That's because he encourages you to blame your personal lack of social adjustment on women/feminism/PC-culture and not yourself. It's the same with most gateway-alt-righters like the "skeptics." There's a happy middle ground between recognizing the dumbest elements of PC/social-justice culture and swinging the other way on the pendulum because someone absolved you of agency
> That's because he encourages you to blame your personal lack of social adjustment on women/feminism/PC-culture and not yourself.
Have you ever actually read him? His main message is to sort out your own life, then, when that's in order, start improving things around you. It's the exact opposite of blaming others, it's taking responsibility for yourself. And finding meaning in this struggle, and the difference you can make, instead of through fleeting happiness.
This is a message that underperforming white men simply never hear anymore, and it's quite a startle to have it sink in, in my experience.
What message do you think he sends to women? What messages does he send men about women?
Does he argue that the dominance of men in society (in the sense that the small group of people with power are mostly men) is natural and thus acceptable?
I have not read his book; I’m asking you because it sounds like you have and you derived value from it.
> What message do you think he sends to women? What messages does he send men about women?
20% of his audience is women, and that's not a small number, so it's probably better to ask one of them. He relays a lot of science about statistical sex differences, none of which has really been controversial in 40 years (in his own professional field) until recently becoming politicized. Just coming from the point of view that this is the reality you need to navigate.
Another message he sends is to be a lot more careful and respectful about sexual relationships than current social norms suggest.
> Does he argue that the dominance of men in society (in the sense that the small group of people with power are mostly men) is natural and thus acceptable?
In his own words, no, he is not saying that at all. :) He explains his position here pretty well in the Cathy Newman interview. It's much more nuanced than the common caricatures of him are.
I've watched his youtube videos/lectures. I have nothing against his advice to sort yourself out, that's common sense. I have a hard time believing that underperforming white men never hear that anymore considering I am a white man, know many other white men, and none would tell you that all of your problems are someone else's fault. What I object to is that he's just used as a useful idiot (not really an idiot though considering how much money he makes from speaking) for people looking to spread an agenda of hate and who are rallying against "neomarxism," which is just a loaded term people use to engender dislike for things like gender rights. It's an extension of the Nazi conspiracy of "cultural Bolshevism" and later the alt-right's "cultural Marxism".
The original poster was right, you don't need to look to someone like him hear a message as basic and timeless as "happiness is fleeting and some of your problems are your own fault."
Sorry if you think he's only a useful idiot. For me, I credit him a lot with working out of long term depression. And putting me in a state to turn my life around for the better.
"That's because he encourages you to blame your personal lack of social adjustment on women/feminism/PC-culture and not yourself. It's the same with most gateway-alt-righters like the "skeptics." There's a happy middle ground between recognizing the dumbest elements of PC/social-justice culture and swinging the other way on the pendulum because someone absolved you of agency"
No you clearly did not pay attention to them at all whatsoever and no one should listen to you. Jesus christ this repulsively ignorant commentary.
> The original poster was right, you don't need to look to someone like him hear a message as basic and timeless as "happiness is fleeting and some of your problems are your own fault."
I'm not sure how you consider this professor an "idiot," useful or not. He has been spreading a similar message for decades, and continues to derive meaning from the world from a behavioral-psychological perspective. I see his desire to help people coming from his innate desire (being a clinical psychologist). I also find it hard to find flaws in the belief system he works from (not religion, but the perspective on our need for meaning).
It would be useful to give clear examples of where he is truly provoking for the sake of it and for the sake of book sales.
To say that he's saying nothing original is wholly wrong. And to lambaste someone for sourcing knowledge from a modern public source is ridiculous. How do you sort yourself out if you cannot proceed without knowing the true source of an idea?
