(Sep 15, 2019 01:51 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (Sep 15, 2019 03:55 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Getting back to work is hard, and it infantilizes women to presume that they either cannot foresee or overcome that possibility. And ruling legally valid provisions "unconscionable" is likewise infantilizing, as it presumes a woman cannot make legally binding decisions, as if she were a literal child. 
Well, nowadays, women are asking for prenups, too. People are getting married later in life and both men and women have accumulated assets. My advice was intended for the "many men who would love to stay home."
Yeah, I'm not buying that backpedaling. Or do you have evidence of men being favored when legally valid prenup provisions are deemed "unconscionable" and go unenforced? Otherwise, it's a red herring and the infantilizing only applies to women.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Apparently you can't be bothered to listen to, or comprehend, what Peterson says. Explains a lot. Since many of the workplace protections revolve around the perceptions of the "victim", men simply cannot treat women as they would men, as women are much more sensitive and prone to take offense. That means men necessarily have to treat them with kid gloves. And it has nothing to do with force or violence, as a man will be fired just as readily for hitting another man at work.
He says it quite clearly. If a man wins against a woman, he's a bully, and if he loses, he's pathetic. It's a no win scenario. And now, with #MeToo, if a man even just tries to mentor a woman, it can blow up in his face. Everything is a potential, career killing landmine.
No, I heard what he said and therein lies the rub. We’ve always had to tip toe around your little egos, but nevertheless, he said more than just that.
Women don't get fired for hurting the feelings/ego of a coworker (unless they're the male or female boss's favorite), but men do for inadvertently offending a female coworker. Now, women can get fired for hurting the ego of a superior, but that's true whether the superior is male or female. There's no need to tip toe around an equal coworker, so either you've "always" projected your own insecurities on others or you've erroneously thought you could get away with insulting a superior.
Quote:"I know how to stand up to a man that has trespassed against me and the reason I know that is that the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined. Which is we talk, we argue, and then it becomes physical. Right? Like if we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is. Okay-that’s forbidden in the discourse with women. And so, I don’t think that men can control crazy women."—Peterson
So, which is it, Syne? Is male-male interaction at work brutal, civil, or is it the constant threat of physical violence that's keeps it civil?
We’ve all seen the "political punches" and "lawmakers behaving badly" videos.
That quote is Peterson talking about "crazy women", who "cannot distinguish between male authority and competence and male tyrannical power" and "who have terrible personality disorders and who are unable to have healthy relationships with men". He's no longer talking about coworkers there, but I wouldn't expect your confirmation bias to notice that. But maybe you were watching a deceptively edited video. Here's the whole context:
https://youtu.be/v-hIVnmUdXM?t=36m31s
There are consequences to men fighting other men at work, and you'd know that if you weren't so interested in confirming your bias.
I've seen the
foreign politicians behaving badly, often in countries with less culturally enforced monogamy. We've also all seen the "when men hit back" videos, where "crazy women" think they can physically attack men with impunity. Is it the constant threat of physical violence that keeps these women civil? What, they just needed to be reminded?
Quote:Syne Wrote:You claimed:
(Sep 5, 2019 02:20 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]For Christians, this world is bad and pitiable because of the original sin and can only be redeemed by Christ and an after-life. The only good lies in denying this world for a fictitious world. Christianity is nihilistic!
If you can't support your own claim, you can't. Meh.
Oh, I see. You want me to prove Nietzsche’s point. Well, that would be another topic altogether, deary.
No, you made the claim. I don't know, off hand, if it's a reliable interpretation of Nietzsche or not (considering how often you misrepresent other things you paraphrase). The least you could do is simply quote Nietzsche. But if you're too lazy, you're too lazy. Meh.
Quote:Syne Wrote:He does mean culturally enforced. Hell, you even quoted Joe Rogan literally saying exactly that:
But as usual, you like to forget things you've quoted yourself when it suits your biased and intellectually dishonest purposes.
Nope. I said let's just assume that he meant socially enforced because I think it's safe to assume that he did.
No, you
asked that we assume it, as if it may not be the case. It's an intellectually dishonest ploy, but if you're backpedaling now, so be it.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Why do cultural norms sound bad to you? Do all such norms sound bad, or just monogamy?
Who's putting words in whose mouth here?
You literally said:
(Sep 15, 2019 01:50 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Let's just assume that he meant culturally enforced, shall we? It still doesn't sound any better.
"Culturally enforced" is simply a cultural norm. So I ask again, is it only monogamy that "still doesn't sound any better", or are there other such norms that also don't "sound any better"? O_o
And when ever you project, like claiming someone is putting words in your mouth, it's usually because that's exactly what you're about to do (telegraphing your own intent):
Quote:Syne Wrote:Monogamy does not "redistribute sex". It simply allows more men to feel they have value, if not as the most studly alpha male then as a good and honorable provider for his family...which used to be more valued by society. And like you, you'll notice where this article leaves off quoting him and starts paraphrasing him, putting words in his mouth.
Ah, so…men need a level playing field, eh? And we’re supposed to provide that for you? What if we don't want to get married? Oh, right, then we're clueless, disagreeable, crazy, masculine, etc. What if we want to be valued as a provider? Oh, right, we need to stay home and tend to the children because men can't compete with us in the workforce. What if we don't want children? Oh, right, then something is terribly wrong with us.
No one said anything about women providing anything. Actually quite the opposite. It's about women not getting support from the government/taxpayers in lieu if a provider. If you don't want to get married, don't. But then don't expect your own decision to be consequence free. If you want to provide for you and yours, that's great. You wouldn't be sapping the resources of an unappreciated provider nor being a burden on the taxpayers.
No one said women should stay at home, as the economy has long since moved beyond single-income families. So you're just full of straw men and projection.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Citing one academic for a supposed "consensus", huh? 
I guess all the voices in your head agree?
It's just one academic that several academics have referenced. Do you need one for each voice in your head, deary. How many do you need?
What would you accept as a "consensus"? Certainly not the 80% of the world that believes a god exists. So don't pretend you're not a hypocrite when you play coy about supporting your own claim while holding others to a higher standard.
Academics referencing each other, without new supporting studies/facts, is only an appeal to authority...in this case confirming their bias.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Your snark doesn't rebut the fact that more traditional gender roles are expressed in more gender-equal societies.
The Aka tribes seems to manage okay. The men even use their nipples to pacify their children while the women are off hunting. They don't view themselves as being pathetic. They're some of the best father's in world and many believe that this is what creates the strong bonds between the Aka men and women.
Cherry-picking a single, hunter-gatherer culture, compared to modern, cross-cultural studies.
Quote:Syne Wrote:He actually says that hypergamy in female sexual selection drove brain evolution by favoring the most competent males.
Yeah, he did, didn't he? Do you agree with that?
Sounds like a plausible, possible explanation, considering we really don't know.
Quote:Syne Wrote:No, I'm not here to appease your red herrings.
And your questions have been asked and answered...whether you have the intellectual honesty to quote them or not.
Wait a minute. You answered it? So, we gained our sexual autonomy during the sexual revolution, is that it?
Nope, search the term "hidden estrus" in this thread.
Quote:Syne Wrote:It gives less than ideal mates a means to reproductive societal value, as providers. After all, if it were only about sex, they could simply pay for that.
They’re incels (involuntary celibates), not involuntary singles. The group includes people who are in sexless marriages. If it were about marriage, they could simply order that through the mail.
Are you trying to say that it's not about sex, it's about men who want children?
Again, you're cherry-picking, as many "married incels" are not rejected so much as their spouses lack libido. They're only involuntarily celibate to the extent they won't cheat on their spouse. Not really the typical, resentful incel demographic.
It's not about men wanting children either. It's about men, and in some cases women, who cannot find a socially valued role. Like I said, if it were only sex, there's always prostitution. It's about feeling valued.
Quote:Syne Wrote:Depends. Do you enjoy guys who can get you in bed without any commitment whatsoever? Considering the plethora of regret "rape" accusations, I'd hazard most women don't. Or at least they're too self-conscious of their social value to admit to it.
Are you trying to say that most women don't enjoy casual sex?
No, I'm saying they don't like to admit to enjoying casual one-night stands, as they obviously do enjoy them (since they still happen regularly). It's largely the clueless men who commit to relationships. So between casual sex, which many women find socially devaluating, and a committed, emotional relationship, I'd hazard women largely prefer the latter.
ETA: Granted, what women really fantasize about is the alpha one-nighter settling down and providing for them.
