LeighaSep 16, 2019 03:23 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 16, 2019 08:11 PM by Leigha.)
If Jordan Peterson is all about empowering men to be their best selves, why do all of these exchanges about Peterson (on this site), boil down to his views about women? How men should view women?
If he's mainly about getting men to self reflect and build their own self esteem, we wouldn't keep having these circular arguments that center around his views about women. It seems like he can't just be direct with men about where they need to improve, without condescending women...putting down women...as a whole. These ''tactics'' are no different than a strident feminist, who at first glance wants to teach women how to become empowered, yet can't help but to slight men in the process.
I think where he misses the mark, is that in the end, much of his audience wants to know ''will this get me laid?'' or ''Will this help my success with dating women?''
Become your best self ...for yourself, and the rest will fall into place. If a guy is working to improve only to gain the affirmation of women he desires, then he's not self improving. He's only improving to gain women's attention. This is also true of women, as well. We all like attention, and admiration from the opposite sex...but, if that is solely what is guiding you to change your life for the better, you'll be unsatisfied in the end. Because you'll always be changing for the next woman/guy that comes along, you'll never really know who you are.
I haven't read every word that Jordan Peterson has ever written, so he might be touching upon much of that ^^ But, within that message, if there is is an undertone of ''if you do this guys, you'll get the woman of your dreams,'' or ''you'll have endless interest from women,'' or ''you'll become more attractive to women,'' then imo, he's offering a message that isn't all that empowering, as much as it is enabling men to stay confined to seeing women as their identity definers.
SyneSep 16, 2019 10:56 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 16, 2019 10:56 PM by Syne.)
(Sep 16, 2019 03:23 PM)Leigha Wrote: If Jordan Peterson is all about empowering men to be their best selves, why do all of these exchanges about Peterson (on this site), boil down to his views about women? How men should view women?
Only because SS has a chip on her shoulder. I don't remember Peterson ever telling anyone how to view women.
Quote:If he's mainly about getting men to self reflect and build their own self esteem, we wouldn't keep having these circular arguments that center around his views about women. It seems like he can't just be direct with men about where they need to improve, without condescending women...putting down women...as a whole. These ''tactics'' are no different than a strident feminist, who at first glance wants to teach women how to become empowered, yet can't help but to slight men in the process.
You've read too much SS and hit pieces. Otherwise, where has he ever put women down? O_o
And Peterson's main message isn't only for men. Women can equally benefit from learning to take small steps to get their lives in order. It's just that men are especially lacking in instruction on how to be men nowadays.
Quote:I think where he misses the mark, is that in the end, much of his audience wants to know ''will this get me laid?'' or ''Will this help my success with dating women?''
LOL! That sounds pretty preposterous. I haven't heard anything like that. In the end, much of his audience, male and female, wants to know how to find their place in life and feel valued. If someone's conception of value is wholly derived from sex, that's their personal problem...and one I'm sure Peterson would not condone.
Quote:Become your best self ...for yourself, and the rest will fall into place. If a guy is working to improve only to gain the affirmation of women he desires, then he's not self improving. He's only improving to gain women's attention. This is also true of women, as well. We all like attention, and admiration from the opposite sex...but, if that is solely what is guiding you to change your life for the better, you'll be unsatisfied in the end. Because you'll always be changing for the next woman/guy that comes along, you'll never really know who you are.
I haven't read every word that Jordan Peterson has ever written, so he might be touching upon much of that ^^ But, within that message, if there is is an undertone of ''if you do this guys, you'll get the woman of your dreams,'' or ''you'll have endless interest from women,'' or ''you'll become more attractive to women,'' then imo, he's offering a message that isn't all that empowering, as much as it is enabling men to stay confined to seeing women as their identity definers.
Peterson never suggests self-improvement to further any ulterior motive. There is no "undertone" of "getting the girl" other than the natural result of being a competent, successful man. If you think so, you've been grossly misled by whoever you're listening to.
If his message is purely to help others, I hope that’s the case. There are damaging messages out there by both feminists and sexists - and I would like to see more kindness and understanding. Thx for your take on it, Syne.
I don’t think SS is misinterpreting his quotes, though? She is pointing out some of the problems that she sees with his messages, maybe?
SyneSep 17, 2019 01:31 AM (This post was last modified: Sep 17, 2019 04:17 AM by Syne.)
(Sep 16, 2019 11:09 PM)Leigha Wrote: I don’t think SS is misinterpreting his quotes, though? She is pointing out some of the problems that she sees with his messages, maybe?
No, she has an axe to grind, and she's very intent on twisting things to serve that purpose. She repeatedly misconstrues things she only paraphrases, instead of quoting, mischaracterizes the things she does quote, often out of context, and just plain makes crap up about him.
ETA: Just because she's a feminist doesn't mean everything she argues against is de facto sexist. But it does mean that she's more prone to seeing sexist bogeymen where they don't actually exist.
(Sep 16, 2019 11:09 PM)Leigha Wrote: I don’t think SS is misinterpreting his quotes, though? She is pointing out some of the problems that she sees with his messages, maybe?
No, she has an axe to grind, and she's very intent on twisting things to serve that purpose. She repeatedly misconstrues things she only paraphrases, instead of quoting, mischaracterizes the things she does quote, often out of context, and just plain makes crap up about him.
ETA: Just because she's a feminist doesn't mean everything she argues against is de facto sexist. But it does mean that she's more prone to seeing sexist bogeymen where they don't actually exist.
Thank you, wegs. I'm not misinterpreting his quotes and I'm not really involved in any social movements. I don't think he's a bogeyman but yeah, I can see why people call him the stupid person’s smart person.
Here’s another interview on the same subjects.
Peterson: If makeup is a sexual signal then why should it be acceptable in the workplace? What in the hell do you think makeup is for? Why do women wear red lipstick? Look, the ideas that I’m putting forth in regards to makeup isn’t contentious. This has been studied. We know perfectly well what sexual signaling does, why people wear makeup and why women wear makeup.
During the early 1900s, makeup was not excessively popular. In fact, women hardly wore makeup at all. Make-up at this time was still mostly the territory of prostitutes, those in cabarets and on the black & white screen. Face enamelling (applying actual paint to the face) became popular among the rich at this time in an attempt to look paler. This practice was dangerous due to the main ingredient often being arsenic. Pale skin was associated with wealth because it meant that one was not out working in the sun and could afford to stay inside all day. Cosmetics were so unpopular that they could not be bought in department stores; they could only be bought at theatrical costume stores.
There’s a long history of men wearing makeup for a variety of reasons, e.g., to evoke the gods, supernatural protection, promoting fear, camouflaging baldness, status singling, etc. Men used eyeliner, lipstick, rouge, lightened their skin, wore high heels, wigs, dresses, yada-yada-yada.
Question: In a video, you said that the problem with those angry women is that since at the end of the argument you cannot fight physically. So, you can’t really deal with them.
Jordan Peterson: *In a whiny little voice* That’s not what I said. I said that’s one of the things that keeps conversation between men civil.
You have to watch the video. It’s hilarious. After his little tantrum, the guy is finally able to get his question answered. There's lots of status signaling but it's rounded off nicely with some tearful virtue signaling towards the end.
Question: If it’s easier to have a conversation between men because there is this underlying threat of physical contact *interrupted*
Peterson: I don’t think it’s easier. It tends to be somewhat more civil.
Question: So, fighting is the ultimate way of resolving a conflict?
Peterson: It’s a good question. It’s a good question. The ultimate way of resolving a conflict is to negotiate for peace. If you can manage it but if you can’t negotiate for peace then what are the alternatives?
Let’s break down his "socially enforced monogamy" bit, shall we? First of all, Incels are not out in the wild fighting over a female. Secondly, he references this study to support what he said.
Sexually active men, who are not in a monogamous relationship, may be at a greater risk for violence than men who are sexually active within monogamous relationships and men who are not sexually active.
***Sex is a defining feature of intimate relationships as well as a source of violent conflict, yet prior research on criminal desistance has ignored the influence of sexual behavior, focusing instead on marriage and employment to explain changes in criminal offending. Findings from the current study indicate that males, who transition to a less competitive mode of sexual behavior as evidenced by a reduction in sex partners from previous waves, reduced their risk for violent behavior. Changes in sexual behavior were shown to be more consistent and stronger in predicting violence than marriage and employment. The pro-social effect of marriage was not explained by changes in sexual behavior however, which suggests that marriage reduces male aggression for reasons other than monogamous commitment.
***The current study is limited in several respects, foremost by the ambiguity introduced when attempting to interpret changes in sexual behavior. While changes in sexual behavior were shown to have a statistically significant influence on changes in violence, the data cannot say for sure that sexual competition is the reason why. For a male to accumulate a relatively high number of sexual partners in a short time suggests competition—fighting and wrangling with other men—although the same outcome could be achieved with little to no violence. Further, a growing body of research suggests that, rather than marriage and monogamous unions affecting violence, the relationship may also work the other way around, with crime and antisocial behavior affecting union formation and stability.
"So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
That’s all. "—Jordan Peterson
Um…we do regulate it socially, Mr. Peterson. We have this thing called a criminal justice system, duh!
LeighaSep 18, 2019 08:19 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 18, 2019 10:33 PM by Leigha.)
So...if Peterson is all about empowering men, why is he (in so many words) telling them to judge women who wear make up and heels to the office? Why is he trying to plant seeds about women, that aren't true? Sure, there are deceptive women in the world, but there are deceptive men in the world, too. To suggest that most women in the workplace are ''sexual signaling,'' simply because they're wearing make up to the office, is a dangerous message, if you have men in the workplace who are already embittered towards women.
This is why I've asked above -- if Peterson's main goal is to empower men, and help them to self-improve, why does he feel the need to bring these types of topics about women, into the discussion? How does this help men? Peterson sounds like he honestly doesn't respect women, as a whole, and thinks we're all in one giant conspiracy against men.
Again, that's no different than your average, strident feminist who on the one hand, states that she is ''empowering women,'' but really...she is working out her own negative issues towards men.
ETA - I watched that video above, showcasing the interview with Peterson, and unless I'm missing something, I didn't hear a whole lot of ''empowering'' statements that are designed to help men. I hear a lot of chatter about women, with Peterson losing his cool throughout the interview. I disagree with his opinion that masculine traits are being discouraged in general, by our culture. It seems like he's looking at fringe radical feminists, and making this claim that most women or the cultural narrative as a whole, is discouraging men from being ambitious, courageous, chivalrous, and the like. That's simply not true.
There's no need to bring up women at all, if his main goal is to get men to see themselves in a different light...and help them to achieve their goals. If I were speaking to a group of women who were struggling to take ownership of their lives, and I inserted ''so, why do men wear cologne to the office? Doesn't that seem unnecessary? That's something men do when they want to attract women, isn't it?'' wouldn't it seem like I'm trying to plant a seed in my audience's mind, that men have ulterior motives? What would that have to do with empowering women to be their best selves? To live ''their best lives?''
I don't know. I turn to God for empowerment. Sorry, that's not very popular...we like following these supposed ''experts'' on self-improvement.
Maybe I've just been ''lucky'' in that I've had great men in my life, my dad...men I'm friends with and have dated...even my ex...have all been masculine, in their own ways. They lead, they respect women, they are comfortable in their own skin, they aren't threatened by women, etc. So, to Peterson, I'd disagree with his assessment that many women and the cultural narrative as a whole, is discouraging masculinity. If we were to look at fringe radical feminist groups, sure...they might be broad brushing all masculine traits as ''patriarchal'' and ''toxic,'' but there's a number of women out there who don't see it that way, and aren't seeking to dominate men.
Seeking to be considered equal in personhood to a man, isn't wanting to dominate men. Nor, usurp their positions in the workplace. Or anywhere else. Men who treat women as equals in the workplace, aren't considered less masculine to me. I think that Peterson walks a fine line sometimes, with what he's trying to say.
SyneSep 18, 2019 11:42 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 18, 2019 11:45 PM by Syne.)
(Sep 18, 2019 05:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I'm not really involved in any social movements.
Nah, you're just the rull of the mill misandrist.
Quote:Here’s another interview on the same subjects.
Peterson: If makeup is a sexual signal then why should it be acceptable in the workplace? What in the hell do you think makeup is for? Why do women wear red lipstick? Look, the ideas that I’m putting forth in regards to makeup isn’t contentious. This has been studied. We know perfectly well what sexual signaling does, why people wear makeup and why women wear makeup.
During the early 1900s, makeup was not excessively popular. In fact, women hardly wore makeup at all. Make-up at this time was still mostly the territory of prostitutes, those in cabarets and on the black & white screen. Face enamelling (applying actual paint to the face) became popular among the rich at this time in an attempt to look paler. This practice was dangerous due to the main ingredient often being arsenic. Pale skin was associated with wealth because it meant that one was not out working in the sun and could afford to stay inside all day. Cosmetics were so unpopular that they could not be bought in department stores; they could only be bought at theatrical costume stores.
Cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest.
Ancient societies relied on naturally occurring vegetable and mineral dyes for blush. In Egypt, ground ochre was rubbed on cheeks and lips, accentuating ubiquitous kohl-lined eyes. There is evidence of early Greeks using the juice of crushed mulberries to lightly stain their cheeks, and applying Alkanet root as a simple kind of stick rouge. Aristocratic Romans incorporated skin-whitening lead compounds into their grooming rituals, and often topped it with red vermilion (a powdered form of the mineral cinnabar) for cheek color. Both, however, were very toxic.
...
Declaring cosmetics indecent by public decree in the 19th century, Queen Victoria ushered in a new era of public disapproval and clandestine application as heavy makeup was seen as the domain of prostitutes and actors. But in private, of course, young women bit their lips, pinched their cheeks, and patted beet juice stains sparingly onto their faces before meeting suitors.
- https://intothegloss.com/2015/01/history...eup-blush/
Quote:There’s a long history of men wearing makeup for a variety of reasons, e.g., to evoke the gods, supernatural protection, promoting fear, camouflaging baldness, status singling, etc. Men used eyeliner, lipstick, rouge, lightened their skin, wore high heels, wigs, dresses, yada-yada-yada.
And? That's a non sequitur when you're talking about the reasons women wear makeup that simulates sexual arousal/availability.
Quote:Question: In a video, you said that the problem with those angry women is that since at the end of the argument you cannot fight physically. So, you can’t really deal with them.
Jordan Peterson: *In a whiny little voice* That’s not what I said. I said that’s one of the things that keeps conversation between men civil.
You have to watch the video. It’s hilarious. After his little tantrum, the guy is finally able to get his question answered. There's lots of status signaling but it's rounded off nicely with some tearful virtue signaling towards the end.
Would seem to have something to do with those "when men hit back" videos. When angry women physically attack guys with impunity, it is hard for a guy to deal with, as he would naturally meet force with force if against another guy.
And like you, this interviewer is putting words in his mouth.
Quote:Question: If it’s easier to have a conversation between men because there is this underlying threat of physical contact *interrupted*
Peterson: I don’t think it’s easier. It tends to be somewhat more civil.
Question: So, fighting is the ultimate way of resolving a conflict?
Peterson: It’s a good question. It’s a good question. The ultimate way of resolving a conflict is to negotiate for peace. If you can manage it but if you can’t negotiate for peace then what are the alternatives?
Sexually active men, who are not in a monogamous relationship, may be at a greater risk for violence than men who are sexually active within monogamous relationships and men who are not sexually active.
***Sex is a defining feature of intimate relationships as well as a source of violent conflict, yet prior research on criminal desistance has ignored the influence of sexual behavior, focusing instead on marriage and employment to explain changes in criminal offending. Findings from the current study indicate that males, who transition to a less competitive mode of sexual behavior as evidenced by a reduction in sex partners from previous waves, reduced their risk for violent behavior. Changes in sexual behavior were shown to be more consistent and stronger in predicting violence than marriage and employment. The pro-social effect of marriage was not explained by changes in sexual behavior however, which suggests that marriage reduces male aggression for reasons other than monogamous commitment.
***The current study is limited in several respects, foremost by the ambiguity introduced when attempting to interpret changes in sexual behavior. While changes in sexual behavior were shown to have a statistically significant influence on changes in violence, the data cannot say for sure that sexual competition is the reason why. For a male to accumulate a relatively high number of sexual partners in a short time suggests competition—fighting and wrangling with other men—although the same outcome could be achieved with little to no violence. Further, a growing body of research suggests that, rather than marriage and monogamous unions affecting violence, the relationship may also work the other way around, with crime and antisocial behavior affecting union formation and stability.
And? That literally correlates monogamy and less crime and violence. Less crime and violence is objectively good for society.
Quote:"So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.
That’s all. "—Jordan Peterson
Um…we do regulate it socially, Mr. Peterson. We have this thing called a criminal justice system, duh!
Law enforcement can only ever punish and, maybe, deter. It cannot regulate. Regulating social behavior requires an alternative outlet for said impulses. And here he clearly says he is not justifying the frustrations of incels. Not that you would ever notice.
(Sep 18, 2019 08:19 PM)Leigha Wrote: So...if Peterson is all about empowering men, why is he (in so many words) telling them to judge women who wear make up and heels to the office? Why is he trying to plant seeds about women, that aren't true? Sure, there are deceptive women in the world, but there are deceptive men in the world, too. To suggest that most women in the workplace are ''sexual signaling,'' simply because they're wearing make up to the office, is a dangerous message, if you have men in the workplace who are already embittered towards women.
He's not judging women. You can't deny that women are generally more attractive to men in makeup than without. Looking to be more attractive at work complicates the interactions between the sexes, just like compliments or flirting can. All three can be taken the wrong way, and that's a problem for a professional workplace. He's not saying women are intending to signal sexual availability. He's saying, regardless of their intent, that is what it signals to our lizard brain, as makeup simulates natural sexual arousal/availability. That's just the result of thousands of years of evolutionary psychology.
Quote:This is why I've asked above -- if Peterson's main goal is to empower men, and help them to self-improve, why does he feel the need to bring these types of topics about women, into the discussion? How does this help men? Peterson sounds like he honestly doesn't respect women, as a whole, and thinks we're all in one giant conspiracy against men.
Because he's not just about empowering men, but empowering everyone. It's a cautionary tale for both men and women. To women, so they realize the affect of accentuating their looks at work, and to men, so they realize it's a hazard...especially in the reactionary age of #MeToo.
Quote:Again, that's no different than your average, strident feminist who on the one hand, states that she is ''empowering women,'' but really...she is working out her own negative issues towards men.
ETA - I watched that video above, showcasing the interview with Peterson, and unless I'm missing something, I didn't hear a whole lot of ''empowering'' statements that are designed to help men. I hear a lot of chatter about women, with Peterson losing his cool throughout the interview. I disagree with his opinion that masculine traits are being discouraged in general, by our culture. It seems like he's looking at fringe radical feminists, and making this claim that most women or the cultural narrative as a whole, is discouraging men from being ambitious, courageous, chivalrous, and the like. That's simply not true.
Quote:There's no need to bring up women at all, if his main goal is to get men to see themselves in a different light...and help them to achieve their goals. If I were speaking to a group of women who were struggling to take ownership of their lives, and I inserted ''so, why do men wear cologne to the office? Doesn't that seem unnecessary? That's something men do when they want to attract women, isn't it?'' wouldn't it seem like I'm trying to plant a seed in my audience's mind, that men have ulterior motives? What would that have to do with empowering women to be their best selves? To live ''their best lives?''
Because woman can easily ruin a man's life if he's not prudent. Whether by fake rape/assault accusations, divorce that favors women, or denying them access to their own children.
Lol! Men always have the ulterior motive of sex. Men don't lie to themselves about what they do to attract women. And just maybe teaching women to be more aware of their affect on others could be a good things.
Quote:Maybe I've just been ''lucky'' in that I've had great men in my life, my dad...men I'm friends with and have dated...even my ex...have all been masculine, in their own ways. They lead, they respect women, they are comfortable in their own skin, they aren't threatened by women, etc. So, to Peterson, I'd disagree with his assessment that many women and the cultural narrative as a whole, is discouraging masculinity. If we were to look at fringe radical feminist groups, sure...they might be broad brushing all masculine traits as ''patriarchal'' and ''toxic,'' but there's a number of women out there who don't see it that way, and aren't seeking to dominate men.
Toxic masculinity is no longer fringe. Gillette ran an ad on it and the mainstream media is replete with it. Climb out from under your rock.
Quote:Seeking to be considered equal in personhood to a man, isn't wanting to dominate men. Nor, usurp their positions in the workplace. Or anywhere else. Men who treat women as equals in the workplace, aren't considered less masculine to me. I think that Peterson walks a fine line sometimes, with what he's trying to say.
No, it's wanting men to give you special considerations, like making damn sure they don't offend you, lest you claim sexual harassment. Or checking their assertiveness on a science forum. That's the reality, and you've been guilty of it yourself.
You're listening to Peterson through a female bias that simply has not experienced the reality of living as a man. If you think you can bridge that gap, try harder.
LeighaSep 18, 2019 11:59 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 19, 2019 01:16 AM by Leigha.)
I understand your points but why is it necessary to discuss? Women have been wearing make up for centuries, and if we wear it to work, why the need to discuss it?
Just curious, have you experienced what Peterson speaks of? Do you feel marginalized as a guy in the workplace, for example? Do you view women who wear makeup at the office, as a tool to flirt with men?
ETA - When it comes to name calling, misogyny, etc...(on a science forum or elsewhere) those types of posts/ideas aren’t synonymous with masculinity. That should go without saying, though.
SyneSep 19, 2019 02:31 AM (This post was last modified: Sep 19, 2019 02:32 AM by Syne.)
(Sep 18, 2019 11:59 PM)Leigha Wrote: I understand your points but why is it necessary to discuss? Women have been wearing make up for centuries, and if we wear it to work, why the need to discuss it?
#MeToo
Women who maliciously attempt to ruin a man's career (livelihood) and life without any corroborating evidence. It can happen to any guy.
Quote:Just curious, have you experienced what Peterson speaks of? Do you feel marginalized as a guy in the workplace, for example? Do you view women who wear makeup at the office, as a tool to flirt with men?
I don't tend to work in female heavy jobs. But yes, there have been times when women seemed somewhat inappropriately "tarted up", so to speak, for the workplace. Almost as if they were looking for an inappropriate comment.
And why would you feel Peterson just questioning women at work in makeup as "judging" anyway? Maybe you're somewhat aware of your underlying motives for doing so? Maybe you're somewhat aware of the affect women can have on men, at work or otherwise? Maybe you're somewhat aware that pretending that there's zero sexual tension between the sex is a pipe dream?
Quote:ETA - When it comes to name calling, misogyny, etc...(on a science forum or elsewhere) those types of posts/ideas aren’t synonymous with masculinity. That should go without saying, though.
Refusing to play nice is an inherently masculine trait, as opposed to female agreeableness.
LeighaSep 19, 2019 03:48 AM (This post was last modified: Sep 19, 2019 03:53 AM by Leigha.)
(Sep 19, 2019 02:31 AM)Syne Wrote: #MeToo
Women who maliciously attempt to ruin a man's career (livelihood) and life without any corroborating evidence. It can happen to any guy.
I agree that women who maliciously attempt to ruin a man's career without evidence (and of course, if it's a false claim) are deplorable. But, wearing make up to work doesn't have much of a motive, for healthy minded women.
Quote:Just curious, have you experienced what Peterson speaks of? Do you feel marginalized as a guy in the workplace, for example? Do you view women who wear makeup at the office, as a tool to flirt with men?
Quote:I don't tend to work in female heavy jobs. But yes, there have been times when women seemed somewhat inappropriately "tarted up", so to speak, for the workplace. Almost as if they were looking for an inappropriate comment.
Okay.
Quote:And why would you feel Peterson just questioning women at work in makeup as "judging" anyway?
I guess because I've never thought much about wearing make up to work, or heels; it's just something I've done. I dress modest yet feminine, and never really thought of any motives behind it. It just seems pretty innocuous, from my point of view. Of course, there will always be women (and men) who dress and act a certain way around the opposite sex at work, to gain attention, or even a promotion.
Quote:Maybe you're somewhat aware of your underlying motives for doing so?
Nah, there's no motives...although, I've had a few coworkers tell me when a male coworker finds me attractive, etc but I don't take offense. Nor do I play it up. I think it's okay to compliment someone at work, and not have it turn into a drama fest, claiming it's sexual harassment.
Quote:Maybe you're somewhat aware of the affect women can have on men, at work or otherwise?
I am.
Quote:Maybe you're somewhat aware that pretending that there's zero sexual tension between the sex is a pipe dream?
But, regardless if there is sexual tension...we all have a job to do when we enter the workplace, and we need to act in a civilized way. I'm not a believer in dating people one works with, for example. For men, I think that it could be riskier because if there's a break up, it will be very easy for a woman to claim she was pressured, or sexually harassed, especially if the guy was in a position of authority, even slightly.
Quote:
Quote:Refusing to play nice is an inherently masculine trait, as opposed to female agreeableness.
Interesting you mention this. I was reading an article a few days ago actually, about how many women don't get promoted because they are seen as ''too agreeable,'' whilst men are willing to take chances, and risks...go out on a limb and say the unpopular thing, in the middle of a meeting. It's a sad reality that we women face in the workplace at times - we speak up and are judged for being too bold, we don't speak up and we are seen as too agreeable. How many times have we heard the double standard of a female CEO being seen as a ''bitch'' when she has a commanding voice with her staff, but a male CEO will be viewed as ''strong and capable?'' Happens a lot, these double standards.
Sep 16, 2019 03:23 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 16, 2019 08:11 PM by Leigha.)
After his little tantrum, the guy is finally able to get his question answered. There's lots of status signaling but it's rounded off nicely with some tearful virtue signaling towards the end.