Theme: Agency

(FB 1553701127 Timestamp) WHAT IS WOMEN’S HIERARCHY OF COMPETENCY? by JWarren Prescott Women continually confuse the male hierarchy with didactic rule of whim. Men structure their relationships with mutually earned respect and will naturally settle into their gradation (position of competency). Men in leadership utilize the skills and resources of those they lead and understand that each of his group are leaders themselves and so fourth down the hierarchy. In our evolutionary past, The male leader knew that each tribe member is required to pull their own weight in protecting the tribe. Women see only the central power and don’t see the structure. So women try to mimic what they believe is what power means – to dictate. This methodology is an extremely stressful model and makes women out to be ineffective at leading and definitely devoid of earned respect. The former masculine power structure, however, assumes duty, integrity, reputation and justice.

by Brandon Hayes (I am speculating on another’s thoughts below) Peterson sees the world as current as masculine order (benevolent patriarchy) with chaos (feminine [naturalistic intuition based] violence) on the horizon. That I believe is too simplistic; due to the corruption and lies; it can’t be a benevolent patriarchy; it’s been subverted (some will call this toxic masculinity; some feminine subversion… ). It is over-ordered. We need the chaos; I think evidenced clearly enough by Trump (chaos) being able to intuit the proper way to aim the ship. He sees the individual as paramount. But, it’s the interplay between collectivism and individualism that is necessary; stable groups AND individuals in an upward spiral. An easily reiterating game. Social outliers survive not in resource scarce groups; as adherence to norms and competition are advantageous. He is right about words creating habitable order from chaos; as he correctly adds the caveat TRUTHFUL SPEECH ONLY [the LOGOS; but, we have been trained/indoctrinated {and are biologically programmed} to lie]. I believe the blind spot [ and I truly believe it is a blind spot and if discussed with say; Curt or Bill he’d see clear evidence and come around on tactics and strategy (I see reasonable pragmatism)] is collective strategies (group level strategies; due to the focus on the individual [which he has “solved” with self-authoring] psychology is a serious strength of Peterson) AND violence. He has a logical stream that takes violence off the table (never accounts for it). If he is to reground in group strategy (group sovereignty being the only thing to uphold person sovereignty). This would be “good,” “moral,” “forward thinking,” etc. IF AND ONLY IF all of the competition at the group level took violence (including lying) off the table. AND by demonstration they have NOT! Pre-planned violence is NOT chaos (not feminine; not intuitive nature reactionary based); war is NOT chaos it is order. He’s white collar solving a blue collar problem.

by Brandon Hayes (I am speculating on another’s thoughts below) Peterson sees the world as current as masculine order (benevolent patriarchy) with chaos (feminine [naturalistic intuition based] violence) on the horizon. That I believe is too simplistic; due to the corruption and lies; it can’t be a benevolent patriarchy; it’s been subverted (some will call this toxic masculinity; some feminine subversion… ). It is over-ordered. We need the chaos; I think evidenced clearly enough by Trump (chaos) being able to intuit the proper way to aim the ship. He sees the individual as paramount. But, it’s the interplay between collectivism and individualism that is necessary; stable groups AND individuals in an upward spiral. An easily reiterating game. Social outliers survive not in resource scarce groups; as adherence to norms and competition are advantageous. He is right about words creating habitable order from chaos; as he correctly adds the caveat TRUTHFUL SPEECH ONLY [the LOGOS; but, we have been trained/indoctrinated {and are biologically programmed} to lie]. I believe the blind spot [ and I truly believe it is a blind spot and if discussed with say; Curt or Bill he’d see clear evidence and come around on tactics and strategy (I see reasonable pragmatism)] is collective strategies (group level strategies; due to the focus on the individual [which he has “solved” with self-authoring] psychology is a serious strength of Peterson) AND violence. He has a logical stream that takes violence off the table (never accounts for it). If he is to reground in group strategy (group sovereignty being the only thing to uphold person sovereignty). This would be “good,” “moral,” “forward thinking,” etc. IF AND ONLY IF all of the competition at the group level took violence (including lying) off the table. AND by demonstration they have NOT! Pre-planned violence is NOT chaos (not feminine; not intuitive nature reactionary based); war is NOT chaos it is order. He’s white collar solving a blue collar problem.