debate on masculinity

[jayarbar]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmjKNGsQG7g[/media]

 

Very good points made by the guests.

I would like to know if people here agree with Jordan Peterson whether gender differences are biological or cultural? 

[Pepin]

The conversation is much better than I expected.

 

The clips of the women talking were just terrible. It is like they throw out the entire idea of objectifying when it comes to men. Far too much collectivist irrational thinking, like "let women rule the world for a little bit". It is just dumb in thinking and idiotic in style.

 

I would claim that a lot of the differences are cultural, but many are biological. There is likely a decent interplay between the two, and also there is likely adaptation that can occur. For instance, the theory that a woman have a biological urge for an older man with resources due to pregnancy may have been the result of circumstance in that biology only cares about resources, not so much about the man. The evidence to support this is the increase in single motherhood can be correlated to the transfer of state welfare. The conclusion would be that women don't have an urge for older men, rather they just have an urge for resources during and after pregnancy, and it doesn't matter who provides it, it just so happens that older men have been the best option for this.

 

Also, if you want to embed a video, use the media tags like below.

 

[media]

[PatrickC]

Jordan Peterson is a light for men that understand the importance of masculinity.

 

I'd like to see him interviewed by Stefan. If he's interested in doing that, he is clinical psychologist of the University of Toronto.

 

[Barry_diller]

I found Michael's view very limited. War is not a game, because there are no rules in war, if really it were a game (sick one indeed), it would only involve the people who wanted to anticipate. Conscription would not exist, taxing for war would have to be eliminated before it was a game. War has nothing to do with games and competition.This is also what peter joseph wants to have compared. He says that competition is war. there is alot of anger towards competetion, because of peoples prior failures. I have experienced it myself, I was fired from alot of jobs and have a great insecurity then trying to get a new one. This has to do with my childhood, where I was not allowed to fail.My poltical views was because of that naturally before I discovered philosophy, Socialistic.it just occured to me how feminist the zeitgeist movement is and how masculine the anarcho-capitalist approach is. This is why I think their are so much hostility between these two.  I think alot of men who approach the Zeitgeist has experienced alot of failing in life. (the men who really commit to the movement), and have develpoed a fear for competition. This is a fear everybody has. When we try to find love, succes etc. we are always in competition with other people that seek the very same thing. Some cope with the fear and also get an excitment out of it, and other just give up 

[PatrickC]

it just occured to me how feminist the zeitgeist movement is and how masculine the anarcho-capitalist approach is. This is why their are so much hostility between these two.  I think alot of men who approach the Zeitgeist has experienced alot of failing in life. (the men who really commit to the movement), and have develpoed a fear for competetion. This is a fear everybody has. When we try to find love, succes etc. we are always in competition with other people that seek the very same thing. Some cope with the fear and also get an excitment out of it, and other just give up

 

You made an interesting observation about Michael. He has swallowed the egalitarian pill. His science head tells him men love competition, but he considers failure as disadvantage. I wouldn't want him teaching any sons of mine. Failure is something men and boys can embrace as a means to later success elsewhere. Having griped on Michael, he was not as bad as the novelist Russell. Man, who neutered that chap!

[Barry_diller]

You made an interesting observation about Michael. He has swallowed the egalitarian pill. His science head tells him men love competition, but he considers failure as disadvantage. I wouldn't want him teaching any sons of mine. Failure is something men and boys can embrace as a means to later success elsewhere. Having griped on Michael, he was not as bad as the novelist Russell. Man, who neutered that chap!

I guess he consider himself a failure. Our beliefs does not derive from evidence and logic like we want to think, generally it's emotional appeal that made our decision and the rest of our life we search after confirmation bias. Guess that's why we have philosophy 

[PatrickC]

I guess he consider himself a failure. Our beliefs does not derive from evidence and logic like we want to think, generally it's emotional appeal that made our decision and the rest of our life we search after confirmation bias. Guess that's why we have philosophy 

 

Yes, the egalitarian approach is what I call the fourth wave of feminism. It's very much the ideology of the left, who seem hellbent on making us all equal whether we like it or not. This fourth wave may well not refer to themselves as feminist. They may well be critical of the previous third wave of feminists. But egalitarianism will be the focus, which is interesting because that does seem to be the natural vent for most women and not men. Competition being frowned upon, as unfair or an example of dog eat dog. The egalitarian approach is the only critcism I have of Dr Farrells position in his otherwise polemic, 'The Myth of Male Power'.

 

I find it funny that this panel of men (bar Jordan) do not consider feminsim as having had much of an impact on mens lives. But I see it as symptomatc of how egalitarianism has seeped into the collective consciouness and has become 'self evident' to many. Which is why you see Russell Smith making exasperated adjectives every time Jordan rebuts this ideology. They truly believe the egalitarian approach as being the most virtuous approach to life.

 

Anyway, sorry went off on a tangent there, but I find this topic quite fascinating.

[Barry_diller]

Yes, the egalitarian approach is what I call the fourth wave of feminism. It's very much the ideology of the left, who seem hellbent on making us all equal whether we like it or not. This fourth wave may well not refer to themselves as feminist. They may well be critical of the previous third wave of feminists. But egalitarianism will be the focus, which is interesting because that does seem to be the natural vent for most women and not men. Competition being frowned upon, as unfair or an example of dog eat dog. The egalitarian approach is the only critcism I have of Dr Farrells position in his otherwise polemic, 'The Myth of Male Power'.

 

I find it funny that this panel of men (bar Jordan) do not consider feminsim as having had much of an impact on mens lives. But I see it as symptomatc of how egalitarianism has seeped into the collective consciouness and has become 'self evident' to many. Which is why you see Russell Smith making exasperated adjectives every time Jordan rebuts this ideology. They truly believe the egalitarian approach as being the most virtuous approach to life.

 

Anyway, sorry went off on a tangent there, but I find this topic quite fascinating.

How would you desribe the different waves of feminism?

[PatrickC]

How would you desribe the different waves of feminism?

 

Well, they are often a backlash to the previous wave. In most cases they have been ratcheting the rhetoric up a notch each time. Although, some might say there were two parts to the third wave. One of which is referred to as 'sex positive', which arguably was less militant than the other. Wiki gives a brief overview which I broadly agree with.

 

Feminism despite cries of foul elsewhere, has largely been led by cultural marxists. With each wave they have done quite the job of dominating opinion to date and have effectively neutered any potential male opposition to them. However, we are now at a point or coming close to it, where some feminist demands are looking so absurd that their credibility is sinking fast. Not to mention the internet and the rise of the MRA. So it's really just my opinion that a fourth wave is on it's way and it makes sense from a marxist point of view to steer towards egalitarianism, as a means to divert people away from questioning the feminist movement as a whole.

 

To a large extent this is mostly unconscious for many of them I think. Insofar as I don't think it's a deliberate conspiracy as such. But cultural marxism or it's euphemism, 'political correctness' has done a great job at keeping society focused on perceived antagonisms with each other and not with our overlords.