Corvinus posted:

RealCuckTalk feels like someone's re-reg or sockpuppet.

WampaLord posted:

He definitely shares jrode's ability to just ignore a whole bunch of counter arguments and start a new post with "I'd like to talk about X"

Also it makes sense that JP is attracting a bunch of the libertarian set, what with his focus on the individual being the end all be all and absolutely refusing to acknowledge that society consists of various power structures.

RealTalk posted:

I want to quickly return to the topic of Jordan Peterson for a second.

RealTalk posted:

The question is simple. Should Peterson be allowed to speak in Portland or should they cave to pressure and cancel his appearance?

RealTalk posted:

I wanted to go back to the accusation that Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, or some other kind of hater.

quote:

I'm going to lay out a handful of propositions, and I want to know which ones are necessarily racist or sexist.

quote:

The current plight of black Americans has less to do with white racism than is commonly believed.

The wage gap between men and women can be rationally explained, at least in part, by factors other than male oppression and the patriarchy.

There are biological differences between men and women that explain in part disparate outcomes.

Affirmative action laws are counter-productive and not a good response to historical oppression of minorities.

Anti-discrimination laws violate the principle of freedom of association so they should be opposed.

Not all cultural values are equal, or equally compatible with liberal values and human prosperity.

Citing any scientific research, or even undertaking any scientific research, that indicates (or might indicate) any difference between races or groups of people.

quote:

To my mind, none of the above propositions are necessarily bigoted. To be clear, I haven't heard Peterson articulate all of these views.

quote:

I've heard people like MIchael Eric Dyson (who famously called Peterson "a mad, mean white man") say that denying racism is the new racism. To be more clearly stated, if you think the currently problem of white racism against blacks is less of a problem that other people claim, that makes you a racist.

quote:

In a similar way, if you criticize contemporary feminism for it's excesses, you are a misogynist.

quote:

I think this is all silly. The sacred value for people on the left is equality and any data that points out human differences that would account for disparate outcome is seen as a fundamental threat to this value.

It doesn't at all matter how scientifically valid the empirical data is.

quote:

I always wonder about the motivations behind labeling people as "racist", "misogynist", or some other form of hater. For the most part, the purpose seems to be to make a person toxic enough that they'll be de-platformed and ostracized from the public debate. It's a tactic to silence that person.

quote:

I've never heard a progressive say "While I think this conservative or libertarian has a blind spot on the issue of race, their other ideas are interesting and worth discussing."

quote:

I will concede that some of the statements I mentioned earlier could be used as subterfuge to conceal actual bigotry towards women or minorities. But by the same token, I know of individual people who have accepted one or more of those propositions while not being the slightest bit bigoted.

RealTalk posted:

I want to quickly return to the topic of watermelons for a second.

Anticheese posted:

What is Peterson's position on trans people?

divabot posted:

(why are you people engaging further)

Anticheese posted:

Pretty much exactly what I expected. I also expect there to be a bunch of horrible poo poo about his "male order / feminine chaos" paradigm that may leak out on the subject.

RealTalk posted:

I've never heard a progressive say "While I think this conservative or libertarian has a blind spot on the issue of race, their other ideas are interesting and worth discussing.

fishmech posted:

He literally got famous for bragging about misgendering trans students in his classroom to stick it to the evil government.

CommieGIR posted:

Oh man, Rationalwiki has some good entries on Peterson:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

He loves him some pseudoscience, he sure does.

Anticheese posted:

What is Peterson's position on trans people?

CommieGIR posted:

Oh man, Rationalwiki has some good entries on Peterson:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

He loves him some pseudoscience, he sure does.

Caros posted:

That is up to him. The Portland center that is hosting the meeting has made it clear they legally cannot cancel his appearance based on its content, though they can and will request additional funds to cover the increased security, as allowed by law.

Now here is the question back to you. Should these groups, groups who are vehemently opposed to the sort of bigotry that Peterson made his name from, be allowed to protest.

I ask that because your entire argument in this vein presupposes that the groups protesting him are something wrong. You are arguing that it is a negative that Peterson is being 'silenced' in this fashion, but in doing so, you're the same as them, aren't you? They are a group publicly protesting Jordan Peterson's speaking engagement. You are an rear end in a top hat publicly protesting their public protest, in effect claiming that we shouldn't 'allow' them to speak against him because it infringes on his free speech.

You do see the irony in claiming that a group shouldn't be allowed to protest someone, right? Of course not.

Caros posted:

Clearly a player hater, but go on.


Oh, this ought to be good.


So, in order:

"I don't think white people who enslaved black people and then forced generations of systemic racism onto them are entirely to blame."
""
""
"I don't think affirmative action is good because I'm white as gently caress and also I haven't studied anything on this subject but it just 'makes sense'."
"I am a racist/Rand Paul (whoops, tautology!)."
"White culture is the best and I want to be able to insult other cultures."
"I really want proof that white people are superior."


I want you to take a look at the difference between your list and my list. Now, while you're doing it I want you to try and understand something. What I typed, is what people hear when you say those things. Just like if I were to say "welfare queen" the mind goes to a black woman with twelve kids because of good old Ray-gun. All of your statements are basically the 'just asking questions' versions of racism or misogyny. They are a way for you to get bigoted ideas into the discussion while trying to seem rational, aloof and above it all. They are an entryway to discussing the flat out racist or misogynistic ideas without jumping head first into the pond.

Take your last idea, for example. No one would ever think that scientific research is ba... oh, wait. You aren't going to use that to cite one of the dozens of articles that talk about how there is essentially no significant difference in mental faculties based on race, but instead you're going to use it so that you can throw out the Bell Curve or other nonsense science that talk about how blacks are the worst.

Or your 'not all cultures are equal' idea. Well that seems fair, right? After all, the Acheminid Persian culture was probably much worse than modern day americ- oh, you're using that as a stepping stone to talk about how great 'white' culture is (even though it isn't actually 'white') and how we're the best civilization in the history of the world and that we should be allowed to feel culturally superior and hey, why should we let darkies into the country with their inferior culture.

You are trying to paint these suggestions as uncontroversial, but the issue is that we understand the follow-up is a doorway to 'women suck, immigrants suck and gee aren't white men the best?'

Caros posted:

The guy from terminator?

And yeah, he's kind of right. To quote MLK:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

We've reached a point in our society where, for the most part, you can't be a full on hooded Klansmen in most (but certainly not all) places. The outright racism of the 60's has given rise to the quiet racism we have today, where the issue isn't that we 'hate' people with darker skinned. We're just aware that they are 'thugs'. We call the police on them, or shoot them because they have the most dangerous skittles imaginable. Racism is still very much there, in america, but since there aren't hordes in hoods marching (mostly) these days, it is easy for fucknuts like you to try and pretend that racism is over. It isn't. And your denial of such an obvious fact is a sort of racism in itself.

Of course, if I'm being honest, I don't think you actually fall into this group. Judging by your posts in this thread so far I fully believe you look down on and/or flat out hate black people. You're more of a Racist Classic.

Caros posted:

I don't actually believe this. Tons of people criticize feminism just fine. Yes, people on the radical 'all sex is rape' fringe, can and will call you names, but in any sort of normal discussion you only really get called out for being a misogynist when you say misogynistic things. Like Jordan Peterson has and does.

Caros posted:

I need a bigger

So, just to be clear, you're white, aren't you? You're a white, white boy (like me) who has never experienced any real form of discrimination. The very idea of your life being harder because of your skin color is so foreign to you that you can't even process the idea, and your lovely, underdeveloped sense of empathy prevents you from understanding that all people are not you.

Caros posted:

No, the purpose is to inform others. No one has ever been silenced by accusations that they are a racist. David Duke is still out singing a jaunty tune about how great the Klan is, and there are still people willing to listen. Jordan Peterson is on his personal tour of how great men are and how women need to get back in the kitchen, and he isn't getting shut up.

When I call you a racist, it is for two purposes. One is to just maybe, just maaaaaybe make you stop and think about what you're saying. The other is to point out to any unconvinced third party in this debate (of which there are probably about zero, but still) that your ideas are wrongheaded, bigoted and evil.

Caros posted:

Sure this guy thinks that black people are inferior to white people, but lets have a talk about welfare reform.

It isn't a blindspot you disingenuous gently caress.

Caros posted:

Actually, that is a pretty good point.

Hey RealTalk, here is a blatant example of JP being an intentional bigot solely because he can. Do you care?

VitalSigns posted:

So RealTalk, what do you think of the NFL's decision to fine teams if their players exercise their freedom of speech to kneel during the national anthem in order to make a political statement about the treatment of black people in America?

RealTalk posted:

Motherfucker, you are misunderstanding me (perhaps intentionally).

I am not saying that the Portland protesters don't have the legal right to protest. They have the right to protest up until they use actual physical violence or threats of violence if they don't get their way. Which is, by the way, usually an explicit or implicit threat by these sorts of protesters. This implicit threat of violence is conceded by assuming that the Portland center will request additional security if they follow through with the event.

If there was no threat from protesters violently disrupting the event, then there'd be no need for additional security.

More than this though, I'm criticizing the value-judgment implicit in protests whose goal is to get a venue to cancel the speaking appearance of someone like Peterson. This indicates that the protesters don't value free speech and free discussion, which to my mind is a worrying trend.

quote:

Since football is a business, owners have some responsibility to tailor their product to consumer desires. Overt political statements, even correct ones, that turn off most viewers could be reasonably curbed if only to maintain a profitable business model.

RealTalk posted:

RealTalk posted:

RealTalk posted:

RealTalk posted:

Motherfucker, you are misunderstanding me (perhaps intentionally).

RealTalk posted:

Motherfucker, you are misunderstanding me (perhaps intentionally).

I am not saying that the Portland protesters don't have the legal right to protest. They have the right to protest up until they use actual physical violence or threats of violence if they don't get their way. Which is, by the way, usually an explicit or implicit threat by these sorts of protesters. This implicit threat of violence is conceded by assuming that the Portland center will request additional security if they follow through with the event.

If there was no threat from protesters violently disrupting the event, then there'd be no need for additional security.

More than this though, I'm criticizing the value-judgment implicit in protests whose goal is to get a venue to cancel the speaking appearance of someone like Peterson. This indicates that the protesters don't value free speech and free discussion, which to my mind is a worrying trend.

RealTalk posted:

Motherfucker, you are misunderstanding me (perhaps intentionally).

I am not saying that the Portland protesters don't have the legal right to protest. They have the right to protest up until they use actual physical violence or threats of violence if they don't get their way. Which is, by the way, usually an explicit or implicit threat by these sorts of protesters. This implicit threat of violence is conceded by assuming that the Portland center will request additional security if they follow through with the event.

If there was no threat from protesters violently disrupting the event, then there'd be no need for additional security.

More than this though, I'm criticizing the value-judgment implicit in protests whose goal is to get a venue to cancel the speaking appearance of someone like Peterson. This indicates that the protesters don't value free speech and free discussion, which to my mind is a worrying trend.

quote:

The point I'm trying to make is that the spectrum of reasonable discussions is artificially constricted because of people like you who make unreasonable leaps in logic. None of these claims are necessarily racist, but you insist that anyone who utters them really mean something more sinister. They are dog whistling racists, supposedly. Or you know all of the hidden motivations behind people who say seemingly innocuous things.

quote:

What good does it do for society to infer that anyone questioning the wisdom of affirmative action policies is necessarily a racist? There are a lot of reasonable arguments to be made about all of these topics, and people can have good-faith disagreements on many of them.

Not according to you.

You're quite certain that, to a man, every person who goes anywhere near one of these topics is a horrible bigot dog-whistling to Klansmen who probably has a white hood in his closet.

quote:

The only reason I'm bringing any of this stuff up is that I believe it is facile but egregiously wrong to slap the label misogynist and bigot on Jordan Peterson and pretend that he's the same as an avowed white nationalist like Richard Spencer.

This is an actual exchange from a grown man who is a professor posted:

In your new book 12 Rules For Life, you’re very critical of Frozen. Why do you call it “deeply propagandistic”? It attempted to write a modern fable that was a counter-narrative to a classic story like, let’s say, Sleeping Beauty — but with no understanding whatsoever of the underlying archetypal dynamics. You could say that Sleeping Beauty was raised out of her unconsciousness via a delivering male. Another way of reading the story is that unconsciousness requires active consciousness as an antidote. And the unconsciousness is symbolized in that particular story by femininity and active consciousness by masculinity. I could hardly sit through Frozen. There was an attempt to craft a moral message and to build the story around that, instead of building the story and letting the moral message emerge. It was the subjugation of art to propaganda, in my estimation.

Not just a lovely story about sisterhood? No, not just a lovely story about sisterhood. No, ‘fraid not. No, you don’t spend tens of millions of dollars on a carefully crafted narrative that’s just a lovely story unless that’s what you’re trying to tell. That isn’t what the people who made Frozen were trying to tell. Not in my estimation.

You regard it as more propagandistic than say, The Little Mermaid? Those other movies are based on folktales that are maybe — some of those folktales have been traced back 13,000 years.

Aren’t we allowed to make up new stories? Not for political reasons.

Who gets to choose what’s propaganda? I mean, they’re Disney movies. None of them are super subtle. Well, that’s a good question. I wrote a whole book, Maps of Meaning, about that. It’s about 500 pages long, and it’s an attempt to answer that really complicated question. A properly balanced story provides an equal representation of the negative and positive attributes of I could say the world, but it’s actually a being. Harry Potter’s a good example. So Harry’s the hero, right. But he’s tainted with evil. There’s a dark and a light in every bit of that narrative. It’s well balanced. And in the propagandistic story, you don’t see that. You see the darkness all being in one place and the light all being in one place.

Isn’t the darkness and the light in Elsa, who has the power to freeze things, for good or ill? The most propagandistic element of Frozen was the transformation of the prince at the beginning of the story who was a perfectly good guy, into a villain with no character development whatsoever about three-quarters of the way to the ending.

He was a villain the whole time! He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing! That’s how it turned out in the end, but there was no indication of that at the beginning.

quote:

Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful. Anything written to serve a political purpose (rather than to explore and create) is propaganda, not art.

Frozen was propaganda, pure and simple. Beauty and the Beast (the animated version) was not.

quote:

One of the motifs in frozen is you know, the classic idea that the sleeping beauty needs a prince to awaken her is absurd and old fashioned, and that there are alternative ways to travel through life, that don't require the subjugation that that particular story might appear to entail.

quote:

I'm pointing out that the way you define who is and is not a bigot, is foundationally flawed and disingenuous.

You know very well that none of these statements are inherently racist, but it's just more convenient for you to fill in the missing gaps with your own projections so you can smear your intellectual opponents.

quote:

Well, by your own admission roughly 98% of all conservatives or libertarians are racist, so I guess I'd have to be one right?

quote:

It's also funny how you know SO much about someone after a dozen posts on an anonymous message board that you feel comfortable confidently labeling them grotesque bigots. Or, to use your words, "Judging by your posts in this thread so far I fully believe you look down on and/or flat out hate black people."

Have we even loving TALKED about black people?! I thought we were talking about Jordan Peterson, whether or not he is a misogynist and whether or not the politically-correct Left are a threat to free speech?

quote:

My series of questions was merely intended to ascertain what criteria you use to decide that someone or some view is bigoted, and just how rigorous and precise that process is.

This is called a dialectic process and it would be wrong to infer that I even believed all of these hypothetical questions.

quote:

Where exactly did I say that I thought racism doesn't exist? Oh right, nowhere.

quote:

Racism certainly exists, and it has manifested itself among the ethno-nationalist Alt-Right. I think the white nationalist neo-Nazi movement is a genuine problem but I think that they are smaller in number and have less influence that you imagine that they do. And it is ludicrous to count someone like Jordan Peterson among their ranks, or even insinuate that there is some sort of moral equivalency between the two.

quote:

I agree with the principle of individual sovereignty and individual rights. Outdated and racially-biased laws such as the war on drugs ought to be abolished. In fact, there are many laws and institutions that disproportionately harm minorities. For these and other reasons, they ought to be rescinded.

I even believe in reparations for slavery, since true justice would require it.

But I'm not so foolish as to assert that someone who opposes reparations is necessarily a bigot. I'm not trying to call people names, I'm trying to have an in-depth discussion where many points-of-view are considered.

quote:

Is this your mode of debate? Making unwarranted leaps-of-logic to infer the darkest motivations for the views of someone you don't even loving know?

Childish doesn't begin to describe it.

quote:

Ah, so you concede feminism can go too far and that criticizing that excess doesn't make a person a misogynist.

quote:

Why can you concede this point without considering whether someone like Michael Eric Dyson might go to excess in chalking up more to racism and white privilege than is warranted?

quote:

Why can you recognize that a rational person could criticize feminism without also understanding that a rational person could take issue with affirmative action without being a bigot?

quote:

No, it's not foreign to me and I can certainly "process" the idea. People have an easier or harder life than other people on a wide variety of metrics. And some people are discriminated against more because of their race than others. However, I don't believe that assuming collective privilege to white people as a group or assuming collective victim-hood status to blacks because of their group is the proper way to deal with this self-evident fact.

Your not going to start telling me that I'm not allowed an opinion on certain topics because of my skin color, are you? Nothing racist about that.

quote:

Personally, I think to do it because you get off on being an rear end in a top hat. I get it, there is a certain fleeting joy in assuming the un-earned moral high-ground. Certain types of progressives seem to take great pleasure in smearing people as racists.

quote:

But you're wrong. You don't point out to unconvinced third parties that my ideas are wrongheaded by smearing me as a racist. That would require actual arguments that are based on what I've actually said, rather that baseless inferences on what you imagine the secret motivations behind what I say are.

What you're actually trying to do is to convince third parties that I'm a terrible person because of the label you assigned to me. Nobody actually listens to the arguments of a racist, anyway. That is the entire goal is smearing decent people as bigots. It's a tactic designed to deflect attention from the arguments being offered.

quote:

Invoke Racism

School enchantment [Mind Affecting]; Bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 3

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S (Pointing)

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

The subject becomes publicly paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech since no one will listen. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. (This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)

A winged creature who is accused of racism cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.

quote:

Okay, so Jordan Peterson has been assigned the label "misogynist" by Caros.

That means that Caros is utterly incapable of finding anything worthwhile or helpful in Peterson's lectures, his books or his interviews.

quote:

You are simultaneously saying that you cannot "look past" bigotry and engage bigots in an good-faith exchange of ideas or find value in their other work AND you are saying that 98% of all conservatives and libertarians are bigots.

This means you have literally closed your mind off to all non-Leftist thinking. Do you think this makes you a well-rounded person, intellectually speaking?

quote:

Maybe this is the difference between me and you.

quote:

I voraciously read the work of Leftist that I admire. I love Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald. I like Cornel West and Chris Hedges. I liked Jill Stein enough to vote for her over Gary Johnson.

Still, I abhor the values of socialism and radical egalitarianism. I would consider the teaching of communism, or sympathy toward communism in a public space to be as offensive as speech by a white nationalist.

quote:

But I wouldn't try and shut down their speech. I wouldn't try and defame the character of the speaker by labeling them a bigot, unless the evidence is overwhelming.

RealTalk posted:

I care that you actually don't do any loving research before shooting your mouth off about subjects you know nothing about. But why spend all of five minutes learning the first thing about someone when you could spend that time calling them a racist?

quote:

Jordan Peterson has said repeatedly that he will happily use the preferred pro-noun of a trans person if asked. If not asked, he will use the pro-noun most appropriate given the way the person presents "himself/herself, etc".

quote:

His objection has nothing to do with hating trans people. He is not willing to concede the linguistic territory to (in his words) radical Leftists who use trans people to push an entirely different agenda that he opposes. The legislation in Canada could be seen as constituting compelled speech laws, which have never happened before in the history of English common law.

quote:

Even if you disagree that the legislation constitutes compelled speech, that is Peterson's contention. He thinks legislation like this sets a bad precedent.

quote:

To construe his opposition to bill C-16 as being motivated by personal hatred of trans people is so stupid as to defy belief.

It's not like he hasn't answered this question dozens of times in interviews.

quote:

Is it really such a shock that someone could oppose or support something based on a principle?

quote:

The ACLU has repeatedly defended Nazi speech and opposed hate speech laws. Did they do this because they are a white supremacist organization? No, they took these actions because the principle underlying it, freedom of speech, was important.

If the ACLU is not bigoted for supporting free speech, why is Jordan Peterson a bigot for supporting free speech?

Caros posted:

Nah. Hitler gave good speeches.

Seriously. If you ever want to be a good public speaker, you could do worse than reading some of the english translations of hitler speeches, because evil as the motherfucker was, he knew how to work a crowd. Now, on the other hand, I sure as gently caress don't give a drat about his opinion on jews. And that is the Peterson issue. The things he is publicly known for are the things that are problematic about him. I don't see any value in listening to Peterson lecture me on how terrible women are, because my loving problem with him is the way he treats women. You dumb gently caress.

quote:

Aren’t we allowed to make up new stories? Not for political reasons.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Minor note: If you want to learn the tricks of successful demagoguery, you really need to watch films of how Hitler spoke, not just read his words. The ordering of his speeches was deliberate and did contribute, but his stage persona and how he varied the intensity, volume, and emphasis of his words was far more important. To his very core Hitler was a fan of opera and while it wasn't the only influence on his speaking, it was always a persistent element that helped him make repellent (to decent people, at least) ideas more palatable and convincing.

Peterson, by contrast, is not a very good speaker, though I've heard far worse. Part of this isn't his fault, due to his squeaky Kermit voice, but his delivery suffers from a number of other things that some proper stage and voice instructions could help resolve. Fortunately, from what I've read and seen of the man, I can't imagine he'd lower himself to take instruction from anyone else.

Caros posted:

You're misrepresenting the ACLU's position.

Keeshhound posted:

Not really; that's pretty much what their historic approach to free speech has been. If he's misrepresenting anyone, it's Jordan Peterson, because as people have already pointed out, that fucker doesn't actually give a poo poo about anyone's rights but his own.

Caros posted:

Nah, he did the same thing upthread. He is equating the ACLU's long held position of defending literally anyone speaking in a public place, to the situation faced by Peterson, Coulter and others who are speaking in semi-public forums like universities, which the ACLU has never gone to bat for. It is a distinction worth mentioning.

RealTalk posted:

I'm criticizing the value-judgment implicit in protests whose goal is to get a venue to cancel the speaking appearance of someone like Peterson. This indicates that the protesters don't value free speech and free discussion, which to my mind is a worrying trend.

RealTalk posted:

With that said, sports stadiums are private property and the NFL is a business. So the owners have a right to require certain behavior from their employees. This doesn't mean that I agree with their position, but they have the right to stipulate that the players stand.

Since football is a business, owners have some responsibility to tailor their product to consumer desires. Overt political statements, even correct ones, that turn off most viewers could be reasonably curbed if only to maintain a profitable business model.

quote:

I liked Jill Stein enough to vote for her over Gary Johnson.

quote:

There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It’s completely insane to assume that anything like that could’ve possibly occurred. And the feminists think they produced a revolution in the 1960s that freed women. What freed women was the pill, and we’ll see how that works out. There’s some evidence that women on the pill don’t like masculine men because of changes in hormonal balance. You can test a woman’s preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren’t on the pill like wide-jawed men when they’re ovulating, and they like narrow-jawed men when they’re not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.

quote:

There was no equality for women before the birth control pill. It’s completely insane to assume that anything like that could’ve possibly occurred.

quote:

Well all women on the pill are as if they’re not ovulating, so it’s possible that a lot of the antipathy that exists right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill.

quote:

I don’t think women were discriminated against, I think that’s an appalling argument...The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling.