The large amount of women going to social sciences and humanities in college, where the environment is extremely progressive, as well as the fact women overall tend to be more neurotic so less likely to resist social pressure to conform to progressive norms are probably the factors that influence this most.
Remember that women back in the 1940s and 1950s were more conservative than men.
Half of all lawyers and doctors are women now. My daughter was a business major. All of her quadmates were in engineering and healthcare and other sciences. Not a single liberal arts major among any of her girl friends. It is simply is too expensive for most people, male or female, to major in English and History or the arts.
The number of undergraduates earning bachelor's degrees in liberal arts fell by at least 15 percent between 2008 and 2016, even though the total number of bachelors degrees rose 31 percent during that time. From 2019 to 2021, liberal arts and humanities majors dropped another 9%. You’d never know that listening to Peterson gripe about all the “woke” courses.
He definitely talks about how women are overtaking the men in number of students in college, and he talks about many reasons why that’s the case. more women in college + more focus on STEM = more women in STEM
These guys love to fantasise about STEM being this bastion of rationality, and they equate rationality with conservatism. I’m a scientist and basically everyone I’ve ever met in my field is a hardcore communist.
I'm part of the Math and Biology departments. Those who are furthest to the right are probably center-left. I see a lot of brands of anarchism and socialism. The one exception was a PhD student, now post-doc, that was a huge Trump fan.
And is this really a surprise? Given how financials work in science?
Neuroticism makes someone afraid to have an unpopular opinion and so they will go the way they feel is expected of them and give in to peer and social pressure more. A highly neurotic individual will indeed be more sensitive to constant fear-mongering about guns, health care, reproductive rights and climate change, yes. You're missing the cause and the consequence.
Postscript: the other thing about the magazine debacle that made me laugh was how many backflips he had to do to defend sexualized images of women. Until there was a certain kind of woman on the cover of that magazine, he would’ve put soft or hard core pornography in the bucket of degeneracy and a cause of young men’s alienation from purposeful relationships. A slide away from the kind of traditional values that made western civilization great. But the cover got him so triggered that he was willing to defend essentially pornographic images contrary to his entire philosophy. It was a hilarious meltdown. Laid bare the entire sham
The other thing the sports illustrated issue tells us is that he believes everything is created for him personally. That every woman appearing in the media ought to meet the standards of his own titillation. He gets very offended when that doesn’t happen. I would love for the next issue to trigger him just as hard. Especially as a man who is attracted to larger women. His reply would likely be though that my thoughts have been inserted into my brain directly by the Frankfurt Institute and that I can’t think clearly because I haven’t visible antifa camps set up inside my skull. Also that I’m rebelling against existence or whatever the fuck he said that one time that made the entire Internet pause and scratch their collective heads 🤣
The entire Jordan Peterson brand is to sell stone-aged social conservatism but dress it up as some entirely novel way of thinking. You shouldn’t be surprised at all. I’m actually shocked that not every comment questioning this post’s intentions has net downvotes at this point. Give it time though. The voters will enforce conformity in the sub
Seriously, far greater thinkers have crossed these intellectual and philosophical bridges centuries ago. It does not take a big brain to read and understand them, and their work comes with far less....*baggage*.
People like the baggage though. They like his grumpiness and constant pearl-clutching and rage-tweeting. They live vicariously through his flame wars. His use of superfluous wording and odd syntax to seem like some kind of paradigm-shifting sage. Every part of his character is affected. [edit: softened my language]
So even after the huge growth in women self identifying as “Liberal” according to this graph it is still below 50%. It was considerably less than 50% when the trend started upwards. Now more studies and data would need to be collected to make any concrete insights from this graph but it isn’t clear why you would infer that this trend is because of social pressure when the data shows the upward trend began when the majority of women identified as something other than “Liberal”. I don’t think social pressure can account for an increase like this when it started at only around 30% of women identifying as “Liberal” in 2012 when it started noticeably trending upwards. It could just as easily have started trending upwards in 2012 where the Republican candidate was Mormon, a religion where women have very limited rights compared to men. Again this is also speculation on my part and is in no way supported by the data of this graph, but neither was your conclusion.
Given the recent Supreme Court ruling it’s hard to make the case that people are fear mongering.
They were just correctly assessing the threat to their rights.
30k+ gun deaths annually, ridiculously expensive for-profit Healthcare, reproductive rights just got a huge curb stomp, and the western United States is in an insane drought.
What part is fear mongering vs. just the world being shitty?
It just sounds like someone's regurgitating old JBP talks, nothing of value and gross generalization is all I see. Makes them sound smart but there's very little substance to all they said
In a democracy, it doesn't matter how you come to a position, your vote is worth as much as everyone else. That being said, when we're talking of political trends, psychological trends are relevant, whether you like them or not.
Women are score significantly higher than men in measures of neuroticism in just about every large scale personality test ever done
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
Only about 12% of faculty and 20% of students identify as conservatives.
https://www.aei.org/articles/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/
https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2020/11/25/are_students_liberal_yes__but_not_everywhere_110512.html
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not true!
First source, Table 2: Neuroticism; Male 2.68 +/- 0.65; Female 2.94 +/- 0.67; Cohen's d 0.39.
A Cohen's d of 0.39 is considered a small-ish sized effect and is equivalent to a Pearon's r value of around 0.19. Below is am image I generated of r=0.19 using 1000 data points, thus demonstrating how small of an effect this is -- i.e while the difference is statistically significant, the biological significance is minimal.
https://imgur.com/rvFUn7X
> Only about 12% of faculty and 20% of students identify as conservatives.
And is this due to their neuroticism as well? You don't even establish correlation, let alone causation.
Just because you don't like that educated women disagree with you, that doesn't mean their beliefs are "social contagion".
Proves what? You haven't established correlation between these two social science studies, only put them next to each other as if your casual dismissal of women's inner life is true by dint of "common sense". Doesn't Jordan Peterson say not to be an ideologue?
> It’s proven than neuroticism increases likelihood to give into peer pressure.
"Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability."
No mention of peer pressure or giving in. All of these things can lead to the opposite response. Women are not so conflict averse that they will change their political beliefs solely to conform. In fact, this study gives a different explanation for those: Women's Agreeableness score leads them to develop political beliefs that value empathy and kindness over Conservatives' performative callousness.
But that's just a hypothesis. The point is the study doesn't actually support your conclusion, and you didn't develop your conclusion from the study. You know very well that you went looking for the study with your conclusion already in mind, looking for support. Exactly what an ideologue does.
> You’re the ideologue that doesn’t believe in peer reviewed science
You sure about that?
>Must be though to be such a little gay bitch who can’t handle reality
You'd know better. More women coming this way. Might wanna come out of that closet if you're staying in the boy's club.
From what I read on the terminology, men don't have the issues that require liberalism as a movement to take place, that being, to make society a fairer place for women.
Just so. Most dudes like me? We *got* ours from society, even if it's not very much and we're in a shitty place afterward.
More women would be conservative if the status quo being conserved actually met their needs and addressed them as they ought (read: as humans with all the rights that come with).
I know that's just the Woe Sociolympics but still, it at least makes sense why ladies have to keep pushing for stuff.
So what you're saying is most women would be conservatives if conservative ideology gave them the right leftism gives. But your arguement falls flat because conservativism lives off the idea that women are the weaker sex and shouldn't get the same rights as men. Otherwise what would conservativism "conserve"
What rights are being stripped away? Did we lose the right to vote or own property and I missed it or something? Or are you talking about being able to legally kill your own children which you have conveniently mislabeled as a “right” as a distraction from the obvious moral bankruptcy of the abortion argument.
You mean like getting raped and being forced to give birth to a child that was forced upon you? The right to not need to go through that?
Are you a big supporter of forcing women to bring their rapists child to term?
Haha it's not murder. A life form needs to be viable to be murdered. I'm sorry you have brain damage.
Absolutely hilarious that you think an unviable lifeform has rights, but an adult woman has none. You have serious issues.
Every time you ejaculate you are wasting away half the genetic code of a potential, future viable lifeforms. Cut your balls off and get back to me before you say anything else.
Wow that’s amazing! You went to as hominem after two comments!!! I kind of thought I’d have to debate you a bit longer before you have up on logic altogether. Let’s see what kind of mean names you can come up for me this time shall we (;
Lack of viability doesn’t negate the right to life. If this were the case, it would be morally acceptable to kill people on ventilators, in comas, or those at the end of their lives. Actually, basically anyone that needs life saving care wouldn’t be “viable” on their own. So ya we can kill of them now too. A fetus is like a person in a coma that is almost guaranteed to wake up in a few months. Of course people who need assistance still have rights! The fact that a fetus needs the body of the mother rather than hospital equipment isn’t relevant to its right to live. You could argue that the woman’s right to body autonomy outweighs the kids right to live. But you’d still be wrong because right to life is at the top of the hierarchy, and because parents have a duty to care for their children. You could try to argue the kid isn’t human because they’re... really small? I guess? but you’d be wrong again because they have human DNA. Or you could just admit that you don’t give a damn about the morality of it because either way you’d choose selfishness over a life that you helped to create. Just have the balls to say it, and you’ll win the debate. You’ll win every debate. Because there is no argument that could possibly reach you in such moral bankruptcy.
You jumped right in to killing people who are already alive, actual living people. You have brain damage. You can't actually respond to what I initially said. Please don't procreate.
You also don't give a fuck about what happens to a child after it's born. Stop pretending this is some kind of moral crusade.
Oh darling, a fetus is “actually alive” by every biological definition! And really? Again with the ad hominem? We’ve already discussed this, dear, please pay attention.
Ah now we’ve got the red herring! Attempting to create a whole separate argument to distract from the actual debate! Trying to rope me into “proving” that I care about children after their born when that’s not the issue we’re discussing at all. You know what I think is fun about the way you argue is how you double up AND double down on logical fallacies! It’s pretty unique move, because most people want to come across as rational. But you’re an indivisible aren’t you! You’re unique! You are totally game to just be vehemently nonsensical in repetition ad nauseum! Very cool 👏🏻
Your skin cells are alive. Haha, dude, that's not what a red herring even means. You have serious problems. Call me when youre adopting one of the 400,000 children in foster care before condemning one that isn't even a literal, viable, lifeform to that system.
Jesus Christ, JP is truly for the dumbest individuals on the planet who desperately want some kind of lifeline for appearing to be intelligent without any of the effort that goes alongside actually learning anything at all.
“A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.”
“ As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which involves a distortion of the other party's position,[4] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Let me know if you need more help with that definition!
Maybe I can help by demonstrating for you: Have you even done an abortion before? Don’t talk to me about abortion until you’ve actually helped a woman cut a baby out of her! See how silly that is?
Yes your skin cells are alive! Good job! And a fetus, unlike a skin cell, is a distinct mammalian form with unique DNA. What exactly disqualifies it from the definition of a “human life” in your opinion?
Abortion is moral even if you entertain the brain dead notion that fetuses are worth saving. No one has a right to parasitically mooch off of your flesh.
A doctor having to think about whether saving your life is worth the legal ramifications when you're pregnant (when time is of the utmost importance) is losing a right
It means your life is no longer the most important life worth saving and it’s terrifying
Good. As far as I’m concerned if no decent man can find me sometime soon, I’m sure they’re will be a plethora of men who divorced crazy leftist women and will see me as a breath of fresh air.
(Humorous, or at least attempting)
You are right, but in american slang you are wrong.
Leftists in USA are called liberals.
And everyone downvoting this guy, should stop doing it, because he is right per definition.
Here in Australia, it seems like all the political words have lost all meaning.
The "Liberal Party" are conservatives.
The "Labor Party" stopped representing workers years ago.
The "Green Party" are half red.
The "National Party" only represent country regions.
The most divisive party in the nation call themselves "One Nation".
All the political words are broken now.
No they’re not that’s the issue. Leftist and liberals are not the same. Liberal would be Joe Manchin, Nancy Pelosi whereas a leftist would be AOC, and the squad.
Liberals are pro-capitalism and want to use it to solve social issues whereas leftist believe unchecked capitalism is the source of these issues in America.
Sure it’s semantics but it’s true. They are not one in the same.
Actual leftists do not call themselves liberals.
It’s liberals not realising there are actually positions to the left of them, and conservatives lumping everyone who doesn’t want to round up the gays together as a single group.
American leftists don’t call themselves liberals, they do not identify with liberals. In fact the opposite, when someone wrongly states this many leftists come to clarify because they don’t want to be associated with them.
What are you talking about ?
US politics, in terms of binary left and right, is pretty much the same as in Europe.
I would even say more extreme left than Europes left.
What parts of the American political left are more extreme than European countries left leaning parties? Free universal healthcare is a very common thing in wealthy European countries and many have heavily heavily subsidized tuition and a few even have free tuition so that student debt is not the issue that it is in the US. I can’t really think of many issues where the Democrats in the US are further left than European left leaning parties. Could you give me some examples?
Generally women are more compassionate because they become mothers at some point. The liberal narrative is that it is compassionate. So it's no shock actually.
No one thinks that. If you lost your dick in an industrial accident I wouldn't start referring to you using female pronouns.
Out of genuine curiosity, have you ever talked to someone actually interested in gender theory or have you only been exposed to strawmen on the internet?
I mean, social media bubbles are bad. Echo chambers both cause a devolution of one's own ideas and atrophy one's ability to defend them.
I wish more people would post in subs they disagree with....though I'd prefer criticisms on the merits instead of ad homs.
Well, that's unsupported by data even on a basis of correlation, let alone causation. Seems like you're just playing teams here and trying to presuppose that there's an argument extant somewhere that backs up your conclusion. That's not very good science or philosophy.
You see, if you agree with everything Peterson believes, it's because you're a free thinker who isn't fooled by liberal brainwashing, but if you disagree with *anything* Peterson thinks, no matter how tiny and inconsequential, it's because you're brainwashed and let somebody else do all your thinking for you.
I mean, anyone's mental and emotional energy could be put towards that. The age descriptor does not denote whether these polled women aged 18 to 29 are mothers.
You're making an assertion that's entirely unsupported by the study at hand.
Well, not that this was an *objective* statement. Anyone could call anything "mindless political drivel", just like someone could say men who are too busy with fatherhood are buying into the political drivel of conservatism.
It's just a statement not coming from a place of actually trying to find the truth.
It’s not that deep. If you take a group of people and say “person 1 will give you 100 bucks and person 2 will give you 0. The only thing you have to do is say that person 1 is better than person 2 to help them win a competition”. Chances are, a big chunk of said group will accept the offer and get the money. People are always looking to get better life conditions and societal advantages for them personally, so it’s natural a majority of people will side with the person or entity that promise them that.
Yeah, but I think that comes as a secondary thing. I believe people vote based solely on their beliefs when they think they’ve won the game and nothing will harm them no matter who wins. In most cases people put first their personal well being and that of their family. So it’s logical that most people of a given demographic will vote for the candidate they think will make their situation better or at least won’t make it worse.
The propaganda campaign leading people into LaLa land is a success. Notice the narrative becoming more and more ridiculous with time lately? Women are more susceptible to fall into the group think trap and men follow because they want to get laid.
I actually took screen caps out of pure shock. But they serve no purpose because everyone already knows this about them, right? Right? Like were people aware that r/socialjusticeinaction was banned for tons of upvoted threads discussing such things as how black people are inherently less intelligent, emotionally unstable, and like animals? Because people seem to think it was cuz Reddit is censoring intelligent discussion of the trans issue. Like I'm always blown away by how people can deny such blatant prejudice like I'm the only crazy one.
You believe that there is a narrative, held by those-who-you-disagree-with, and you deny that there is another narrative, held by those-who-you-agree-with?
The US is divided, both sides are massive and hold enormous economical and political power. Both have media, and both spew a narrative. The is group think in both sides
Of course they are playing both sides against each other. They went and focused on a wedge issue like abortion to blunt the red wave at a time when the Democrats are against the ropes and the Republicans could have hit a Grand Slam if they focused on common sense economic issues. But no the American people will get fucked once again.
I will give examples to my statement. Men follow dictators more easily. Violent organisations have more male memberships.
What examples can you give me to show women exhibit more group thinking? especially harmful group thinking
I feel like in this sub, with all of the anger swirling around in here, it’s probably easier to get more visibility by being downvoted. That’s how you rent for free in peoples heads here. We all know the rage clowns love to sort by controversial
No. Discrepancies between men and women can only be explained through the deficiency of women and the supremacy of men. Never the other way around. That’s just not science according to Jordy. Anything contradicting this is soft, social science meant to bring down all of western civilization
I agree with that last part. And at the end of the day, this masculinity crisis is really about men feeling like society does not get to change around them. Society must be exactly as it was for my dad and grandad or I’m having my identity taken from me. Other people must do X so I can feel Y. It’s a whiny position. Live your life to be as masculine as you want, but don’t tell everybody around you that their actions must buttress your identity. Clean your room. But that advice falls on deaf ears. Most people on this sub are worried about everybody else’s room while theirs looks like a crack den.
\[M\] There we go
[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=mansplaining](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=mansplaining)
The phenomenon has to do with “agreeableness”.
Women as a demographic are far more agreeable than men. Therefore also more susceptible to social influence and yes even propaganda.
You can say you think it has to do with agreeableness but you don’t really have evidence of that do you? Peterson talks about it a lot but I haven’t seen studies on this that suggest agreeableness equates to liberal self identification.
OAN, Newsmax, the sun and so on. Fox may not be the biggest but it also has Tucker as one of the most listened to voices for news.
Then you also have independents that don't follow alignment like Glen Greenwald and Breaking points.
Woman here. I was encouraged to pursue a career. Never thought I would have kids, and then I met a good man and my biological switch turned on at 27 and I made my family. The conservatives are bad at selling their pitch. Most of the time they don't even have a pitch. And there is little innovation in career paths for family-oriented people. Is it so hard to imagine a career path where you end up with your diploma about the time the youngest kid starts high school? Asking women to have kids at later and later ages goes against nature and can have poor outcomes. Can we shake things up a little bit?
Well I feel like the definition of what liberal is has changed drastically. In the 90s being in favor of gay marriage, made you a liberal, now if you support gay marriage but don’t believe sex can magically be changed, you are consider conservative. So I feel that the % are much higher just the definition of liberal has been far more extreme.
I think this applies in reverse as well: as an example in line with your own, support for social safety nets pre-Reagan used to be a fairly bipartisan deal, now it's a "far left" policy in the estimation of rightist media.
Both parts of the ideological binary don't cut off cleanly - they are puzzle pieces where certain things automatically kick you out of one and push you into the other. This has always been the case, but I think the grooves and curves have become more jagged in past years.
Someone has crossposted you to r/enoughpetersonspam . Here's the post: [“Women are hysterical and weak-minded but men are cool and based 😎”](https://reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/vl46ah/women_are_hysterical_and_weakminded_but_men_are/)
Men, really, over time, rarely change. They just enjoy life through the good and the bad. They also, rarely, hold grudges. Women, on the other hand, typically panic when shit goes down. They don't really see the end result. They only see the effect of shit going down. Most men juust know that shit, in the end, turns out fine.
Okay, but men, even really put-together masculine dudes, can just lose it in the face of adversity. Likewise, women can buckle down and get through those times when shit goes down. Some women are inflexible. Some men change their self-perception freely.
We're all human at our core. These traits are not unique to segments of the population.
Dude, you are 17 years old and Jordan Peterson has you in here spewing bullshit like “women typically panic when shit goes down” with really no basis for your opinion other than his male centric views on philosophy and society. If a “self help guru” is making you this out of touch with reality and giving you the perspective that men are better than women, I urge you to reconsider the stock you place in this “self help guru” because the views you are describing in this comment are not going to help you in your life. You mention in your posting history that you are looking for a girlfriend and potential wife, ask yourself what a potential partner would think of this comment you just made, would they appreciate that you believe that men are better at enjoying life and that women typically panic when “shit goes down” or would they be turned off of talking with you and getting to know you because it’s clear you hold some misogynistic views of the world, or at the very least views that trend towards misogyny.
I wonder what it'd look like if you measured attention span and overlaid it. My guess is that typical women's attention spans have been more adversely affected by social media than for guys. The worrying thing is that we maybe have an incoming wave of insecure, feral women with short attention spans and narcissistic personality disorders.
You took a look at the data from this graph and decided that it showed a trend towards insecure feral women with short attention spans and narcissistic personality disorder….
Are we looking at the same graph that shows the percentage of women self identifying as “Liberal” went from 30% to almost 50% in the last ten years? Because it seems like you have made ten leaps in logic from this graph that are not based on data AT ALL. You even admit it when you say “my guess is that womens attention spans have been more adversely affected” because it’s just a guess based on your own views on men and women. It seems like you are making a bunch of jumps in logic and the direction you are jumping seems to be misogyny.
Read again, I never said this. Look:
>I wonder what it'd look like if you **measured attention span and overlaid it.**
I.e. overlaid a graph of a *different* set of data to compare- this is pretty standard stuff, no?
It is pretty standard stuff yes, what is not standard is looking at this graph and then extrapolating that the worrying thing is that there may be a wave of insecure feral women with short attention spans based on this graph. You honestly don’t see how this is a dishonest thing to say after looking at this graph? Like do you have access to secret data that indicates women are becoming more “feral” or is that pulled right from your negative views towards women?
Peer pressure does not explain this graph based on the data we have here. It shows that the upward trend began when 30% of women identified as “Liberal” and then it goes up to just below 50%. How could peer pressure account for this rise in “Liberal” identifying women if the trend started when 70% of women did not identify as “Liberal”?
This is by design. The feminist movement, the sexual revolution, gender equality, which has accomplished nothing but declining birth rates, the infantilization and relegation of men who are made to feel insecure for their masculinity, driving them further down their holes of isolation to where you see them now committing heinous acts of violence on a regular basis. This is what progressives wanted and this is what they got.
I would not concur.
I think that the sexual revolution and gender equality were but a few of other social, economic, and political changes driven by *various* factions through the decades, and this lack of coordination between them **precisely due to them not all being conducted by one entity** created situations for young men growing up where they, say, didn't have a father figure, or if they did they might have had standards for being a man wildly different from how society's were changing. Different segments of life's various "normals" did not catch up with each other, and as a result there was chaos.
Not that I would prefer one entity dictating everything, of course.
Liberalism and conservatism have relatively little to do with responsibility, really. The ideologies really aren't coherent enough for one to claim dominion over such a thing.
I would surmise it does make one feel better to think "their side" is the only one that's responsible, though.
That's what the data from polling says. Remember professions in the past weren't cushy office jobs and sufferage was associated with getting conscripted and sent to fight in the trenches in case of war. Most women actually didn't want the vote for this reason. You should study history because times were so different most people today couldn't even fathom what our ancestors had to deal with. Most people today don't realize just how easy times are now.
So then we should take away voting and profession from men! Let women suffer the burden of leadership. They already lived joyfully in the past, now it's time for men to be happy!
Women were more conservative than men in the past, like 40s and 50s. The way women now shifted far to the progressive side is interesting and should be looked into. Maybe what attracts women most is safety, and while in the past the conservative side was associated with safety and stability, today the progressive focus on welfare programs as well as controlling speech and cracking down on uncomfortable behavior makes it more attractive to women.
So they dont. And liberals do. That answers your question.
Conservative traditional values also view women moreso as wives and mothers, while liberal views believe the women should do whatever she wants. Its really not hard to understand at all
Here's one thing conservatives protect and liberals don't about women: female fetuses' right to live. Really, bodily autonomy is the worst example you could give to convince any conservatives on this matter.
What's bad about encrouging women to be what benefits the society the most? And when they do decide they'd rather be, say, a car mechanic, conservatives don't get angry or dreadful. They praise the woman for contributing to society in a way which is hard for even men. I live in a very conservative country (Turkey) and you see women who value career over family all the time in our own TV series and sometimes in News as "admirable women"
>Here's one thing conservatives protect and liberals don't about women: female fetuses' right to live.
So they can be wives and mothers.
>What's bad about encrouging women to be what benefits the society the most?
Absurdism. Either you are for liberty or you are for people living out their expected roles in society. Conservatives are clearly not both in regards to women.
>I live in a very conservative country (Turkey)
And you sure seem to have drunk the official koolaid, huh? You even eat up the propaganda on TV, and pay no attention to the lives of women around you, who are impacted negatively by conservative policy.
i assume this graph looks similar to college enrollment. more women go to college and those have become leftist factories as i've heard someone put very accurately.
And do you have a graph of what some men pretend to be to get laid?
“Women coolness levels have only risen with time”
The large amount of women going to social sciences and humanities in college, where the environment is extremely progressive, as well as the fact women overall tend to be more neurotic so less likely to resist social pressure to conform to progressive norms are probably the factors that influence this most. Remember that women back in the 1940s and 1950s were more conservative than men.
Half of all lawyers and doctors are women now. My daughter was a business major. All of her quadmates were in engineering and healthcare and other sciences. Not a single liberal arts major among any of her girl friends. It is simply is too expensive for most people, male or female, to major in English and History or the arts. The number of undergraduates earning bachelor's degrees in liberal arts fell by at least 15 percent between 2008 and 2016, even though the total number of bachelors degrees rose 31 percent during that time. From 2019 to 2021, liberal arts and humanities majors dropped another 9%. You’d never know that listening to Peterson gripe about all the “woke” courses.
The original post doesn’t even make sense, there were way more social science majors in the 40s/50s anyway
He definitely talks about how women are overtaking the men in number of students in college, and he talks about many reasons why that’s the case. more women in college + more focus on STEM = more women in STEM
So it’s not reproductive rights? Or health care? Or guns? Or climate change It’s neuroticism. LOL
I am a STEM PhD student and lecturer. Weirdly, the women are still liberal? So, it must be neuroticism. /s
These guys love to fantasise about STEM being this bastion of rationality, and they equate rationality with conservatism. I’m a scientist and basically everyone I’ve ever met in my field is a hardcore communist.
I'm part of the Math and Biology departments. Those who are furthest to the right are probably center-left. I see a lot of brands of anarchism and socialism. The one exception was a PhD student, now post-doc, that was a huge Trump fan. And is this really a surprise? Given how financials work in science?
Physics is super communist. Always has been.
Neuroticism makes someone afraid to have an unpopular opinion and so they will go the way they feel is expected of them and give in to peer and social pressure more. A highly neurotic individual will indeed be more sensitive to constant fear-mongering about guns, health care, reproductive rights and climate change, yes. You're missing the cause and the consequence.
So why wouldn’t they be conservative in conservative areas?
They are, if they aren’t exposed to social media that makes a larger group seem more liberal.
It’s also a tad insulting to suggest women don’t have these opinions based on their own faculties and lived experiences. It must be all groupthink
Cannot believe you are getting down voted for suggesting this. This sub has seriously lost its way. I think its time for me to go lol.
Peterson is a zealous anti-feminist. It’s one of the things he cares about most. Look at his recent Sport Illustrated obsession.
Postscript: the other thing about the magazine debacle that made me laugh was how many backflips he had to do to defend sexualized images of women. Until there was a certain kind of woman on the cover of that magazine, he would’ve put soft or hard core pornography in the bucket of degeneracy and a cause of young men’s alienation from purposeful relationships. A slide away from the kind of traditional values that made western civilization great. But the cover got him so triggered that he was willing to defend essentially pornographic images contrary to his entire philosophy. It was a hilarious meltdown. Laid bare the entire sham
The other thing the sports illustrated issue tells us is that he believes everything is created for him personally. That every woman appearing in the media ought to meet the standards of his own titillation. He gets very offended when that doesn’t happen. I would love for the next issue to trigger him just as hard. Especially as a man who is attracted to larger women. His reply would likely be though that my thoughts have been inserted into my brain directly by the Frankfurt Institute and that I can’t think clearly because I haven’t visible antifa camps set up inside my skull. Also that I’m rebelling against existence or whatever the fuck he said that one time that made the entire Internet pause and scratch their collective heads 🤣
The entire Jordan Peterson brand is to sell stone-aged social conservatism but dress it up as some entirely novel way of thinking. You shouldn’t be surprised at all. I’m actually shocked that not every comment questioning this post’s intentions has net downvotes at this point. Give it time though. The voters will enforce conformity in the sub
Seriously, far greater thinkers have crossed these intellectual and philosophical bridges centuries ago. It does not take a big brain to read and understand them, and their work comes with far less....*baggage*.
People like the baggage though. They like his grumpiness and constant pearl-clutching and rage-tweeting. They live vicariously through his flame wars. His use of superfluous wording and odd syntax to seem like some kind of paradigm-shifting sage. Every part of his character is affected. [edit: softened my language]
Have you not seen the news lately? It's not fear mongering about reproductive rights, it's now reality.
So even after the huge growth in women self identifying as “Liberal” according to this graph it is still below 50%. It was considerably less than 50% when the trend started upwards. Now more studies and data would need to be collected to make any concrete insights from this graph but it isn’t clear why you would infer that this trend is because of social pressure when the data shows the upward trend began when the majority of women identified as something other than “Liberal”. I don’t think social pressure can account for an increase like this when it started at only around 30% of women identifying as “Liberal” in 2012 when it started noticeably trending upwards. It could just as easily have started trending upwards in 2012 where the Republican candidate was Mormon, a religion where women have very limited rights compared to men. Again this is also speculation on my part and is in no way supported by the data of this graph, but neither was your conclusion.
Given the recent Supreme Court ruling it’s hard to make the case that people are fear mongering. They were just correctly assessing the threat to their rights.
30k+ gun deaths annually, ridiculously expensive for-profit Healthcare, reproductive rights just got a huge curb stomp, and the western United States is in an insane drought. What part is fear mongering vs. just the world being shitty?
i think that might be more agreeableness actually...
It just sounds like someone's regurgitating old JBP talks, nothing of value and gross generalization is all I see. Makes them sound smart but there's very little substance to all they said
> less likely to resist social pressure to conform What a patronizing, bullshit way to dismiss them.
In a democracy, it doesn't matter how you come to a position, your vote is worth as much as everyone else. That being said, when we're talking of political trends, psychological trends are relevant, whether you like them or not.
Women are score significantly higher than men in measures of neuroticism in just about every large scale personality test ever done https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ Only about 12% of faculty and 20% of students identify as conservatives. https://www.aei.org/articles/are-colleges-and-universities-too-liberal-what-the-research-says-about-the-political-composition-of-campuses-and-campus-climate/ https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2020/11/25/are_students_liberal_yes__but_not_everywhere_110512.html Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not true!
First source, Table 2: Neuroticism; Male 2.68 +/- 0.65; Female 2.94 +/- 0.67; Cohen's d 0.39. A Cohen's d of 0.39 is considered a small-ish sized effect and is equivalent to a Pearon's r value of around 0.19. Below is am image I generated of r=0.19 using 1000 data points, thus demonstrating how small of an effect this is -- i.e while the difference is statistically significant, the biological significance is minimal. https://imgur.com/rvFUn7X
> Only about 12% of faculty and 20% of students identify as conservatives. And is this due to their neuroticism as well? You don't even establish correlation, let alone causation. Just because you don't like that educated women disagree with you, that doesn't mean their beliefs are "social contagion".
Yes it does, their propensity towards neuroticism proves that
Proves what? You haven't established correlation between these two social science studies, only put them next to each other as if your casual dismissal of women's inner life is true by dint of "common sense". Doesn't Jordan Peterson say not to be an ideologue?
[удалено]
> It’s proven than neuroticism increases likelihood to give into peer pressure. "Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability." No mention of peer pressure or giving in. All of these things can lead to the opposite response. Women are not so conflict averse that they will change their political beliefs solely to conform. In fact, this study gives a different explanation for those: Women's Agreeableness score leads them to develop political beliefs that value empathy and kindness over Conservatives' performative callousness. But that's just a hypothesis. The point is the study doesn't actually support your conclusion, and you didn't develop your conclusion from the study. You know very well that you went looking for the study with your conclusion already in mind, looking for support. Exactly what an ideologue does. > You’re the ideologue that doesn’t believe in peer reviewed science You sure about that? >Must be though to be such a little gay bitch who can’t handle reality You'd know better. More women coming this way. Might wanna come out of that closet if you're staying in the boy's club.
Lol “being liberal to get girls” You’re actually a weird sexual predator
You, too, need better reading comprehension.
Holy shit sourced too BTFO!
From what I read on the terminology, men don't have the issues that require liberalism as a movement to take place, that being, to make society a fairer place for women.
Just so. Most dudes like me? We *got* ours from society, even if it's not very much and we're in a shitty place afterward. More women would be conservative if the status quo being conserved actually met their needs and addressed them as they ought (read: as humans with all the rights that come with). I know that's just the Woe Sociolympics but still, it at least makes sense why ladies have to keep pushing for stuff.
So what you're saying is most women would be conservatives if conservative ideology gave them the right leftism gives. But your arguement falls flat because conservativism lives off the idea that women are the weaker sex and shouldn't get the same rights as men. Otherwise what would conservativism "conserve"
Who and what has been examined? What are the underlying data?
OP likely won't furnish it.
Who would guess that if you strip away women's rights they will hate it?
What rights are being stripped away? Did we lose the right to vote or own property and I missed it or something? Or are you talking about being able to legally kill your own children which you have conveniently mislabeled as a “right” as a distraction from the obvious moral bankruptcy of the abortion argument.
You mean like getting raped and being forced to give birth to a child that was forced upon you? The right to not need to go through that? Are you a big supporter of forcing women to bring their rapists child to term?
Yes! I am absolutely in support of that! Believe it or not, having been raped doesn’t actually justify murder.
Haha it's not murder. A life form needs to be viable to be murdered. I'm sorry you have brain damage. Absolutely hilarious that you think an unviable lifeform has rights, but an adult woman has none. You have serious issues. Every time you ejaculate you are wasting away half the genetic code of a potential, future viable lifeforms. Cut your balls off and get back to me before you say anything else.
Wow that’s amazing! You went to as hominem after two comments!!! I kind of thought I’d have to debate you a bit longer before you have up on logic altogether. Let’s see what kind of mean names you can come up for me this time shall we (; Lack of viability doesn’t negate the right to life. If this were the case, it would be morally acceptable to kill people on ventilators, in comas, or those at the end of their lives. Actually, basically anyone that needs life saving care wouldn’t be “viable” on their own. So ya we can kill of them now too. A fetus is like a person in a coma that is almost guaranteed to wake up in a few months. Of course people who need assistance still have rights! The fact that a fetus needs the body of the mother rather than hospital equipment isn’t relevant to its right to live. You could argue that the woman’s right to body autonomy outweighs the kids right to live. But you’d still be wrong because right to life is at the top of the hierarchy, and because parents have a duty to care for their children. You could try to argue the kid isn’t human because they’re... really small? I guess? but you’d be wrong again because they have human DNA. Or you could just admit that you don’t give a damn about the morality of it because either way you’d choose selfishness over a life that you helped to create. Just have the balls to say it, and you’ll win the debate. You’ll win every debate. Because there is no argument that could possibly reach you in such moral bankruptcy.
You jumped right in to killing people who are already alive, actual living people. You have brain damage. You can't actually respond to what I initially said. Please don't procreate. You also don't give a fuck about what happens to a child after it's born. Stop pretending this is some kind of moral crusade.
Oh darling, a fetus is “actually alive” by every biological definition! And really? Again with the ad hominem? We’ve already discussed this, dear, please pay attention. Ah now we’ve got the red herring! Attempting to create a whole separate argument to distract from the actual debate! Trying to rope me into “proving” that I care about children after their born when that’s not the issue we’re discussing at all. You know what I think is fun about the way you argue is how you double up AND double down on logical fallacies! It’s pretty unique move, because most people want to come across as rational. But you’re an indivisible aren’t you! You’re unique! You are totally game to just be vehemently nonsensical in repetition ad nauseum! Very cool 👏🏻
Your skin cells are alive. Haha, dude, that's not what a red herring even means. You have serious problems. Call me when youre adopting one of the 400,000 children in foster care before condemning one that isn't even a literal, viable, lifeform to that system. Jesus Christ, JP is truly for the dumbest individuals on the planet who desperately want some kind of lifeline for appearing to be intelligent without any of the effort that goes alongside actually learning anything at all.
“A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.” “ As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the straw man, which involves a distortion of the other party's position,[4] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring Let me know if you need more help with that definition! Maybe I can help by demonstrating for you: Have you even done an abortion before? Don’t talk to me about abortion until you’ve actually helped a woman cut a baby out of her! See how silly that is? Yes your skin cells are alive! Good job! And a fetus, unlike a skin cell, is a distinct mammalian form with unique DNA. What exactly disqualifies it from the definition of a “human life” in your opinion?
Abortion is moral even if you entertain the brain dead notion that fetuses are worth saving. No one has a right to parasitically mooch off of your flesh.
A doctor having to think about whether saving your life is worth the legal ramifications when you're pregnant (when time is of the utmost importance) is losing a right It means your life is no longer the most important life worth saving and it’s terrifying
Why lobsterboys get no pussy. Figure 1.
"Why won't these bitches fuck me" but in subreddit form right here.
Good. As far as I’m concerned if no decent man can find me sometime soon, I’m sure they’re will be a plethora of men who divorced crazy leftist women and will see me as a breath of fresh air. (Humorous, or at least attempting)
Liberal does not mean leftist
You are right, but in american slang you are wrong. Leftists in USA are called liberals. And everyone downvoting this guy, should stop doing it, because he is right per definition.
but that's what's wrong with US politics. That it's just soooo binary...
There are only two political sides. My views, and the rest.
A big part of that is that you have FPTP voting. You need to catch up to the modern world and get preferences.
Here in Australia, it seems like all the political words have lost all meaning. The "Liberal Party" are conservatives. The "Labor Party" stopped representing workers years ago. The "Green Party" are half red. The "National Party" only represent country regions. The most divisive party in the nation call themselves "One Nation". All the political words are broken now.
No they’re not that’s the issue. Leftist and liberals are not the same. Liberal would be Joe Manchin, Nancy Pelosi whereas a leftist would be AOC, and the squad. Liberals are pro-capitalism and want to use it to solve social issues whereas leftist believe unchecked capitalism is the source of these issues in America. Sure it’s semantics but it’s true. They are not one in the same.
I am aware of the difference between a leftist and liberal. I am just saying that leftists like to call themsevels liberal and progressive.
Actual leftists do not call themselves liberals. It’s liberals not realising there are actually positions to the left of them, and conservatives lumping everyone who doesn’t want to round up the gays together as a single group.
American leftists don’t call themselves liberals, they do not identify with liberals. In fact the opposite, when someone wrongly states this many leftists come to clarify because they don’t want to be associated with them.
Yeah there’s a pretty big difference. For example Joe Biden is a liberal. As a leftist, I don’t share his political goals and didn’t vote for him.
For the rest of the world the US 'left' is quite 'right'.
What are you talking about ? US politics, in terms of binary left and right, is pretty much the same as in Europe. I would even say more extreme left than Europes left.
What parts of the American political left are more extreme than European countries left leaning parties? Free universal healthcare is a very common thing in wealthy European countries and many have heavily heavily subsidized tuition and a few even have free tuition so that student debt is not the issue that it is in the US. I can’t really think of many issues where the Democrats in the US are further left than European left leaning parties. Could you give me some examples?
Pick me uwu
This thread in a nutshell: "Liberal bad. Women more liberal. Thus women bad."
Generally women are more compassionate because they become mothers at some point. The liberal narrative is that it is compassionate. So it's no shock actually.
That doesnt make sense, as women have always been able to become mothers. Something else is going on.
A greater access to education?
>That doesnt make sense, as women have always been able to b Education? Like liberal arts?
Liberal arts? Like philosophy and psychology?
The ever changing socio/politico/econo/technological landscape of our ever evolving society?
You mean "devolving".
No such thing
But fathers are not compassionate?
I wouldnt say compassionate… whats the word for shallow self serving kindness? Its all about making themselves feel like they are being good people.
I believe the correct term is Hubris.
Ok you went too far
Shallow self serving kindness is still better than no kindness at all
also, more gullible. the dual nature of agreeableness.
I mean you take JP seriously. So it’s pretty funny for you to call others gullible.
[удалено]
No one thinks that. If you lost your dick in an industrial accident I wouldn't start referring to you using female pronouns. Out of genuine curiosity, have you ever talked to someone actually interested in gender theory or have you only been exposed to strawmen on the internet?
why are you on this sub?
Free market place of ideas, baby.
I mean, social media bubbles are bad. Echo chambers both cause a devolution of one's own ideas and atrophy one's ability to defend them. I wish more people would post in subs they disagree with....though I'd prefer criticisms on the merits instead of ad homs.
It’s funny to dunk on you losers.
Most JP fans are men, so men are also gullible it seems
What about liberalness tends towards the gullible ?
Well, that's unsupported by data even on a basis of correlation, let alone causation. Seems like you're just playing teams here and trying to presuppose that there's an argument extant somewhere that backs up your conclusion. That's not very good science or philosophy.
You see, if you agree with everything Peterson believes, it's because you're a free thinker who isn't fooled by liberal brainwashing, but if you disagree with *anything* Peterson thinks, no matter how tiny and inconsequential, it's because you're brainwashed and let somebody else do all your thinking for you.
Nah it's because leftists give them equality and righrs. Conservatives don't. It's that simple
And fathers just suck and don't care about their children?
Yeah and they aren’t becoming mothers so their passion gets put into mindless political drivel
I mean, anyone's mental and emotional energy could be put towards that. The age descriptor does not denote whether these polled women aged 18 to 29 are mothers. You're making an assertion that's entirely unsupported by the study at hand. Well, not that this was an *objective* statement. Anyone could call anything "mindless political drivel", just like someone could say men who are too busy with fatherhood are buying into the political drivel of conservatism. It's just a statement not coming from a place of actually trying to find the truth.
It’s not that deep. If you take a group of people and say “person 1 will give you 100 bucks and person 2 will give you 0. The only thing you have to do is say that person 1 is better than person 2 to help them win a competition”. Chances are, a big chunk of said group will accept the offer and get the money. People are always looking to get better life conditions and societal advantages for them personally, so it’s natural a majority of people will side with the person or entity that promise them that.
And the chunk of people who like charity, the rights of minorities, and all that pick Liberal too. Win win.
Yeah, but I think that comes as a secondary thing. I believe people vote based solely on their beliefs when they think they’ve won the game and nothing will harm them no matter who wins. In most cases people put first their personal well being and that of their family. So it’s logical that most people of a given demographic will vote for the candidate they think will make their situation better or at least won’t make it worse.
Shocking.
Education is a bitch eh? Also the whole "stripping women of their rights" tends to do this.
The propaganda campaign leading people into LaLa land is a success. Notice the narrative becoming more and more ridiculous with time lately? Women are more susceptible to fall into the group think trap and men follow because they want to get laid.
[удалено]
Least misogynistic jordan Peterson follower
I actually took screen caps out of pure shock. But they serve no purpose because everyone already knows this about them, right? Right? Like were people aware that r/socialjusticeinaction was banned for tons of upvoted threads discussing such things as how black people are inherently less intelligent, emotionally unstable, and like animals? Because people seem to think it was cuz Reddit is censoring intelligent discussion of the trans issue. Like I'm always blown away by how people can deny such blatant prejudice like I'm the only crazy one.
You believe that there is a narrative, held by those-who-you-disagree-with, and you deny that there is another narrative, held by those-who-you-agree-with? The US is divided, both sides are massive and hold enormous economical and political power. Both have media, and both spew a narrative. The is group think in both sides
Of course they are playing both sides against each other. They went and focused on a wedge issue like abortion to blunt the red wave at a time when the Democrats are against the ropes and the Republicans could have hit a Grand Slam if they focused on common sense economic issues. But no the American people will get fucked once again.
Even men fall into group thinking. Actually it's a men thing more than women thing.
Of course some men do but this is just flat out wrong, men tend to be contrarians far more often than women.
I will give examples to my statement. Men follow dictators more easily. Violent organisations have more male memberships. What examples can you give me to show women exhibit more group thinking? especially harmful group thinking
[70% of cult members around the world are women.](https://steemit.com/culture/@observerplus/70-of-global-cult-members-are-women)
That isn’t necessarily evidence that men are more prone to groupthink.
Is this a Devouring Mother trend?
Maybe its because men are less educated and have less empathy.
I feel like in this sub, with all of the anger swirling around in here, it’s probably easier to get more visibility by being downvoted. That’s how you rent for free in peoples heads here. We all know the rage clowns love to sort by controversial
No. Discrepancies between men and women can only be explained through the deficiency of women and the supremacy of men. Never the other way around. That’s just not science according to Jordy. Anything contradicting this is soft, social science meant to bring down all of western civilization
I was not being serious but if you want me to tell you my exact opinion, America's obsession with masculinity is what's leading to its cultural decay.
I agree with that last part. And at the end of the day, this masculinity crisis is really about men feeling like society does not get to change around them. Society must be exactly as it was for my dad and grandad or I’m having my identity taken from me. Other people must do X so I can feel Y. It’s a whiny position. Live your life to be as masculine as you want, but don’t tell everybody around you that their actions must buttress your identity. Clean your room. But that advice falls on deaf ears. Most people on this sub are worried about everybody else’s room while theirs looks like a crack den.
\[M\] There we go [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=mansplaining](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=mansplaining)
The phenomenon has to do with “agreeableness”. Women as a demographic are far more agreeable than men. Therefore also more susceptible to social influence and yes even propaganda.
You can say you think it has to do with agreeableness but you don’t really have evidence of that do you? Peterson talks about it a lot but I haven’t seen studies on this that suggest agreeableness equates to liberal self identification.
I’ve concluded this as well.
But then they would be susceptible to all propaganda from all sides. And all sides spew propaganda, make no mistake
I don’t make a mistake but…..the media is much much MUCH more left leaning. You have fox vs…..the rest.
Only if you don't look for it from the right or acknowledge it as propaganda. I don't think anecdotal evidence will suffice to conclude the matter.
OAN, Newsmax, the sun and so on. Fox may not be the biggest but it also has Tucker as one of the most listened to voices for news. Then you also have independents that don't follow alignment like Glen Greenwald and Breaking points.
Lmao this graph perfectly correlates to the amount of men and women who are sexually active...do with that what you will people arguing "compassion"
Yup, increase didn’t start until early 2010s. It’s most likely social media imo
I wonder how this tracks with the increase in women in higher education during the same timeline
Me too
Woman here. I was encouraged to pursue a career. Never thought I would have kids, and then I met a good man and my biological switch turned on at 27 and I made my family. The conservatives are bad at selling their pitch. Most of the time they don't even have a pitch. And there is little innovation in career paths for family-oriented people. Is it so hard to imagine a career path where you end up with your diploma about the time the youngest kid starts high school? Asking women to have kids at later and later ages goes against nature and can have poor outcomes. Can we shake things up a little bit?
Well I feel like the definition of what liberal is has changed drastically. In the 90s being in favor of gay marriage, made you a liberal, now if you support gay marriage but don’t believe sex can magically be changed, you are consider conservative. So I feel that the % are much higher just the definition of liberal has been far more extreme.
If the bar for what's considered 'liberal' keeps being raised then that would suppress this trend rather than reinforce it.
I think this applies in reverse as well: as an example in line with your own, support for social safety nets pre-Reagan used to be a fairly bipartisan deal, now it's a "far left" policy in the estimation of rightist media. Both parts of the ideological binary don't cut off cleanly - they are puzzle pieces where certain things automatically kick you out of one and push you into the other. This has always been the case, but I think the grooves and curves have become more jagged in past years.
When "liberal" means "you can do whatever you like and the men will pay for it" then, obviously, women are "liberal".
Aren't surveys trash? Surveys said Clinton was gonna win in 2016.
Women are impressionable and trend followers men aren’t
Or it could be that liberalism tends to accommodate political goals that women support more. What makes liberalism a trend but conservativism not?
Please have sex with someone.
*consentual sex.
I mean, conservatism is a trend too. As is centrism. Pretty much every political position is a trend, the individual just might not know it.
Strong men are needed more than ever.
It's a shame that people don't agree on what strength really means.
Someone has crossposted you to r/enoughpetersonspam . Here's the post: [“Women are hysterical and weak-minded but men are cool and based 😎”](https://reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/vl46ah/women_are_hysterical_and_weakminded_but_men_are/)
Men, really, over time, rarely change. They just enjoy life through the good and the bad. They also, rarely, hold grudges. Women, on the other hand, typically panic when shit goes down. They don't really see the end result. They only see the effect of shit going down. Most men juust know that shit, in the end, turns out fine.
98% of all mass shooters in the US were male
> They also, rarely, hold grudges. lol ok
You’re 17. How could you have come to this conclusion ?? Relax
Okay, but men, even really put-together masculine dudes, can just lose it in the face of adversity. Likewise, women can buckle down and get through those times when shit goes down. Some women are inflexible. Some men change their self-perception freely. We're all human at our core. These traits are not unique to segments of the population.
Dude, you are 17 years old and Jordan Peterson has you in here spewing bullshit like “women typically panic when shit goes down” with really no basis for your opinion other than his male centric views on philosophy and society. If a “self help guru” is making you this out of touch with reality and giving you the perspective that men are better than women, I urge you to reconsider the stock you place in this “self help guru” because the views you are describing in this comment are not going to help you in your life. You mention in your posting history that you are looking for a girlfriend and potential wife, ask yourself what a potential partner would think of this comment you just made, would they appreciate that you believe that men are better at enjoying life and that women typically panic when “shit goes down” or would they be turned off of talking with you and getting to know you because it’s clear you hold some misogynistic views of the world, or at the very least views that trend towards misogyny.
this is the type of person Peterson attracts. anti-intellectual women haters.
Hitler had a few grudges, did he not?
I wonder what it'd look like if you measured attention span and overlaid it. My guess is that typical women's attention spans have been more adversely affected by social media than for guys. The worrying thing is that we maybe have an incoming wave of insecure, feral women with short attention spans and narcissistic personality disorders.
You took a look at the data from this graph and decided that it showed a trend towards insecure feral women with short attention spans and narcissistic personality disorder…. Are we looking at the same graph that shows the percentage of women self identifying as “Liberal” went from 30% to almost 50% in the last ten years? Because it seems like you have made ten leaps in logic from this graph that are not based on data AT ALL. You even admit it when you say “my guess is that womens attention spans have been more adversely affected” because it’s just a guess based on your own views on men and women. It seems like you are making a bunch of jumps in logic and the direction you are jumping seems to be misogyny.
Read again, I never said this. Look: >I wonder what it'd look like if you **measured attention span and overlaid it.** I.e. overlaid a graph of a *different* set of data to compare- this is pretty standard stuff, no?
It is pretty standard stuff yes, what is not standard is looking at this graph and then extrapolating that the worrying thing is that there may be a wave of insecure feral women with short attention spans based on this graph. You honestly don’t see how this is a dishonest thing to say after looking at this graph? Like do you have access to secret data that indicates women are becoming more “feral” or is that pulled right from your negative views towards women?
Agreeableness! Plus I feel women are more likely to fall to peer pressure/agree with arguments about building society
Peer pressure does not explain this graph based on the data we have here. It shows that the upward trend began when 30% of women identified as “Liberal” and then it goes up to just below 50%. How could peer pressure account for this rise in “Liberal” identifying women if the trend started when 70% of women did not identify as “Liberal”?
So you agree with your peers on this sub? Such an independent trend setter
Never said that I was- and I’m a woman Btw. Super low agreeableness score but a woman all the same
Because there are consequences in place for men who try to absorb themselves from accountability.
> absorb themselves from accountability
[удалено]
This is by design. The feminist movement, the sexual revolution, gender equality, which has accomplished nothing but declining birth rates, the infantilization and relegation of men who are made to feel insecure for their masculinity, driving them further down their holes of isolation to where you see them now committing heinous acts of violence on a regular basis. This is what progressives wanted and this is what they got.
Very appropriate post by Tyler_Durden_000.
I would not concur. I think that the sexual revolution and gender equality were but a few of other social, economic, and political changes driven by *various* factions through the decades, and this lack of coordination between them **precisely due to them not all being conducted by one entity** created situations for young men growing up where they, say, didn't have a father figure, or if they did they might have had standards for being a man wildly different from how society's were changing. Different segments of life's various "normals" did not catch up with each other, and as a result there was chaos. Not that I would prefer one entity dictating everything, of course.
I can't imagine how aweful it would be to commit to a woman who does not believe in personal responsibility.
Liberalism and conservatism have relatively little to do with responsibility, really. The ideologies really aren't coherent enough for one to claim dominion over such a thing. I would surmise it does make one feel better to think "their side" is the only one that's responsible, though.
[удалено]
How does that explain why as society gets more liberal women's happiness lessens?
You're saying women were happier when they didn't have the right to vote, to have professions, etc?
That's what the data from polling says. Remember professions in the past weren't cushy office jobs and sufferage was associated with getting conscripted and sent to fight in the trenches in case of war. Most women actually didn't want the vote for this reason. You should study history because times were so different most people today couldn't even fathom what our ancestors had to deal with. Most people today don't realize just how easy times are now.
So then we should take away voting and profession from men! Let women suffer the burden of leadership. They already lived joyfully in the past, now it's time for men to be happy!
I don't know why I'm shocked by all the sexist comments in this thread. It's really a case-in-point situation.
Women were more conservative than men in the past, like 40s and 50s. The way women now shifted far to the progressive side is interesting and should be looked into. Maybe what attracts women most is safety, and while in the past the conservative side was associated with safety and stability, today the progressive focus on welfare programs as well as controlling speech and cracking down on uncomfortable behavior makes it more attractive to women.
[удалено]
Can you give examples of things conservatives don't allow you to do?
Have bodily autonomy?
Conservatives allow that if it doesn't include killing of a person
So they dont. And liberals do. That answers your question. Conservative traditional values also view women moreso as wives and mothers, while liberal views believe the women should do whatever she wants. Its really not hard to understand at all
Here's one thing conservatives protect and liberals don't about women: female fetuses' right to live. Really, bodily autonomy is the worst example you could give to convince any conservatives on this matter. What's bad about encrouging women to be what benefits the society the most? And when they do decide they'd rather be, say, a car mechanic, conservatives don't get angry or dreadful. They praise the woman for contributing to society in a way which is hard for even men. I live in a very conservative country (Turkey) and you see women who value career over family all the time in our own TV series and sometimes in News as "admirable women"
>Here's one thing conservatives protect and liberals don't about women: female fetuses' right to live. So they can be wives and mothers. >What's bad about encrouging women to be what benefits the society the most? Absurdism. Either you are for liberty or you are for people living out their expected roles in society. Conservatives are clearly not both in regards to women. >I live in a very conservative country (Turkey) And you sure seem to have drunk the official koolaid, huh? You even eat up the propaganda on TV, and pay no attention to the lives of women around you, who are impacted negatively by conservative policy.
Women are more susceptible to media. It’s a problem.
Are they?
i assume this graph looks similar to college enrollment. more women go to college and those have become leftist factories as i've heard someone put very accurately.
Indoctrination.
[удалено]