It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
Also, the only angry person with an agenda that determines what I believe is me! I don’t let pseudo-philosophers or journalists or anyone else decide what I believe. If I don’t like something, or something rubs me the wrong way, the whole world hears about it, as I’m sure my fellow off-topic posters can attest to.
And yet you continue to deliberately misunderstand terms like “enforced monogamy” based on what you read in some article rather than what it actually means. Like this here:
“Peterson-bashing”? Count me in. Enforced monogamy is creepy as hell. This alpha-male beta-male shit is another thing that the right is pushing all the time. Most so-called “alpha males” are assholes that no one likes and the women they often get are not exactly likable either. Believe it or not, not all women are running after the big tough masculine asshole guys these days. Most respectable people want relationships with people that they enjoy and are respectful and respectable. Healthy relationships are built on trust and mutual respect. (Granted: I have ruined every personal relationship I’ve ever had, but I do think my analysis is correct in civilized society.) I also find it funny because these right-wingers are not exactly alpha males, are they? Peterson, as I said, is far from your typical alpha. And the idea that mass shooters wouldn’t be murderers if they just had someone to have sex with is insane. Also, why does the sex have to be monogamous? I’m all for committed relationships and the like, but the 1950s Leave It to Beaver households were never as happy as we were meant to believe. It also implies that women are primarily good for sex. Would marriage really help these creeps if the marriage ended up being terrible? Is it just about the sex? Shouldn’t we try to move beyond those attitudes? I don’t get Peterson’s desire here with the enforced monogamy.
You do understand that alpha/beta males are a real thing in real nature with real animals, right? That what Peterson’s talking about (and what I’m talking about) in regards to traditional alpha/beta behavior is biological science? As I explained, the concept of enforced monogamy isn’t some state-mandated sex redistribution, but the natural result of our own cultural advancement. Part of those cultural changes are a redefinition of what it means to be an “alpha” provider — not what you read in some pickup artist handbook.
It’s amazing to me how people can misread anything they like and ignore even well-established science and biology simply because they don’t like what they’re reading.