I resonate a lot with Jordan Petersons take on feminism - What am I missing?

[Derek White]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

I’ve never heard a Feminist (or anyone on the left even) argue for “equality of outcome”.

So, what must be understood here is that JP is straw manning the left to give himself an easy and unpopular argument to slap down. Next to no one (left or right) believes in complete equality of outcome.

I have heard feminist argue for equality of outcome in personal life and online, so there you go. One example I can think of on top of my head was when Lilly Singh said she was very disappointed and accusatory when there were no women in a top 10 highest earning Youtubers or something like that. That was arguing for equality of outcome from a big media personality. That's just one example, there are so many more. 

 

 

[Hansu]

@SamC

Do you view Twitter feminists as feminists? In my view they lean more into misandry than feminism.

I think Tarja Halonen is a good example of a true feminist

https://www.fininst.uk/events/tarja-halonen-calls-for-change-in-attitudes-towards-sexual-violence/

 

 

 

[SamC]

1 hour ago, Hansu said:

@SamC

Do you view Twitter feminists as feminists? In my view they lean more into misandry than feminism.

I think Tarja Halonen is a good example of a true feminist

https://www.fininst.uk/events/tarja-halonen-calls-for-change-in-attitudes-towards-sexual-violence/

 

 

 

@Hansu Yes and no but I am still aware that I don't see it clearly becuase I get so triggered by the misandry ( the excesses of it) which tells me that I can't fully understand feminism and it which tells me that I can't fully understand and accept myself.

In other words, I think I still cannot integrate it. Also, evrything is basically in exsess because 99% of society is reacting against something instead of integrating it so there really isn't any difference. The goal should be to love and understand all feminism and misandry.

I'll be completley honest, when I first read the quote I interpreted it as misandry too, which tells me that I probably generalize all feminism to misandry and that I therefor can't see the systemic problems of inequality that clearly.

Thoughts?

 

 

[EnRoute]

11 hours ago, SamC said:

Again what do I got wrong?

I can't tell you that.

Women are better treated in today's society than men. You can find female lawyers online that give impartial advice to men, telling them to be careful when they plan to get married, for example. The courts are in favor of women.

As for men, we're fighting in wars. We're having the most difficult jobs on the planet. We keep the structure of society going. We're living in a good society basically and I don't see the need for feminism, although females should have the same rights as men and be treated with respect and dignity.

[Shin]

1 minute ago, EnRoute said:

I can't tell you that.

Women are better treated in today's society than men. You can find female lawyers online that give impartial advice to men, telling them to be careful when they plan to get married, for example. The courts are in favor of women.

As for men, we're fighting in wars. We're having the most difficult jobs on the planet. We keep the structure of society going. We're living in a good society basically and I don't see the need for feminism, although females should have the same rights as men and be treated with respect and dignity.

As long as women aren't paid as much as men, you need to be very biased to not see the point of feminism.

Without feminism, it will never happen, cause feminism is a green stage reaction to the condition of women in prior stages.

[EnRoute]

2 minutes ago, Shin said:

As long as women aren't paid as much as men, you need to be very biased to not see the point of feminism.

 

It's illegal to pay a man more than a woman. It should never happen, obviously.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Derek White said:

We can flip this around and ask feminists this same question, "why are you so insecure if men get treated a bit better?"

Why don't you ever ask that of the other side?

Your flipping around ignores historical context and is a doubling down on your petiness.

Women have been suppressed for much of human history. And the only reason they aren't so much in America today is due to 100 years of vocal feminist action.

So the situation is not at all symmetrical as you would feign.

The majority of women around the world are discriminated against and suppressed still. When you realize this maybe you'll start to sing a different tune.

Take a look at how entitled you are.

[Hansu]

49 minutes ago, SamC said:

Yes and no but I am still aware that I don't see it clearly becuase I get so triggered by the misandry ( the excesses of it) which tells me that I can't fully understand feminism and it which tells me that I can't fully understand and accept myself.

Im being devils advocate here when I say that could it be, that you dont get triggered by misandry itself, but by the fear that misandric people could one day get power and start to move the nordic countries from equality to inequality? That was my problem with the Twitter misandrists, and when I realized that they will never get real power due to their extreme views, all my anxiety towards those people went away. Your case could be different, tho.

49 minutes ago, SamC said:

I'll be completley honest, when I first read the quote I interpreted it as misandry too, which tells me that I probably generalize all feminism to misandry and that I therefor can't see the systemic problems of inequality that clearly.

I undestand, the quote out of context can be interpeted as misandric, but in the context of western societies and systemic oppression of women it starts to make a lot of sense. You are definitely on the right path though, keep rocking

Personally I think your problem is that you were born in a country with very high (perhaps worlds highest?) equality of opportunity. It feels stupid to think that there is inequality in the nordic countries, thats what I thought for 25 years too.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Hansu

[Katlicitas]

3 hours ago, Derek White said:

We can flip this around and ask feminists this same question, "why are you so insecure if men get treated a bit better?"

Why don't you ever ask that of the other side?

Why don't we treat poor people, ugly people, and weak people a little better? Why does it have to be on gender lines?

And it's not just about treating women a bit better, if we are treating them a bit better at least be honest about it.

The last line literally applies to feminists talking about the "pink tax". 

yeah come on let's ask these questions! What about these marginalised groups? Have you read up on the mistreatment of poor, ugly and weak people?
Or more importantly: Have you read up on the systemic and societal discrimination against men? Because these things exist!
I urge you to do your research and argue for betterment if you truly care about these issues! Otherwise I need you to stop only bringing up these topics if somebody else wants to talk about their rights. All these issues are real and most importantly, they overlap! What about poor, ugly and weak women? What about gay black men? Virtually everyone in the world is being discriminated against in some way. Noone can talk about everything all at once. If you care about something, speak up! Otherwise don't make it harder for people wanting to get treated better.

[Shin]

27 minutes ago, EnRoute said:

It's illegal to pay a man more than a woman. It should never happen, obviously.

It may be illegal, but when you need to feed your children, and it's the only job you found,

Those women don't really tell themselves "I will sue them".

It's more like "I have no choice, I better shut my mouth".

 

See you say feminism is too much, but there are still lots of sexism, even in the most advanced societies.

What some of you guys really can't deal with, is how women are superior in your mind cause there are basic needs you don't get from them, that you think they deny from you intentionally.

Without this sexism based around needs that aren't met, you wouldn't think women are going overboard, you would be unbiased about their situation.
 

Now that's an assumption that I make, and I'm not targeting you specifically, but that's one major reason I think some men are so sexist even though they say they aren't (deep down they are).

The counterpoint would be "but hey, what about those dudes who fuck lots of women !", well that's another problem, those guys see women as sexual objects, it's the other side of the spectrum (frustrated nice guys/toxic assholes).

[Rajneeshpuram]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A) Stop listening to JP.

B) Go read some feminist books.

C) Check your biases.

Feminism is about about women overtaking them. Feminism is about women being treated on par with men.

Women were not allowed to get a bank loan until the 1970s without a man's permission.

Just think about that.

Why are you so insecure that you are bothered by women getting a little bit better treatment?

We all know That JP is referring to toxic feminism, not equality of rights. For example for entering in the police or fireworkers the physical tests are easier for women, this is wrong, because a criminal or a fire is not gonna say oh its is a woman, lets her put things easier...

This kind of feminism tries to put things easier for women so they dont get offended or victimized. So they end up being snowflakes.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Rajneeshpuram said:

We all know That JP is referring to toxic feminism, not equality of rights.

If JP was speaking 100 years ago, he would be arguing the dangers of letting women vote, lest it make us all "snowflakes."

He is paranoid. Bottom line. A paranoid mind sees every bush rustle.

[Preety_India]

You gotta be a bit softer with women. Why be so hard?

They are the gentle sex. 

No?

 

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Derek White said:

I have heard feminist argue for equality of outcome in personal life and online, so there you go. One example I can think of on top of my head was when Lilly Singh said she was very disappointed and accusatory when there were no women in a top 10 highest earning Youtubers or something like that. That was arguing for equality of outcome from a big media personality. That's just one example, there are so many more. 

That isn’t arguing for equality of outcome. She’s NOT arguing that all YouTubers should make the same amount of money. 

That’s noticing an inequality in a particular industry, and extrapolating that there may be deeper prejudices in society or within Youtube as a company (perhaps with its algorithm) causing that inequality.

She’s expecting that, if everything in the system of society or YouTube as a company lacks corruption and runs fairly, that you wouldn’t have such an extreme disparity in gender of the top earning YouTubers. And therefore, if there is a disparity, then this must be an indication of bigger issues within the system in question.

She’s not arguing that all YouTubers should make the same amount of money.

And she isn’t saying that we need to take money away from the top earning male YouTubers and give it to women.

And she’s not arguing that YouTube or the government need to go in and give women extra money to make it so that women are making just as much.

She’s just pointing out a disparity and attributing it to deeper issues in the system. That’s what stage Green is about.

[Karmadhi]

@Leo Gura I have a question though, what right do males have in America in 2021 that females do not. All the historical examples are nice and shows that feminism was important but these days, is it really? What more can females achieve towards gender equality?

Only argument i can think of is the gender pay gap, however Peterson made an excellent argument once on an interview that the reason females get paid less is because females in general are more agreeable than males are. Agreeable person=easier to pay him less and companies obviously love to maximize profits so they will try to get away with paying people as little as possible. With males that is harder due to their more dominant nature. A female that acts like a guy will not get paid less. It is not a gender issue, it is a agreeable vs non agreeable personality issue. That is what he said and it makes a lot of sense to me. I used to be very agreeable and it was a lot easier for others to screw me over or not do me justice because of that.

 

[Carl-Richard]

8 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

It is not a gender issue, it is a agreeable vs non agreeable personality issue.

Agreeableness is one factor. Reality is much more complex than that. Unless you have the numbers, I doubt that agreeableness accounts for all the variance in the gender pay gap. Monofactorial explanations is basically unheard of in the study of social systems.

[Karmadhi]

@Carl-Richard There are multiple factors, i just said one of them. Gender is not the only factor as feminist complain these days.

Btw:  I have a question though, what right do males have in America in 2021 that females do not. All the historical examples are nice and shows that feminism was important but these days, is it really? What more can females achieve towards gender equality?

Do you have anything to say to this?

[Carl-Richard]

50 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

There are multiple factors, i just said one of them. Gender is not the only factor as feminist complain these days.

You said it's not a gender issue but an agreeableness issue. That is not true. There are many more factors associated with gender and the pay gap.

 

50 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Btw:  I have a question though, what right do males have in America in 2021 that females do not.

I'll answer with a question: What rights do blacks have in america in 2021 that whites do not? If they have the same rights, why are millions protesting on the street? It's just not that simple. You can't take a single factor like laws on paper or agreeableness and try to explain complex systemic issues like gender or racial equality. Now, attempts to solve these problems may involve looking at single factors, which initially works as symptomatic relief, but in doing so, it hopefully leads to systemic change in the long-term.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Derek White]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Your flipping around ignores historical context and is a doubling down on your petiness.

Women have been suppressed for much of human history. And the only reason they aren't so much in America today is due to 100 years of vocal feminist action.

So the situation is not at all symmetrical as you would feign.

The majority of women around the world are discriminated against and suppressed still. When you realize this maybe you'll start to sing a different tune.

Take a look at how entitled you are.

“We are going to treat women a bit better because they were teated poorly in the past.”

Okay, then don’t talk about fairness. And don’t be surprised when men find you hypocritical and think it’s a bit unfair.

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If JP was speaking 100 years ago, he would be arguing the dangers of letting women vote, lest it make us all "snowflakes."

He is paranoid. Bottom line. A paranoid mind sees every bush rustle.

That’s speculation. 

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

She’s just pointing out a disparity and attributing it to deeper issues in the system. That’s what stage Green is about.

She didn’t do that. 

[Emerald]

29 minutes ago, Derek White said:

She didn’t do that. 

Link the story to me then, where Lilly Singh is arguing for equality of outcome... where she wants all YouTubers to make the same amount of money.