Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment
He never said that.
It’s the obvious implication. It’s easy to tell what he means.
(and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules)
He didn’t do this. He never at any point says harassment is justified, only that we shouldn’t be surprised that it happens given the lack of a clear rulebook.
I think we’re never going to see eye to eye on what his statements mean, but I don’t understand this idea that there isn’t a “clear rulebook.” Like I said, not sexually harassing someone is incredibly easy. Here’s how the rules work. If a person’s behavior makes someone uncomfortable, and they continue to do it even after being told that it makes a coworker uncomfortable, then it gets turned over to HR to deal with, and the HR department decides if any disciplinary action needs to take place. That’s a very simple rulebook that anyone at any level of the career ladder can easily understand. There’s no epidemic of people getting fired over completely asexual compliments, especially since businesses can easily get sued for wrongful termination.
I think you need to read some corporate policy manuals and some case law. “Here’s how the rules work…” followed by how you think the rules work doesn’t mean that’s how the rules work.
Also, just a bit more about the enforced monogamy thing (trigger warning for the squeamish: JP video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=185&v=gNwIYOBpvLg
This doesn’t address the notion that violence from men is the result of a lack of enforced monogamy, which was a part of his original statement. He also is incredibly prudish, which goes against my ethics, and anti-casual sex, which is something I condone. It also ignores the fact that most people that are married are miserable and a huge percentage of marriages end in divorce. It’s that 1950s notion that marriage and family are inherently meaningful and are the cornerstone to a happy life.
My point is that left-leaning media intentionally misrepresented what he meant by “enforced monogamy”, a term that Peterson didn’t invent and was considered completely benign until some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about got their hands on it. Enforced monogamy has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of women being forced to provide sex or men being entitled to sex. And I don’t think he’s terribly off target by suggesting that guys who aren’t successful with women and aren’t getting laid are more likely to exhibit aberrant behavior, parochial solutions notwithstanding.
Disagree with him all you want; it sounds like you have plenty of valid reasons to do so. But don’t be intellectually dishonest by putting words in his mouth.