Masculinity, so fragile

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 5816
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26
Location: Happy Katanakaa Everyone!

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Dangerman » 02 Feb 2018, 13:10

RE:The Tweet, having not read the comments posted since I started writing this.

That's not a great interpretation of what he said. He holds the position that humans respond to many kinds of hierarchical signals. Men are very often in a hierarchy that is decided in no small part by physical prowess compared to or against other males. So, even in non-physical conflict, the subtext is the threat of violence as a last resort, and socially this is acceptable or at least accepted among men.

But when a man enters into a conflict with a woman, his skills at navigating the male hierarchies are socially inappropriate, and this puts men at a deficit in terms of the variety tools at his disposal, because interacting with women under "the implication" (if you will) of physical violence is not acceptable and not constructive. Using the language of male hierarchies doesn't translate to success when the setting changes to desegregate a space.

That's all my paraphrasing of Peterson, I would suggest reading or listening to him on the topic.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8163
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by nicole » 02 Feb 2018, 13:14

Yeah I am Team JasonL in that I don't understand what social situation doesn't have the subtext of the threat of violence.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 5816
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26
Location: Happy Katanakaa Everyone!

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Dangerman » 02 Feb 2018, 13:47

nicole wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 13:14
Yeah I am Team JasonL in that I don't understand what social situation doesn't have the subtext of the threat of violence.
Right, but his point might be that the consequences and quality of the outcome differ depending on the people involved. The available and acceptable responses to the subtext of violence are different for men and women. I'm not sure I'm ready to defend the idea, but I can say that it doesn't seem incoherent to me.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by the innominate one » 02 Feb 2018, 15:01

Is the claim "on average, women have less violence and less violent subtext in their interpersonal, intrasexual conflicts than do men in their interpersonal, intrasexual conflicts" really a controversial statement?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21509
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by JasonL » 02 Feb 2018, 15:13

I don't think it works because you can't isolate the context of violence in a M-F interaction. Men might well feel differently about the context of violence in M-M interactions, but it seems wacky to me to assert that in an M-F interaction the F party doesn't perceive violent subtext. The whole thing is violent subtext.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21906
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Mo » 02 Feb 2018, 15:20

A debate with Jordan Peterson ending in fisticuffs would either be the best or worst World Star meets TED talk video ever.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 5816
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26
Location: Happy Katanakaa Everyone!

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Dangerman » 02 Feb 2018, 15:56

JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:13
I don't think it works because you can't isolate the context of violence in a M-F interaction. Men might well feel differently about the context of violence in M-M interactions, but it seems wacky to me to assert that in an M-F interaction the F party doesn't perceive violent subtext. The whole thing is violent subtext.
Really? No difference?

If a man gets into an elevator with a lone woman, the context is different than if he shares an empty space with a man. His behavior will be different, or he will risk social sanction.

Edit: I re-read. Nobody is asserting that women don't perceive the potential for violence. The assertion is that men who are largely moving inside male hierarchies will have a set of tools that are inappropriate for hierarchies which include women, because males are comfortable competing among themselves in a way that is familiar to them but very unfamiliar to women. A simpler way would be to say that male comfort with physical conflict is expressed in ways that allow men to resolve status disputes, but that these signals aren't helpful in resolving status disputes between members of the opposite sex because there are different interpretations in play.
Last edited by Dangerman on 02 Feb 2018, 16:07, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by the innominate one » 02 Feb 2018, 15:57

JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:13
I don't think it works because you can't isolate the context of violence in a M-F interaction. Men might well feel differently about the context of violence in M-M interactions, but it seems wacky to me to assert that in an M-F interaction the F party doesn't perceive violent subtext. The whole thing is violent subtext.
Have you directly read Peterson's claims?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21509
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by JasonL » 02 Feb 2018, 15:58

the innominate one wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:57
JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:13
I don't think it works because you can't isolate the context of violence in a M-F interaction. Men might well feel differently about the context of violence in M-M interactions, but it seems wacky to me to assert that in an M-F interaction the F party doesn't perceive violent subtext. The whole thing is violent subtext.
Have you directly read Peterson's claims?
No responding to your summary.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21509
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by JasonL » 02 Feb 2018, 16:00

Dangerman wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:56
JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:13
I don't think it works because you can't isolate the context of violence in a M-F interaction. Men might well feel differently about the context of violence in M-M interactions, but it seems wacky to me to assert that in an M-F interaction the F party doesn't perceive violent subtext. The whole thing is violent subtext.
Really? No difference?

If a man gets into an elevator with a lone woman, the context is different than if he shares an empty space with a man. His behavior will be different, or he will risk social sanction.
But my point is, that's because her real threat level is commensurately higher. Is he more constrained in the elevator or is she?

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9855
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Sandy » 02 Feb 2018, 16:04

Mo wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:20
A debate with Jordan Peterson ending in fisticuffs would either be the best or worst World Star meets TED talk video ever.
"I'm gonna unleash my Shadow Dragon and clean your clock like you should have cleaned your room, bucko!"
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 5816
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26
Location: Happy Katanakaa Everyone!

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Dangerman » 02 Feb 2018, 16:30

JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 16:00
But my point is, that's because her real threat level is commensurately higher. Is he more constrained in the elevator or is she?
The issue isn't constraint at the level of voluntary action. Let me try to paraphrase : "The ways men compete with men for status within male hierarchies feature high levels of aggression and signals about the capacity for violence. Men are able to send and interpret these signals and have them be understood as such by other men. When men have to compete for status with women, the signals they would use with men have much different impact and men may not understand that."

I would point out that I'm not going to be able to argue someone else's point, only clarify my understanding of it. If you think it's wrongheaded, do so because you actually went to the material and considered it, not because I am doing a bad job at explaining the shape of the elephants that support a snarky comment of less than 140 characters.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3310
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Painboy » 02 Feb 2018, 16:38

Mo wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 02:23
Wtf? Also, the thought of Jordan Peterson settling anything with fists is pretty lulzy.

I think he overstates it but there is a point for many where if you stray too far into disrespecting somone it can get you punched.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by the innominate one » 02 Feb 2018, 16:42

JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:58
the innominate one wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:57
JasonL wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 15:13
I don't think it works because you can't isolate the context of violence in a M-F interaction. Men might well feel differently about the context of violence in M-M interactions, but it seems wacky to me to assert that in an M-F interaction the F party doesn't perceive violent subtext. The whole thing is violent subtext.
Have you directly read Peterson's claims?
No responding to your summary.
I didn't say anything about M-F interactions. I also didn't make any claims about women not feeling the subtext of a threat of violence from men. Nor has Peterson, to my knowledge. Men can use violence against women and a subset of men frequently do, but that's generally taboo in social interactions, and especially professional interactions.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24963
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by thoreau » 02 Feb 2018, 16:52

I'm so removed from what you guys are talking about; I almost never think of violence in discussions with men. I think I'm more comfortable arguing with men than women, because I feel like men will take their lumps and respond to strong criticism with with arguments that implicitly recognize "Yes, it's OK to debate." Part of me is afraid that women might respond by claiming that I violated some norm, being sexist or insensitive or harassing or whatever else. I'm thoroughly institutionalized and domesticated, so there's a certain kind of parity in my interactions with men, whereas with women there are written and unwritten rules that you can't violate without becoming A Bad Person.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11349
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Eric the .5b » 02 Feb 2018, 18:25

Apparently California girls are overrated?

I'm just still trying to follow the original logic. How does not being able to hit someone impair my ability to debate with them? I argue with people I can't hit all the time, it's called, depending on venue, "being online" and "not being a felon".
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3310
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Painboy » 02 Feb 2018, 19:02

Eric the .5b wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 18:25
Apparently California girls are overrated?

I'm just still trying to follow the original logic. How does not being able to hit someone impair my ability to debate with them? I argue with people I can't hit all the time, it's called, depending on venue, "being online" and "not being a felon".
I think the idea is that guys don't say certain things to other guys because, using his word, there is an implicit understanding between them that saying certain things, or saying them in a certain way, will likely get you punched, or subjected to other physical violence. Women do not have this understanding so when talking to a man they say those things that get you otherwise punched. Because the man can't strike her* they are put at a disadvantage since they aren't subject to that kind of verbal attack normally. They're in a position where they can't go with their instincts so they are at a certain kind of handicap.

That's the best reading I can put on it given I haven't read any of the guy's stuff beyond what was quoted in the tweet.

*Due to cultural, morale, and/or legal reasons.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11349
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Eric the .5b » 02 Feb 2018, 19:24

Painboy wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 19:02
Eric the .5b wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 18:25
Apparently California girls are overrated?

I'm just still trying to follow the original logic. How does not being able to hit someone impair my ability to debate with them? I argue with people I can't hit all the time, it's called, depending on venue, "being online" and "not being a felon".
I think the idea is that guys don't say certain things to other guys because, using his word, there is an implicit understanding between them that saying certain things, or saying them in a certain way, will likely get you punched, or subjected to other physical violence. Women do not have this understanding so when talking to a man they say those things that get you otherwise punched. Because the man can't strike her* they are put at a disadvantage since they aren't subject to that kind of verbal attack normally. They're in a position where they can't go with their instincts so they are at a certain kind of handicap.

That's the best reading I can put on it given I haven't read any of the guy's stuff beyond what was quoted in the tweet.

*Due to cultural, morale, and/or legal reasons.
If so, though, who the Hell are the women he's having such shitty "intellectual confrontations" with that they're saying things to him that he'd [pretend he'd] punch a guy for saying?

I kinda suspect that this guy is full of shit.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21906
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Mo » 02 Feb 2018, 19:35

Painboy wrote:
Mo wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 02:23
Wtf? Also, the thought of Jordan Peterson settling anything with fists is pretty lulzy.

I think he overstates it but there is a point for many where if you stray too far into disrespecting somone it can get you punched.
Maybe it’s because I’m an effete beta, but fear of getting punched never comes into low blows in debates. I made a low blow years ago while arguing with a friend years ago and felt like shit for days afterward. Strong social norms are a much bigger constraint.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24963
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by thoreau » 02 Feb 2018, 19:36

Painboy wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 19:02
Eric the .5b wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 18:25
Apparently California girls are overrated?

I'm just still trying to follow the original logic. How does not being able to hit someone impair my ability to debate with them? I argue with people I can't hit all the time, it's called, depending on venue, "being online" and "not being a felon".
I think the idea is that guys don't say certain things to other guys because, using his word, there is an implicit understanding between them that saying certain things, or saying them in a certain way, will likely get you punched, or subjected to other physical violence. Women do not have this understanding so when talking to a man they say those things that get you otherwise punched. Because the man can't strike her* they are put at a disadvantage since they aren't subject to that kind of verbal attack normally. They're in a position where they can't go with their instincts so they are at a certain kind of handicap.

That's the best reading I can put on it given I haven't read any of the guy's stuff beyond what was quoted in the tweet.

*Due to cultural, morale, and/or legal reasons.
I can't speak to all settings and cultures, but in my setting it's totally the opposite: I think that men would just roll with certain things in conversation, while women might get offended and create trouble for me.

Now, of course, I am more relaxed with women that I know well and have a good relationship with, and careful in certain ways around unknown men, or men that I know are touchy, or whatever else. But, all else equal, my impression has been that there's more danger in saying the wrong thing to women than saying the wrong thing to men.

Maybe there are settings where Peterson's observation carries a certain element of truth, but he seemed to be offering it as a very broadly-applicable statement, and I don't think it applies in a lot of settings (including the academic settings that he inhabits).
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 12922
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Kolohe » 02 Feb 2018, 19:42

Sandy wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 12:50
He's got the weirdest combination of evidence-based insights from psychological studies and Jungian Neo-Christian nonsense. His points are usually more sophisticated than the sound clips indicate, but...ultimately he's a TED talk read by Kermit the frog.
Kermit the Frog is a victim of domestic abuse tho.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by the innominate one » 02 Feb 2018, 21:23

Kolohe wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 19:42
Sandy wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 12:50
He's got the weirdest combination of evidence-based insights from psychological studies and Jungian Neo-Christian nonsense. His points are usually more sophisticated than the sound clips indicate, but...ultimately he's a TED talk read by Kermit the frog.
Kermit the Frog is a victim of domestic abuse tho.
Bitch was asking for it. Why doesn't he just leave?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 5816
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26
Location: Happy Katanakaa Everyone!

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Dangerman » 02 Feb 2018, 22:05

Eric the .5b wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 19:24
Painboy wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 19:02
Eric the .5b wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 18:25
Apparently California girls are overrated?

I'm just still trying to follow the original logic. How does not being able to hit someone impair my ability to debate with them? I argue with people I can't hit all the time, it's called, depending on venue, "being online" and "not being a felon".
I think the idea is that guys don't say certain things to other guys because, using his word, there is an implicit understanding between them that saying certain things, or saying them in a certain way, will likely get you punched, or subjected to other physical violence. Women do not have this understanding so when talking to a man they say those things that get you otherwise punched. Because the man can't strike her* they are put at a disadvantage since they aren't subject to that kind of verbal attack normally. They're in a position where they can't go with their instincts so they are at a certain kind of handicap.

That's the best reading I can put on it given I haven't read any of the guy's stuff beyond what was quoted in the tweet.

*Due to cultural, morale, and/or legal reasons.
If so, though, who the Hell are the women he's having such shitty "intellectual confrontations" with that they're saying things to him that he'd [pretend he'd] punch a guy for saying?

I kinda suspect that this guy is full of shit.
Has anyone here besides me actually read or listened to Peterson's work?

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12356
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by the innominate one » 02 Feb 2018, 23:10

I saw a short clip of his convo with Paglia that is relevant to this discussion, but I don't recall it verbatim. I listened twice to his back and forth with the lady in Britain that came off looking like a total fool. I don't subscribe fully to what he said in that conversation, but it's not beyond the pale and it's not what most people characterize it to be.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9855
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Masculinity, so fragile

Post by Sandy » 02 Feb 2018, 23:13

Dangerman wrote:
02 Feb 2018, 22:05
Has anyone here besides me actually read or listened to Peterson's work?
I watched some of his videos when he first blew up. I think he's got some good critiques of forced speech and the maoist tendencies of campus/internet/tech SocJus, but the regular lectures and talks were as I described above: solid, evidence-based psychological research and then all the Jungian neoTrad stuff.

It's kinda sad that he seems to be the first person saying to some people that while they are not inherently to blame because of toxic masculinity for society's ills, they need to own their shit and develop good habits. The biggest benefit is that he's saying both those things, but you can definitely get the latter advice from lots of sources without Shadow Dragons and what not.

But then again, like Damore, because unsavory elements like what he has to say, others--including the media--basically ignore what he actually says in favor of what they think he might have said based on their own bizarro construction of "those people." But I still don't find most of his content that compelling.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest