Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[Amarok]

I gotta say, I think the interviewer is doing a good job of both listening carefully and presenting a thoughtful counter-case. Personally, I feel the rest of this thread could be productively spent on this clip. There are certainly plenty of provocative ideas here to mull over. Here are a few that stood out for me:

Now one wonders if you would have praised it earlier ?

1) Makeup and high-heeled shoes are definitively sexualized, and any evolutionary biologist would agree with that
2) Between an environment with a non-sexualized uniform, and a more free environment, he'd choose the freer one.
3) Wearing makeup and high heels makes harassment "more likely"
4) (12:53) There are other solutions to harassment than limiting freedom of dress.
5) Tizheruk is a gerbil-hating Nazi.

Nobody disputing their sexual that does not make women responsible in the least for sexual harassment and nope i checked not a  gerbil-hating Nazi.

My first question, right off the bat, would be-- is it really a slam dunk among evolutionary biologists that makeup and high heels are sexualized? If so, and if he's stating a position considered fact in that field, then he's really said very little to be upset about. If, on the other hand, he's pulling that out his ass-- then it looks like grandpa making stuff up, and is very likely a misogynistic jerk (as Tiz claims). I googled it, and pretty much straight away found this, which involves an actual experiment involving not only attractiveness but even gender attribution:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ber...ttractive/

 I never said Peterson made it up and the fact high heels are sexual does not help his case and yes he can appeal to consensus that high heels are sexual and use that in a  misogynistic way.

The following link is an except from a seemingly female author, which talks about both high heels AND makeup in a single page:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=2XH0...es&f=false

Jordan taking a conclusion from female author on something nobody was denying is aside the point 

Obviously, I haven't really gone into it much yet, but a cursory glance seems to indicate that evolutionary psychologists do hold these beliefs in general, and they are not specific to Peterson.

Never said it was just Peterson 

So the fact that he talks about this very forthrightly, whereas most of us never would, seems to be that he simply is more educated in that field (remember he is in fact a reasonably renowned psychologist even without all the hubbub), and feels safe saying things that he feels are known to be facts, which to many not familiar with those fields would definitely be taken as misogynistic.

Or he is  misogynistic and uses biology too back it up .And the fact he's a renowned psychologist does not give this much more credence .

---

@Tiz What can I say?  Look at my last post, and look at yours.  I think I'll be content to leave it at that.

Actually, no I won't.  He actually discussed this in one of his interviews with Joe Rogan.  He talked about how women with weak male partners are likely to be discontent, and quite a lot of stuff along those lines.

So I'll give you that lead-- listen to the last couple interviews he did with Joe Rogan, and I think you'll find plenty of material to carry on a more erudite discussion about.

I have looked at you post and mine and i am content to leave it at that but not in the way your thinking .

Saw that interview and saw him weasel his way out of his comments.

I have listened to all i need too and i have all the content i need .

---

His solution to harassment is a joke .Yes let's allow "flirtation " and it tyrannical to not allow "under lying sexual tension" and no a party and work are two different environments.