Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Intellectual Dark Web


aRdja
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, moof said:

That’s exactly where his line of thought leads. It’s not a very subtle implication 

Plain to see. I think his fans/followers are either too uncomfortable to admit that or just too blinded to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Erm. Happy to discuss the intricacies of his comments instead if you like. Do you agree with him that if you wear make-up then you’re essentially asking for it? 

 

I don't agree "with him", nor do I think this is what he is saying.

 

He is making a (rather flawed) point about hypocrisy in the workplace, where he is pretending not to understand that part of accentuating your sexuality (in workplace, for women) is set our by cultural expectations, not necessarily a choice and also that this is not an invitation to unwanted sexual advances. He does it for the sake of arguing (here it is where I can sort of agree with him) that it may be seen as hypocritical in certain contexts to dress provocatively and than be outraged when it elicits some kind of a (verbal or other non-tactile) reaction.  

 

It is a long stretch from this to blaming victims of rape, a stretch you are (as usually) more than happy to make. I don't think even Peterson would be that addicted to courting controversy or that inclined to stubbornly dig in against an interviewer he doesn't like to allow himself be caught doing that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

 

I don't agree "with him", nor do I think this is what he is saying.

 

He is making a (rather flawed) point about hypocrisy in the workplace, where he is pretending not to understand that part of accentuating your sexuality (in workplace, for women) is set our by cultural expectations, not necessarily a choice and also that this is not an invitation to unwanted sexual advances. He does it for the sake of arguing (here it is where I can sort of agree with him) that it may be seen as hypocritical in certain contexts to dress provocatively and than be outraged when it elicits some kind of a (verbal or other non-tactile) reaction.  

 

It is a long stretch from this to blaming victims of rape, a stretch you are (as usually) more than happy to make. I don't think even Peterson would be that addicted to courting controversy or that inclined to stubbornly dig in against an interviewer he doesn't like to allow himself be caught doing that.

I don’t think there’s even a semblance of hypocrisy for someone to not wanting to be sexually harassed or assaulted at work, regardless of how he/she dresses up in the morning. That’s Saudi Arabia territory. I genuinely thought that line of thinking was behind us. I know this because I spend more than I should on clothing items and accessories, and I don’t ever want my boss to start fondling my balls in the urinals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

He's happy to make it for people he doesn't like. When the same things happen to Corbyn as he just did to Peterson, he's up in arms. 

Please play the ball NV rather than the man. I’ve always been respectful towards other posters irrespective of their views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I don’t think there’s even a semblance of hypocrisy for someone to not wanting to be sexually harassed or assaulted at work, regardless of how he/she dresses up in the morning. That’s Saudi Arabia territory. I genuinely thought that line of thinking was behind us. I know this because I spend more than I should on clothing items and accessories, and I don’t ever want my boss to start fondling my balls in the urinals. 

 

A fashion historian will probably tell you that throughout history, men mostly dressed to project status and women to seduce. This is the part where (most) women are "trapped", in that they are expected to seduce because fashion industry is geared toward it, even if they may not be too keen on seduction in a particular (office) situation. This is what Peterson in that interview fails to acknowledge.  

 

Now, if you, for example, dress in a low-cut dress where the low-cut dress is not expected or appropriate, people might stare. That's not sexual assault. It would be hypocritical to make a big fuss over it, because you knew they would stare. From that to having your balls fondled by your boss in the urinals is quite a stretch, but, whatever works for you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

A fashion historian will probably tell you that throughout history, men mostly dressed to project status and women to seduce. This is the part where (most) women are "trapped", in that they are expected to seduce because fashion industry is geared toward it, even if they may not be too keen on seduction in a particular (office) situation. This is what Peterson in that interview fails to acknowledge.  

 

Now, if you, for example, dress in a low-cut dress where the low-cut dress is not expected or appropriate, people might stare. That's not sexual assault. It would be hypocritical to make a big fuss over it, because you knew they would stare. From that to having your balls fondled by your boss in the urinals is quite a stretch, but, whatever works for you.


Do you think the examples that he explicitly provided i.e. make-up, red-lipstick and high-heels, fall in the inappropriate work attire category? Because he said that if a women comes into work wearing any of those, then she shouldn’t complain if she got sexually harassed or assaulted. That to me is victim blaming. Even if someone wears something in appropriate to work, then it’s for the line manager or HR to deal with... it doesn’t give her colleagues carte blanche to sexually harass her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I don’t think there’s even a semblance of hypocrisy for someone to not wanting to be sexually harassed or assaulted at work, regardless of how he/she dresses up in the morning. That’s Saudi Arabia territory. I genuinely thought that line of thinking was behind us. I know this because I spend more than I should on clothing items and accessories, and I don’t ever want my boss to start fondling my balls in the urinals. 

You are fucking asking for it in that miniskirt 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, viRdjil said:


Do you think the examples that he explicitly provided i.e. make-up, red-lipstick and high-heels, fall in the inappropriate work attire category? Because he said that if a women comes into work wearing any of those, then she shouldn’t complain if she got sexually harassed or assaulted. That to me is victim blaming. Even if someone wears something in appropriate to work, then it’s for the line manager or HR to deal with... it doesn’t give her colleagues carte blanche to sexually harass her.

 

I don't and I explained that I don't and why I don't, also, what I think he is talking about (from his interviews and other views expressed by people that agree with him on some points) is sexualised atmosphere in the workplace, to which women contribute to by using lipstick, high heals etc (i.e. tools of accentuating your sexuality, as he explained, red lips which simulate sexual arousal etc). So what I think he is saying is, if you don't want a sexualised atmosphere in the workplace, lets all get rid of these tools, men and women. If you don't want to get rid of it, then don't complain if people behave as they think they are being incited to behave.

 

As I sad, I don't agree with him (completely) but I do understand that point of view and also, "sexualised atmosphere" would not mean grabbing someone, physically assaulting, but an atmosphere in which inappropriate comments are made or women are treated as if they are not colleagues of professionals but as potential sexual partners, which is by far the most common complaint in the workplace.  

 

Similarly, if you go out to a nigh club or something, it is widely accepted that in that situation, you are looking  for a sexual partner so it would be hypocritical of you if you are offended if someone approaches you and tries to chat you up.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...