If the advice is good, it matters not who says it. As they say in football, 'play the ball not the man' and so the continued fallacy that is argumentum ad hominem continues. Caitlin Moran would do well to break down some of JPs points she disagrees with and present a coherent, respectful and logical counter. She may discover JP is pro-men rather than anti-women - there's a huge difference.
Hello, I don't see that Caitlin Moran attacks the man at all. Rather she's saying that JP is clearly very unhappy meaning that his insights and advice on how to live life will probably make you unhappy too if you. follow them. That is entirely logical.
She also does go through his points in a respectful and coherent manner if you would like to read the book. She goes through the 12 rules for life in his book. She has problems with the lobster analogy. Male lobsters will become depressed if they lose a single fight. Therefore he says, the because this one animal of millions has this trait human males, who are completely different to lobsters, must always be aggressive, fighting and winning. Second problem is that JP says 'Order is symbolically associated with the masculine.' and chaos with the feminine. Order is structure, tribe, religion, hearth, home and country. 'Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself...the monster under the bed, the hidden anger of you mother (very telling) and the sickness in your child. Chaos is the depair and horror you feel when you.have been profoundly betrayed (also telling)...the place you end up when things fall apart; when your dreams die.' Doesn't sound very pro-women to me. Jp presents no evidence that men and women are actually divided like this. Only mythology. How can those who mostly run the home, organised holidays, look after children and elderly parents and work at the same time be chaos? Peterson sees femaleness and femininity (ie women) as the main problem of men. He recounts a female patient he saw when a psychologist and how he doubted her story of rape. He praises 'bullies' as 'corrective' over the 'touchy' and over 'children' . Female 'nags' are bad because 'if men are pushed too hard to feminize (ie do housework) they will become more interested in harsh, fascist ideology'. (though being a bully is OK). A wife should be treated as the holy mother of god (ie a perpetual virgin).
I hope you're not going to tell me that Andrew Tate may be pro-men rather than anti-women.
It's revealing you assume I've not read the book, indeed some passages had to be re-read several times in astonishment at the intellectually lazy, and sometimes dishonest, assumptions about men (that is not supported by any evidence). How can one take anything she writes seriously when claiming I “couldn’t think of any book, play, TV show or movie that basically tells the story of how boy-children become men”. C'mon, really!? Unfortunately, it's cringworthy and the gender equivalent of 'mansplaining' which, from an author that has historically produced and communicated very useful interjections, is rather disappointing.
I am steering clear of the diet discussions. Meat; yes or no? Do not talk to me about how meat or veggies or, for God's sake, fruit is enough and healthy. Humans are . . . omnivores.
Objectification results in victimization.
If the advice is good, it matters not who says it. As they say in football, 'play the ball not the man' and so the continued fallacy that is argumentum ad hominem continues. Caitlin Moran would do well to break down some of JPs points she disagrees with and present a coherent, respectful and logical counter. She may discover JP is pro-men rather than anti-women - there's a huge difference.
Hello, I don't see that Caitlin Moran attacks the man at all. Rather she's saying that JP is clearly very unhappy meaning that his insights and advice on how to live life will probably make you unhappy too if you. follow them. That is entirely logical.
She also does go through his points in a respectful and coherent manner if you would like to read the book. She goes through the 12 rules for life in his book. She has problems with the lobster analogy. Male lobsters will become depressed if they lose a single fight. Therefore he says, the because this one animal of millions has this trait human males, who are completely different to lobsters, must always be aggressive, fighting and winning. Second problem is that JP says 'Order is symbolically associated with the masculine.' and chaos with the feminine. Order is structure, tribe, religion, hearth, home and country. 'Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself...the monster under the bed, the hidden anger of you mother (very telling) and the sickness in your child. Chaos is the depair and horror you feel when you.have been profoundly betrayed (also telling)...the place you end up when things fall apart; when your dreams die.' Doesn't sound very pro-women to me. Jp presents no evidence that men and women are actually divided like this. Only mythology. How can those who mostly run the home, organised holidays, look after children and elderly parents and work at the same time be chaos? Peterson sees femaleness and femininity (ie women) as the main problem of men. He recounts a female patient he saw when a psychologist and how he doubted her story of rape. He praises 'bullies' as 'corrective' over the 'touchy' and over 'children' . Female 'nags' are bad because 'if men are pushed too hard to feminize (ie do housework) they will become more interested in harsh, fascist ideology'. (though being a bully is OK). A wife should be treated as the holy mother of god (ie a perpetual virgin).
I hope you're not going to tell me that Andrew Tate may be pro-men rather than anti-women.
It's revealing you assume I've not read the book, indeed some passages had to be re-read several times in astonishment at the intellectually lazy, and sometimes dishonest, assumptions about men (that is not supported by any evidence). How can one take anything she writes seriously when claiming I “couldn’t think of any book, play, TV show or movie that basically tells the story of how boy-children become men”. C'mon, really!? Unfortunately, it's cringworthy and the gender equivalent of 'mansplaining' which, from an author that has historically produced and communicated very useful interjections, is rather disappointing.
I am steering clear of the diet discussions. Meat; yes or no? Do not talk to me about how meat or veggies or, for God's sake, fruit is enough and healthy. Humans are . . . omnivores.
Why do I care about JP? Who the hell is he?
And who is CM?