DCP Weighs in on LDS "Rape Culture"

[_mythmaggot]

Or just 'Non,' since there is very little 'Sic,' and absolutely nothing Abelardian in the random musings of this particular right-wing, reactionary defender of the status quo.

If this thread and those comments demonstrate anything, good sir, is that Dr. Peterson is the Hugh Trevor-Roper of this generation. His natural good will makes him an inescapably honest and vulnerable target to those who despise the talent he displays in turning a phrase. I’m sure it enrages the anonymous Dr. Scratch and his petty little horde of sycophants that God can and will continue to bless the Saints with a sharp wit, a keen eye of conceptual consistency, and a gregarious demeanor all in one package.

The best response so far as come from this Eallusion’s attempted counter example with Field and Stream that rings through and through with homoerotic subtext. Heaving and well adorned chests of avid outdoorsmen aside, Dr. Peterson seems to be handling himself in the best possible fashion.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

I was surprised by the lack of DCP's input in the comment section. It seems that even he knows he's in over his head this time. He likes to think of himself as the "Emperor of Brisk Witticism", but me thinks the "emperor" has finally discovered himself naked...

[_angsty]

Mansplaining.

Bingo.

And this: Educate Yourself

Which offers this relevant analogy:

It’s as if you have walked into a postgraduate mathematics seminar, yelling: “Hey, how can you even use imaginary numbers anyway if they’re not real?” When someone rather distractedly points you to a first-year text-book in the corner, you leaf through the first couple of pages half-heartedly for a few seconds and say: “I don’t agree with some of the definitions in here – and anyway you haven’t answered my question. Doesn’t anyone want to have a discussion with me?!!”

[_beastie]

If this thread and those comments demonstrate anything, good sir, is that Dr. Peterson is the Hugh Trevor-Roper of this generation. His natural good will makes him an inescapably honest and vulnerable target to those who despise the talent he displays in turning a phrase. I’m sure it enrages the anonymous Dr. Scratch and his petty little horde of sycophants that God can and will continue to bless the Saints with a sharp wit, a keen eye of conceptual consistency, and a gregarious demeanor all in one package.

The best response so far as come from this Eallusion’s attempted counter example with Field and Stream that rings through and through with homoerotic subtext. Heaving and well adorned chests of avid outdoorsmen aside, Dr. Peterson seems to be handling himself in the best possible fashion.

Yes, DCP's natural good will just oozes from his words.

[_EAllusion]

And this: Educate Yourself

Hmmm. I disagree with a lot there.

For what you pulled out, I'm not comfortable analogizing feminist theory to mid-tier mathematics here. I think consensus ideas in mathematics are on firmer ground and the field is more generally credible. Feminism/woman's studies has its own academic culture with ideas that are accepted or taken seriously in the discourse bubble of its own field that are quite wackadoodle outside of it. My favorite example is that in woman's studies I learned that the idea that obesity is unhealthy is a lie invented by patriarchy and the beauty industry to suppress women. If someone tried to use this "imaginary numbers" analogy on me when I protested "how do you figure?!" I'd give them a death stare. There might be a lot of concepts to domino to the point where they are arguing that obesity is medically neutral, but that alone doesn't justify the condescension when asked for explanation.

I also don't think DCP was innocently asking for someone to explain to him how LDS gender norms contribute to rape culture. He was rhetorically disagreeing with that idea by suggesting such an explanation would be ludicrous.

[_EAllusion]

The best response so far as come from this Eallusion’s attempted counter example with Field and Stream that rings through and through with homoerotic subtext. Heaving and well adorned chests of avid outdoorsmen aside, Dr. Peterson seems to be handling himself in the best possible fashion.

Lol.

*thumbs up*

[_beastie]

I also don't think DCP was innocently asking for someone to explain to him how LDS gender norms contribute to rape culture. He was rhetorically disagreeing with that idea by suggesting such an explanation would be ludicrous.

Which is typical DCP. And that tendency is exactly why he tends to create controversy.

[_EAllusion]

My favorite example is that in woman's studies I learned that the idea that obesity is unhealthy is a lie invented by patriarchy and the beauty industry to suppress women. If someone tried to use this "imaginary numbers" analogy on me when I protested "how do you figure?!"

Incidentally, I did read the arguments in this case, and as you might suspect, they were based in some particularly poor, misinformed readings of medical research.

I also read a paper in woman's studies arguing that porn increases the incidence of rape. While this claim at least had greater prior plausibility, the arguments attempting to establish this scientific claim were garbage, based on dubious leaps in logic and drawing improper conclusions from research studies. I was in the minority in the class of being able to see this. I don't think it was a coincidence I was one of the few with a science background taking it.

I can imagine an (anti-porn) feminist, having taken similar classes to the one I did and accepting the arguments, condescending with "why don't you read a book?" response to a call to establish that claim. After all, she paid for college classes that explained it. That thought annoys me.

[_EAllusion]

If you are in a group that has the structural advantage of wages, safety, health and education – when you’ve basically already won the life lottery just by showing up – it is your responsibility to educate yourself. And really, don’t tell women to be nice. We’re angry. We have every reason to be. Frankly, you should be too.

This summarizes the attitude of the "Educate yourself" essay. The problem here is that you cannot put people into boxes called "winners" and "losers" based on their gender. That isn't to say there aren't structural advantages in American society that on balance favor men. There are. It's that the there are many kinds of advantages and disadvantages a person has based on their individual biography. Some of these depend on how their identity - their religion, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, regional dialect, etc. - is treated in society. Some are not.

There are all sorts of ways in which a man, even a white man, may be far more disadvantaged by his life and social position than a feminist woman he is interacting with. She may be the lottery winner by any reasonable interpretation of their life-stories. I don't think the author of this piece realizes how resentful this can make some men who are in that position and hear this. It's sexism to assume that a man has got it on relative easy-street by virtue of the fact he is a man to the point that any claim feminists make about male advantage shouldn't even require the beginnings of justification in conversation.

I grew up impoverished, in foster care, and with other disadvantages that by far wash out advantages I gained from being a man. To characterize me as a lottery winning member of an oppressor class, which she does in other parts of the essay, simply because I am the beneficiary of some discriminatory social mores borders on offensive. There are so many ways men and women can be socially advantaged and disadvantaged, that we are all part oppressed groups in one way or another. I don't think this means everyone should be so righteously angry that they can't ever even deign to explain themselves. While I don't think he'd ever admit it, someone like Droopy probably is pretty disadvantaged and probably resentful when he hears a message like this, even though he identifies with the sense of righteous anger.

[_angsty]

If you are in a group that has the structural advantage of wages, safety, health and education – when you’ve basically already won the life lottery just by showing up – it is your responsibility to educate yourself. And really, don’t tell women to be nice. We’re angry. We have every reason to be. Frankly, you should be too.

This summarizes the attitude of the "Educate yourself" essay. The problem here is that you cannot put people into boxes called "winners" and "losers" based on their gender. That isn't to say there aren't structural advantages in American society that on balance favor men. There are. It's that the there are many kinds of advantages and disadvantages a person has based on their individual biography. Some of these depend on how their identity - their religion, class, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, regional dialect, etc. - is treated in society. Some are not.

There are all sorts of ways in which a man, even a white man, may be far more disadvantaged by his life and social position than a feminist woman he is interacting with. She may be the lottery winner by any reasonable interpretation of their life-stories. I don't think the author of this piece realizes how resentful this can make some men who are in that position and hear this. It's sexism to assume that a man has got it on relative easy-street by virtue of the fact he is a man to the point that any claim feminists make about male advantage shouldn't even require the beginnings of justification in conversation.

I grew up impoverished, in foster care, and with other disadvantages that by far wash out advantages I gained from being a man. To characterize me as a lottery winning member of an oppressor class, which she does in other parts of the essay, simply because I am the beneficiary of some discriminatory social mores borders on offensive. There are so many ways men and women can be socially advantaged and disadvantaged, that we are all part oppressed groups in one way or another. I don't think this means everyone should be so righteously angry that they can't ever even deign to explain themselves. While I don't think he'd ever admit it, someone like Droopy probably is pretty disadvantaged and probably resentful when he hears a message like this, even though he identifies with the sense of righteous anger.

I'm going to make this as brief as possible, because I'm not going to explain feminism to you, and that includes this article:

You really didn't understand it

Also, while I won't explain feminism, I don't have a problem talking about informal logic. Nothing about feminism or the blog entry denies that other forms of oppression or privilege exist. They just aren't the topic of discussion at hand. When you give a "Hey other forms of oppression exist too, I was raised poor."-ish answer to "Here's something about feminism", you haven't countered anything, you've just changed the subject.

If you really are interested in the study of multiple forms of oppression, look up "Intersectionalism".