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.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
३३७ टिप्पण्या:
337 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Is that really the implication of what Peterson is saying? I read it as: this shit is complicated. We need to figure this stuff out cooperatively. Getting all these lawyers involved in our adversarial legal system is probably not the best way. Let's have them discuss it on blogs instead.
The women weren't all that good looking when they were in my workplace. That worked out okay.
The Socratic method doesn’t work on TV or with a partisan dunce like Michelle Goldberg.
Everyone knows why women wear makeup in the workplace: to look good. To whom? Men ... and other women. Angie Dickinson said, “I dress for women and I undress for men.”
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?
"what's threatening is the idea that women bring sexual harassment on themselves by doing anything to make themselves sexually attractive." Don't think he said that. But he said that women need to know consciously what they all know unconsciously - that makeup is (frequently) a way that women make themselves sexually attractive, that that is something that is done to men by the women, and that the men have to deal with it. It's unfortunate that they don't always deal with it well.
But the women are doing something to the men, and part of understanding the workplace is to take that into account.
In the Orthodox Jewish community where I mostly live and work, it is taken for granted that in workplaces that have both men and women, the women are expected to dress modestly. This is just basic kindness that people show to one another - don't mess with people's heads and pretend it's their fault.
She is the gun-slinger who is going to finally out Jordan Peterson, who must be crushed so that his subtle insinuation of reason, like the snake in the Garden of Eden with that fucking apple of knowledge, doesn’t corrupt the innocent ignorance of the narrative!
And women should be allowed to sexualize the workplace and everybody but the hot guys, and the other girls she’s competing with for the hot guys, should just not see it!
Michelle Goldberg requires more than make up. Make that and 5 or 6 beers. Maybe 7.
Yup. Peterson is our Socrates; and stopping the deep thinking he instigates may require his death sentence be carried out. Just make him eat full meals.
No longer care what women feel, might be the general attitude.
If you want somebody to care how you feel, get a husband.
“[Goldberg] would have been fine if she had said...”
Goldberg would never be fine. That is not who she is or what she does.
Susan B Anthony and Sojourner Truth did not wear makeup. Lily Langtry and Jennie Jerome Churchill did.
C,mon, Althouse, get in the game!
Like always, I am with MayBee. Unless sexual harassment is clearly defined, this is just one of those back and forths. If any sexual attention on any level is sexual harassment, then she’s a hypocrite. If the guy is a total tool, like Harvey Weinstein or his pal Bill Clinton, well the guy needs to be banished from polite society.
Maybe we just need to line up all of the “tools” in front of a ditch and open up the machine gun? Because God knows we can’t live like adults with the possibility that there are all kinds of men, and women, out there, and take that into account. There are all kinds of reproductive strategies, some of which are not feminism approved, and yet, like some kind of original sin, they remain embedded in our DNA. It seems that like so many lefty problems, mass graves are once again the solution.
Yes and blonde women must cover their hair or dye it as we know how provocative blonde hair can be.
Peterson is our Socrates;
And we will fucking make him drink the hemlock yet!
r/v jumps right in with an ill considered comment that just parrots the party line at a depth of a couple millimeters. What a surprise!
Yes and blonde women must cover their hair or dye it as we know how provocative blonde hair can be.
You go for blondes? How shallow!
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Goldberg has an ugly, hateful personality. Is there makeup for that?
But MayBee is right: if you're going to get the lawyers involved beyond their erudite commentary on the matter and beyond provoking conversation, define the damned thing as any offense must be defined: specifically, narrowly. Fairly. It can't be about feelings, it needs to be about actions.
Blogger David Begley said...
The Socratic method doesn’t work on TV or with a partisan dunce like Michelle Goldberg.
Yes and that will be used to try to take him down.
Especially since his appeal is not political. That is really dangerous to the left.
Peterson speaks in Socratic paragraphs, while contemporary journalists speak in snarky tweets. It's as if journalists have lost the skill of holding multiple sentences at once in their working memory.
I wear makeup for myself. I don't use much, but it makes me feel good. I also try to dress in a way that's neat, stylish, comfortable, and flattering to my body. That also makes me feel good. Maybe when I was younger I was trying to be attractive to men, but now I mostly do it for myself. Really, man or woman, what's wrong with trying to look good? If someone finds a person attractive, why is that a bad thing? I'm older and happily married, but I notice good looking men and take pleasure in their appearance.
We all know that it’s true blondes have more fun. Shirley Polykoff at Foote Cone Belding told us so because, having asked the question (and also Does she...or doesn’t she?) Polykoff followed up with “If I’ve only one life, let me live it as a blonde.” A bit existential, but effective, no?
God only knows what she would have done with dog food.
As a slender, attractive white Jewish woman I am aware of how the way I present myself physically can affect men.
As such, I usually aim to keep my clothing and make-up shy of the point where a man might come in his pants just by looking at me. That would be socially embarrassing for him, and part of being a responsible part of society is to not goad men into orgasm without even touching them.
However, the problem with discreet make-up and only a faint hint of nipple beneath fabric is that some lesbian women are very attracted by that, and then their panties get wet.
If one takes care of their body and attire it is indeed difficult to remove all aspects of sexuality from one's presence. So when I am sitting across from a man and he is awkwardly shifting in his seat to cope with a constrained erection I realize that this might just be something we both have to accept.
LWL
"Star Economics Prof Fryer Facing Harvard and State-Level Investigations, Barred from Lab He Heads"
"The woman's complaint alleges Fryer spoke about sex in the workplace, made “sexually inappropriate comments” to and about employees and others, and “objectified and sexualized” women including female staffers, according to the lawyers." (HT Sailer)
"That really is repressive."
Yes, feminism is repressive, especially the puritanical flavor. And the star of this post is a narrow minded repressive feminist lying about what other people said.
It's like they've all just turned off their brains. They have a set of lines they say and that's it. No one thinks or listens or questions themselves. It's very distressing
Dress that doesn't look good is the preferred way to avoid the Peter Principle, to avoid being promoted to a job you can't do like everybody else.
If that's entry level, the idea doesn't apply.
Professional Lady—long may you thrive!
The way Michelle Goldberg talked about what Peterson said may not be the truth, but it’s her truth. And if we’ve learned anything, it’s that we can’t deny a woman’s truth.
The wife's work place is instituting uniforms. The women are going ballistic. I listened for a week or so. I then pointed out that I have had a uniform at work for 4 decades, No decisions, Just reach into the closet at grab the next thing. Women must assuredly dress for other women. Losing the tools to do that, ruins a womans day.
But why cant we say that humans are in a constant mating dance? It is the demonstrable truth.
It's like they've all just turned off their brains. They have a set of lines they say and that's it. No one thinks or listens or questions themselves. It's very distressing.
Just like commenting on a blog.
"The women weren't all that good looking when they were in my workplace. That worked out okay."
back at the turn of the century; my company 1st allowed casual dress fridays, and they sent out a dress code of acceptable clothes.
The list stated that capri pants were unacceptable. I mentioned to my (male) coworker that this 'wasn't fair'; 'cause *i* liked looking at capri pants....
He said that it was, in fact, a Good Rule; because:
"if you allow capri pants, you have to allow All women to wear capri pants".
I thought about the overwhelming amount of women that worked at our stodgy insurance company, and i realized that it Was a Good Rule.
Most women don't wear makeup to make themselves sexually attractive. They wear makeup because they Used to use it to make themselves sexually attractive... And now they're used to wearing it.
If you talk about makeup at the office, you remind Most Women that they're not that attractive anymore; and THAT'S THREATENING
Most women don't wear make
Loren W Laurent— I remember those letters you used to write to Penthouse.
You don't need to catch fish to be run in for illegal fishing. Just having a line and a baited hook in the water is probable cause.
I worked in a factory. Let me tell you something, there was a lot of fucking going on between the workers.
A woman being able to dress as provocatively as she wants in the workplace is empowering.
A woman being able to destroy the career of any male reacting to that attire is absolutely empowering.
Soros has put out the call--
Bring me the head of Jordan Peterson!
Michelle Goldberg remains an unimpressive NYT Leftist. She continues to get intellectually walloped by Jordan Peterson.
Regardless of the actual quote, I agree with the sentiment. Males are very visual when it comes to sex, and most at least younger men mentally visually undress many to most of the attractive women they come into contact with. You can try to turn it off, but then find yourself doing it again 5 minutes later. Many females are taught from a very young age to explode it this through accentuating their feminity, and later, their sexual appeal. A woman who dresses provocably mostly does so because it gets male results. Which means that she triggers a male sexual response by her dress. Which essentially says that she is intentionally inviting being sexually objectified. Or maybe to be more specific, for whatever reason, but mostly because it gets positive results from males, females often dress to objectify themselves as sexual objects for males.
But makeup, I think, is a little more complex. Sure, bright red lipstick is very sexually suggestive because it mimics a portion of a woman's body when it is sexually stimulated. But female faces are more expressive than male ones, and it turns out that people, starting with very young babies, react differently to different faces. Certain features get better response than others, and, in particular, the more symmetric the face, the better the response. I hear about this quite a bit from my partner who was trained as a model, which includes training on makeup. She has classical French features, that are very symmetrical. But since her modeling days, wears makeup only when she goes out at night. She can get away with it, because she has good skin and symmetrical features. Most women don't, which means that the way that most everyone else reacts to them can be improved can often be improved by hiding imperfections, including, importantly, lack of symmetry. Unfortunately, it seems, a lot of makeup destroys a woman's skin over time, requiring every thicker applications to hide the damage. In any case though, covering blemishes and faults, and accentuating symmetry (or covering asymmetry) causes males to react more favorably to a woman, simply, in the case of symmetry and lack of skin blemishes, because it signifies better breeding stock. So, while women may react more favorably to a woman who wears well applied makeup, the effects are probably much more pronounced with males. So we get back to women doing something to themselves very often to get a positive sexual reaction from men.
BTW - one of the reasons that I hear about this from my partner is that she oogles babies all the time. I know - it is a female thing. But she is firmly convinced that they react to her doing so better than to most because of her symmetrical features. Normally, I would take this with a grain of salt, but the symmetrical thing seems fairly well documented.
"come in his pants just by looking at me."
Summa Come Laude.
Icosahedral symmetry would be a real winner.
Here's the Army's position on makeup:
(1) General. As with hairstyles, the requirement for standards regarding cosmetics is necessary to maintain uniform- ity and to avoid an extreme or unmilitary appearance. Males are prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish. 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.
(a) Females may wear cosmetics if they are conservative and complement the uniform and their complexion. Eccentric, exaggerated, or trendy cosmetic styles and colors, to include makeup designed to cover tattoos, are inappropriate with the uniform and are prohibited. Permanent makeup, such as eyebrow or eyeliner, is authorized as long as the makeup conforms to the standards outlined above.
(b) Females will not wear shades of lipstick and nail polish that distinctly contrast with their complexion, that detract from the uniform, or that are extreme. Some examples of extreme colors include, but are not limited to, purple, gold, blue, black, white, bright (fire-engine) red, khaki, camouflage colors, and fluorescent colors. Soldiers will not apply designs to nails or apply two-tone or multi-tone colors to nails.
(2) Females will comply with the cosmetics policy while in any military uniform or while in civilian clothes on duty.
c. Fingernails. All personnel will keep fingernails clean and neatly trimmed. Males will keep nails trimmed so as not to extend beyond the fingertip. Females will not exceed a nail length of 1⁄4 inch, as measured from the tip of the finger. Females will trim nails shorter if the commander determines that the longer length detracts from the military image, presents a safety concern, or interferes with the performance of duties.
I used to be ridiculously hot for blondes, but after having a couple of other girlfriends, I realized it was all about one girl, wild as a mink, and as sweet as soda pop, I think about her still.
Autocorrect turned that into "wild as a munk," BTW. There needs to be some kind of crash blossom type term for that.
"...that women bring sexual harassment on themselves by doing anything to make themselves sexually attractive. That really is repressive.""
Of course that is not what he said at all. He was talking about ambiguous and undefined rules in the workplace that may lead to sexual harassment. Women wearing makeup was an example of an undefined or ambiguous rule. Makeup and high heels are worn to make women (usually) more attractive. To whom? In the workplace?
LWL is Laslo for any who haven't figured it out yet.
Tim I just took Peterson’s line of thinking to one logical conclusion following the party line of logic. What party line do you follow.
"LWL is Laslo for any who haven't figured it out yet. "
i prefer to think that, In Fact, LWL is the treadmill girl with the ponytail
lcosahedral symmetry would be a real winner.
This will go viral, mark my words!
"I wear makeup for myself. I don't use much, but it makes me feel good. I also try to dress in a way that's neat, stylish, comfortable, and flattering to my body. That also makes me feel good. Maybe when I was younger I was trying to be attractive to men, but now I mostly do it for myself. Really, man or woman, what's wrong with trying to look good? If someone finds a person attractive, why is that a bad thing? I'm older and happily married, but I notice good looking men and take pleasure in their appearance."
Trying to look good is fine, but pushing a male's sexual buttons automatically results in the woman being sexually objectified.
The idea is to suppress free speech because it is threatening, because it makes "marginalized people" feel unsafe.
This idea has been developed in the universities, which are spreading it further into the larger society, which still values free speech.
The idea works in the universities, because they have enrolled a lot of people who cannot read at the university level and therefore fail academically. Instead of the failures being blamed on foolish enrollment practices, however, the failures are based on accusations that the university environment is racist and threatening.
The universities might not succeed in spreading that idea much into the larger society, despite the efforts of threat-mongers like Michelle Goldberg.
AA: So Goldberg did misspeak and left herself open to attack, but she would have been fine if she'd said...
But she didn't say.
The problem here, as others here have alluded to, is that public discourse is degraded by the stupidity of people like Goldberg. It isn't possible to have an intelligent and productive discussion about any issue when it has to be conducted at her inane level. No amount of "filling in" repairs that.
It's clear that she simply doesn't understand what Peterson's remark about makeup is getting at. I don't know what minimal level of intelligence is necessary to "get it", but it can't be that high, and anyone with a job like Goldberg's ought to be able to clear that bar. (See r/V @7:18 for a fine example of not being able to clear that bar.)
R/v no, you didn't. Step one would be that hair color is not a choice.
Laszlo is in drag now? I used to do some commenting in drag. It's sort of freeing. ;^)
Lots of people, definitely lots of women, can't separate themselves emotionally from ideas and thus can't take part in theoretical conversations without making everything personal. I am still learning not to do this. High school debate helped, though.
When I started working as a hospital chaplain, I noticed that the lady docs and the women nurses on staff wore zero makeup. I commented on this to the head nurse in the CICU. Her response, in this case, is the Crest Jewel of Perception.
"Rabbi, do you know the Talking Heads? Well, "this ain't no party, this ain't no disco, there ain't foolin' around."
Women and Men work together putting people back together and saving lives. Make-up gets in the way and many are allergic to it, especially perfume. They shower with DIAL and wish everyone did.
What about tight pants (especially yoga pants) that leave little to the imagination and low-cut blouses that show off a lot of cleavage? Women know what they are doing.
M Jordan said...
Everyone knows why women wear makeup in the workplace: to look good. To whom? Men ... and other women. Angie Dickinson said, “I dress for women and I undress for men.”
Exactly. In general, women are far more critical of other women's appearance than men are. Men break it down into two categories: Interested and not interested.
"What party line do you follow."
The left in a nutshell.
Peterson is dangerous to them because he reaches across party lines. I sent my middle daughter a copy of his book, wondering if she would read it. She was a Bernie voter.
She called me a few days after it arrived to tell me how much she loves it.
That sort of thing cannot be allowed, can it R/V?
I think Althouse should invite Jordan Peterson onto Bloggingheads and hash this out at a deeper level than these partisan tools can handle. There is enough of a difference of opinion there to be interesting without the rank hostility.
This little freckle of mine, let it shine, let it shine.
Sorry, I didn't watch the wedding, but it's stuck in my head.
The duchess formerly known as Markle is well-frecked but didn't hide them.
There's a lot of sun damage that wants to be hidden.
"As a slender, attractive white Jewish woman I am aware of how the way I present myself physically can affect men.
As such, I usually aim to keep my clothing and make-up shy of the point where a man might come in his pants just by looking at me. That would be socially embarrassing for him, and part of being a responsible part of society is to not goad men into orgasm without even touching them.
However, the problem with discreet make-up and only a faint hint of nipple beneath fabric is that some lesbian women are very attracted by that, and then their panties get wet."
My view is that your attitude is just fine if all the other women in the workplace dress and look similarly. Not so much otherwise. if you want to avoid sexual objectification by all the straight males in the workplace, and jealousy of most of the women, you should probably tone it down. Sexual objectification of females by males happens far before they come in their pants, and most often before they even have an erection. For example, WTF do you think even a hint of a nipple on an attractive women means to most of the straight men who walk by you in the hall or on the streets? Female nipples tend to get erect during sexual excitement. Which is to say that your hint of nipples suggests sexual excitement to males.
Women, let me let you in on a little secret. 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. Men will imagine having sex with you or will consider the possibility. It was baked into the cake.
r/V: Tim I just took Peterson’s line of thinking to one logical conclusion following the party line of logic. What party line do you follow.
No, you detached Peterson's Socratic musings from their context, riveted the denuded statement to your own premises, and flogged it along your own deeply-rutted "party line of logic" to pre-determined party-line conclusions.
When did you lose the ability to think in anything but slogans? Were you born that way, or did you do it to yourself, year by year, choice by choice?
Michelle Goldberg's twitter feed.
She still hasn't apologized for, in effect, calling Dr. Peterson a liar.
rich hahn: A slight correction. ... that may lead to sexual harassment accusations...
There are workplaces where any sexual interaction between workers is prohibited, including after hours. You can't date your secretary or co worker.
My mom told me that platonic relationships don't exist. As a warning.
That is all Peterson said. It is impossible to have a place where men and women work without sexual overtones. Makeup for example. So if you are intent on creating such a place, then how far are you going to go?
Running beneath all this is the feminist's stated desire to be able to do whatever they want. Illustrated by the Slut walk. I can do what I want.
To suggest that there are some things you can do to prevent problems is to blame the victim.
This whole way of thinking is profoundly dangerous, foolish and ignorant. Or malicious in that having more victims would advance your agenda.
I like freckles, they say that she likes the outdoors and that she's active. Just like a few extra pounds says she enjoys life more than she obsesses over her looks. But that's wisdom that comes with age. I used to just think freckles were cute.
...and Mr. Hayden @8:08 takes the bait...
I would hire Loren W Laurent.
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.
The real problem is that women have now defined unwanted sexual attraction/interest as sexual harassment.
So women spend time, money and resources to make themselves sexual attractive, and then complain when the "wrong" guys respond.
Be proud of your freckles ladies, the man who is turned on by them might just be the man for you!
That really is repressive.
Prepare to be repressed.
Is she a leftist? Leftists lie all the time, for the narrative.
The MSM can't seem to interpret Trump and Peterson correctly. Stupidity or malice?
They glossed over years of Bill Clinton's slickness before they finally learned to parse--and then stopped again.
Some people believe what they hear and others hear what they believe. Goldberg is one of the latter.
He never said women should be banned from wearing makeup at work as the femo-fraud suggests.
Peterson made the astute point that makeup is a way in which women make themselves sexually attractive to men. *Speaking the truth is harmful to the narrative. Shut up, she said.
Watched the updated Frontline on Weinstein last night. Feminism seems to make some women reckless but too weak to deal with the consequences. Yet he seemed to back down pathetically when they stood up to him.
Jordon Peterson, who is the best thing to come out of Canada since Oscar Peterson, calls them out on their crypto-creationism with its denial of evolution and it's too much for them. Bien Bien pensants didn't like the choices of material Oscar Peterson made either. Imagine Thurston Howell III's voice saying "He's wasting his talent on boogay woogay, dear."
The rule is pretty simple.
If the makeup attracts the eye of a desirable man, that's success. If the makeup attracts the eye of a slob, that's sexual harassment.
I live in a college town, but I'm sure these observations can be confirmed in Madison, WI. On Friday and Saturday afternoons, college kids go to bars. The females dress (and arrange their hair and makeup) to attract sexual attention -- partially bared breasts, short skirts, and (yes) rouged lips.
If they succeed in attracting the sexual interest of the cute guy in Chemistry class, that's mission accomplished.
If they succeed in attracting the sexual interest of the creepy overweight guy, that's sexual harassment.
The same dichotomy exists in the work place: women present themselves to attract sexual attention; if they attract attention from the cute guy in billing, that's mission accomplished; if they attract attention from the older overweight married guy (heaven forbid that it should be a supervisor), that's sexual harassment.
"come in his pants just by looking at me."
Summa Come Laude.
Those army regs are a study in double standards. The Talking Heads standard ( this ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, there ain’t no foolin’ around) reported by DJ at 8:02 is the right one. Except we know by the number of military pregnancies that there is plenty of foolin’ around.
R/V, as a lefty in good standing, knows one thing and one thing only: that Socrates dude is just another Dead White European Male and thus anything he might have taught us is no longer relevant and can safely be ignored.
And the Socratic Method? I'll bet that is, like, the Constitution and, like, old?
We will know the left is really ready to destroy Jordan Petersen when the left's LLR allies start coming out of the woodwork to attack him directly as well.
Professional lady said...
I wear makeup for myself. I don't use much, but it makes me feel good.
I suspect Peterson would argue that the reason that looking good makes you feel good is based on evolutionary biology: looking good is a successful mating strategy, so evolution favors people who feel good about looking good.
Thus, while your conscious decision is not based on the effect your appearance will have on men, that is still the underlying cause.
How long until some Sandra Fluke type starts demanding that the government pay for her make up?
If those on the left didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say.
> by doing anything to make themselves sexually attractive."
Anything, you say?
Irony today is the media is sexualized while relationships have become electronic he typed.
I've pretty much avoided the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, but here goes. He suggests half-jokingly that if women didn't wear make up, there would be more of a focus on business-first, and fewer problems with sexual harassment. (Or sex interfering with work? Lovers spooning on the one hand, or brooding on the other? Wanting some physical interaction at the workplace, more or less consensual? Where does this leave the non-lovers, the chronically lonely, etc.?) He leaves the impression that there used to be rules, but now there are none. The rules used to include: the worst harassers could get away with it, both because it happened behind closed doors, and was he said/she said, and because the harassers were probably the male bosses. Now it's harder to get away with it--perhaps too many or too conflicting rules, not too few. The Harrison Bergeron solution might be that beautiful people have to wear ugly masks, athletic people have to carry heavy weights, etc., but then you could infer from someone's outer appearance what they were really like: a grotesque and helpless person on the outside would probably be a stunning athlete underneath. One big change is that managers are going to have to spend a lot of time on this. In a way, if a victim says he or she had something unwanted inflicted on him/her, he or she should enjoy a presumption of truth; but this can violate any kind of due process.
And to women who say, "I feel better when I feel attractive": Think about that word "attractive".
Isn’t Michelle Goldberg’s stated purpose to bring down Jordan Peterson? You can google it!
Prof. Althouse - Did you wear makeup to work/teach law school? Why/why not?
I found the military rules on makeup that Ann provided instructive. What they seem to be doing is setting a standard such that the women can feel good about their grooming and looks, without interfering with good order and discipline. Essentially by minimizing the sexual triggers being pressed on the men in the workplace by the women. Sure, one women pressing more sexual triggers in the males in the workforce around her makes her feel good about herself. But it distracts the males around her, and if somewhat extreme, distracts them a lot, and makes the other women around her jealous. Neither is typically good for the workforce in general. Often, it can be quite disruptive. And disruptive is rarely a good thing in the workplace. Being a male, I sometimes wonder about women who are so selfish that they think that they should be entitled to put themselves so far ahead of the team. Definitely not team players, and hence why I think that they should save that sort of thing for clubs and dates.
Women are not, by their nature, team players, in the same way that men are. As almost any junior high school girl can tell you, girls can be vicious to each other. This can become a significant problem if continued into the workplace. And much of it revolves around jealousy. Which is one of the big problem with some of the women in a workplace being able to monopolize male attention through sexual attractiveness. Female sexual attraction rapidly deteriorates over time, which means that, for the most part, younger women are more sexually attractive to males than older ones. The bigger the advantages one woman has over the others she works with, the sooner and more viciously will she be figuratively knifed in the back by the other women around her. Which is the female half of the good order and discipline issue the military addresses in Ann's cited rules.
LWL: nice riff.
As many have already said, cosmetics are a visual tool. (Perfume is a different story but, like cosmetics, it operates non-selectively, just saturating the sensory field of everyone within range). Visual tools are non-selective, they operate constantly like an IFF beacon or, better analogy, like a signal broadcast on the International Sexual Distress Frequency.
If the visual signal is "too slutty," management will send the wearer home. But in many cases, it's just a kind of background music. The thing about background music is, if you foreground it, you have a new intention and a deeper attention, and often the music isn't appropriate. Best to leave it playing away quietly while you all do what you're paid to do.
Of course, by foregrounding it, an ignorant careerist troublemaker like Michelle Goldberg can point out some Structural Oppression or some Fundamentally Rotten Patriarchal Hypocrisy. So she does. She isn't interested in debating the likes of Jordan Peterson, but just trying to scrape off a little of his celebrity.
I don't remember if Fontine work makeup in the factory, but I doubt it. The women who didn't need any must have been particularly sought after because they were so rare.
Remember Scarlett pinching her cheeks and mashing her lips.
There's makeup, and then there's makeup. For most women, most of the time, wearing makeup is akin to straightening up the house and putting out a vase or two of fresh flowers.
Has anyone looked at those female news readers on CNN lately? Brooke (boobs) Baldwin? Erin Burnet? Ashleigh Banfield? Etc. Don’t you think they are engaged in asset enhancement to a high degree? I wonder why?
“What about tight pants (especially yoga pants) that leave little to the imagination and low-cut blouses that show off a lot of cleavage? Women know what they are doing.”
When they’re young it may be all about sexual attraction, but as they age I think it becomes increasingly about status in relation to other women. Those who are keeping it versus those who are losing it (or who have just flat-out lost it altogether). It’s also very much a class marker, which women in the middle/upper-middle classes are keenly aware of. Spend half an hour in Wal-Mart, then spend half an hour in Nordstrom’s.
Socrates may have founded Western philosophy, but asking uncomfortable questions about what "everybody knows" is still a formula that can lead you having to choose between banishment or a cup o' hemlock.
There are multiple issues here. I'm not sure what order to put them in.
A) What Peterson said applies to the group and not the individual. There are individuals for which this is not a true statement, but for the average woman this is a true statement.
B) The desire to look attractive is a part of sexuality. Women as a group feel this more strongly than men. That isn't to say that the only reason to want to look attractive is to attract sexual attention, but it is the dominant reason.
C) Since this appears to be almost a universal human behavior, that is as far as I know in every human culture today and in every past human culture, women, or the average women, go out of their way to look attractive, then this is probably in part genetically determined. That raises the reoccurring mystery of the huge gap between the selective production of proteins in a cell and human behavior, but I assume that in this case and probably all like cases, the genetic push is kind of vague and that leaves a great deal of room for how an individual might express it.
D) Michelle Goldberg falsely asserted that Peterson said that women shouldn't wear makeup in the workplace. But if we assume that Goldberg believes that no sexuality should be allowed in the workplace, then by her logic Peterson's assertion that making an effort to be attractive is part of human sexuality is in effect equivalent to saying that women shouldn't wear makeup.
E) As a practical matter corporations are already banning certain kinds of clothing in the workplace. And it's obvious that what they are trying to ban is some of the more dramatic examples of female display.
F) I have often wondered how self-aware we are. I wonder if it may be a standard part of the sexual dance for women to be less than self-aware of their own moves. Why this should be I don't know, but I feel like there are certain aspects of their behavior that women just don't seem to express awareness of, as a group, where if we imagine, somehow, a man in that situation, we would expect them to have an awareness. I'm not saying that men are self-aware. They are in some things and not in others. What I am saying is that this is part of the difference in the genders. On average different things are being paid attention to.
I suspect Peterson would argue that the reason that looking good makes you feel good is based on evolutionary biology: looking good is a successful mating strategy, so evolution favors people who feel good about looking good.
Harassing people and getting fired is a less successful mating strategy. No job and no money means no status. Animals that evolved big brains should be able to figure that out.
Trying to figure out how big-brained humans work does not mean reducing all human behavior to a bunch of excusable urges. See Jonathan Haidt for a guy that understands that point. Jordan Peterson prefers the zealous reduction.
Women are not, by their nature, team players, in the same way that men are
My wife used to say, "A party to a woman is like a battlefield to a man."
That was when she was much younger. I haven't heard it lately but it was an amusing way to express a true opinion.
"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)."
Why do you "assume" this? There's no evidence.
"The disallowance of makeup in the workplace is annoying and repressive, but is it "threatening"?"
It is, to women who want to have their every whim satisfied.
"And yet, is it "threatening" to be called a hypocrite?
It is, to women whose tender feelings can stand no challenge.
"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."
Peterson points to the complexity of the issue. "Bring it on themselves" simplifies it. But when people make themselves sexually attractive, then are found to be and treated as sexually attractive, and then take pleasure in their success enough to do it again and again, but then protest that they should not be found and treated as sexually attractive, that is indeed repressive--of honesty and good sense.
A puzzle remains: are the Goldbergs too stupid to understand or does their brand of feminism preclude understanding?
Ann Althouse said...
Here's the Army's position on makeup:
(1) General. As with hairstyles, the requirement for standards regarding cosmetics is necessary to maintain uniform- ity and to avoid an extreme or unmilitary appearance. Males are prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish. 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.
(a) Females may wear cosmetics if they are conservative and complement the uniform and their complexion. Eccentric, exaggerated, or trendy cosmetic styles and colors, to include makeup designed to cover tattoos, are inappropriate with the uniform and are prohibited. Permanent makeup, such as eyebrow or eyeliner, is authorized as long as the makeup conforms to the standards outlined above.
(b) Females will not wear shades of lipstick and nail polish that distinctly contrast with their complexion, that detract from the uniform, or that are extreme. Some examples of extreme colors include, but are not limited to, purple, gold, blue, black, white, bright (fire-engine) red, khaki, camouflage colors, and fluorescent colors. Soldiers will not apply designs to nails or apply two-tone or multi-tone colors to nails.
(2) Females will comply with the cosmetics policy while in any military uniform or while in civilian clothes on duty.
c. Fingernails. All personnel will keep fingernails clean and neatly trimmed. Males will keep nails trimmed so as not to extend beyond the fingertip. Females will not exceed a nail length of 1⁄4 inch, as measured from the tip of the finger. Females will trim nails shorter if the commander determines that the longer length detracts from the military image, presents a safety concern, or interferes with the performance of duties.
But what about transwomen and men?
"Jordan Peterson prefers the zealous reduction."
He is expressing opinions in ways that obviously don't appeal to you.
That does not mean it is not a valid way to reason.
In this battle of wits, Michelle Goldberg is unarmed. And no amount of makeup can hide that.
The first comment nailed it.
Hypocritical might be a bit strong, but unaware, unthinking, inconsistent will do.
Let's say I object to hijabs as overtly religious. But I have a small unobtrusive crucifix tattoo on my wrist.
Althouse is in obtuse mode again it seems.
Goldberg didn’t misspeak, she misrepresented.
tim in vermont said...
"...wild as a mink, and as sweet as soda pop..."
Come on down to Tennessee. Seems to be a lot of gals like that here for some reason.
Peterson sticks in his intense, crisp, challenging mode: Women wear lipstick because lips "turn red during sexual arousal."
Hire a Goth!
Evolutionary biology probably is a cause, but it's not the whole story.
wild as a soda pop, and as sweet as a mink
My choices. . .
Tim in vermont said...”She is the gun-slinger who is going to finally out Jordan Peterson, who must be crushed so that his subtle insinuation of reason, like the snake in the Garden of Eden with that fucking apple of knowledge, doesn’t corrupt the innocents ignorance of the narrative!”
She’s more like a hash slinger behind the counter in a deli serving up more slop for general consumption.
"A puzzle remains: are the Goldbergs too stupid to understand or does their brand of feminism preclude understanding?"
I think this gets to the heart of Arendt's formulation about the banality of evil in totalitarian systems. There is a significant rportion of modern populations that wants the moral simplicity of an "ism." It empowers their ignorance.
I just took Peterson’s line of thinking to one logical conclusion following the party line of logic. What party line do you follow. [sic]
By "logical conclusion" roesch/voltaire doesn't mean anything strictly logical.
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.
Really?
Is it "repressive" to tell people "don't walkthrough a bad neighborhood with money hanging out of your pockets"?
If you act to make yourself sexually attractive, one what possible grounds do you get to complain when people react to you sexually? "I didn't want HIM to react"?
Tough sh!t.
Now, if he reacts, you tell him "not interested", and he keeps on pushing you, that is his failing, not yours.
OTOH, if you are sending a lot of people the message "I'm available for sex, just not with you", you don't get to complain if those people don't want to work with you, don't like you, and don't otherwise include you in events they include other people in
Because choosiness gets to go both ways
I recently spent a year working on a high-rise floor that was mostly occupied by Big Makeup. The women were impossibly young and pretty and well accessorized and made-up and sort of shallow. I would leave the office thinking, "I have lived too long". Their power seemed immense, but mostly deployed against other women. Actual convo overheard in elevator, concerning an eye-liner campaign: "Oh she doesn't know anything. She's old." And by old she meant 30. There were 3 middle-aged women in the elevator with us.
@Michael K -- Peterson expresses his opinions in a manner that is authoritative and intriguing: pointed, colorful, unapologetic. But the fact that he expresses his thoughts well doesn't make them valid. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe some of his ideas have merit. Maybe some of his ideas don't. Maybe, when pressed, he too quickly abandons context and complexity. He can't help but claim the stage.
The reductive view is always attractive. Cut through the clutter. Get to the root cause. Dance on the prone shoulders of the giants you have slain. But the reductive view always means gross simplification. It lends itself to extreme stances and ugly excuses. It is the enemy of art and individualism. It is little wonder that Peterson's dull opponents dig up his most egregious statements to attack him. That's the price he pays for the way he has made his name.
Just another instance of the well-established rule, that women only want to have it both ways, when they can't think of a third.
I think this attractive woman issue explains in part women's hostility to Trump and men's enthusiasm. The Trump family women are so sexy, how does that make average women feel? We almost had the traveling pant suit brigade, shrinking boners worldwide, depressing birth rates, and giving the world another chance to act before climate change kills us all.
"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."
A woman must never be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything, ever.
Henry said...
"It is little wonder that Peterson's dull opponents dig up his most egregious statements to attack him. That's the price he pays for the way he has made his name."
Try a little harder, Hank. "It is little wonder that Peterson's dull opponents misquote him. His argument as stated is entirely compelling, which is why he is so widely followed."
women's hostility to Trump
A myth. Most white women — 52 percent — voted for Trump.
Their husbands told them to--according to Hills.
"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.
Really?"
Really, yes. Althouse is right. that's how you get women in burkas. Cause someone could say cover your hair and get in a burka. My husband finds me to be madly attractive in business causal, tucked in buttoned down shirt and pencil skirt past my knees and long hair. I don't need to wear heels, or makeup, or style my hair to get that reaction. Wash and blow-dry hair & put on sunscreen facial moisturizer.
Women's face and bodies send out signals sans makeup. Hip to waist ratio. You'd need to never tuck in a shirt or wear ill-fitting clothing to not "send out signals." A blazer and skirt that fits shows off hip to waist ratio.
I cannot help but think of the rage against the religions... you know, the Sexual Revolution against those old repressive priests and their keeping down the wimmens.
Well, what we've discovered is that all those rules about modesty, etc are designed to lessen the impact of a woman as a sexual person... and allow people to discover her personality and brains, not just her boobs.
And don't get me wrong, I love a nice set of boobs.... but a woman is more than just her sexual attributes. And when the ladies focus on one-upping each other in the attractiveness/sluttiness department; it turns them into nothing more than their sexual parts.
Women can be attractive, and should do so... without the sluttiness. Just like men.
I think that we should remember the eros versus agape types of love and attraction. Our society focuses on the eros, but denigrates agape to a degree. Yet we want to have an agape style relationship with someone. And that's built on everything but the sex.
"Althouse is right. that's how you get women in burkas."
You get women in burkhas by ignoring the violent rhetoric of certain societies and pretending that they are equal to western Bourgeois culture.
Multiculturalism is burkha-like in its refusal to admit that there are some cultures that are more compatible with modern society.
I didn't really address the full ugliness of Michelle Goldberg's assertion. Paraphrasing, she said that Jordan Peterson was excusing sexual harassment by pointing to female sexual display.
Now anyone that is listening with the intent to understand knows Peterson neither said nor meant that.
But I'm not so sure it's clear that Goldberg deliberately misrepresented Peterson. I suspect that if we could look inside Goldberg's mind, we would find something like the following beliefs:
1) Men are sexual harassers.
2) Any male behavior that has anything to do with sex, and that is observed by any woman that dislikes it is sexual harassment.
3) Specifically, a man saying to a woman, "You look nice," is sexual harassment, if either the woman spoken to feels this, or if another woman observed this, and feels offended.
If this is Goldberg's starting point, and I think it is, then basically in her mind any male that speaks that is not affirming Goldberg's viewpoint, is a sexual harasser, see belief 1 above, and if a male argues against her viewpoint then that man is an apologist for rape. Now she won't state her beliefs so baldly, but she's constantly looking for rationalizations to make these kinds of assertions out loud.
"But the reductive view always means gross simplification."
Have you ever done any science ? What do you do when you want to learn how something works?
Some people, like me for example, think you take the simplest part and figure that out. Then you go one step up to a more complex version and see if that works.
That's what he is doing and it seems to me that it works.
Perhaps you know another way.
I don't see where Henry gets "excusable." Is it excusable to rob somebody because they walked around flashing cash? No, but that doesn't mean that flashing cash is a good idea. I thought that was established in the song Whiskey in the Jar.
I think Henry inserted 'excusable' as a straw man.
His argument as stated is entirely compelling, which is why he is so widely followed."
Well yes, Jupe, that is entirely true. But compelling and complete are not the same thing.
Fundamentalism is often compelling.
OK two things here - first of all - THE LEFT CANT MEME! My God that was the weakest "Curbing" ever - Peterson clearly didn't say women shouldn't wear makeup. The Left simply cannot meme.
Secondly - please forgive the forthcoming humblebrag I tell only to make a point.
What's the men's equivalent to makeup? Is it make up? Tight shirts?
I have big arms and am a tall guy - if I wear a tight shirt or a short-sleeved polo on summer Fridays the female employees sometimes feel my biceps. They don't even ask or think anything of it. They do it like I'm their property or like it's not a big deal. I've had a woman at work run her hand through my hair one day after a haircut. If I went up to one of the girls and felt her arms like they do to me - not even an erogenous zone - I'm sure they would react badly.
Jordan Peterson pointing out these little double standards and hypocrisies in an intellectual and calm and easy-to-understand way is literally going to destroy feminism and Leftism in general. *That's* what's really scaring the Left. The Left can feel the foundation of oppression crumbling underneath them and it fills them with existential dread - they don't know how to stop it, so they 1) try calling him a racist Altrighter. That didn't work, so 2) now they're trying to misrepresent/lie about what he said and are making terrible memes that they think they can spread on Twitter. The next step is to refer to him only as, "Discredited Psychologist Jordan Peterson" like they did to James O'Keefe.
It's up to us whether their plan works.
Cue Scott Adams' 2 movies persuasion theory.
How make-up looks on women depends on natural attributes. Some women have blond or light eyelashes, thin lips. Acne or sunspots. Make-up in those cases is not going for an "exaggerated" look.
I agree, people over-react to Peterson. I am perplexed. Mystified by the reaction because he's not suggested that women get into burkas.
He's pontificating a little about make-up.
That's not a big deal.
The best thing out of Canada was Red Green.
But the time was not ripe for his apotheosis, bearing the holy duct tape.
Jordan Peterson is not half as funny, but he does work the deadpan straightman thing really well, and gets tons of other people to say silly things.
MK --I find Peterson an interesting and quirky thinke--he is allowed in my world; his 12 Rules points out that life is tragic and that making small changes in how we approach life can lead to self improvement-- I agree with that, although his archetypal approach has limitation in my mind.I read the ancients like Socrates and hold with Seneca who states that learning how to live takes a whole life and we should not waste it but become engaged with it. And I wanted to engage with Peterson who suggests that the act of wearing lipstick at the work site is a provocative gesture by women designed to insight sexual attraction. His statement on engorged lips as a sign of sexual arousal mimicked by the wearing of lipstick is true, but as he questions should it then be banned from the workplace to help feminist from being harassed ? Playing with that thought, I wanted to see where it might lead--the covering of anything too suggestive like blonde hair or even to the fundamentalist Muslim conclusion that women must cover their hair-- and keep separate from men. Is this what Paterson is suggesting as a solution, no, but he wants us to struggle with what he claims are vague rules of behavior at the work place. But I have worked in a department for seventeen years with female chairs and colleagues who wear lipstick and attractive clothes and the men in the department seemed to have restrained themselves from sexual aggression why is that? Perhaps because of common sense-- treat others like you want to be treated, along with the rules ?Is it not possible that men can modify their sexual aggression in the face of a female colleague; I would suggest it is---all things in moderation including dress and makeup, along with respecting boundaries.
“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.”
Have things become so ridiculous that now women are not expected to arouse any feelings in the men they work with? So what if the male coworker becomes aroused? Are men animals who cannot control their impulses? If women are hypocritical for wearing makeup at work and that makes them attractive and some creep cannot control ihimself, that is the fault of the woman? There are women who wear very little or no makeup, very modest clothing and still get sexually assaulted. Peterson is sounding like a repressive jerk for even suggesting that women who wear makeup and get hit on, then complain about it are being hypocritical. Women don’t dress and wear makeup merely to attract men. Many women are lovers of beauty, they adorn themselves and their surroundings with the love of beauty in mind.
Peterson and other men should realize that repressing women from seeking beauty, they won’t be stopping some men who cannot control themselves. The onus is on the woman to “control” the man. First it’s wear no makeup, next it’s dress uniformly plainly, then it’s skirt length, hair length, etc etc etc. how do you think the head to toe covering like the burka came about? Women in these repressive societies are still harassed on the streets if they walk alone without a male escort, even covered head to toe. Why? Because the men in those societies are given liscense to act on their impulses and the men in those societies have devalued women to the point of them being their possessions. Men should take more responsibility for their behavior and realize in which direction they’re moving. Next up in male fashion, turbans?
Some people, like me for example, think you take the simplest part and figure that out. Then you go one step up to a more complex version and see if that works.
That's what he is doing and it seems to me that it works.
I would say that he's doing the opposite. He's decided how the simplest thing works and is force fitting everything to work like the simplest thing.
Observe the reductions in his argument about makeup. He simplifies the behavior of individuals by aggregating all individuals into two categories -- male and female. He assigns behaviors to these two groups based on the non-falsifiable theories of evolutionary psychology and psychological archetypes. He reduces makeup to lipstick, lipstick to red, and red to sexual display. He conflates sexual display with sexual invitation (there's an excuse hiding in that conflation, tim).
The best comment in the thread is EDH's hire a goth!
Because that joke re-introduces complexity. Human individuals are not just a psychology reduction to a sexualized archetype. Culture makes a mess of all that simplicity.
David Begley said...
"LWL is Laslo for any who haven't figured it out yet."
This is disappointing.
If a woman is confident with herself, with a wry sense of humor, it is therefore obvious that she really can't be a woman, it has to be that it is actually a man doing the writing, instead.
I mean, it's not like Hedy Lamarr was anything more than an actress, reading lines that male writers wrote for her.
-LWL
wwww,
Over-reaction is the point. Or rather, makes Petersons point for him.
The point was not really about makeup, and it wasn't a pontification but an example. The argument was about social rules, and, indeed, over-reaction.
From "Wild Night", the timeless wisdom of Van Morrison:
"All the girls go by dressed up for each other;
and the boys do the boogie boogie on the corner of the street;
and the people passing by just stare with wild wonder ..."
That sort of captures it.
Men and women behave differently for different reasons, and its amazing to watch that passing parade.
If Goldberg doesn't like Peterson; wait until she gets a whiff of Sharia.
I would say that he's doing the opposite. He's decided how the simplest thing works and is force fitting everything to work like the simplest thing.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
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.
"he questions should it then be banned from the workplace to help feminist from being harassed ? "
I think he is posing questions at the extremes to get into the issue of rules.
You seem to agree about moderation.
I spent 40 years working in operating rooms where more than half of the other workers were female.
Everyone was wearing uniforms; not only uniforms but masks.
There is an amazing amount of communication that goes on in that setting. People communicate with their eyes when that is the only part exposed.
The sexual harassment thing was much more of an issue in certain industries, like Hollywood and TV. Those industries are heavily involved in sexual imagery.
Departments of Mathematics or Operating Rooms are quite different settings.
"Peterson almost sounds like he’s becoming a messiah to some people."
You mean like Obama?
Sunscreen in make-up and moisturizer is a good thing.
What you are always going to get, Roesch, are edge cases.
You have not seen any extreme behavior, and for that matter neither have I, in over thirty years dealing with American workplaces.
But you get extreme cases. You have men who step out of line of vaguely defined rules, and you get women filing complaints about behavior that falls within these vague rules.
But policy, rules, procedures and, for that matter, entire fields of study are being twisted, on that basis, making edge cases the assumed norm.
Inga expresses surprise that women use their sexuality to manipulate men in the workplace. Inga also misrepresents what Peterson is saying in order to attack him.
Women's use of make up is severely restricted in the US Military and somehow it isn't any sort of oppression. The rules in the Military for lip gloss and face make up is very much in line with Jordan Peterson. Extremely conservative. No bright red lipstick is allowed. No "war paint" style sexy stuff.
Inga, men have always known how this bullshit modern civilian and feminist supremacist "sexual harassment" game is played in the workplace, where men's sexuality is required to be restrained, which is quite a normal expectation, but requiring women's sexuality to be restrained in any fashion, including critiques of make up, is repression, or misogyny. 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.
Requiring no make up at work isn't the same as dressing people in a burka. No one is forced to work at any business.
"Peterson almost sounds like he’s becoming a messiah to some people."
“You mean like Obama?”
No, I mean like Trump, like Scott Adams and like the next person who comes along that says to large groups of people, what they want to hear. Peterson isn’t saying anything new, Trump didn’t say anything new, it’s confirmation bias that draws people to them. It’s human nature to do so, but when these public figures get a cult following, it becomes creepy.
Nothing like Obama. With the Media creating halos around his head and wankers getting little kids to sing songs of praise for their dear leader.
The fat lady has sung.
Inga now equates men who agree with Petersons critiques of society with creeps. Typical female shaming control language.
It’s human nature to do so, but when these public figures get a cult following, it becomes creepy.
Yes, the Obama cult was creepy. So was "feminists" saying they would give Bill Clinton blowjobs for "keeping abortion legal," as if it was a danger of being banned.
Peterson is a threat to the left because leftists like my daughter love his message.
Conservatives have been saying much of what he teaches for years. It's not new although he has been very good at expressing it.
“Inga now equates men who agree with Petersons critiques of society with creeps. Typical female shaming control language.”
If the shoe fits wear it. If men think that Peterson is on the right trajectory regarding women and sexual assault, then women need to be aware that there is a guy with a large following out there that is preaching things that are possibly going to be harmful to their well being. It is creepy to put the onus on women to control men’s sexual impulses. It’s creepy to think that men aren’t in control of themselves when they see women with red lipstick on.
I think the idea is that like a man making sexuality an issue in the workplace (like, he asks a woman 'do i look hot today?" every day) is harassing women and creating a bad work environment, makeup in the workplace has the effect of bringing notes of sexuality to the workplace on some level as well. So not that "women are to blame for getting harassed if they wear makeup" but "women in makeup too are harassing on some level if we draw the line at absolutely zero sexuality in the workplace"
Typically, Inga misses the whole argument.
It is creepy to put the onus on women to control men’s sexual impulses.
Nobody said that and you, no surprise, miss the point.
Is there any sort of female fashion that invites aggressive male attention ?
No Michael, if you were more insightful, you’d see that IS the point. And your leftie daughter liking his book might just be her trying to please you because she knows you’d like it, who knows, maybe I’m wrong, but that is what I suspect.
Is there any sort of female fashion that invites aggressive male attention ?”
Red lipstick invites agressive male attention?
Just gotta shake my head in wonderment at this nonsense.
Yes, Michaels daughter cannot possibly have a mind of her own; she's just trying to please daddy.
Inga, quit trying to make men responsible for your negative emotional reaction. Quit trying to Womansplain Dr. Peterson.
“So not that "women are to blame for getting harassed if they wear makeup" but "women in makeup too are harassing on some level if we draw the line at absolutely zero sexuality in the workplace"”.
Men in repressive Mid Eastern societies blame women for harassing them if they catch a glimpse of her leg above the ankle and below the knee. How is it even possible to have no sexuality in the workplace or anywhere for that matter? 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? What is the trigger that makes men lose control of themselves? Stop making women responsible for your own behavior.
Yes, Inga we get it. Women's sexuality in the workplace is not to be policed in the same manner as men's sexuality. Because Oppression.
Inga can't argue with what Peterson says. She can only argue with the misrepresentations her limited understanding can conjure up. Michelle Goldberg is theoretically at least average intelligence and she can't argue with Peterson either. So she lies. It is what leftists do.
Part of being stupid is not being able to see the most likely outcomes of your actions or take responsibility for them.
But we need Inga to keep it up. Goldberg needs to keep lying. Everything she is doubling down on now makes their political tribe look stupid.
Endless investigations, open borders, defending MS-13, siding with Iran and Hamas. Super popular. Now add stupid attacks on common sense.
Please keep it up.
Inga: Peterson has been saying this stuff for 30-years. He taped most of his major class lectures. He's an overnight sensation because moderns are depressed having moved away from instinctual humanity that is hard-wired. I learnt this in college by reading Jung and Nietzsche. I especially like his lectures on the evolutionary psychology of the Pinocchio cartoon archetypes.
It's important to remember he's a liberal who has found a way to connect in a positive way with conservatives and the alt right. The PC resistance to him is the beginning of the end of this ridiculous orthodoxy that has destroyed the University humanities and is steamrolling into normal everyday life.
The point of Peterson is indeed very much like that of Dershowitz.
They are liberals of the 1980s sort, they are, or were, solidly liberal establishment. Their ideas are standard issue of those days, or close enough.
Vox Day for instance hates Peterson exactly for this reason, that he's a pied piper essentially of the 1980s-90s Harvard consensus. And so he is, probably. Back then he would have been a good enough teacher of the usual stuff, a face in the crowd.
The value of the fellow is that he bucked the modern academic consensus and survived.
Since the modern (post-2000) academic-social consensus is frankly, openly insane, the interesting bit is not his own ideas or agenda, but the reaction to him, which is insane, irrational, frothing really. That has a certain carnival attraction, a visit-to-Bedlam low entertainment tinge. Come see the antics of the mad people. With the added frisson that many of the mad are famous and celebrated and, perhaps, are your university Deans and senior professors.
SGT Ted said...
"Yes, Michaels daughter cannot possibly have a mind of her own; she's just trying to please daddy."
Well, of course. Inga knows that all women must think like Inga does or else they are not real women. And if young men are responding positively to Peterson and thanking him for inspiring them to get their acts together and assume responsibility for their lives - well, clearly there is something suspicious about that. Must be a cult or something.
Inga said...
Men in repressive Mid Eastern societies blame women for harassing them if they catch a glimpse of her leg above the ankle and below the knee.
Nobody here argues in support of Muslim culture.
Except you. And democrats in general.
It is a good argument to bring up. It just doesn't support your point of view in this argument.
But you don't know why.
Because you are an idiot.
“Yes, Inga we get it. Women's sexuality in the workplace is not to be policed in the same manner as men's sexuality. Because Oppression.”
No, you don’t appear to get it at all. Women in modern societies are not oppressed and are not about to become so. Women who get raped in repressive MidEastern societies get blamed and stoned or burned alive for being attractive under their burkas or headscarves and loose clothing. Those jezebels.
Why are men in modern societies trying to blame women for their own lack of self control? How pathetically weak they make themselves appear
"Inga can't argue with what Peterson says. She can only argue with the misrepresentations her limited understanding can conjure up. Michelle Goldberg is theoretically at least average intelligence and she can't argue with Peterson either. So she lies. It is what leftists do."
Yes and yes. They're using the same playbook they did on O'Keefe. "Selectively Edited" "Felon" "Disgraced provocateur".
Watch how the language they use to describe Peterson changes. They cannot have anyone point out the massive logic holes in the premises of their entire worldview. It's truly an Emperor Has No Clothes moment.
Also - Inga - you honestly think Obama didn't tell people that liked him "what they wanted to hear"? Jeez be honest with yourself at least - it'll expand your mind quite a bit.
Survival is important. Lots of academics have been tossed or stymied or simply never became one due to PC madness.
This stuff is most usually private and unpublicized, but occasionally it breaks out, like the Christakis case at Harvard.
Inga argues against a specter produced by her own mind. And it is no contest.
Against Peterson, however, she hasn't scored a point.
"Women who get raped in repressive MidEastern societies get blamed and stoned or burned alive for being attractive under their burkas or headscarves and loose clothing. Those jezebels."
And you support bringing more people who hold those cultural beliefs over here. Because think of the children.
I marvel at your ability to hold two completely contradictory positions in your head at the same time without ever noticing the contradiction.
Peterson's way off the mark about make-up at work. It's pencil skirts that do the damage.
Is there any makeup that is designed to make a woman less sexually attractive? Why not? Wouldn't that be huge seller among ambitious career-oriented women who don't have time or the desire for all that sexual distraction?
If you saw how I dress at work, you would assume I hate sex, which is far from true, but I will not spend any time trying to look attractive to women at work. Ain't nobody got time for that. Nobody serious anyway.
"Inga can't argue with what Peterson says. She can only argue with the misrepresentations her limited understanding can conjure up. Michelle Goldberg is theoretically at least average intelligence and she can't argue with Peterson either. So she lies. It is what leftists do."
What I see here is the same thing that is seen with Trump’s nutty hateful utterings. His followers jump in to “translate” his true meaning. When taken at face value, his meaning is exceedingly clear. If his message wasn’t such a vile one, you folks wouldn’t be so quick to clean it up and make it sound less so. I guess I can’t blame you for trying to put a prettier face on it.
Inga said...
“Yes, Inga we get it. Women's sexuality in the workplace is not to be policed in the same manner as men's sexuality. Because Oppression.”
No, you don’t appear to get it at all. Women in modern societies are not repressed and are not about to become so. Women who get raped in repressive MidEastern societies get blamed and stoned or burned alive for being attractive under their burkas or headscarves and loose clothing. Those jezebels.
Inga brings up barbarians she wants to import into our culture...
Why are men in modern societies trying to blame women for their own lack of self control? How pathetically weak they make themselves appear.
Only to try to smear all men as a group in US society. But if there is any specificity it is against male political opponents who she tars with the bad actions of all.
Men in Inga's political tribe are acting like animals. A bill Clinton supporter and voter whines that men act badly. An idiot that reflexively defends Muslims and wants to import more of them into our country whines that men act like animals.
It is almost as if she wants men to act badly and she only gets mad at the people who are trying to make society safer and better for women.
It would make someone of average intelligence think about what they are doing and who they follow.
Teller said...
Peterson's way off the mark about make-up at work. It's pencil skirts that do the damage.
Yoga Pants.
And, as anybody who has actually bothered to read Peterson's book or watch his videos knows, his essential message to young men (to everyone, really) is: better yourself so others will find you acceptable. You have no control over the world. You have control over your own life and attitude.
What a mean white man!
Inga said...
What I see here is the same thing that is seen with Trump’s nutty hateful utterings. His followers jump in to “translate” his true meaning. When taken at face value, his meaning is exceedingly clear. If his message wasn’t such a vile one, you folks wouldn’t be so quick to clean it up and make it sound less so. I guess I can’t blame you for trying to put a prettier face on it.
Limited understanding.
Grossly limited.
"Better yourself so others will find you acceptable. You have no control over the world. You have control over your own life and attitude."
Inga thinks that is nutty talk.
Inga on life:
her trying to please you because she knows you’d like it, who knows, maybe I’m wrong, but that is what I suspect.
You really are dense. Do you think so little of women (she is 37) that "pleasing daddy" is what they do ?
I did not know if she would even read it. I was surprised when she called me.
My oldest daughter, also leans left, is the FBI agent who told me she would NOT vote for Hillary in September 2016.
Now we have evidence she is not alone.
“There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James] Comey’s behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like [John] Brennan–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs,” former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday. “They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify.”
I have said before that I think Comey's July 2016 press conference was to head off an agent revolt if he did nothing.
This is all coming down and coming down hard. I hope you can handle it when your life heroes end up in prison.
Why is it that men are expected to leave their sexuality at home, but women are to be allowed theirs in the office? Both should be held to the same standard.
This is the question that feminists refuse to address and instead try to derail it into attacking men's sexuality as brutish. This is because the fake feminist claim that they want equality in the workplace is revealed to be a supremacist expectation that female sensibilities and emotions are to reign supreme in the office. Inga's deflections are a classic case of this.
More bad news he left is ignoring.
Now we have five straight data points of the GOP in the lead or a virtual tie, and 48 hours-plus of this data being available to all media covering the 2018 midterms.
Despite this portending a change in theme for virtually all midterm coverage across the industry, as of this writing, only The Hill among all mainstream/left-of-center publications has headlined the collapse of the Democratic Party's support.
Keep running on gun control and Trump hatred please, Inga.
“Why is it that men are expected to leave their sexuality at home, but women are to be allowed theirs in the office? Both should be held to the same standard.”
Oh for pity sake. Who is asking you to leave your sexuality at home? Is it an expression of male sexuality to have no control over it?
Keep running on gun control and Trump hatred please, Inga.
I know that I am confusing threads, but it occurs to me that there is no Inga. She is a metaphor for the mindless, emotional Left.
Michael K said...
Keep running on gun control and Trump hatred please, Inga.
Don't forget supporting MS13, Open Borders, supporting Hamas, and calling all men animals.
Trump is going to shut down the government in September if congress doesn't fund the Wall.
Democrats are heading for a wipeout blinded by hate.
Inga said...
Oh for pity sake. Who is asking you to leave your sexuality at home? Is it an expression of male sexuality to have no control over it?
The only person Inga is capable of arguing with is herself.
Francisco D said...
She is a metaphor for the mindless, emotional Left.
Indeed.
Mixed sex workplaces are a modern phenomenon. Before modernity, workplaces were segregated by sex because society knew that mixed sex workplaces would result in people fucking. This was a big deal in the days before birth control. Now that we have the pill and abortion, mixed sex workplaces are fine. Let the fucking begin! No pregnancy to worry about. The fucking is only limited by the fact that if the female ever feels sad about the fucking, she can cost her fucker his career and get her employer in a lot of legal trouble.
Inga: “His followers jump in to translate his true meaning.”
Inga fails to understand that it is she and her fellow travelers who “translate” Peterson. His “true meaning” is normally quite clear. The problems for progressives pinheads like Kathy Newman, Goldberg and Inga occur when they misstate his message in order to shove him into one of the limited number of evil stereotypes that can be contained within their tiny brains.
Peterson isn’t always right, but he is a thinker. Progressive parrots and emoters are simply not equipped to deal with him so they calumniate him.
It’s what they do. It’s who they are.
There's nothing wrong with a no make up rule in any workplace, if there's to be zero sexuality allowed in the workplace due to harassment laws. Which is Petersons point. It isn't any sort of oppression if an employer makes this a requirement for employment. It'd be akin to saying the requiring men to not wear muscle shirts, or whatever makes them feel good to wear, is oppression.
Now that we have the pill and abortion, mixed sex workplaces are fine. Let the fucking begin! No pregnancy to worry about.
The First Gulf War was the first time female Navy crew members were allowed aboard ship, especially in a war zone.
25% of female Navy crew members got pregnant while deployed.
I remember watching the Munk debate and the Vice interview. I remember noting that Goldberg misrepresented what Peterson said in the Vice interview. He clearly wasn't advocating for preventing women from wearing makeup at work. He was merely playing a hypothetical game to try and tease out what the rules ought to be. Which fits into his point that Women and Men working together side by side day in and day out is a relatively new phenomenon in our society and our society's antecedents. The rules of interaction between men and women were played out and iterated upon generation after generation for centuries. And in that time it was mainly a world that was largely bifurcated between men and women and the overlap was in clear areas, mainly marriage and family. His larger point, which I agree with is that we don't really know the rules now or what they should be because we have only had men and women so close together in the workplace for a relatively short time. This isn't something that can merely just be thought about and someone or some group declares what the rules are. It is something that will take a long time, likely generations of trial and error.
There's nothing wrong with a no make up rule in any workplace, if there's to be zero sexuality allowed in the workplace due to harassment laws. Which is Petersons point.
LOL, thanks for the honesty.
Peterson isn't making a point, he's just steering the pot, turning the tables making a what if comment. He's using an absurdity to highlight the absurdity of the PC straightjacketed overerection to #metoo.
"The fucking is only limited by the fact that if the female ever feels sad about the fucking, she can cost her fucker his career and get her employer in a lot of legal trouble."
This is the point Inga has to ignore to make her argument valid.
Who is advocating for zero sexuality in the workplace? Men or women?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा