Any of you familiar with Jordan Peterson? If so what kind of opinions do you have of his lectures regarding men and women and what their differences are and what each brings to the table in a relationship when they are younger and then get older. I think he is spot on. It goes without saying most women will disagree but the statistics do not lie and are irrefutable. Woman age like milk and men age like fine wine is what I would use to describe is philosophy. Women are born with inherent value and men are not. Women control sex and birthing, men control relationships.
Jordan Peterson
Posts
Total:
170
-->
@sadolite
It’s funny you bring up milk because women/girls were often traded for cattle throughout history.
Their value being sex/birthing. Who gave them that value? This philosophy should be dead in modern society.
I feel sorry for your daughter(s) if you have any.
-->
@sadolite
I've seen some of his videos,
I don't think he goes for a misogynic angle.
Some video I forget, has him talking about men 'or women, in choosing career over family. How it can be a mistake, That the value possible in family, support, loved ones, especially as one get's older, makes itself apparent. Says something about the loneliness that can come about 'without family.
'Course I doubt he's saying a person 'can't live without family, or that they can't find friends and other support in life, but I think he has a point on the value of family.
Was one about him disagreeing with hiring 50% men 50% women at a company, which really, as making the differences between men and women 'more apparent, rather than less.
Though, I'd say it's more an argument that tokenism, instead of merit, is bad.
-->
@Reece101
You need to watch his videos, I can tell you haven't by your response. The value of a woman isn't based on "who gave it to them"
-->
@Lemming
After watching many of his videos one thing is very apparent. He will absolutely not let political ideology pollute and poison any discussion. That alone is why I started reading and watching his lectures. He uses irrefutable data and evidence to support his words. He doesn't insult people or assassinate peoples character like so many people do in discussion to try and marginalize them as people. He will force opponents to defend their positions and if they cant they will literally hang themselves metaphorically speaking. He has enlightened me a great deal about a lot of things from perspectives I never thought to look from. His communication style is what changes peoples minds about social issues they may have been entrenched in their whole lives. My wife makes more money than I a lot more and after reading and hearing his lectures a lot of light has been shed on why she acts the way she does and the choices she makes that always boggled my mind. Not anymore.
-->
@sadolite
You need to watch his videos, I can tell you haven't by your response. The value of a woman isn't based on "who gave it to them"
We instil value into our children. The equivalent “inherent value” of women when it comes to sex and birth is men spreading their seeds as far and wide as possible.
-->
@Reece101
Again your responses are evidence of a Myopic view taught to you since birth. If you are at all interested in any other perspective then watch his videos. You will be surprised. I had the same myopic views like yours before I watched his videos. You are essentially dismissing an argument before having even heard it.
-->
@sadolite
I'd agree he makes effort to not let political ideology pollute and poison discussions.
Though he 'does have political leanings and views that effect his topics and bents of conversation.
What the credit crisis tells us about trust. Tuesday September 30 2008
He talks about the George W. Bush War on Iraq some, financial crisis some, their results in the loss of trust by Americans in their government.
Personally, that lack of trust 'still seems a problem today, but maybe I underestimate past history I haven't been alive for.
Maybe such distrust is less new than I think.
Also just lots of other changes in society, internet for example, that have effected news sources.
Another video he brings up a question about how the left treats constituents of Trump.
Where I'd say he has a point,
Not that I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't say when Trump is lying, or doing something immoral, unconstitutional.
But attacks on Trump supporters, the 'way the left went about attacking Trump and his base, was counterproductive to my way of thinking.
They Left ought not need walk on eggshells,
But felt like a huge divide has been going about for a while now.
. . .
But I'm getting off topic of Jordan Peterson and women.
Of which not much else I recall.
I'd have to look at more of his videos, to have more of an opinion of what he says about women.
-->
@Lemming
The biggest thing I learned when looking at history is to look at it from the despot or tyrants point of view and not the victims. The victim will justify the very same behavior as the tyrant in the name of redistribution and justice. The victim ultimately becomes the dictator tyrant.
-->
@sadolite
I'll admit, it 'is pretty common in history, once a victim group has rebelled, seized power, they've often gone tyrannical themselves to 'keep said power.
-->
@sadolite
I’m not dismissing his argument, I’m dismissing your understanding of it. You sound more like Stefan Molynuex.
Your wife was the real breadwinner in your house, if I remember correctly. I'd been thinking you sounded a little extra angry these days, actually.
-->
@sadolite
Any of you familiar with Jordan Peterson?
In fact, I credit coal with introducing me to Peterson as a subject of popular controversy.
If so what kind of opinions do you have of his lectures regarding men and women and what their differences are and what each brings to the table in a relationship when they are younger and then get older.
I think Peterson and I agree that the family and quality child-rearing ought to be raised as higher individual, community, and national priorities than economic growth or military dominance. We disagree that returning to a more traditional role for women as the gender responsible for baby-making is the best venue for promoting that priority.
Peterson is focusing on individual responsibility and individual mental health but I think women are instinctively, collectively recognizing the immediate and global need to reduce human overpopulation. At least for the next few generations, we are looking for significantly less than replacement population and that means that no women should feel an obligation to motherhood. Jordan says he's never met a mentally healthy woman who didn't eventually want to give birth but I call that a sexist delusion.
I think we need to expand community participation in child-raising following the Scandinavian models- lots of family paid leave, cheap and plentiful childcare, free healthcare for children, big increases in public education- all to the benefit ofincreasingly fewer children. I don't think Peterson is wrong to say that there is a certain amount of biological imperative that must be respected but the old barefoot and pregnant model fails to meet the present revolutionary biological imperative to decrease population size. Peterson and I would probably agree that I'm looking at a bigger picture than he- who is more concerned with individual than social welfare.
I think he is spot on. It goes without saying most women will disagree but the statistics do not lie and are irrefutable.
I think you'd have to submit some of those irrefutable statistics in this forum before convincing anybody.
Woman age like milk and men age like fine wine is what I would use to describe is philosophy.
I think Peterson would be offended by your characterization of his philosophy. Can you give us a Peterson quote that matches this sort of nasty sexism? I agree with Peterson when he calls Trumpism a Fascist reaction to Feminism (although I'd add that Trumpism is also a Fascist reaction to the civil rights movement and the decline of white power generally.) I think Peterson is thinking of misinterpretations like this when he bemoans the promotion of his philosophy as right-wing thinking. Peterson identifies as a classically Liberal Conservative in the British tradition, which tradition abhors the demotion of whole groups of humans to the status of rotten (like old milk).
Women are born with inherent value and men are not.
I read Peterson talking a lot about the inherent value of every human but I've never seen him separate that value according to gender. This will definitely need a direct quote to justify.
Women control sex and birthing, men control relationships.
Again, I'd like to see a direct quote.
-->
@sadolite
What stats are you referencing exactly? You haven't posted any
-->
@oromagi
Personally, I can't see the world population as a sign to 'stop having children, but that countries should have 'more children than their competitors, while making sure that they don't overpopulate themselves. That it's better to export your people and culture, than import other's people and culture. That conflict is inevitable.
But likely I'm too pessimistic and tribalistic.
Not 'that much of a delusion, to have only met mentally healthy women who wanted to give birth. It's the culture many live in having kids, and when you 'have the parts for something, I think people usually want to 'use said part. Fulfillment of 'apparent purpose.
Though I'm not saying it's the 'purpose of women to have kids, individuals are free to choose whatever purpose they like in life. And likely if Peterson asked 'every women he ever met, or kept tabs on all of them, likely he'd realize he met more women who didn't want kids. Though I'd still 'think the majority would want kids.
Even men, I assume the majority 'want a family, when I was on a question kick with new people I met, asking them what they wanted from life, family was a 'very common answer.
-->
@sadolite
I think he has some good ideas, but a major flaw in his personality is he is a big fat weasil.
-->
@oromagi
but I think women are instinctively, collectively recognizing the immediate and global need to reduce human overpopulation.
I mean this is fun and interesting but hardly. It's surely just greater opportunity, greater freedom, less prejudice. Instagram, facebook, tinder etc. have also all changed the shape of human relations for sure.
What about global warming denial then? Where's the instinctive, collective recognition of immediate and global need there?
-->
@janesix
I agree with this. And he takes such a silly sort of notoriety, too.
-->
@Lemming
Personally, I can't see the world population as a sign to 'stop having children, but that countries should have 'more children than their competitors, while making sure that they don't overpopulate themselves. That it's better to export your people and culture, than import other's people and culture. That conflict is inevitable.But likely I'm too pessimistic and tribalistic.
This is an old and outdated model. Rome spent centuries exporting its people and culture around the Mediterranean only to discover Roman improvements turned into larger barbarian populations that eventually consumed their empire. Likewise, the Muslim caliphates exported people and culture for a few centuries before the improved populations imploded their borders. Likewise, the Hans and Mongols. Europe exported people and culture around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries and now represents a significantly smaller portion of the world population than when they began. In the 20th Century, the US exported vaccines, and Haber-Bosch and electricity, internal combustion engines, etc only to end the Century with half a percentage point less share in the population. Yes conflicts are inevitable as empires shrink but conflicts don't do much to decrease overpopulation. Afghanistan may have known little more than constant war and hunger and unemployment since 1980 but the Afghani population has tripled over those 40 years. The one reliable aspect of any Syrian refugee camp is the incredible numbers of newborn babies. When economies destabilize, the last hope for a comfortable retirement is the overproduction of children. We need a new model- of, by, and for mothers across the world that preserves a stable economy and ensures some degree of comfort and long life for each generation in spite of smaller new generations to uphold that economy.
'have the parts for something, I think people usually want to 'use said part
I'm a gay man who enjoys the company of a large number of highly successful lesbian executives, only one of whom ever had any interest in motherhood. I realize that's hardly a representative population but I know many straight women, too even in my immediate family who had zero interest in motherhood at any point in their lives. I don't think that's just an unrepresentative selection, I think women are transforming their role in human society on an evolutionary scale. As Jimmy Carter often says, the greatest source of misery in the world is that so many women are not free. Give women autonomy and women will naturally, instinctively solve a host of the challenges the world now faces.
I am also a gay man who enjoys the company of a large number of highly successful lesbian executives.
-->
@badger
What about global warming denial then? Where's the instinctive, collective recognition of immediate and global need there?
Overpopulation is the major cause of global warming. What's more likely to reduce our overproduction of greenhouse gases globally then the rapid decline of demand? COVID-19 restrictions reduced daily carbon emission by about 17% in 2020. Likewise, prioritizing healthy children over economic growth (as every biological imperative and moral philosophy demands but as has never been attempted in the history of mankind) would heavily reduce the carbon impacts of our compulsive consumerism.
-->
@oromagi
The lesson from Jimmy Carter is cool and deep no doubt. But a free woman will solve problems of an economics, women are not some untapped well of vital instinct or something lol.
-->
@oromagi
Sadly I'm not familiar enough with Rome, to be sure of my points.
But argument I often hear, is that Rome became corrupt towards it's end, and weaker 'due to this.
That they spread their values far and wide, seems apparent in history.
And shared values more often give people something to come 'together over, than 'apart from. I'd argue.
Of the Muslim Caliphates, I know even less, so I've no reply there.
Han Chinese, being the world's largest ethnic group is the impression I have of them.
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been." Luo Guanzhong
Empires fall in time, I'd think.
But I must admit I'm pretty ignorant on political science and history.
If Europe 'hadn't exported themselves, how much smaller they 'would be.
Two entire 'continents smaller at 'least I'd say, North America and Australia.
. . .
I'll admit the point on technology exporting being flawed, though from a humanistic viewpoint it's good.
But technology is not an exportation of values.
That you and another country both have guns, doesn't unite so well as shared political systems, culture.
. . .
It's not necessarily that I think conflict will decrease population,
But that I think population is a form of power in a nation.
It's a workforce, it's a military, it's a vote on a global scale.
Though a large population can be horrible when you don't have an outlet or means to support it.
In his early years as China's leader, Mao Zedong was actually in favor of people having lots of babies, to provide soldiers for its army and workers for its factory.
Though I admit I haven't a clue how 'much China encouraged such a policy early on,
Looking at the one child policy, one might assume that the many children for war population backfired,
But 'again, I don't know if they actually 'implemented that thought much, before they ran into problems with too many mouths to feed.
. . .
Certainly there's numerous people in the world, and my own anecdotal questioning is a bit limited.
Certainly the world 'is changing, natural selection has changed 'what it's selecting, and humans are living vastly different that they did in the past, as populations, technologies, and societies boom and advance rapidly.
Certainly I'd agree on women having autonomy.
-->
@badger
"untapped well of vital instinct" is about as succinctly put an expression of the idea as I might hope
-->
@oromagi
You're a man of great art and faith.
-->
@badger
He reminds me of what I've read of Giurjieff. Interesting mind, yet still a huckster.
-->
@badger
Cats make a great substitute for children. Just ask any childless woman over 40.
-->
@badger
Also, women naturally are attracted to cats because they cannot control them.
Once a woman has control, they naturally get bored and move on to the next alpha pet.
-->
@badger
Men are naturally attracted to dogs because dogs are naturally submissive and grateful.
-->
@Greyparrot
It's about time you started acting your age, Mr. Parrot.