate our friends, damage our professional reputations, or attract the attention of fire-breathing activists.

The problem here is not simply that this is unpleasant for people like me. More importantly, our silence further impoverishes everyday political discourse by eliminating more nuanced left-of-center voices.
This, in turn, reinforces the already powerful trend toward weaponized hashtag ideology instead of serious political thought. It also drives more people to right-of-center alternatives or away from politics altogether.

Peterson is just one example of this larger trend. Viewed as such, the situation he represents is extremely concerning, and even dangerous. We desperately need a revitalized Left that’s capable of speaking to today’s pressing issues of socio-economic inequality, environmental devastation, and spiritual malaise in informed, intelligent, and inspiring ways. Instead, we’re inundated by shallow ideological crusades dedicated to demonizing thoughtful conservatives like Peterson, who actually have some important ideas to offer—just not on the issues that properly concern the Left.


http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/

SGT Ted said...

"You have no idea who I voted for."

So, who did you vote for?

SGT Ted said...

"I’m trying to bring women and men together with an understanding that neither need to feel threatened or uncomfortable by the other."

Well, I've never felted threatened or uncomfortable around women in a work environment at any time. In fact, I love seeing pretty women and have always been very relaxed at work. I'm just going to call out self serving, hypocritical sexist bullshit when I see it. Especially from those who claim to be advocates for "equality" in the workplace.

Anonymous said...

"what's threatening is the idea that women bring sexual harassment on themselves by doing anything to make themselves sexually attractive. That really is repressive. "

No, it's not.

The idea that women bring RAPE on themselves by making themselves sexually attractive seems to be universally accepted, and I believe it should be universally accepted. Rape is never OK.

But "sexual harassment"? Depends on how it's defined. If the environment is such that sexuality is inappropriate, then it's inappropriate to bring sexuality into it regardless of sex.

This is what makes feminism look bad. Social norms as I currently understand them insist there is nothing sexual about makeup, as long as it's not glaring and in-your-face (for sexist reasons: we assume women need to look good, that it is unfair to ask them to put aside their need to look nice while they're at work - about as logical as saying you can't expect Italian men to put aside silk shirts and perfume at the office, IMO, but these are the norms we're used to).

But if a woman comes into work flashing sexual makeup or attire, what right does she have to object to others not treating the workplace as non-sexual and professional? The right of "because feminism means women get to employ double standards".

Derve Swanson said...

We are sexual beings, we have prodruding breasts, should women be made to bind themselves flat chested so as to appear less female? Should women not wear perfume or scented deodorant?
------------

For the latter, lots of workplaces ban perfume and scents nowadays. People are allergic and/or might find your pretty smell offensive. Save it for the off work hours. (office work, not retail or somewhere women might want to dress/smell sexxy to sell something...)

For the former, don't bounce.
If you're big, wear a bra. Button up so you don't show cleavage. Again, in an office, nobody wants to see your exposed or bouncy chest. (If you're selling something where it's advantageous to use your sexual assets, that is different. People come in to your workplace expecting that.)

Keep your shoes on at work, at all times.
Keep the lights on. (Seriously, I don't care if you come in early in the morning and light to sit in the dark or half lit -- in the office, the lights are on and stay on when workers are present.)

Wear socks with your shoes, unless you work outside or your workplace encourages you to use your sexual ability to sell produce. No one wants to smell your feet (let them do it on the off time, if they do and you're into foot worship) or even see your bare ankles.

If women want to wear dresses, wear underwear and you should keep your legs covered in something. Don't wear short skirts. That's why office pump up the air conditioning -- because too many women come in half-naked with all their skin showing, innocently they think. If you want to sit their and freeze with your hard nips, fine. Most of them start to cover themselves properly in the workplace after a day or two of cold. You're not at a beach or outside at a summer lawn party. PUt on office clothes.

NOTE: I'm not being sexist here. Men should always wear shoes and socks to work too. It's just ... most men know how to properly dress when they go to work in an office. Too many women... still don't. I guess that's what they need "mentors" for.

Derve Swanson said...

Do you want to neuter all gender signals in society? Do you want, in effect, a society of eunuchs?"
----------------

In the office workplace? Yes.
Save the sexxy looks, and banter and flirtations, etc. for your OFF WORK hours. If you meet someone, and want to engage in these things, go out to lunch or take your breaks together.

Plan something for the weekend.

Don't mate in the office, and don't dress or bring in the mindset to a workplace setting that you are there working on your sexxual needs on work time. Plenty of time after work, before work and in between work to mate and date. That's what makes for good, equal workplaces where work is valued, and the people who do the best work advance.

Derve Swanson said...

The purpose of makeup is to be sexier.
----------------

Or to hide dark circles and blemishes. (concealer)
Or to stand out from a distance when giving a presentation. (mascara and eyeliner and lipstick)

Hope this helps.
Apologies if you are a man who wears makeup himself. Then, it's likely you do do it to be sexxy.

I was just answering for the working women who use it.

Derve Swanson said...

But we are missing who is likely delighted with this development and who would like to see penalties imposed on women in the workplace for dressing to be attractive.
-------------------------

The women who want to go to work to work.
The women who want to get paid for the quality of their work,
not...

the women who want to compete for eyeballs by unbuttoning their top or leaving their bra or shoes off...
the women who giggle
the women who lean over and let you look up their blouse.

They get extra points -- like affirmative action -- for big breasts, for example. My advice? Don't advertise. Like black skin, people can see your special feature, even when you are fully clothed. You'll still get some extra advantage by some, but overall it's best not to rely too much on superficial advantages, and to concentrate more on the work you're getting paid to do.

(Again: this assumes officework, or even a classroom setting. If you're working selling product, unbutton and work that body all you can. Likely, it's what you've got going for you. Not so in the professional settings, at least, not so since our first wave of affirmative-action women hires has moved on, replaced by the women who can compete equally with men on the merits.)

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Damn, MEG makes the most, unequivocal, sense in a comment thread! Too bad it's so late in the game.
But the fact is that everything she wrote was, not so long ago, the commonplace standard. And it wasn't conservative men who shredded that standard.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Wearing red lipstick in the workplace is being provocative?

It’s a color. It’s not worn with the thought of triggering you.


It's not "worn" with any thought at all usually, I'd assume. It's done instinctually - with no thought.

Just like a young kid from the barrio's swagger and strut or a construction worker's catcalls.

The difference being that over time men seem to have no problem figuring what the latter are about but women retain the capacity for no clue whatsoever as to what the former are about. What, me? Do that? Naaaaah!

Sexualizing oneself comes so innately and thoughtlessly to most healthy women that they have an ability to retain a state of denial that they even do it for most, if not all of their lives.

This is also a part of basic sexual dimorphism, in all likelihood. Women also possess an ability to remain ignorant about their own internal states of arousal that men lack. Studies conducted on genital responses to external sexual stimuli in both men and women reveal that women show a consistent mismatch between how often they recognize their own physiological sexual responses and whether or not they are present that is entirely absent in men.

Jaq said...


"You have no idea who I voted for."

So, who did you vote for?


She basically voted for Trump. She voted for Jill Stein in a state Trump narrowly won. The guilt, it burns!

CJ said...

Who is advocating for zero sexuality in the workplace? Men or women?

Women?

But only for men.


Exactly. Which is Peterson's point - made subtly and intelligently, pointing out the double standard and hypocrisy.

CJ said...

"Sexualizing oneself comes so innately and thoughtlessly to most healthy women that they have an ability to retain a state of denial that they even do it for most, if not all of their lives."

Jack Nicholson's famous line in that movie - where he's an OCD author or whatever:

Female fan at a book signing: "How do you write women so well?'
Jack: "Well, I think of a man and then I take away reason and accountability."

I know it's meant as a slight to Nicholson's character but I think it hits quite close to home.

Bilwick said...

Gee, is someone saying Michelle Goldberg is distorting or misstating what Peterson said? Heaven forfend! "Liberals" NEVER do that!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 337 of 337   Newer› Newest»