Spoiled children who grow up into women tend to act differently then spoiled children who grow up into men.
13 Likes
I would guess a fair number of people struggle with some of these basic concepts in life. (Including myself at times, in all honesty.)
Maybe it could be taught in a different way like you say though, as I can definitely see him treating the ideas like they’re fresh on the block. Of course, he does want to sell his book haha, so to some degree this makes sense.
I guess my real question is, how is he seeking out this white privileged audience? His videos are public, and his ideologies, even if overused, are at least somewhat applicable to everyone.
1 Like
Again, see my breakdown of his formula above and other comments in this thread. Read the TLS book review, too. He definitely targets this audience with his rhetoric and focus.
10 Likes
Yep. There’s GOLD in that thar audience!
11 Likes
Quite so. Those different tendencies and what causes them are many. But obviously not exclusive. You’ll find men who behave like a stereotypical spoiled girl and women who behave like a stereotypical spoiled boy. I think it likely those differences are about conditioning rather and anything genetic or intrinsic to one gender or another. That children are conditioned differently is not in question. For the most part that truth is self evident.
That you find differences in behaviour between genders is nothing new or evidentiary in any way which is not to say that childish behavior is masculine or feminine because we could have conditioned those children differently and had different results. Had we raised a girl to be aggressive, abusive, homophobic, etc would we say her behavior is intrinsic to her gender or would we be honest and say it’s intrinsic to her conditioning? You can choose to condition a child however you want but behavior borne of that conditioning cannot be said to be based upon their sex which is why I refuse to call that conditioned behavior masculine or feminine since it is essential to neither.
Dude, wake up. The term “toxic masculinity” says nothing about anything supposedly intrinsic to men.
As a standard definition puts it, “Masculinity (manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men. As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex. Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods.”
17 Likes
That’s just what I’m saying. We get to define what is masculine in our culture. If we make the mistake of defining bad behaviour as masculine, where do you think that might lead? Would it lead to a large portion of our men behaving badly? Our world today would indicate that it would. So, why would we continue normalizing that definition? We have the choice to define such behavior as childish rather than masculine and I for one see that as the better choice.
2 Likes
This thread:
16 Likes
No one here is doing that. In fact, we’re literally doing the opposite.
@jsroberts - You’re not going to trick me into another “feminists have issues” debate, sorry. Have a great day!
14 Likes
I don’t, because as I just said, spoiled children who grow up into women tend to act differently then spoiled children who grow up into men.
What largely accounts for that difference is – shocker alert! – a social order’s construction of masculinity.
13 Likes
It’s not as bad as the other one we all were in. Marginally, anyways.
5 Likes
Oooh where where! LOL
6 Likes
Then why would you want to reinforce the social orders construction of masculinity if that construction causes harm when we have the option to reject the construction and create a better one?
Awwww… I came back a day too late!
I will have to make due with this thread. LOL
9 Likes
I suppose, considering that one closed early; but this one is less than a full 24 hours old and it’s already a shit show.
12 Likes
Still room for improvement. Shit show is less serious than a floating barge filled with burning garbage floating down the Hudson.
8 Likes
I wouldn’t. I thought long and hard about the social component and although we are social creatures I think we tend to be biased toward being individuals first and foremost and then part of a group.
But to my mind being predators does not preclude our socialness.
In Fact it just enhances it really.
But I am open to other views of what I wrote.
I went with the predator angle because of the thread and how it is the best way I can summarize these two competing views.
These folks (call them the Un-Peterson) are hunting down Peterson’s brand, his opinions, views and impact. Which is fair game! If you are a Peterson fan and get offended then detach and stop giving your opponent that power over you. Freedom of speech doesn’t include hurt feelings.
Likewise Peterson and his fanbase are predators too. Doing the same but for their side same for hurt feelings.
In both cases valid criticism can be a gift. A gift or opportunity to help that person or group to sharpen their argument.
It also explains how when you break up and distill these basic concepts (individual(s), group(s), gender, weak, strong, word, language) you get overlap among people seeing the same object but from a different perspective or facet.
As if the thing (object) were at the center of a diamond but everyone can clearly see it – but from a different facet of the diamond leading to heated debates and fights.
Personally i am much, much much more interested in being a better, stronger, faster, smarter human being in general. I personally think if a person gives too much to one political party or the other they would be foolish. I prefer to be independent and pick and choose those who I vote for or occasionally lend my voice too.
I will quote Bruce Lee "“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.”
If the end result of Peterson’s words and actions are a better informed critical thinkers for him or against him – Has’t he gotten his way? He is a teacher by profession after all. Aren’t good teachers the ones who provoke critical thinking and exploration in those who listen?
Because identifying it with a recognizable term isn’t meant to reinforce it – it’s part of the effort to work against it. You have to know what you’re working against in order to do so, no?
10 Likes
In the end, intention has less importance than impact.
In my view, what we are working against is the conditioning of children to behave badly. In this case, the focus is on the bad behavior of male children born out of a portion of society viewing certain childish behaviours as masculine.
1 Like
