Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Activism versus Discussion thread
Options
-
10-05-2018 12:16pm#1FishOnABike wrote: »
This seems to be for male perpetrators of domestic violence. Are there any similar schemes for female perpetrators of domestic violence and corresponding support structures for men on the receiving end of domestic violence? Or am I naieve to ask?
I don't know. It would probably take years of lobbying and campaigning to get something like that setup. You don't tend to see much activism for men's issues. The feminists are on the ball with lobbying and campaigning. It would be great to see more men's rights lobbying and in time, there would be results like the a men's DV shelter.
These things don't just come about out of nothing. The government doesn't just phone up and ask if you want money for a DV shelter. Further to that if you lobby for funds for a women's DV shelter and are successful, the government won't just give you the money for an equivalent men's shelter.
MOD:
Posts moved from the Man Up Campaign thread to this dedicated thread on activism versus discussion/proselytism. Hopefully that discussion can remain in this thread and other threads can remain on topic.0
Comments
-
FishOnABike wrote: »
And we wonder why male suicide rates are four times that of females?
I don’t see a direct connection. What point are you making exactly?
In any case nothing happens without organised and persistent lobbying and campaigning. If there’s a woman’s DV shelter it’s because people lobbied for years to change attitudes and get money. If there’s no men’s DV shelter it needs people to lobby for years to change attitudes and get money. Simple as that.0 -
professore wrote: »
Definitely around access to children and parental rights in general there is a huge inequality that needs to be addressed. I'm in a happy stable marriage but if I wasn't I would be in there campaigning. As it stands I have precious little time for that kind of thing.
Fair play. These things won’t change without activism.
Everyone should do what they can. For example challenging the notion that men should actively campaign. Lots of people are buying into the slurry yer man Peterson is spreading this season. Talking down the importance of activism and raising awareness in achieving change. One small thing you could do is to acknowledge those who you see campaigning and challenge this fatalism that there’s no point in campaigning for men’s issues.
Whether it’s men’s domestic violence support or family courts a you mention above, nothin happens without activism.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Everyone should do what they can. For example challenging the notion that men should actively campaign. Lots of people are buying into the slurry yer man Peterson is spreading this season. Talking down the importance of activism and raising awareness in achieving change
Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.
He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.
A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.
The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.
Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.
Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.
With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.
These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.
Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.
You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.
Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.1 -
Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.
He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.
A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.
The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.
Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.
Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.
With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.
These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.
Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.
You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.
Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.
The more I read Peterson's followers the more i see that his followers feel the other side are most in need of his teachings.
Look, if people want men's DV shelters or to change the family court system, they need to organise and campaign for it. Peterson's teachings are irrelevant to it at best and his followers who promote tidying your room over activism are actually harmful to achieving any change in the laws.
Grand in theory, at best irrelevant in practice.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »The more I read Peterson's followers the more i see that his followers feel the other side are most in need of his teachings.
I've seen Peterson being brought into a debate and misrepresented twice today.
Both times by you..
No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..
I'm glad I held off..El_Duderino 09 wrote: »What’s his message on this one?
I admire DeadHand's patience. They've given you a far more comprehensive response then I would have. I don't have an issue with you having an issue with Peterson but for your own sake you should at least make sure you know and understand what he's saying before critiquing it. He's incredibly specific with his words so there's no room for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.0 -
Advertisement
-
No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..
I'm glad I held off..El_Duderino 09 wrote: »What’s his message on this one?
I admire DeadHand's patience. They've given you a far more comprehensive response then I would have. I don't have an issue with you having an issue with Peterson but for your own sake you should at least make sure you know and understand what he's saying before critiquing it. He's incredibly specific with his words so there's no room for misunderstanding or misinterpreting.
Look again at what deadhand actually said. To summarise, one sentence that says Peterson would say you should get your own house in order before attempting activism. The rest of the post is about how Peterson’s approach should be applied to feminism, not the issue at hand.
And you seem to think this answers my question about what Peterson would say about this issue?
In any case, I haven't seen anyone say the first approach to raise awareness of domestic violence against men or improve the lives of Male victims of domestic violence, is naturally to start by tidying and beautifying your room or self improvement if any kind.
It hasn’t been said because it’s nonsense to apply Peterson’s preaching to a real world problem (except DH did write a number of paragraphs about how feminists should heed Peterson)0 -
Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.
He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.
A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.
The movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.
Many modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.
Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.
With all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.
These individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.
Of course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.
You should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.
Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.
Very well said, much applause!0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Look again at what deadhand actually said. To summarise, one sentence that says Peterson would say you should get your own house in order before attempting activism. The rest of the post is about how Peterson’s approach should be applied to feminism, not the issue at hand.
And you seem to think this answers my question about what Peterson would say about this issue?
In any case, I haven't seen anyone say the first approach to raise awareness of domestic violence against men or improve the lives of Male victims of domestic violence, is naturally to start by tidying and beautifying your room or self improvement if any kind.
It hasn’t been said because it’s nonsense to apply Peterson’s preaching to a real world problem (except DH did write a number of paragraphs about how feminists should heed Peterson)
You're very fixated on Peterson for some reason and it's a little cringe worthy watching you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance on the topic. I think he has a lot of good things to say and I admire his absolute refusal to kowtow to political correctness but as has already been pointed out to you, he's a university lecturer, he's not a god.
Take what he has to say or don't. It's a free world. You do have a choice in the matter..0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Look again at what deadhand actually said. To summarise, one sentence that says Peterson would say you should get your own house in order before attempting activism. The rest of the post is about how Peterson’s approach should be applied to feminism, not the issue at hand.
And you seem to think this answers my question about what Peterson would say about this issue?
In any case, I haven't seen anyone say the first approach to raise awareness of domestic violence against men or improve the lives of Male victims of domestic violence, is naturally to start by tidying and beautifying your room or self improvement if any kind.
It hasn’t been said because it’s nonsense to apply Peterson’s preaching to a real world problem (except DH did write a number of paragraphs about how feminists should heed Peterson)
You're very fixated on Peterson for some reason and it's a little cringe worthy watching you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance on the topic. I think he has a lot of good things to say and I admire his absolute refusal to kowtow to political correctness but as has already been pointed out to you, he's a university lecturer, he's not a god.
Take what he has to say or don't. It's a free world. You do have a choice in the matter..
I acknowledge we have free will. I'm not certain why you mentioned that.
I'm bringing him up because his self help philosophy is in vogue at the moment so I'm looking to see where his followers actually apply it in a real life situation. So far nobody has suggested applying his self improvement to this issue (except to say feminists should heed it).
If his teaching was actually taking hold, surely it would have real world application. In actual fact, people are willing to jump to his defence if challenged, but wouldn't dream of applying his teachings to this situation because hey would be useless.
We need more support for men's DV shelters, start by cleaning your room, then read some philosophy, then wait for Peterson's next book.
I'd bet the farm that his next book will be about achieving change in society and all of a sudden his followers will be all about organising and campaigning. I hope that happens because that would at least be useful.0 -
Very well said, much applause!
A quick breakdown of that post you found applause worth.Peterson is possibly the most misrepresented commentator of all time, and here is more of it.
He does not downplay activism, he advises it is not attempted seriously until a person has their own life and emotional house in order.
Feminists are dreadful and they should heed Peterson.A good example of where this message could be received profitably is in the depressing case of modern feminism, which is absolutely riven with mental illness and emotional problems.
Feminist are dreadfulThe movement has degenerated badly after a noble history.
Feminists are dreadfulMany modern feminists conduct themselves grotesquely in the West. Screaming at the sky in pussyhats, waging war against sexist central heating systems or parading around cities in lingerie or menstral blood soaked clothing because... reasons.
Feminist are dreadful.Less dramatic though no less deranged and far more sinister are those of the sisterhood who bully elderly academics and broadcasters for reasonable commentary, bully socially hapless scientists for what they choose to wear, campaign for the destruction of innocent men on the basis they are men and were erroneously accused of harming a woman, Etc., Etc., Etc.
Feminists are dreadfulWith all this bizarreness, it becomes difficult to discern where the pathology ends and the ideology begins. It’s a movement populated heavily by unhappy, resentful people.
Feminists should heed PetersonThese individual feminists may do well to digest some of Peterson’s work (specifically that concerning activism and the individual versus the collective) with an open mind. It may help improve their lives just as Peterson has already helped to improve the lives of thousands of women through his private practice and public work.
Poor Aul PetersonOf course, most despise Peterson for no reason other than they’ve been told by their peers that they should. They don’t understand his message (as you don’t) and are not interested in trying to understand. They condemn and attempt to silence before reading and truly listening.
El duderino should heed PetersonYou should read his book and watch his lectures; you may be pleasantly surprised.Now, I’m not suggesting that J.P. is the second coming but, contrary to the rubberbandit, I’d argue that young feminists need Peterson a lot more than young men need feminism.
Feminists should heed Peterson.
Is there any situation where Peterson's own followers should heed Peterson or is Peterson's philosophy just to be applied to the other side?
I don't know if you noticed but the feminists have just won a major battle that was waged over the last 30 odd years. They campaigned and lobbied and raised awareness to the point that it became mainstream. I'm expecting you to say it wasn't a feminist issue. But obviously that's the point. They turned it Into a mainstream issue by pushing the envelope and bringing it to the public consciousness.
Either those repeal activists have their own house in perfect order before they criticised the system, or else they didn't need to have their house in perfect order to cause a massive changes in society.
In any case, they're out there changing society and men's rights are going nowhere fast. Instead lots of the people who purport to care about men's rights are caught up in navel gazing and telling the feminists they ought to be navel gazing too. Well they're not navel gazing, they're out there changing society.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've seen Peterson being brought into a debate and misrepresented twice today.
Both times by you..
AKA the Cathy Newman argument.
You've hit the nail on the head there IMO. Still at least people aren't blind and can see the same patterns occurring again and again.No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..
I'm glad I held off..0 -
LostinBlanch wrote: »
You've hit the nail on the head there IMO. Still at least people aren't blind and can see the same patterns occurring again and again.No offence but I didn't engage with your question on the other thread as i didn't believe you were actually interested in an answer..
I'm glad I held off..
Look i asked how Peterson's approach can be applied to this situation and the answers have been that other people should do as Peterson says. The reason being that his approach is useless to adopt in this situation.
The good news is that there is a solution but it's not in Peterson's book or YouTube videos. Its the oldest trick in the book. Get organised and raise awareness.
This idea that giving it about feminists and saying they should read Peterson in lieu of actually campaigning for the issues that matter to men, is dangerous.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Look i asked how Peterson's approach can be applied to this situation and the answers have been that other people should do as Peterson says. The reason being that his approach is useless to adopt in this situation.
The good news is that there is a solution but it's not in Peterson's book or YouTube videos. Its the oldest trick in the book. Get organised and raise awareness.
This idea that giving it about feminists and saying they should read Peterson in lieu of actually campaigning for the issues that matter to men, is dangerous.
You seem to be getting awfully excited, time to go out in the sunshine, perhaps? You could sit somewhere sunny and browse Peterson's book; a more pleasing and enlightening way to spend a day than being wrong on here.
In any event, Peterson is all for getting organized and raising awareness AFTER you have achieved some equilibrium in your personal life thus improving your public efforts.
You'd understand this if you actually studied his work instead of attacking him thoughtlessly because you mistakenly believe him to be "the enemy".
You should stop evoking Petersen's name and cease making absolute value judgements on his philosophies- you have proven yourself ignorant as to what his work actually contains.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Either those repeal activists have their own house in perfect order before they criticised the system, or else they didn't need to have their house in perfect order to cause a massive changes in society.
In any case, they're out there changing society and men's rights are going nowhere fast. Instead lots of the people who purport to care about men's rights are caught up in navel gazing and telling the feminists they ought to be navel gazing too. Well they're not navel gazing, they're out there changing society.
Contemporary feminists do like to claim victory for societal evolutions that are much bigger than and have little to do with their ugly movement. They're a lot like ISIS that way.
About the only thing both the No and Yes side agreed on after the referendum was that if neither had bothered campaigning the result would have been the same. People had made their minds up before a poster was erected (sorry if that verb causes you offence) or a purple haired woman grabbed a megaphone.
There was no dramatic chasm between the male and female vote- 70% of women and 65% of men voted Yes. It was not a gender war, it was not even a gender issue so much as it was a legal and societal issue, even if feminist groups in Ireland tried to gender the issue as they try to gender every issue- unable as they are to see anything unless through that narrow prism.
The referendum was the entirety of our society moving in a certain direction informed in the main by personal conscience and experience, not an electoral coup for Irish feminism.0 -
Contemporary feminists do like to claim victory for societal evolutions that are much bigger than and have little to do with their ugly movement. They're a lot like ISIS that way.
About the only thing both the No and Yes side agreed on after the referendum was that if neither had bothered campaigning the result would have been the same. People had made their minds up before a poster was erected (sorry if that verb causes you offence) or a purple haired woman grabbed a megaphone.
There was no dramatic chasm between the male and female vote- 70% of women and 65% of men voted Yes. It was not a gender war, it was not even a gender issue so much as it was a legal and societal issue, even if feminist groups in Ireland tried to gender the issue as they try to gender every issue- unable as they are to see anything unless through that narrow prism.
The referendum was the entirety of our society moving in a certain direction informed in the main by personal conscience and experience, not an electoral coup for Irish feminism.
This is exactly it. They took a feminist issue an made it mainstream. You can downplay that all you like but it wasn't a mainstream issue 30 odd years ago and last week it received mainstream approval.
The vote happened last week, the campaign to repeal the 8th amendment is decades old. I get that you can't give credit to a movement that you spend so much time discrediting and ridiculing. It must be infuriating to watch them so successfully achieved societal change.
Ok so if activism isn't the solution to men's issues like domestic violence, and tidying your room isn't the solutions, then what is the solution?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Look i asked how Peterson's approach can be applied to this situation and the answers have been that other people should do as Peterson says. The reason being that his approach is useless to adopt in this situation.
The good news is that there is a solution but it's not in Peterson's book or YouTube videos. Its the oldest trick in the book. Get organised and raise awareness.
This idea that giving it about feminists and saying they should read Peterson in lieu of actually campaigning for the issues that matter to men, is dangerous.
You seem to be getting awfully excited, time to go out in the sunshine, perhaps? You could sit somewhere sunny and browse Peterson's book; a more pleasing and enlightening way to spend a day than being wrong on here.
In any event, Peterson is all for getting organized and raising awareness AFTER you have achieved some equilibrium in your personal life thus improving your public efforts.
You'd understand this if you actually studied his work instead of attacking him thoughtlessly because you mistakenly believe him to be "the enemy".
You should stop evoking Petersen's name and cease making absolute value judgements on his philosophies- you have proven yourself ignorant as to what his work actually contains.
Ok I'll leave the personal stuff aside.
How do you know who has and hasn't achieved equilibrium in their personal life? Have you achieved equilibrium in your personal life? Have the people involved in the the abortion campaign for the the last 30 odd years all got equilibrium in their lives?
You don't need equilibrium in your life to campaign for something worthwhile. Self improvement is grand but it not a necessary step to campaigning for something useful like father's rights.
Seriously can you explain why equilibrium in your life is in any way a prerequisite for campaigning for change in the law?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I get that you can't give credit to a movement that you spend so much time discrediting and ridiculing. It must be infuriating to watch them so successfully achieved societal change.
The abortion referendum was passed by a landside by the Irish electorate, not just some plucky band of feminists.
Absolute nonsense from you to claim that posters here are upset by the referendum result. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »
The abortion referendum was passed by a landside by the Irish electorate, not just some plucky band of feminists.
Absolute nonsense from you to claim that posters here are upset by the referendum result. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt except you have proved yourself to be one of the most consistently dishonest posters on the site.
I’ll probably just leave the personal stuff aside.
I was pretty careful to say the referendum was last week and the campaign is decades old. They campaigned and grafted for decades to bring it into the public consciousness and gain public support. They were so successful that they convinced 2/3 of the voters to support their idea.
30,40,50 years ago, abortion was very much a fringe feminist idea.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I was pretty careful to say the referendum was last week and the campaign is decades old.
I quoted what you said above so there is no mistake about what you said at all.0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »El_Duderino 09 wrote: »I was pretty careful to say the referendum was last week and the campaign is decades old.
I quoted what you said above so there is no mistake about what you said at all.
Grand so. I said it throughout the last few pages including in the post directly before your post.
In any case that's the situation with referendum was last week, the abortion campaign is decades old. It was very much a fringe feminist issue for most of that time. They turned it into a mainstream issue by persistently pushing the issue and gathering support over the decades. That's how people bring about change.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's an overly simplistic and self serving view of how societal change has occurred in Ireland over the previous two or three decades but I have no interest in getting into a debate on abortion.0
-
Pat Mustard wrote: »That's an overly simplistic and self serving view of how societal change has occurred in Ireland over the previous two or three decades but I have no interest in getting into a debate on abortion.
It’s also accurate. Abortion was a fringe feminist issue whether you want to discuss it or not.
I’m not sure if you noticed or not, but you haven’t shown interest in discussing anything. You sniped from the sideline and now your off, as is your way in my experience. It’s been as much fun chatting with you as usual.
I mean if abortion is an archetypal feminist issue of the last few decades. They’ve been so successful that they have brought2/3 of the voting pubic on board.
It’s textbook campaigning and it was successful in the end0 -
No, what you say isn't accurate. There were a number of different factors which came into play here, other than feminist activism.0
-
Pat Mustard wrote: »No, what you say isn't accurate. There were a number of different factors which came into play here, other than feminist activism.
I’d love to hear what you have to contribute to the discussion, but alas you haven’t yet.
I mean, this should be easy enough for you to slip out of by saying the feminists of 40 years ago were the good ones. But now you’ve committed yourself to the position that it wasn’t the feminists pushing abortion for the last 40 odd years. Lol.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »But now you’ve committed yourself to the position that it wasn’t the feminists pushing abortion for the last 40 odd years. Lol.
There's a reason why you said that but didn't quote anything that I actually wrote.
I presume that this is the 'bait' part of the classic El Duderino bait and switch. I'm sure you'll try harder next time.0 -
Pat, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Its great fun having you pop by to drop a few insults, but it would be even better if you had something to add except unpleasantness.Pat Mustard wrote: »There's a reason why you said that but didn't quote anything that I actually wrote.
I presume that this is the 'bait' part of the classic El Duderino bait and switch. I'm sure you'll try harder next time.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Pat, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion? Its great fun having you pop by to drop a few insults, but it would be even better if you had something to add except unpleasantness.
Do you know that people would discuss issues with you, if you discussed the issues plainly instead of misrepresenting the issues, misrepresenting what people have to say, pretending that you don't understand people at times, pretending that you can't insert links in your posts, pretending that working links don't work for you, etc.
You can talk about unpleasantness all you want but if you can't up your own game, then you should expect that other posters are going to give you short shrift.
You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.0 -
Pat Mustard wrote: »Do you know that people would discuss issues with you, if you discussed the issues plainly instead of misrepresenting the issues, misrepresenting what people have to say, pretending that you don't understand people at times, pretending that you can't insert links in your posts, pretending that working links don't work for you, etc.
You can talk about unpleasantness all you want but if you can't up your own game, then you should expect that other posters are going to give you short shrift.
You're obviously an intelligent guy. There should be no need to resort to these tactics.
Thanks for the pep talk pat. Be sure to drop by if you have anything to contribute to the discussion. Or the as usual to lob a few insults and leave.0 -
Pat’s unpleasant detour over. Has anyone come up with a good way to achieve change to laws like the family court system or create domestic violence services for men, that doesn’t involve organising and campaigning.
Cleaning your room is great, but are we assuming that the abortion referendum proponents of the last decades all had their own house in perfect order before they tried to change the system? Is anyone coming to see that the Peterson stuff is grand, but is also complete beside the point when it comes to causing societal change?0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Is anyone coming to see that the Peterson stuff is grand, but is also complete beside the point when it comes to causing societal change?
I don't necessarily agree that it's beside the point.
Cultural and external influences change how people think, maybe not immediately but slowly.
A socially left wing type of thinking has begun to emerge in certain aspects of society, recently. This has manifested in laws which give additional rights to particular groups of people. Travellers are now a protected group. It is not yet known where this protected status will lead. Because of the structure of political funding, gender quotas exist in relation to political nominations for election. The purchase but not the sale of sex is a criminal offence, per the (left wing) Swedish model of dealing with prostitution.
These are not rights which have been called for by the electorate at large. In my view, these changes in law and society stem from socially left wing ideas which have become more prevalent in politics these days. Activism may have played a part in such change but I think that cultural influences such as ideas from other countries, ideas from newspapers and discussion sites also serve to plant and/or change points of view.
In my view, discussion on this site could have some impact on the views that others could express. Such views might translate into votes in elections or referenda.
Much of the mainstream media seem leftist in their outlook to varying degrees. Few social commentators seem to argue plausibly from a more socially conservative standpoint. In a way, Jordan Peterson proposes to fill that void.
He has ideas. He spreads those ideas. He influences certain people.
Perhaps he will influence the thinking of some people, to the extent that societal change may occur. I wouldn't rule it out.0
Advertisement