Friday, July 06, 2018

The Utility of Peterson

Like anybody who specifically targets the left, and criticizes their hostile disposition toward enlightenment values and the individual, Jordan Peterson is the object of much animosity and attempted speech suppression. But his fame and belovedness, as prominent as they are, naturally have made him a hot target for politically motivated equivocation by left leaning smear artists.

It is Jordan’s vociferous and impactful criticisms of postmodernism and Marxism that influence such people to conflate his reverence for the underpinnings of western culture with far right chauvinism. But to anybody who has taken the time to absorb a lecture of his (impartially), it’s readily apparent that his material is born out of a surplus of kindness and authentic investment in the wellbeing of all people.

Far from resembling the sociopathic caricature of the world’s Cenk Uygurs’ archetypal “right-winger”, a category classical liberals are now commonly pigeonholed into, Jordan is known for extending a hand of sympathetic understanding to those most of society would consider irredeemable wretches, upon whom he rarely confers undue moral judgments.

He refers to his enemies even as being under the possession of bad ideas, rather than painting them as evil. He does not lower himself to the common impulse of dehumanization most people act on with reference to their enemies. He’s someone brimming with compassion, particularly for those who feel lost or disenfranchised, and have nobody to represent their feelings in good faith.

Though the left has made an increasing number of character and credibility assassination attempts on Peterson, they fail to realize he is one of the few voices regularly defusing the complicated grief of many young men which left untreated could grow into violent attempts at retribution, shootings, and other rampages. In spite of all the left does to paint Peterson as mysoginistic, angry, and unhinged, he is actually the one assuaging the male rage while the leftists continually exacerbate it.

Peterson gives expression to the anger many young white men justly feel, having been abandoned by their own culture and local institutions, and tries to remake it into a positive sense of responsibility and motivation toward success. These are people who feel that the entire world is rigged against them, and Peterson would like to guide them toward a renewed understanding of the potential and meaning of their lives.

Anger is a natural expression of despair and grief, and while Peterson tries desperately to provide the correct outlet for it, the left alienates those who feel angry by perpetually demonizing them. This comes from the idea on the left that those who are not part of a protected class have no right to ever feel angry or left out — an impossible standard that shits on the validity of their feelings in perpetuity.

And because leftists call everything they did not create fascism, and call everything that doesn’t benefit them fascism, and call everything that doesn’t subjugate itself to their own whims fascism, they cannot allow this. But Peterson is actually a huge moderate attempting to bridge the culture gap. Not to mention Peterson is an actual anti-facist, in the sense that he understands and fights against legitimate fascism. By tearing him down, they’re only widening the culture gap and increasing the likelihood of future civil conflict.

Now, I’m not a Peterson acolyte. I have some criticisms of him. For one, it’s unsure whether mere individualism and the rejection of identity politics can actually conserve our embattled liberty. In other words, maybe the gap can’t be bridged. It may not be enough to simply exhume “the father” and think we can return to the golden age of liberty and social trust by some miraculous resurgence of old values. Who knows?

Another point of criticism is the apparent existential relativism of his philosophy, which is cause for much concern, and something I haven’t been able to overlook since he came to prominence. This is made worse by the stream of consciousness style of his lectures. If his philosophy is to be taken seriously, he better articulate it more coherently. Otherwise, he’s no better than an Oprah or a Dr.Oz, and we’ve got enough of those.

But in spite of this, we can’t overlook the good things he’s done. He’s a powerful influencer, spreading awareness of the caustic nature of campus cult ideology. Thousands of parents are now conscious of the free-thought-inhibiting indoctrination occurring in schools all throughout North America. People are ostensibly more enthusiastic about Western society and identity, and the preservation of the values contained therein. Those who faced lives of total depravity have discovered a rebirth of purpose, and are enthusiastic about the future for perhaps the very first time. These are not small accomplishments.

So, give the doctor his due.


‘Experts’ Rank US in Top 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women—Almost as Bad as Nigeria

Suggesting that many of the world’s most grave problems have been solved, experts in women’s rights from around the world rank the United States among the 10 most dangerous countries for women.

Sadly, however, issues such as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, rape as a weapon of war, honor killings, and maternal mortality haven’t stopped.

Rather, leading “experts” in their fields appear to have lost any perspective, categorizing the U.S. as almost as dangerous as Nigeria, where Boko Haram militants kidnap, rape, and sexually exploit women and girls.

The ranking was compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Reuters, “the world’s largest news and information provider.” The foundation asked 548 “women’s rights experts” to name the most dangerous countries from among the 193 United Nations member states in health care, access to economic resources, customary practices, sexual violence, and nonsexual violence and human trafficking.

The results came in as follows:

Saudi Arabia
Democratic Republic of Congo
United States
Notably missing from the Reuters list:

—South Sudan and Central African Republic, where the armed forces systematically rape women as a weapon of war.

—Mauritania, where an estimated 40 percent of the population is enslaved, presumably many of them women.

—North Korea, where tens of thousands of women are trafficked and trapped in prison camps.

—Iran, where women are arrested for taking off their hijabs and protesting an oppressive regime.

—China, where millions of baby girls were murdered under the country’s one-child policy.

—And Myanmar, where a genocide is happening under our watch.

I could go on. But somehow, it’s the U.S. where women are doomed.

If living in the United States is more dangerous for women than living in a country where boy’s and men’s bodies are used to create bonfires while women are raped and baby girls are grabbed by the leg and thrown into the fire to burn, then forgive me—I must be missing something. As far as I was aware, women in the U.S. face injustices, but we still have equality before the law.

The same can’t be said for these nine other countries, or the dozens of others that didn’t make the list of most dangerous countries for women.

The inclusion of the U.S. in this group demonstrates the level of ignorance among “women’s experts,” and why so many of them shouldn’t be trusted. It reflects the dangerous “victimhood” ideology that’s pervasive among college students, and shows how selfish American feminism has become.

Harvey Weinstein, after all, does not equate with Boko Haram.

In explaining the decision to rank the U.S. as the 10th-most dangerous country for women, the Thomson Reuters Foundation said:

The United States shot up in the rankings after tying joint third with Syria when respondents were asked which was the most dangerous country for women in terms of sexual violence including rape, sexual harassment, coercion into sex and the lack of access to justice in rape cases. It was ranked sixth for non-sexual violence.

The survey was taken after the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment went viral in October last year as Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 70 women, some dating back decades. Hundreds of women have since publicly accused powerful men in business, government and entertainment of sexual misconduct and thousands have joined the #MeToo social media movement to share stories of sexual harassment or abuse.

Specifically, experts ranked the U.S. the third-worst country for the category Sexual Violence, “including rape as a weapon of war; domestic rape; rape by a stranger; the lack of access to justice in rape cases; sexual harassment and coercion into sex as a form of corruption.”

That puts us just between Syria and Congo, the latter once called “the rape capital of the world.”

The U.S. also ranked sixth in Non-Sexual Violence, “including conflict-related violence and forms of domestic physical and mental abuse.” That leaves us just before Saudi Arabia, where women recently gained the right to drive.

#MeToo was a long, overdue movement, and the good news is that it’s creating change. Men who do wrong are being held accountable, and more women feel empowered to speak up. Yes, there’s still a lot of work to do. But the majority of our #MeToo cases don’t compare to women’s cries in the Middle East. Nor do our injustices hold water to the inequalities of women in the developing world.

We might face sexual harassment, assault, and even violence, but it’s not systematically used as a weapon of war. And sure, some of us don’t like our leader, but our government isn’t gassing its own people.

Speaking in relative terms, women in the U.S. are safe.

For anyone who’s perplexed about the level of outrage in America today, look no further than the results of this survey. According to “women’s experts,” there are 183 countries where women are better off living than the U.S.

To be fair, the U.S. does allow women to be thrown out of restaurants, and Democratic leaders call on their supporters to harass political opponents. But even so, women here have it pretty good. So good, in fact, that our borders are overwhelmed with people dreaming of calling this place “home.”

To pretend that life in America is more dangerous than so many other countries is nothing short of sad, insulting, and ludicrous. Because let’s be clear: Women are far better off living in the U.S. than they are in places like Myanmar.

“Women’s experts,” of all people, should know this.


Marine experiment finds women get injured more frequently, shoot less accurately than men

Women in a new Marine Corps unit created to assess how female service members perform in combat were injured twice as often as men, less accurate with infantry weapons and not as good at removing wounded troops from the battlefield, according to the results of a long-awaited study produced by the service.

The research was carried out by the service in a nine-month long experiment at both Camp Lejeune, N.C., and Twentynine Palms, Calif. About 400 Marines, including 100 women, volunteered to join the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, the unit the Marine Corps created to compare how men and women do in a combat environment.

“This is unprecedented research across the services,” said Marine Col. Anne Weinberg, the deputy director of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office. “What we tried to get to is what is that individual’s contribution to the collective unit. We all fight as units… We’re more interested in how the Marine Corps fights as units and how that combat effectiveness is either advanced or degraded.”

The study, an executive summary of which was released Thursday, was carried out as all the services prepare to submit recommendations to Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter this fall on whether any jobs should be kept closed to women. In a landmark decision in January 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rescinded a decades-old ban on women serving in combat jobs like infantry, but gave the services until this fall to research how they wanted to better integrate women and if any jobs should be kept closed.

The Pentagon faces increasing pressure to fully integrate women, following the historic Aug. 21 graduation of two female officers from the Army’s Ranger School. The legendarily difficult school was opened on an experimental basis this spring, with 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, 25, and Capt. Kristen Griest, 26, completing the requirements. Sixteen other women who attempted the course failed, while one other woman remained in the school’s third and final phase at Eglin Air Force Base as of last week.

The Marine Corps’ research will serve as fodder for those who are against fully integrating women. It found that all-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated better performance on 93 of 134 tasks evaluated (69 percent) than units with women in them. Units comprising all men also were faster than units with women while completing tactical movements in combat situations, especially in units with large “crew-served” weapons like heavy machine guns and mortars, the study found.

Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found.

The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.

The full study is more than a thousand pages long, Marine officials said. They anticipated publishing it online in coming days.

A physiological assessment carried out by the University of Pittsburgh’s Neuromuscular Research Laboratory found that the average man in the experimental integrated unit weighed 178 pounds with 20 percent body fat, while the average woman weighed 142 pounds with 24 percent body fat.

Researchers hooked men and women alike up to a variety of monitors, and found that the top 25th percentile of women overlapped with the bottom 25th percentile of men when it came to anaerobic power, a measure of strength, Marine officials said. Those numbers were expected to a degree given the general size difference between the average man and woman.

The gender-integrated unit’s assessment also found that 40.5 percent of women participating suffered some form of musculoskeletal injury, while 18.8 percent of men did. Twenty-one women lost time in the unit due to injuries, 19 of whom suffered injuries to their lower extremities. Of those, 16 women were injured while while carrying heavy loads in an organized movement, like a march, the study found.

The kinds of injuries varied, too: The majority of women in the unit who lost time due to injuries suffered through hip problems, with foot and toe injuries also problematic. In men, the most common injuries were to the feet and toes, followed by the ankles, Weinberg said.

The research raises the question whether the Marine Corps may press to keep the infantry and Special Operations, in particular, closed to women. If they do so, they could face resistance from above: Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who oversees both the Navy and Marine Corps, already has indicated that he sees no reason to keep the infantry closed to women.


Australia: Toy guns, superhero costumes and even LEGO could be banned from childcare centres as experts claim they encourage violent behaviour

Where is the evidence that such bans will have any benefit?  There is none

Children may be banned from playing with toy guns, fake plastic swords and even Lego due to fears they encourage violent behaviour.

Games such as 'cops and robbers' and mock bows and arrows could be barred at preschools as childcare centres try and stamp out what they believe is 'violent' behaviour.

Australian Childcare Alliance NSW president Lyn Connolly said children who want to make a gun from Lego blocks should be told 'how they can hurt people'. 

Ms Connolly told the Daily Telegraph that the potential effects of guns should be discussed with children.

The Australian Childcare Alliance will survey its 1,600 childcare centres for policies regarding toy weapons.

Ms Connolly said early childcare centres usually have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to fake weapons.

Child psychologist Dr Justin Coulson said there is no evidence playing with toy guns has an impact on behaviour.

'Even if we were to ban guns, kids will find other things to use if they want to play a 'goodies versus baddies' game.

'While I personally don't like it when kids play with replica guns and I have a personal and moral distaste, there is no evidence to suggest it causes any problems.'

Early Childhood Education Minister Sarah Mitchell said the NSW state government was able to take action against childcare providers that used toys which could pose a safety threat.

Australian Childcare Alliance vice president Nesha Hutchinson said children in rural areas often used toy guns as a teaching tool.

They would often have seen their parents using real weapons on farms, she said.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: