What's your opinion on Jordan Peterson's theory that masculinity equals order? For me it's crap. Men are more likely to be violent and violence is the ultimate form of chaos. Women's rooms are more tidy. Then men are more likely to pursue adventure, which is a form of chaos. In terms of politics, men are more likely to be libertarians, which is a very chaotic form of economy. Both sexes have chaotic and orderly individuals, but in general us guys tend to be more chaotic. Victorian housewives would be an epitome of orderly femininity, and British chav/new lad subculture of chaotic masculinity.
Masculinity != men Masculinity != violence Pursuing adventure means encountering chaos. Masculinity is putting it into order. This is my understanding anyway. Tell me what you think
As I hinted, all 4 combos can exist orderly masculinity = engineer dad orderly femininity = Victorian housewife chaotic masculinity = thug chaotic femininity = Jane Goody "Pursuing adventure means encountering chaos. Masculinity is putting it into order." Well, sometimes it means causing more chaos because the order became too boring. So some amount of chaos is good!
I need you to define chaos, order, femininity and masculinity, because it is not very clear from your writing.
Chaos is high entropy, e.g. plasma is chaotic state of matter. Order is low entropy, e.g. crystal is orderly state of matter. For life, personality and civilization to emerge, we need a balance between chaos and order. Neither plasma nor crystal could evolve into a human being or something on similar level of complexity. There is a philosophy called Extropianism, which says moral good equals to growth of complexity and information. So a human being is more valuable than a bug, because more information can be accumulated about the human. Femininity and masculinity are best understood intuitively. Perhaps to be more scientific, femininity is oestrogen influence on the mind, and masculinity is testosterone influence on the mind.
Okay so you say Jordan Peterson defines masculinity as order. You define it as some hormonal influence on the mind. Something like, the more testosterone you have in your blood, the more masculine you are? How does more testosterone make you an engineer? Correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly.
It's more likely that high testosterone level will make you a violent hooligan. That's why Peterson is ridiculous.
They are more robotic than macho. Though some level of testosterone helps one to develop a systemizing brain, which makes one good at engineering. But a person with very high testosterone would be too horny and too aggresive to focus on numbers.
Orderly masculinity is robotic, chaotic masculinity is macho. My own engineer dad was remarkably unemotional, and this is a definitely masculine trait.
Actually as a matter of fun fact, I'd recall hearing that testosterone doesn't increase aggression per se. It increases the desire to be respected, which in a healthy enviroment translates into ambitiousness, whereas in an unhealthy enviroment where a sense of respect is gained through fear, it reverts into aggression.
It sounds like you're throwing around a lot of stereotypes, many that are mostly degrading to masculinity. A virtuous man of strong character and noble deeds, yet even meek with but protective of women and children, is more the epitome of a real man with real masculinity. .
Ghrhfhhhfhdhvjfhdhdhdhhdh filthy Chaos ghrhdfhdhhdhddhd Korne , Tzeench , Nergul and .......that one its better i dont say its name ghrhfhhffhfhhfhf Filthy bastards we Skaven Hate them yesyyeysyeysysyssy Archeon the Everchosen is nothing compared to THE MIGHTY QUEEK HEADTAKER
If you have no discipline even a moderately increase in testosterone will probably make you violent, in the first sparring rounds class year in my dojo, everyone was literally trying to outflex the other dude in a fight, you could tell it was at least mid serious, but after the first year everything got tamed down. Now I wont white Knight Jordan Peterson, his content is just as debunkable as others, his remarks on Jonas and the Fish are particularly easy to debunk if I say so myself.