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.
It’s the basic outline of how the rules work. I’ve never read any policy manuals because typically I quit jobs about a month after getting them, but each time the rules are spelled out for me and it’s more or less that. Keep sexual talk out of the workplace and if people continuously make advances on you or inappropriate comments then go to HR. I know that’s not a PHD-level analysis of the workplace, but that’s pretty much how it’s handled.
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.
I am not getting my criticisms of Peterson from left-leaning media and I’m not responsible for what they say about him, I’m getting my criticisms from my own philosophical objections to everything that he stands for. The world Jordan Peterson wants is one that I don’t want to live in. That’s why I’m opposed to him. As for the Handmaid’s Tale, I’d rather people watch that than binge-watch whatever crap is on reality TV these days. People need to expose themselves to good art.
Enforced monogamy has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of women being forced to provide sex or men being entitled to sex.
Not literally, but it has to do with the notion that men need sex from women and the consequences of not getting it in a totally traditional, monogamous, marital sense can be as severe as mass-shootings. That’s what I disagree with. And I think it’s a distraction from the actual reason that these shootings happen, which is insane people having easy access to guns. The idea that these people wouldn’t do what they did if they had a wife just doesn’t satisfy me as an intellectual argument. It also implies that there wouldn’t still be just as many of these sexless men. There are always going to be men, and women for that matter, that are just sexually undesirable for whatever reason and will never achieve a longterm monogamous relationship. Enforced monogamy won’t change that.
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.
I think the fact that they’re aberrant has more to do with their failure to get laid. As for aggression, it’s usually the “alpha” guys that are more aggressive and violent. My solution, which is to reject the cosmic significance that we put on sex and societally reject the notion that sex is linked to marriage and a lifetime of commitment and instead embrace sexual liberation, would solve a lot of the misery that these involuntarily celibate people have. That’s not Peterson’s solution, though. His idea of enforced monogamy actually makes it worse for the unsuccessful-with-sex men because no woman would want to be monogamous with them for the same reasons that they can’t get laid now.
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.
I’ve not put any words into his mouth. I don’t need to. I disagree so adamantly with him that there is no need for me to change what he actually said in order to make it seem more objectionable. And enforced monogamy and the makeup stuff isn’t the only crazy and antagonistic gender talk that he’s guilty of. I could make a huge list of everything he says about the genders that I find completely wrong and retrograde. And that’s only one segment of what I find objectionable about Peterson. His religious talk is totally backwards to me and completely intellectually dishonest and incompatible with reality. He also has totally misrepresented the Donald Trump issue in America. I loathe the way he sets himself up as a creepy father figure to his fans. My point is, I’m not one of these people that supposedly hates Jordan Peterson because the “media” has told me to. I hate Jordan Peterson because I exposed myself to what he has to say and it all runs counter to everything that I hold dear. I don’t understand why people are so quick to assume that the reason people don’t like Peterson is because they’ve been tricked into not liking him rather than because his philosophies are unlikable.