By David Futrelle
For your viewing pleasure, a collection of Jordan Peterson’s maybe-not-so-finest moments, as curated by the always entertaining Vic Berger for Super Deluxe.
https://youtu.be/6T47opnLyFw
I’m thinking that socks need to be banned from the workplace for being too sexually suggestive.
This is a nice little overview about the history, and politics, of the high heel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21151350
High heels are originally riding attire, to hold the stirrups. Then they became a fashion statement by men who didn’t ride all rhe time but wanted to look like dashing cavalrymen (also the origin of the necktie)
The old timey equivalent of men who have never been in the military driving a hummer.
Interesting. I did horse-riding as a kid, and riding boots and shoes have some heel to prevent the foot from slipping all the way through the stirrup and get stuck there if you fall. But they’re usually just about 2 cm tall. Alan’s link says higher heels are good if you’re gonna stand up in the stirrups and fire off arrows from a bow (which obviously modern riders don’t really do…). Never thought about this before.
As I understand it, higher heels make standing in the stirrups to rope cattle easier, too.
Pants became a core men’s fashion that way too (emulating cavalry). Until the horse became important in warfare, men wore kilts, togas, and other things that are basically skirts and dresses by any other name. In areas where the horse was introduced late, or never much relied on militarily, this persisted (notably, Scotland, where the terrain aided in defense but hindered horses in many places, and by the time the horse was seeing any widespread use guns were already transforming the military).
Of course, skirt-like wear doesn’t work very well with riding horseback, hence … pants.
Threadruption, but for a good cause.
This is for US Mammotheers
There’s a bill in the house HR3923
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3923/cosponsors
And a bill in the senate
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22s3036%22%5D%7D&r=1&overview=closed#tabs
To address Trump’s and Sessions’ kiddie concentration camps that doesn’t let them be hostage to a border wall.
Please check the list of co-sponsors and if any of your legislators are not yet sponsoring these bills, please make a call tomorrow. Even if you think they aren’t going to listen. Also please pass this info along to anyone else you know who is interesting in putting a stop to this.
Both my senators and my representative are already sponsors so this is my way of helping. Don’t know what else to do as I can’t afford to take a trip to the border to join the protests and as of yet there hasn’t been a march in my area to my knowledge.
I don’t get it. This place was hopping yesterday, but today it’s a total doornail. Did they decide to release Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom early or something and everyone in the world went to go watch that?
I thought Sundays were typically slow.
On topic, I rather like the YouTube channel “Hugo and Jake”, formerly known as “The Bible Reloaded”. They are two of the better YouTube atheists, though they may be rather edgelordish for some people’s tastes. They have recently begun a series against Jordan Peterson and his book Twelve Rules for Life, which I recommend, but only if you don’t mind some edgelordery.
Ugh, Jordan Peterson. Does anyone read CounterPunch? I found it when looking for truly left-wing news sources to follow, and there were some very informative articles, but I found one by regular contributor Julian Vigo on how Peterson is smeared by the left and feminists who won’t give him a chance and take him out of context (of course). Looking at a list of Vigo’s other articles, they pander to the worst of the centrist liberal impulse by writing about how intolerant the left is, FREEZE PEACH and how feminism has a “misandry problem.” I might drop CounterPunch altogether if this is what I can expect from it.
I check it daily. It doesn’t seem to be purely leftist, so much as a mix of views. Some authors are good, some are dodgy at best. I’ve noticed a lot of “Russian interference skepticism” despite the large numbers of indictments Mueller’s team has been getting; hadn’t noticed any Peterson support myself.
It would be better if Jordan Peterson removed 100% of himself from any discussion, mixed-gender or not. He contributes nothing constructive.
He’s twirling his shoeless feet around in his fancy stockings?
Total SoyBoy move!
He might be: A double agent!
Illuminati!
Somebody mail Alex Jones!
I’m deadly serious bros, no joke.
Has Jones weighed in on Peterson yet? I suspect either he’ll love Peterson, or denounce him because he’s a potential threat to his audience numbers.
Thanks for your input. That provides some more context. Here’s the article on Peterson.
I forgot to mention it, but I read Vox Day is critical of Peterson, if only because Peterson’s successful in area Vox wishes he was successful in.
What area would that be? Bamboozling big audiences? Cult leadership? The Dunning-Krueger Olympics?
Ah! That Farrell guy. Thanks.
I didn’t know throwing snow was particularly masculine.
Or that valuing politeness over truth is particularly feminine.
Or that complaining of being treated badly, however legitimate your complaint, is exactly like being a Nazi.
Truly one of the great thinkers of our time. /s
Jordan appeals to the undergraduate pseudo-intellectual gunner who tries to argue with the professor about subjects way out of their depth and misconstrues contrarianism with having a well-thought out argument.
Jordan himself ends up looking like a fool anytime he starts construing postmodernism with critical theory, failing to realize that the latter is predicated on postpostivism which is pretty much at ontological odds with the former. But hey, he sticks it to those SJWs!
C’mon Peterson! You work 5 minutes from the Bata Shoe Museum. They have a whole exhibit on the history of heels!
You have no excuses!
People are gonna start thinking that maybe you just latch onto the most superficial aspects of things and don’t actually research them. People are gonna think that instead of creating thoughtful, informed arguments, that you just rely on bloviating and buzzwords to sound convincing.
Visit the Bata Shoe Museum! Your credibility depends on it! And it’s surprisingly not boring!
@ rhymenocerous
If I ever open any sort of attraction, that’s going be on the posters.
This sounds like a place I need to visit. Also the penis museum in Iceland.
In Virgil’s Aeneid, there’s a description of the warrior Camilla, who fights on horseback. There’s something odd about her clothes, which Virgil has trouble describing. Her legs are wrapped in tubes of cloth…
Clearly he means jodhpurs, but the Romans didn’t have a word for it.
Trousers were considered very weird by the Greeks when they saw Persian horsemen wearing them, too.
In the UAE and Oman traditionally women wore loose trousers (much like the lower half of a shalwar kameez) under the kandoura, whereas the men just wear a robe, sometimes with a kind of skirt, like a sarong, underneath.
There have been plenty of societies where men paint their faces and wear high heels. Including 18th century England, where the rouged dandy (in corsets, too) was a stock figure.
Yes. I understand modern high heels were commissioned by a KING of France to show off his legs.
And as recently as a century ago, Pink was the MASCULINE color and Blue the feminine — just the opposite of today’s color code.
Yes indeed. Vox is peeved he’s not rich and famous for his bullshit the way Peterson is.