I finally got around to reading that Cathy Young op-ed about Jordan Peterson — I’ve been distracted, and the names “Cathy Young” and “Jordan Peterson” do not inspire enthusiasm. It was rather awful.
The whole thing can be summarized briefly as, “Gosh, Jordan Peterson is kinda goofy on some stuff, but he is exactly right when he bashes on feminism”. It’s about what you’d expect from Young, who is an anti-feminist in the same vein as Christina Hoff Sommers. There are lots of moments where I’m just flabbergasted at her biases.
For all his flaws, Peterson is tapping into a very real frustration: More than half a century after the modern feminist revolution began in the 1960s, we have yet to figure out new rules for partnership between men and women.
No, we’ve got no problems figuring out the rules, they’re easy. Treat women with the same respect you would men. She also glosses over the real problem, that women in the workplace are not there to form a “partnership”, especially not a sexual partnership, with their male colleagues. That’s the real problem, that some men are incapable of relating to women without assuming that their role as women is to be sexual…when it’s not. We don’t have an issue with men flirting with their male colleagues, yet for some reason it’s not possible for women to be present without sexual banter flying about, and when it happens, it’s all the woman’s fault.
Although Peterson can sound like a chauvinistic crank when he seems to suggest that women incite sexual harassment by wearing makeup to the office, his larger points — that evolving norms are generating confusion and mixed signals, and that women play a role in sexualizing work environments — are far from absurd.
Young is incorrect. They are totally absurd. He claims that women wear red lipstick because they turn red during sexual arousal
. No, that’s not it. It’s because we have social conventions of attractiveness that differ for men and women, and we all heed them out of a general interest in fitting in, and in being presentable in the workplace. Why do men shave their faces, wear neckties, and shun wearing skirts? I’m sure you can invent a biological rationale for all of that, but that doesn’t make it true. A woman accepting the social standards for appearance of her peers and community is no more flaunting her sexual availability than is a man doing likewise — she is trying to generally look good, just like every other person on the job.
I mean, otherwise, look at the man in that interview, wearing a long tie to boast about his possession of a penis. Disgusting. Maybe we need workplace regulations that prohibit ties, pants, and stereotypically masculine hair styles in the office.
Consider: We have rejected traditional sexist proprieties that forbade coarse language in front of “the ladies,” yet a man can now be fired for telling a crude joke that offends a female co-worker. Calling women “the weaker sex” would be considered shockingly retrograde, yet ambivalent sexual encounters are easily recast as violations of women, with men presumed entirely responsible for ensuring consent. Workplace romances abound, yet flirting could be one step away from someone’s idea of sexual harassment.
I thought this was enlightening, although perhaps not in the way Young intended. Go ahead, take a look at the link she gives for some radio hosts getting fired for telling a crude joke that offends a woman. The story actually says there were “multiple complaints against both hosts over the course of more than a dozen years” and that there were many “allegations of inappropriate comments and bullying”.
This kind of minimizing is a common strategy by the anti-feminists. A pattern of frequent abuse and belittling behavior is recast as a one-off incident, and a man is being punished for a brief mistake. But that’s not the case. In her example, these men had multiple warnings and explicit prior actions to change their behaviors. One was given “one-on-one anti-harassment training for him and a warning…that he was creating an uncomfortable work environment”, which is a darned serious step to take prior to their firing. These were apparently popular radio hosts, so the station wasn’t going to fire them on a whim — there was sustained provocation.
But sure, it was just a crude joke.
The conclusion of Young’s piece is blatantly dishonest, and I’m surprised no editor caught it and said they couldn’t possibly publish this lie.
For all its successes, contemporary feminism’s main message to men is not one of equal partnership. Rather, it’s: Repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally — and we still won’t trust you. It’s no wonder that Peterson has found an eager audience in this climate. If feminists don’t like his message, they should offer a better one.
Wow. First she says the message of feminism is Repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally
— it isn’t, by the way, and it’s nothing but the ridiculous faux feminism Young always bashes — and then she blames feminism for having a poor message, when the message is purely hers.
How about if we ask a real feminist, someone like bell hooks, for instance, what the real message of feminism is?
Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.
But maybe she thinks men are supposed to abase themselves and be obedient?
When men embrace feminist thinking and preactice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.
It seems to me that feminism already has a better message than that bullshit Cathy Young makes up. It’s definitely a lot better than the nonsense Jordan Peterson peddles.
Some years back, I had an idea for a website called Strawman.com. The original essay (not PZed’s erudite criticism) be a good post on the website that I never got around to creating.
Some years back, we had a volunteer who, over dozens of years, told crude, sexist, bigoted, and/or racist jokes while volunteering. He assumed that, since (at the time) his division was all-male and all-white (still all-white (we do have some volunteers of colour (that sounds awkward but I’m not sure how to make it better)), no longer all-male), no-one would object.
There were complaint after complaint. Many (perhaps most) were ignored by an old-school manager (now long retired) who didn’t want to risk losing an experienced locomotive engineer. Finally, after almost twenty years, seven counseling sessions, three on-line anti-harassment courses, and two long discussions with our superintendent, he told one more joke and was asked to not come back as a volunteer.
Of course, to him, it was just one joke. And that is the way he portrayed it (and continues to portray it) on Facebork and railfan sites. We lost a mediocre engineer and got rid of a racist, bigoted, sexist asshole. And yes, some of the other volunteers could only focus on the one joke. Two more resigned over it. To me, no great loss.
That division, which depends on volunteers, is thriving and becoming more diverse. Which is, to me, a good thing. Sadly, not to all.
How long would it take for people to figure out Jordan Fucking Peterson is a rightwing conservative lunatic Christian? “A woman who wears make up and complains about sexual harassment is a hypocrite” is basically the same old religious victim blaming.
@2, I think we’re there already. Conservatives today are basically the little kid with their hand in the cookie jar (does anyone have them anymore or are they tofu jars these days?) saying “But I didn’t try to take one, honest!” or “But I said I was sorry!”.
High quality milk, a good strain of lactococcus and a nice, cool cave to develop in.
Oh, HOMage. Carry on…
Bugger. Wrong thread.
1. As PZ already noted, this is just wrong.
2. It’s also a very flimsy strawperson.
Cathy Young has brutally beat up and conquered a large pile of straw of her own making.
It’s not canon, but still probably a good feminist message.
women play a role in sexualizing work environments
Oh FFS. You know, ladies, if you didn’t insist on working then you wouldn’t be there to get harassed and assaulted at work. Assume responsibility for your part in creating a hostile work environment for yourselves!
We have not banned swearing to protect the delicate ears of “the ladies”. I would love for Ms Young to come spend a day on a job site with me, where I constantly remind people of all genders that the clients don’t appreciate listening to constant f-bombs as nouns/verbs/descriptors or expletives, shhhhhhhhhh! Her ‘ladies’ premise is basic sexist stupidity, and using profanity is not the same thing as telling sexist ‘jokes’ in order to harass a coworker.
I wonder how long before the JP fanboys discover this thread? It was very clever of PZ to disguise it with Feminism which should repel them for at least 4-6 hours.
So don’t flirt! Really, it’s not that hard to not flirt. I’ve almost never done it, and when I have done it, it’s been with someone I was already in a relationship with. It makes me uncomfortable when people do it to me (on the rare instances when I recognize that it’s happening), and I’m a big scary man. Also, don’t make crude jokes with people unless you know them well enough to know they enjoy them too.
For Christ’s sake, I’m super-awkward and I often miss social cues, but even I don’t have any trouble understanding those rules.
I bet you ten to one that someone already did that, and that the rationale supports sexism.
@ 11 rietpluim
shun wearing skirts
Clearly the author has never seen a Highland Regiment on parade.
I do believe I read, once, that the Royal Hong Kong Constabulary Pipe Band claimed that they were too modest to wear kilts.
for me it all boils down to the realization that I am not the center of anything and I am no more important than anyone else.
simply put it is not about me!
as was revealed in another recent post about freeze-peach it is always in the “anti” mind some form of “I can say anything I want but you can not insult or criticize me”. Implied but seldom stated openly ” I am more important than you and therefore it is all about me”
uncle frogy
Because of homo sapiens’ evolutionary history of spontaneous orgasmic physiognomous depilification. Duh.
I mean, that’s why female persons are less likely to have facial hair in the first place: they’re more likely to be capable of multiple orgasms, and the more orgasms the less facial hair which fostered epigenetic changes in the follicles. Since the follicles are where the eggs grow, the epigenetic changes influence the oocyte, but the epigenetic changes affect female children twice as much because they have double the number of X chromosomes. And also because of the lobsters.
No, Cathy. many people have happily figured them out, it#s only that many men flat out refuse to come along.
Which results in women deciding that they can do without a man.
Which is where Peterson’s enforced monogamy comes into play: remove options from women so they will settle for some guy.
In the 1960s, young women wore white lipstick.
I’m starting to think Peterson is the 2010s version of John Gray, who brought us the wonder that is Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.
Raven @6
But she piled her own straw, and didn’t need some man to come along a beat it up for her! Why do people say she’s not a feminist? /s
@ Crip Dyke 14 – I love it when you explain stuff to me. *:* You have the best explanations!
Let’s put her in a room with Germaine Greer, and they can see how much they agree on these days.
In the 1990s, black lipstick was very popular. I still see it around today.
@timgueguen
The funny thing is, the whole different planets thing can be useful as a rhetorical device to understand things like this. Unfortunately people like Gray have poisoned the well to the point where it’s just not useful anymore. Rhetorical devices in general are hard to use just because many (especially in the alt-right and other groups where people like Peterson find traction) automatically jump on them as an “ah-ha!’ to try and prove you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are guilty of something. No, I’m not really sure what they think people are guilty of, it seems to just be generalized guilt.
Just to be clear, I don’t think men and women are that different, just that, as a rhetorical device, it can be useful seeing as so many men are so blind to what constitutes harassment, etc., that they seem to be from a completely different culture.
jrkrideau Personally, I think kilts look pretty manly, so I don’t see why men would shun from wearing them.
Also: sarong, djellaba, mianfu…
I’d have thought the heat and humidity would be more valid reasons for not wearing a kilt in Hong Kong. Proper kilts are pretty heavy because they are made of pure wool, add in that wool can easily absorb up to a third of it’s own weight in water without feeling wet and given the humidity in Hong Kong the band woud be using all it’s energy for just wearing the kilt with none over for playing.
my take on harassment is shaded by my experience.
men and boys often experience harassment from their peers or those who they are forced together with like sports teams, some work environments. men harassing other men some of the harassers are in fact just bullies. there are many ways to handle this that are acceptable and still be a part of the group you can call the aggressor out and physically challenge him because the harassment is an aggressive act, you can try clever counter measures that put the aggressor on the defensive which may end in a more physical confrontation any way , you can join in the game and vent by harassing someone else, you can not show fear you can not show pain you can not turn the other cheek, you must not show anything but dominance that is what harassment is about. it is not rough joking around, those who engage in it know that very well . it is nothing more or less than a dominance display, for many they have no idea how it could be any different
uncle frogy
There are actually several different weights of “proper” kilt, ranging from light dancing kilts to heavy (and practically waterproof) hill kilts. However, I do agree that any variety of kilt would be pretty inappropriate for a full-on tropical climate such as Hong Kong…
I don’t know, I think letting her characterize sexualized abuse and misogynistic harassment as a feature of “sexualizing the workplace” concedes an important point, which is that while abuse can certainly take place in a sexual relationship, workplace (schoolplace, neighborhoodplace, anyplace) harassment that is sexual (verbally, physically) doesn’t necessarily signal sexual interest; the harasser chooses the appropriate weapon for the appropriate foe, and women can be easily undermined in others’s eyes when they are framed as Sex Objects and dating material, not colleagues, bosses, clients, or professional rivals.
Young wants to pretend that the mere presence of women in a space she defines as belonging to men is the catalyst for harassment, that women are sex and thus can’t be separated from the act itself, and have only themselves to blame for getting uppity and wanting to earn a living among men who are hardwired to view them as holes. That’s baloney, it’s typical right-wing misandry (“all men are straight and only interact with women to get a leg over because women aren’t valuable or human enough to do anything else with, it’s just biology”), and it’s the reason why mainstream press choose to describe the rape and abuse of women with euphemisms like “sexual misconduct” (cf racism as “racially charged” behavior or language), which assumes sex, and not humiliation or intimidation, is the end-goal harassers invariably have in mind.
The make-up thing is absurd. Women live our lives mostly for ourselves, like everyone else. That is separate and distinct from the beauty standards we’re expected to comply with. But in any case, we’re not constantly on stage, not constantly sending coded messages to men (female homosociality never occurs to any of these creeps), and our vast inner lives are not devoted solely to pursuits of applied beauty and grace. Again, there’s this inability to separate women as something other than a thing men want, like to look at, and can possess and penetrate, not to mention the boring heteronormativity of it all.
So lazy and not so much bad faith as no faith. Feminists are now supposed to cater to anti-feminists. The existence of anti-feminism proves feminism wrong. Go into the sea with ye. It’s like talking to a cocky fifth-grader with an eighth-grader’s reading level and penchant for contrarianism.
Men need to stop working out and wearing fitted dress shirts to work. Oh and that cologne and gel-styled hair isn’t helping the work environment either.
Well, fitted dress shirts is okay, I guess, so long as they’re long-sleeved, you know? And buttoned right up to the top, thanks.
I can’t tell if this person* is wearing a necktie!
*I think they’re a man, but since they’re wearing a skirt, I could be wrong.
Desperate attempts to defeat cooties? Besides being scared of cooties, they are scared of nesting cooties so remove the obvious nesting place; Tying a piece of cloth around the neck is an old superstition for warding off cooties†; and Everyone knows where the cooties go if the primary nesting site is shaved off. This is one of the many Corollaries to the Law of Really Really Scary Cooties, which mostly explains many misogynisms.
† Precisely how overheating the neck wards off cooties is a mystery. Legends include it simply cooks them (the cooties, albeit self-fried brains are not unknown); Cooties can’t climb over a “properly”-rigged rabbit snare; and The appalling dress sense scares the cooties away. The mildly deranged penguin speculates it’s because the cooties aren’t scared away, but laughing so hard they simply fall off.