I had really hoped I could skip learning about some new awful person, but the attention on this Peterson dude has been persistent as fuck. I don’t really have words for seeing people debate whether or not women have the right to choose who they love. I have other things for that, blunt-object related, but no words.

The world is on fire and I’m just here trying to enjoy a nice story about a super strength woman who keeps fucking up because she hasn’t learned yet that force is not the answer to hard problems

The basic logical lapses of these folks who want to build some powerful vision of masculinity but can only imagine building it on the backs of women, thereby rendering it fragile as fuck, continues to astound me.

Hey, I’ve taught the neurological basis of social dominance in crayfish (which is pretty darned similar, and a better model for introductory course*) and… yeah. Not without scotch.

Why not talk about social hierarchies in primates? Or rodents? That could be great, because it really depends on the critter in question and how social they are…

* OMG, you should have seen a couple of my students, who decided to run a crayfish Fight Club for part of their final project, giving the crayfish prosthetic claws to throw off their perception of the initial threat display. It was hilarious. And so many parallels can be drawn. (I think one of them, M, is now in her neurosurgical residency – she was a research student for a bit, doing neural modeling.)

No.

Or only if you personally get to be on the lowest ladder. Yes, why not?

I fail to see how that would matter

I find it annoying because he’s playing fast and loose with the data – and I don’t know if he’s doing so intentionally or because he really doesn’t understand it that well. (It’s almost certainly not taught with the same degree of detail in psychology, and, well, he’s not a neurobiologist.) They happen to be into extreme hierarchies and fighting. But they’re no closer to humans than the sea slugs I spend the most time with – which are also social, and spend much of their adult lives in giant multi slug balls having slow sluggy sex, no hierarchies needed.

There’s a huge range of examples from biology, which radically different tales to tell. His choices tell more about him than they do about us.

From a NYT interview

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”

…seriously, the idea that women are distributed to chill out men who would otherwise be committing acts of public mayhem (because domestic mayhem is so much better) is pretty abhorrent to me. If men aren’t anything without women to lord over, yeah, I’d call that a failed model of masculinity. But I’d also call Peterson a pretty failed human being for this model, as well as several others.

One the one hand, I yearn to correct the so misguided rationale that spreads from such a true place—that men hurt because of toxic masculinity which makes them believe such idiocies as “we male exist for two things: to fight, and to mate”, leaving them emotionally unprepared to face social challenges and inept maturity- and empathy-wise—

But on the other hand you managed to forget gay men exist

My indulgence is limited, gals

This is my line. If reproducing is the “point of the game” then how do you factor homosexuality, or is it thrown under the bus for the sake of that simplistic model’s purity?

Also, why exactly would all of what you said apply to heterosexual men and not, say, hetereosexual women? If it does apply to both then what the point of bringing any of that up into this specific conversation?

There’s also the existence of asexual people to take into account. They really mess up the whole model.

Oh, I see, that makes perfect sense: because males have such a greater range and opportunity to partake in their Divine Duty to perpetuate their genes, the pressure is off for them and it makes them crave validation less.
Women, on the other hand, the violent of the sole two FDA-approved genders, are driven by their limited window of opportunity to overperform, yearn for acceptance and thus sex all the more so as not to miss their chance, which in turns gives us a clear purview as to the so many instances of fed up women going into killing sprees and so much violence and societal bigotry against men, as a coping mechanism for all the sex they’re not getting.

Wait

I was going to say “this is painfully obvious and completely irrevelant to the question we started on so good luck getting there it’s going to be funny and most likely wrong” but then I realized:
Yes. I do disagree.

A woman who dies in a fight against a bear (a tragedy that happens so often) and lose and who wasn’t “sexually promiscuous” will absolutely end up with less children than one sex-crazed warmonger.

See, foregoing the cultural, social, historical causes behind behavioral differences between genders, you walk backward ass first into the trapping of coming up with a theory that explains straight men’s behavior *and benefits patriarchal interests* (“No, it’s totally normal men murder in the name of wanting sex! It’s biological, see?”) and then fills in the rest about what’s left of humanity to accommodate for that first wrong assumption.

X + Y = 2, hm, I’ll assume X = 1 which means Y = 1 that’s it I found it I resolved the solution no need to go further my work here is done
wait what are you saying there are other possible solutions an infinitude of them in fact
what are you a filthy decadent postmodern neomarxist”

I did the same, only, starting with straight women in my previous comment, and it was the stupidest shit I’ve ever written.
Your model, by virtue of being infuriatingly old and unwilling to finally fucking dying off under the pressure of my choking fingers, is even worse

/For once/?

and yeah the point was to showcase that mating and procreation are, contrary to idiots beliefs, not the same thing

A simpler solution would be simply to castrate those frustrated guys. And put them on tranquilizers. But taking the rights of those guys away doesn’t seem to cross Peterson’s mind.

And Peterson has obviously never actually talked to a woman in his life. Millions of women go for low-status guys who are flat broke and have no prospects all the time, because they make them feel good. Sometimes. And there’s far more women who simply want men who meet the basic qualifications for adulthood and to treat them as equal human beings. And get constantly disappointed.

TLDR: Peterson is a bullshitter who tells MRA types what they want to hear.

I’m sorry, but where in the hell he woulf have stated that?

Blame?
What a strange concept. A men which is rejected by women is a biological bomb. That is how it is. Your genes are facing exctintions, and they’ll do everything to stop it – even engaging into antisocial behaviors. That is simply how it is. I do not think than forced monogamy is the solution….it sound pretty absurd, to tell the truth.

Yeah, blaming women for turning men into non-thinking blobs of violent DNA is one of the stupidest fucking things I’ve heard come out of a creature’s mouth.

Hahahahahaha!

Seriously, dude, grow the fuck up. Most men are not incels and do not feel that they are owed anything by women. So they are mature enough to handle rejection and do not have an existential crisis just because a woman doesn’t want to go out with them. The world doesn’t owe you sex or relationships, learn how to deal. That’s just your entitlement speaking, and guess what, it’s not doing you any favors. In fact, acting like you’re owed anything is actually hurting you: it certainly makes you look less attractive to women.

So try growing up. Or don’t and go back to your mom because it’s time for your diapers to be changed before your nap. Either way, don’t bother replying because I’ve already filled out my whiny loser incel (but I repeat myself) bingo card and don’t have any interest in anything further you’re going to say, so you’re on my blocked list now.

There’s a certain level of building amazement that comes through the consistency with which Peterson defenders just sort of show up, pretend not to ‘really’ know who he is and then launch into psuedo intellectual defenses of his largely unsubstantiated assertions.

Tell me, Giacomo, why did you start this conversation four hours ago saying you barely knew who he was and had only seen a few videos and agreed with a few points, only to now tell us that he is famous and make an impassioned statement of the inhumanity of one of his detractors?

The truth is most assuredly that most men do not feel an existential crisis from rejection. Peterson is exploiting a portion of the population that lacks emotional maturity. He is doing so by presenting a view of the world where they are being righteously denied a birthright rather than simply moving through the world as we all do. The pain that you’re describing does not exist for the wild majority of the male population. It is born of an entitlement to something that was never yours to “Take” to begin with.

I haven’t been in a relationship for about a decade myself. *checks kill count* Nah still zero brah

I am not, therefore there is no need for anyone else to be.

In the past, jocks mocked you because you were a weirdo, or not.manly, or stuff like that. Now they tell you that going into existential crisis for lack of romance is “emotional immaturity”. You guys got refined in the years.

Your existential crisis was a byproduct of that immaturity. Human beings are generally speaking very capable of processing emotions, and most men and women alike can express and understand their emotions with friends just as readily as a romantic partner.
You’ve been convinced however that the only way to completion in life is romance, and that being denied it was a deliberate harm against you, rather than another, equal person expressing that they did not want to be with you even if you wanted to be with them. You don’t just want a girlfriend, you want someone who will “Complete” you, who will take everything bad about your life away and “Fix” you. The problem is that isn’t actually going to happen.

What if my father beated me? Will you say to me to keep it my problem and not be angry to other people?
I do not think so.

An existential crisis isn’t emotional immaturity. Taking it out on others, however, is.

Your red pill is showing.

Consider the reason I stated way up there that I read this comic; that it follows a super powered woman who hasn’t learned yet that force is not the answer to hard problems.

Note the use of your word “deserves”. Do you think everyone deserves to have a partner? In either case, note the assigning of values. Remember that there are those who assign those values other places. Their reality is valid, as is yours; pain is terrible, physical or emotional, and either will leave scars and can cause PTSD and other ills. We recognize the external factors, and then we look within to heal. When faced with this pain in particular, we handle it the same; we go through the process of accepting that pain, as well as joy, are both a part of life, and both are temporary. Whether temporary means a few months, years, or the rest of your life, it is temporary.

A fact that we learn is that healing is not anyone else’s job. It is always on us to do the work.

I agree that no one deserves to be alone. But if you can’t find yourself some family, friends, or even a pet there is something deeply wrong with you.

Romantic love isn’t the end all and be all of your life. And you can get all the companionship you need from close friends or even a dang dog. No one ‘deserves’ or even ‘needs’ sex.

You make a choice in the moment of violence. In order to hurt another human being, a certain amount of de-humanizing must occur. You choose to de-humanize, and then you choose to strike. That choice is on your head, and no one else’s.

This isn’t just some shit I’m making up to make myself sound like the high road; this is literally the stuff that they teach you when you go to therapy and groups for PTSD. I am an asshole, and I’ve shaven down when I choose to be an asshole. “Brah” on the internet is one of those times. But here, I am trying to impart some wisdom that may help you, and perhaps others, if you find it useful.

In the end, we are the ones who “owe” anything to ourselves. We take care of ourselves. We make healthy choices. We recognize “cycling” thoughts, do opposite actions, and generally take a shit ton of time to meditate. I recommend beginning a meditation routine. There are free apps for that; I use Headspace. Change comes from within.

But you choose to believe otherwise.

But i no longer need it. Fate has chosen to save me. Why me, from many others, i wonder. Still, i appreciated the thought.
Anyway, on the topic, i agree that change comes from the inside, but in this case, i believe that salvation must necessarly comes from the outside.
Strangely, it paralels Patrick’s story. No matter hoe much he tried, he could never overcome his need for validation. In the end, he needed Alison.s love to change.

What is it about personal responsibility that is so irrational that you have to resort to listening to a dude that compares humans to lobsters to feel valid?

You are not a monster, i agree. After all, differently from the comnenter i answered, you did not laught at my trauma. Still, i think you are wrong. First, a clarification: i’m not equating the pain of not having a sentimental life to the action of a killer, of a terrorist. No amount of personal pain can justfy this violence. What i m saying is that pain is still pain,regardless of the action of the recipient of that pain. The pain of your friends, my pain, the pain of the terrorist are all.made of the same stuff. The condemnation of crimes should not make us forgot the human nature of the criminal.
To put a bit of an extreme example, i m perfectly capable of empathy with some of the guys who got recruited by jihadist terrorist.

No i m not. The crime is dismissing someone else pain, telling them” to grow up”. I have not done that, and i ll never do. But you re right, i should not generalize like that. I was emotional.

Which is why Trappist monks and Buddhist priests are the most insanely violent people around. And of course there’s never been any societies that value celibacy.

Seriously? Your theory doesn’t even pass the basic falsification test.