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

[Angrboda]

Okay, Tizh, since you're not going to give an example of what you're mentioning, I will:





About 2:20
"If I was part of an organization that built entire dozens of careers on sexual provocative-Ness I would be very careful about like waiving the ethical flag in the sexual wars."

Admittedly, he hedges his words a bit more than you've outright said, and he does do his trademark backtrack but that subtext really seems to shine through. He doesn't outright say that victims of sexual harassment shouldn't complain, but he does talk a great bit about how they're complicit in their own harassment if they at all sexualise themselves.

Seriously, if your opponent is saying they have any trouble looking up sources they look up, point them in the right direction. If you have to, show them exactly what you're talking about.

Also, I'm not sure about how much of his remarks about not knowing the rules about how men and women should work together is mere sophistry and how much of it is the expression of his being legitimately confused about social interactions (the Bible Reloaded guys hypothesised he was on the autism spectrum in the video I posted of them last night, and now I'm starting to believe it; I can relate to legitimately not knowing what the rules are in male-female interactions, especially in these MeToo days).

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:

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.

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/

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

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.

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.