Agreed.

You can love Peterson or hate him, but he seems likely sincere in his beliefs. In other words, he ain't no grifter (as I understand the term).

I've never read a Petersen book, so I can't vouch one way or another about his written work.

In what sense is he a grifter?

I don't see anything toxic about this. The men gain experience and confidence, so they'll know what they're doing when they are ready to hit on someone they really like. For the women, they either get hit on by someone they are attracted to, or the ego boost of being hit on and shooting someone down. Everyone wins.

A big problem I have with current social norms of castigating "toxic masculinity" is that IMO the people doing the criticizing (who ironically are also a lot of the same people making policy decisions enabling the very behavior they are so critical of) are themselves part of the problem, not the solution.

IMO the big disconnect is a complete misunderstanding of biology, history and psychology among cultural elites who shape policy and social norms, especially in regards to low-status heterosexual males. I am of course generalizing, but generally low status males with little opportunity to improve their status dramatically are going to do the minimum to procure a mate.

If that means getting married and working in the plant 50 hours/week to provide for their family, this is what they are going to do. If they can get away with playing video games all day and smoking weed, while their baby mama works instead, you are going to get a lot more of that.

Part of the problem IMO is a big fundamental misunderstanding of an important adaptive purpose of traditional, "patriarchal" societies. The purpose of "enforced monogamy" and other "misognistic" social norms isn't misogyny for the sake of misogyny. It was a solution to the question; What the hell do we do with all the low status males to get them to buy in? Because if you don't have a solution to that problem, you don't have a functional society.

And of course the greatest irony of how progressivism has been (arguably) maladaptive towards low status males, is that it is often low status females (and their offspring) who are bearing the biggest burdens.

The solution to the increasing amount of people feeling disenfranchised is not modern gurus that tell them how to think and behave. The Tates and Petersons of the world are certainly making a product for this market, but it is not a solution.

We really need to be critical enough of this stuff. It is dressed up in promises that range from self-improvement to better status, but like all the self-help gurus before them, the underlying message is really "you are not good enough". As a business, the shittier it can make people feel, the better it will sell. It's social nicotine.

And people will feel shitty if they are caught up in these eco-systems, because we do not change that easily. We can improve and make some adjustments, but in terms of personality and behaviors we are mostly stuck with who we are.

The language of the incels in particular is problematic. "Alphas", "betas", "sigmas", "NPCs", "cucks", "simps". Everything is divided into the most banal categories possible. Meanwhile, the limits of acceptable thoughts and behavior is confined into a space so narrow it makes religious fundamentalism look damn near open-minded. The vitriolic hatred of non-conformance is also enormous.

All that said, I will say that there is something afoot with our culture. In western countries we're seeing a rise in loneliness and disenfranchisement across the board, we're also seeing increased rates of depression. I personally think we should steer that ship around, but the answer isn't for tens of millions of people to think that everything about them is wrong, to start a cult-like movement for controlling acceptable behavior or angrily blame "everyone else".

Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure that I buy any of this. And I don't think you can define "low status males" without generalizing so much that it is fatal to your argument.

I agree that the bolded seems to a real issue. The reasons almost certainly are multitudinous and vary from person to person and country to country, but off the top of my head, I would offer up the following:

--Geographic mobility
--Rate of technological change
--Wealth inequality
--The ability to do everything, and buy everything, remotely
--Information bombardment
--Generally ineffective government

The idea that “low-status” men were somehow happier 50 years ago or whenever is something that badly needs to be supported by something other than wishcasting (and what about women, are we factoring them in at all?).

t_d's comment and my response were not specific to men, much less men of a particular status.

My comment was intended to be in response to Dunyain’s comment.

Dating women is really simple. If they don’t want you, you can’t date them.


I know many many men who say “I don’t want a woman that cares about XYZ”, and as a result, they do not try to make themselves attractive.

so you have to make women want you. And you do that through a wide variety of ways. One thing I can suggest is to never be fake, nor lie. Be yourself. You can change who you are, but do not lie about yourself.

People like Jordan Peterson and Andrew tate are saying things that sound good but actually aren’t applicable to real life. I do not suggest following the advice of people that are that insecure.

'low status males' is problematic but i think there is a genuine need to discuss the percent of the populace who are any combination of 'driven', 'entrepreneurial', 'risk takers', versus those who choose a path of lesser pursuits, both when it comes to career and dating.

Lets use dating as an example.

There is an increasing push to define many of these aspects when exerted by males as 'toxic' while applauding them in women. Men are increasingly defined as 'bad' or 'wrong' for the manners and ways they might approach a woman to ask for a date, respectfully, under the assumption it can be judged as wrong in advance, under the assumption the other person would not appreciate it.

this is a very difficult space to prejudge but still it is done. A man approaching a women in the work place is 'wrong' if she does not appreciate, but fine, if she does like it and they marry. Boss or not.

So much of this is about trying to get men overall to subvert and deny what tends to be their basic nature of being the aggressors and risk takers that has lead most men to success (most marriages used to originate in the work place and maybe still do) in the form of marriages, because in some instances it does not work out and might make a female 'feel' uncomfortable.

So the goal is to make men feel more uncomfortable overall about being brave or risk takers in many areas.

Male aggression and risk taking is, imo, seen by many as a power imbalance they want to take down, and to the detriment of society, especially with younger males, i believe they have been succeeding. Many young men seem far more confused today and not surprisingly so when we have many mainstream messages demonizing the very idea of a guy even thinking about approaching a women to try and see if she is interested. He just is expected 'not to try' unless she is inviting it in some way.


The guys who buy into that narrative struggle far more than those who do not, and who remain bold and risk taking and that confuses the former as they were the ones doing what they were told to do, to be successful.

"brave and risk taking".. dude you have to be smart enough to know that there is a major difference in asking a coworker not during working hours "would you be interested in getting a drink sometime? if not no worries" and hitting on a coworker during work, touching a coworker during work, catcalling, making sexualized comments, using power dynamics to incentivize/punish, and other creepy ****..

no one is saying to not ever be interested in a coworker like you are trying to strawman. people are saying dont be a ****ing creep and do any of the latter stuff.

What's going on in this thread? I don't really want to go back to read anything but what issues are being discussed and what are the points of contention?

The opening thread has washoe posting a video praising potential human trafficker Andrew Tait

Covid Lockdowns

Andrew Tate

Jordan Peterson

I am curious as I have no clue whom this guy is other than some social media influencer. How is he human trafficking people?

this might be an explanation?

I don't pay much attention

By stealing passports and physically forcing girls to perform sex acts on camera.

This is a good meme

Nice framing.

Personally i have never engaged in any dating or attempt to date at work. I had a coworker, who was actually working for me in my department who hit on me relentlessly despite me making it clear many times 'i do not date people i work with', but i won't digress to that story.

The point is that prior (maybe still) a majority of relationships and marriages begin in the work place, which also means by default even more 'turn downs' happen in the work place.

You can fantasize every turn down was some horrible troll like male how has power and refuses to take no for an answer, but that simply is not the case. In my career and what we see often is women going to HR because they feel 'uncomfortable that a coworker hit on them, unsolicited and it now makes it difficult for them to work together.

The difference between 'wanted' or 'not' or 'creepy' or 'not' is often the perceived desirability of the man to the woman. Meaning few or no women find it creepy when they are single and attracted to the guy and hoping he will approach. Something few men know until they try unless the woman is being the aggressor and sending strong signals.

Heck i i know of more stories where the woman said no to the guys first advance, and admits she was not at first interested, but it was his persistence that made her give the guy a chance and then they married. So many share that origin story about their spouse.


The bigger point being 'relationship starts can be messy' and yet internet warriors always want to paint as clean and easy. ...."here are the things everyone must do and must not do', as if it is that easy. And they do that by focusing on the most extreme examples instead of the 90% of relationships that start somewhere in the middle. A normal, not suave guy, getting up his courage to ask a gal out, and her then deciding if she wants to or not. When that woman decides no, we must avoid criminalizing or demonizing the men for 'trying'. It is still overwhelmingly 'men's JOB to try', the majority of women when polled still say they expect men to do the approaching and that is because everyone wants to be the one to have the power to accept or reject and not be the one who has to risk that. So, again demonizing men for doing what expected, at a time when there are misguided social campaigns, such as that egregious television commercial, telling men they should not, makes the landscape very confusing.

he is not. at least there is no evidence for that.

beating of a woman? bs according to Rogan.
there is a video of him beating a woman.
I read that there is a video that preludes it and the woman accouncing the play. (fifty shades of grey stuff)
she stated afterwards that it was all consensual.
the other accusations? probably bs too.

this is not the best channel but a good summary why Joe Rogan wants him on his show:






here is rogan speaking about him

Do you have a citation for this? I have no prior knowledge of this answer, but have been trying to search while actually busy as it's interesting. The best presented image I could find is this:

(is my image not posting? Who can help me?)

Which is from: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35535424
Seems to get data from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ful...03122412448050
And a newer version: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1908630116

I don't have time right now to read through these, but the finding of 10-20% of relationships forming/having formed at work is much different than your statement of a majority.

here they mention him again. pretty funny.

There were a bunch of off topic posts in the covid thread..they covered a few different topics sort of meandering around. So I made this catch all thread in order to clean up the covid thread.