Hi Benk THanks to the mercy of God my kids are grown up. One is an an electrical planner, one a public servant and one a medical doctor. Not bad for a dunce like me who hardly passed high school. Fatherless they could well be in gaol.

Foxy said- "I have watched it." (Interview of Jordan Peterson/ Kathy Newman)

Answer- Some might not like Jordan Peterson but the issue is whether he justifies his position. Not liking someone is a smoking gun- you still need to find evidence of crime for a conviction. He made points about equality of opportunity, multivariate analysis, and others.

Foxy said- "Have you seen him on "Sixty Minutes," with Tara Brown?"

Answer- Yes I think I saw it- Jordan Peterson only got about one sentence and then went to two critics from memory and didn't give a "right of reply". Sixty minutes has ten minute segments- they ambushed him. Kudos to them- but it doesn't change my view.

ALTRAV- Thanks for your feedback. I've learned from public speaking that people that don't think before they speak have a disadvantage. It is a painful process going through different solutions to the worlds problems- things that you believe change- but some principles stand the test of time. Some hang on to certain principles long after they should give up on them- but their arguments become weak. It's hard for everyone. Some are opportunists.

ALTRAV said- "They speak of others getting mental help, when it is they who are the psychotics."

Answer- Yes I find it a weak argument to demonize. Play the ball not the man. I generally ignore those comments myself.

ALTRAV said- "This push for equality also must not be allowed to happen."

Answer- Some see the equality battle as part of identity politics a form of Trotskyist "Permanent/ World Revolution" and "Proletarian Internationalism" with elements of "Anarcho-communism" and strangely "Taylorism/ Capitalism". The far left (socs) and far right (caps) sides of politics appear to be cooperating- this is the reason for the rise of the "Alternative" movement. Many believe the "socs and caps" are trying to make their extreme ideas mainstream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

There is a belief that the purpose of (Individual) Identity politics is removing evolved group identity in cultures, families, and genders. For those of us that believe that our cultures, family, gender identities are important "identity politics is problematic".

In animals- group behavior implies a dominance hierarchy- and probably does in humans too- although it's more complex. Humans have a reptilian, a mammilian, a primate brain, and a human brain- our actions are the sum total of these.
_____

Rightly or wrongly men and women have advantages and disadvantages that have evolved over time to form the social, family, gender structures that developed. Some argue that they are no longer relevant- but I haven't found all their arguments convincing.

Even a leader needs to listen to their experts. In a family there needs to be a discussion of options and then a decision- decision-makers need to take responsibility to fix the situation if it doesn't work out.

Often in families as in society there is juresdictional authority- traditionally women had power in home affairs and men with external affairs. Being born into defined roles can be useful- it can give individuals a sense of belonging in society- most people appear to want to fit in- could also be potentially problematic. In other contexts evolution is usually correct- and is probably here too- but sometimes it's all about the details. Feminism has gone through several iterations- I'm not aware of the details of the current one. There appears to be a political power motive in much of the current agenda.

MGTOW is an interesting way for men to address noise from women's rights demands. Men often feel powerless and trapped in the face of current courts and family departments. I wouldn't recommend any man to form a family in the current climate and to take extreme care with relationships- there have been some terrible outcomes of the family law systems. Sadly this could mean the end of our culture and our families. We can only try to change the government to one that supports men more equally. It's sad that women don't seem aware that our family lineage and cultures are at risk.

Canem Malum,

A few corrections.

I did not make any comment about what I thought
of the Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview.

Nor about his interview with Tara Brown on "60 Minutes."

For your information Mr Peterson's opinions may not be
to everyone's taste - but he's certainly entitled to have
them. I thought in both interviews
they were well matched - and Mr Peterson was given the
right of reply in both interviews.

That's what made them interesting to watch.

The thing I find interesting yet confusing and also distasteful, is that females actually started this bizarre movement, with absolutely no visible or actual triggers.
I have aligned it to terrorism.
The facts are that somewhere in the past a female fell mentally ill and the result of this illness was to challenge and sideline men.
With time and determination this illness spread, turning women into females and then against men.
I do like stability.
Stability in all things, not just the economy, means security, piece of mind and therefore a healthier, happier lifestyle and demeanor.
I have yet to see any benefit from all this turmoil.
Is it so bad being a woman?
I think what is probably the most annoying part in all this is the continual push as if there is some kind of urgency or evil thing they are running away from.
I would not mind if it remained within the confines of a cult or group.
I would have the choice to avoid it, but this level and intensity of advocacy is bad.
It is not warranted and is badly affecting the greater population, quite negatively, just so a few mental patients can have their way.
Unfortunately as long as people, mainly men, shy away from confronting these terrorists, it just makes it unnecessarily harder for the rest of us.

//The thing I find interesting yet confusing and also distasteful, is that females actually started this bizarre movement, with absolutely no visible or actual triggers.
I have aligned it to terrorism.//

Of course you do.

Actually, the plain truth of the matter is that the suffragettes started their campaign just to annoy you. Because the whole world really does revolve around you.

//The facts are that somewhere in the past a female fell mentally ill and the result of this illness was to challenge and sideline men.//

Not quite. What happened was that somewhere in the past some people decided that taxation without representation was not a fair deal. Also one of the things that spurred the American War of Independence: the American colonies had to pay taxes to England, but had no representatives in the Parliament and therefore no vote. Strangely enough, taxation without representation tends to annoy people.

At some point in the 19th century, some women cottoned onto the fact that it wasn't fair if they were paying taxes and not being given a vote. And thus was born the suffragette movement. The rest, as they say, is history.

From the sound of things, you're none to keen on the idea of women having the vote and would like to wind the clock back to a time well before you were born... a Jacob Rees-Mogg level of conservatism. Beyond caricature and into the realms of performance art.