RE: Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?
August 13, 2018 at 5:53 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2018 at 5:59 pm by bennyboy.)
(August 13, 2018 at 2:22 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: 1. I never said it was a quote by Peterson
2. Nope he said it not in the precise word above but he said it thus my reference to his word salad
3.No it's not he's clearly saying women who dress sexually provocatively partially invite there own harassment and thus are hypocrites if they complain thus have no right to complain if it happens . So nothing has changed
4. Nope nothing has changed and it's the same thing and just explained it
1. You said "Peterson said X," when he quite explicitly said not-X. You can backpedal all you want, but the fact is you made an untrue statement, a.k.a. you lied.
2. No. He never said it, or anything like it. You just got triggered by a few keywords and stopped listening, because your attention span is short and your English is poor.
3. Bullshit. He's saying that gender differences are entrenched in our evolutionary history, that dress and makeup are sexualized, and that this introduces sexual tension in the workplace. How could anyone past puberty not have experience which makes this obvious?
He very explicitly states that makeup and high-heels in particular are sexualized, supported by the way by pretty much the entire field of evolutionary psychology. He says that nevertheless, he favors a workplace where people can wear what they want, and that it's important to have a frank discussion about how we define harassment and what we should do to prevent it.
He gave examples of the kinds of definitions some individual groups made, as examples of why that's the case. For example, a company with a rule that you could not establish eye-contact for more than 5 seconds-- which is clearly a stupid rule.
(August 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: If Peterson actually believes the stuff he writes about women in this book, he's beyond sexist and more into delusional projections. I suspect at least some of it is part of the game. Finding out what he really thinks, about anything, is almost impossible due to the amount of caveats he uses. This may be the "new him" though, the one that wants to maximize his audience by not excluding anyone.
Except women that is. If a single woman finds this book anything other than hugely patronizing and misinformed, I'd be very surprised. It's clearly aimed at males only, and this makes me suspect it's not all an act.
I do not own the book. Would you mind giving one or two examples?
As I've shown a couple of times in this thread, googling some of the "controversial" things he's said immediately brought up a lot of confirming evidence, much of it written by women in a professional setting.
Are you sure he's not just telling the truth as he has learned it in an academic capacity, and that people aren't comfortable with it?
