He's just a more rhetorically sophisticated tradcon boomer who blames all of modern society's problems on men not...

>Ignores the issues that have caused young men to check out from society.
What you allow is what will continue.

What, are you unable to cope with words, sport? Have you let the dragon swallow your father, bucko? Sort yourself out, it's no joke!

Huh, must've been the wind...

Huh, ignoring something out loud... How childishly, how delightfully delusional!

First part is correct, but the quote becomes shit from "ignores the issues" forward, because

1. Peterson does not ignore those issues.
2. Those are barely the core issues.

But they are barely the core issues because ultimately there isn't really a "problem" like Peterson or /pol/ or other doomsayers claim, or at least not one that they think. The problem is in the existence of these idiotic doomsayers who think society is declining. While anything goes up, something is in decline elsewhere; society is advancing and the doomsayers and loser virgins are the ones in decline.

Jordan Peterson is one, he's mentioned in several lectures how most women get male attention but only the top men get female attention and the rest get barely any or none at all. But iirc he attributes that to women, as if they are the selective maters and not the men who dominate not only what women think and are attracted to but the men as well. Really dominant men fuck both women and other men but you don't hear much about the latter because no man wants to ever admit he got raped by his boss or something of that sort.

>How childishly, how delightfully delusional!
Splendid, my dear fellow!

>But iirc he attributes that to women, as if they are the selective maters and not the men who dominate not only what women think and are attracted to but the men as well. Really dominant men fuck both women and other men but you don't hear much about the latter because no man wants to ever admit he got raped by his boss or something of that sort.
This is not Petersons position, though. He says that women sorted out the difficulty of their mating choice by allowing men to set the criteria for their own dominance hierarchy, then women peel from the top. So it takes into account the fact that women choose the best they can get away with, but that the "best" is still defined by the dominant men.

Thanks da- I mean Jordan. I mean, MISTER peterson... Professor. Sir.

>women peel from the top
>women choose
They themselves don't do anything. Men make the final call. This is his mistake.

Not these days, bucko.

These days, days before, and all days to come. Dominant men don't give women an inch and never have. The change in laws have given some women an opportunity to at least struggle with that inescapable truth, but barely.

>be Jordan Memerson
>want to make a lot of $$$ and gain notoriety quickly
>perform the brave, heroic act of refusing to use someone's gender pronouns
>get worshiped as a hero by autists on the internet for whining about a letter he received from the school's faculty
>never receive any actual death threats, never have his life threatened, never get actually censored, never get imprisoned, never even get fired from his job
>simply whining about gender pronouns and being a professor of psychology is enough to be labelled a martyr for free speech by gullible anti-SJWs on the internet who desperately want an authority figure to affirm their whining
>whine about postmodernism and the cultural marxist boogeyman, even though postmodernism is a massive, broad subject never cite any actual literature or works or books by postmodernist authors or the Frankfurts, just say "they're all dumb guys trust me" like a true academic while occasionally namedropping Foucault or Derrida without actually addressing any of their arguments
>give the anti-SJWs you conned an imaginary enemy to blame all their problems on, while posing yourself as a hero when you've done jack shit and ironically whine about virtue signalling in academia while proposing no actual solutions to the postmodernist boogeyman
>fearmonger about a Canadian bill that you didn't even bother reading that was just a slight modification of a previous human rights bill that has already been in effect for decades, only it added "gender identity" to the list of criteria that you can't discriminate someone for and doesn't even affect universities because it only has federal jurisdiction
>make 65k US dollars a month on Patreon from gullible morons who think you're brilliant for making glorified vlogs that spout Jungian purple prose, whine about children's movies being feminist propaganda and make vague, whiny criticisms of postmodernism that isn't backed by any actual evidence
How does it feel to worship the Anita Sarkeesian of anti-SJWs?

>modern society's problems on men not "manniung up

This IS a problem that is driving the culture into the ground.

>and ignores the issues that have caused young men to check out from society

No, several of his talks are directed towards young adults. In fact, many young adult men in particular find his message inspiring and affirming.

>like the rise of feminism, and the inability to find a woman worth marrying.

These are puerile oversimplifications of the inter-gender disorder in the culture.

>I read... on /tv/

That explains why it is so wrong and cringeworthy. babby's first criticism

>I forgot that this was my original opinion

You what?

Have fun in prison when you try to take what's "yours" then, sport.

>Enjoying someone's work = worship.
Classic projection, bucko. Nobody is paying him 65k individually you moron.

>average male gets 0 matches
This just isn't true in any facet

>Have fun in prison when you try to take what's "yours" then, sport.
I don't know what the fuck you're getting at. You think men currently married with children or grandchildren didn't do this to get where they are? You think the women are in charge? It's all a facade; in bed, these women, even the strong-appearing ones, still get dominated. This isn't some fantasy where I'm referring only to criminal rapists, this is how successful men are across the board and how women are across the board.

You're not making any points that refute the position I've stated
>men sort out the criteria for their dominance in society
>women then choose the winners
So men DO have control over the features that classify success. But women then choose from the top as much as they ever can. They will choose equal of higher whenever they have the option. What about this are you arguing against? Your only claim was "women have no choice. Zero". That's not a rebuttal, it's nonsense. You seem fucking lost.

I don't see at any point women making choices. Like I said, it's a facade. Power has been given to them in theory only.

You're an idiot, please go back to /tv/ if you think this is poignant

So they are not even swiping in tinder, for example? That's just a bot? They don't choose whether to call a man back and organise a second date? What the FUCK are you talking about?

The statistics Peterson talks about justifies what I'm saying. The top men get all the pussy while the rest don't get any. The average women doesn't get as much dick as the top man gets in pussy. The top men are overwhelmingly powerful compared to any woman period, and they are making so many choices and have so many options that whatever "options" the average woman thinks she has is ultimately meaningless.

So in other words, you completely support the original position.
>men set the criteria for success
>women choose the best they can get within these parameters
You seem to be under the impression you're presenting a counter position but you're not.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex. People who fail to acknowledge this truism are what we call rapists or sexual offenders

My opposition is in your acknowledgement that women had any choice, ever. The premise "women LET men form a dominance hierarchy" is fucking absurd. Men did this on their own accord, because they're men, they never gave a fuck what the woman thinks and ultimately still don't.

Kek just bang a prostitute

>The average women doesn't get as much dick as the top man gets in pussy.
t. never ever had a conversation with slutty college girls

The KING of the motherfucking GODS in the most powerful civilization other than our own was a serial rapist. Where's your argument now?

Ah, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. You're right, I think that was a mistake on my part. What I meant was that women don't even try to choose the best male based in their own criteria, because that would be too complex a problem. Instead, they just choose the highest male from the social heiarchies they can get, trusting that those males are the best according to the men's definition.

Non-argument.

Each and every non-deformed woman from ages 15 to 50 has basically unlimited access to willing sexual partners, out of which a selected few will ever get anything. All men but the genetic elite are beggars, meanwhile women are the choosers. They also find most men unnatractive (guess why) and undateable, meanwhile male sexuality makes men horny for any wet hole

>out of which a selected few will ever get anything
Those selected few are getting way more than those women do.

There are a lot fewer of them.

You know, usually I'd find this to be a cringeworthy statement.

But then I thought about my best friends gf. She is rotund, short dyke hair, talks a ton of shit and overall just not attractive, and yet she's had sex with just under 40 different people, supposedly. She's had threesomes, kissed a man with another man's cum in her mouth etc. I have zero doubt all of the guys she's fucked were slobs.

My friend on the other hand, who is also not attractive, has had sex with three girls, one of whom was the girlfriend of our shared friend. Another was a girl who was so drunk that he convinced her to do it with him. He tries to goad everyone into believing that the number is higher because he's insecure about his girlfriend's number of past sexual partners even though he denies this.

That means nothing, because it's always been the few who lead the whole pack.

Only for the men. Women get to have as many partners as they want regardless of their position.

Statistically, none of them get as many as the men at the top on an individual basis (and by a massive variation too), thus they don't "select" of their own volition in reality. Those few men also direct society, and have shaped the women to focus on them (not the other way around), so there is no point in going on about this any longer — women are not and have never been in power really, only the few men at the top have ever been. But this has been said like 5 times now.

Trying to spin this around will not get you laid more often. The only way forward is to grapple with the beast directly. You have to be one of those top men, or die trying, or you stay a bottom feeder getting leftover scraps.

Complaining about feminism and finding no suitable women for marriage betrays in itself an implicit bourgeoisie, anglo-american liberal morality.

But then again, the "alt-right" is by no means a proper revolutionary movement, as it essentially boils down to creating idealized post-war economic and social conditions, just without non-whites.

You mean that you get 0 matches. I read somewhere that 10% of tinder using males actually end up having sex and that 70% of females do. 10% of the males have sex with 70% of the women. It's a Pareto distribution dominance hierarchy.

>tfw in the %10

>It's a Pareto distribution dominance hierarchy.
It's nice to be one of the 10% :^) Now I don't have to worry about the day of the rope.

Why do you want women who use Tinder?

It simply illustrates real world dynamics.

Even when you have stuff like this put in to stark numbers, people will deny it or rationalise it. Such are the mental gymnastics of people insulting betas.

i had sex with a guy from tinder because he had a quote from Boethius in his profile, doubt that happens to him very often, but goes to show there is hope for everyone.

Homosexual relations don't count

Yes they do. That's like saying I don't choose to eat cake because it just tastes so good I have to eat it.

That's a very unique take, I'll give you that.

B-but you just don't understand his suuuuuper deep thought, which he definitely has because he agrees with me and gave me some boilerplate self help lines.
It's a cult

>people who haven't read maps of meaning
>insisting he's tradcon
Hearty heh

>I read somewhere...

Good to know you're building your politics on firm ground

>The only women with an ounce of brains are feminists

This.
If you want a literary GF who reads and thinks - they'll always be feminist. Women who are conservative are either 60+ years old or just really dumb.

It's close to true. Most men will get matches, but can barely get past greetings (if she replies at all).

>If you want a literary GF who reads and thinks - they'll always be feminist.

I've met one who was anti-left and pretty intelligent. To be fair, though, you're generally right as far as I can tell. I'm prettt apolitical, but I have to admit I'm really tired of talking to girls about leftist shit every time I try to have a real conversation.

This is true, how can one deal with this or reconcile it. I try to be apolitical but talk of diversifying the canon and directing every situation to a "POC perspective" becomes unbearable. I met an absolute qt the other week and within minutes she was talking about police brutality and racism like it was relevant to our lives in any way. We live in 90% white city that the police brutality problem must have skipped over. I can hardly steer the conversation into normal humanities talk without touching upon some critical analysis lens. Is classicisim dead? Probably just reserved for sentimental autists like myself

>he is famous for talking about dominance hierarchy

The fuck user? I remember him even specifically talking about how women date across and up their stratum, whereas men date across and down

By not caring. Why would you expect women to care about art in the first place? That's fairly absurd.

It's more like saying you're an independent female and then getting your asshole fucking railroaded in bed so hard you can't sit right for three days.

Heres a good breakdown of some of the errors he made during a talk

metamoderna.org/jordan-peterson-and-camille-paglia-a-marathon-of-academic-incompetence?lang=en

In general once he leaves his field of expertise his quality drops quite heavily

Disagree. Also feminism is cancer.

Why do you think those two things are contradictory? They are not. I can be an independent male but still choose to get my dick sucked if a woman is willing. If you define anything that relies on other people as an indicator of being not independent then anyone who isn't a hardcore survivalist is not independent at all.

>Why do you think those two things are contradictory? They are not.
They contradict the male understanding of independence. Are you a male? Then it should appear contradictory to you. There's nothing independent about being a slave to someone else. "Happiness in slavery" is an alien form of independence not worth entertaining except if you're a woman.

OK, so you are satisfied having an ideal of independence that can never actually be achieved by men or women?

I don't like Peterson much but this is some leftist tripe.

Why the fuck would you want a girlfrend that thinks and reads. Go for a dumb cutie with a nice ass that you can teach shit and feel superior about it and discuss literature and any other higher topic with other guys. That's how the world worked since the beginning of time, and everyone was happy