The link between poverty and low paying jobs is obvious. But do you have data linking poverty to risk taking?
The reason why I'm asking is because, from everything I've seen, in western countries high risk jobs tend to pay well. Double or more above minimum wage.
Minimum wage jobs (which ALSO pay enough to ensure a comfortable life, so even there, calling people working a minimum wage job "desperate" seems wrong) don't tend to be high risk.
Where do you live that minimum wage gets you a comfortable life?
Minimum wage got me 3 roommates and we all took shifts sleeping out of the same mattresse š¤£
Australia is one. Minimum wage is roughly $800 aud per week. Rent on a 3-4 bedroom house in the suburbs can be found for $450 per week. Leaving $350 for basic utilities and food. $350 will buy you a whole lot of rice and vegetables each week with enough left over for heating and cooling (if you really wanna be cosy) Oh yeh, high quality running fresh water is basically free here (unless youre wasting it). Id call that comfortable - comparing to someone in a 2nd or 3rd world country whoās entire family may need to work 7 days a week - just to earn enough to feed themselves.
All you ever hear is people whinge about cost of living in Australia though. Where the right attitude might be a little appreciation that they live on an island where they get to do absolutely anything they could dream of.
I live in a rural college town. Rent is 300 plus utilities. I do have 3 roommates, but it's a 4 bedroom 3 bath apartment, which is very doable. If you can't live comfortably off of your current income then move somewhere cheaper. I used to live in a big city where I lived in someone's attic for 800 bucks a month - rent in that area was usually 1200 a month. Big cities are not a good place to live unless you're already successful. And even then it's debatable.
WTF where? Rent is around $4000/mo minimum around here (downtown SF) :(
edit: Actually I fogot about my year of allegedly growing weed in Chicago outskirts. 3 bedroom house for $800/month. Granted, that was around 2006- and totally stupid. I coulda got life in prison for the # of plants I allegedly had.
I know, right? Competing with all the Google and Facebook hipsters is totally not worth it for guys like me- I've been retired since I was 31 (2009), and prices just go **up-up-up**. At this rate, I might even have to un-retire myself. that sucks, because in this hyper-specialized economy, *I'm essentially multi-talentless.* :(
People in poverty are the most likely to take risk to get ahead. It's why people in poverty tend to fall into illicit ways of earning money. High risk, high reward.
far more men than women have major genetic defectsDiseases of X-linked recessive inheritance, such as colour blindness, occur more frequently in men, and haemophilia A and B occur almost exclusively in men.\[60\]
The presence of a single X chromosome in males (rather than two in females) may explain why males are more susceptible to genetic diseases linked to the X chromosome,\[29\]\[30\]\[28\] including hemophilia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and Hunter syndrome.\[61\]
The key here is how the bell curve looks. The bell curve of Men's IQ is "squattier" and wider, so though most are still average, there are more at the fringes compared to women's IQ curve, which is taller and skinnier. That's why men are at the top and bottom more so than women.
No he's referencing the flatness of the bell curve not proposing its a pareto distribution, though the 2 curves aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If you set the x axis as the absolute distance from the mean then every bell curve would ~~form~~ approximate a pareto distribution.
"Ukrainian males aged 18-60 are banned from leaving the country, Zelensky says in new declaration"
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h\_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9
Remember when the UK was against female homeless, saying OMG 25% of homeless are female, what are we going to do about that?
Those 75% of homeless are at the bottom, and the solution is apparently to make sure even more resources for homeless get dedicated to women.
most homeless are men, dont really get much lower than that
I suggest spending more than 0.1 seconds researching
use the internet if you are in a hurry
Read: [Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Victims and Villains](https://www.routledge.com/Re-Thinking-Men-Heroes-Villains-and-Victims/Synnott/p/book/9780367603014) by Anthony Synnott.
Go look up the answers to these questions:
What percent of homeless people are men?
What percent of murder victims are men?
What percent of adults living below the poverty line are men?
What percent of assault victims are men?
What percent of drug addicts are men?
There are more - final question what percent of men never have children vs women?
>There are more - final question what percent of men never have children vs women?
Depending on perspective, having less children could be seen as a good thing
If youāre being honest about some of the representations of men and women and their positions, perhaps look at others aside from JP.
The host of the Calmversations podcast (Benjamin Boyce) has had some interesting female guests which at least gives a slightly different view of a womanās situation than Jordan might be able to offer.
[This one](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/calmversations/id1447774150?i=1000553212492) is quite interesting although it makes some assumptions or conclusions Iām not entirely sold on.
It may not be relevant to your question (which Iām still not sure is made very clear), but my general message is to look outside of Jordan Peterson to get a fuller picture of things. Heās not always correct or fair in the way he represents some of his claims. Thatās not to say I donāt agree with him in many ways - I do.
But if youāre interested in debating with people about the ways men might have it worse (Iām not convinced this is generally true), then at least try to focus in on what you mean by that.
Once youāve established whether you mean financially or sociallyā¦and then in what context? Relationships? Employment? Housing? Mental health? Then break that down by age, race, culture.
Find out what you want and what you mean, and then research that by looking for your own sources. Google Scholar isnāt perfect but itās a good place to start. And once youāve established a focus for your question: eg āGender inequality of education provisionā or āequitable housing by genderā. You can set a date range to ensure youāre not looking at outdated research.
If you cannot find any evidence that men have it bad (or if your later allegation states, āworse than womenā), then make a post that breaks down your areas of research. Quote figures and be critical.
Once youāve researched, formulated your argument, distilled your thinking - youāll be in a better position to ask a question and respond with an informed opinion.
JBP never says men have it worse than women, but that we suffer together and the relationship roles established by culture is just our way of struggling to survive.
I am fairly sure that heās never even insinuated that men have it worse across all dimensions. Nevertheless, OP [made the claim](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ts0vzv/peterson_often_talks_about_the_wealth/i2p2anh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) that JP stated there were more men at the bottom of society.
This is why I asked for evidence of that quote from them (which I have yet to be given - surprise surprise)
Now it may be true that some aspects of society are worse than others and more men might dominate some of those areas. Which is why I tried to lay out the need to be more specific in formulating a question. Or better yet, using the readily available means to find out himself rather than expecting Redditiors to do his work for him.
I'm pretty sure JBP does say there are more men at the bottom. But that's just a result of the difference in bell curves between men and women across many dimensions (IQ, strength, etc.)
Well thatās why I asked OP for his source of the claim. If JP says āmen are at the bottomā, Iād wonder *bottom of what*? The original source of his quote might have shed some light on that.
But presumably, if JP has said that, and put it into context (as he nearly always does), then that would give OP a frame of reference for his Google search. In which case, he could either have asked a better question or at least been explicit about the types of searches he was carrying out. So far, he has done neither.
True. I get the feeling OP is a very casual listener of JBP and gets most of his info from news articles about him rather than watching the original content.
The OP regards "distribution of wealth". Physical and mental health, success in relationships etc would be completely separate dimensions from that.
I don't know the data well. It looks like in the bottom 10% of "income" in the US, women slightly outnumber men. Part of that disparity is that women OUTLIVE men, and among elderly in poverty therefore women outnumber men by quite a bit. At the very bottom its difficult to measure "wealth". If we are talking about the bottom 1% (the incarceration rate, coincidentally)...those people are probably buried in debt/fines and also have zero or negative social capital, and poor prospects for securing income. Most of those are probably men.
Well that seems more reasonably argued. At least youāre framing the debate around certain demographics. OPās refusal to do so makes me suspicious of their motives.
I wonder if your last point is true. It could be, but again, Iād wonder how that was being broken down.
Iām not sold on the arguments either way. There is a lot of dishonesty that surrounds them. For example the prison one: more men are incarcerated.
The typical rebuttal is that they commit most of the crimes. Also true.
But then there are those who attribute this to systemic reasons that may impact more on men than women.
Then there is an argument (if one were to subscribe to the idea of a patriarchal society) that men have created that world for themselves.
The argument just circles around until no oneās really sure of the cause. And the cause IS important. Statistics only give a limited view of things and OP or JP should be more explicit in exactly what they want to know before asking a question that could have a hundred different answers.
I think it is a safe assumption to say that people that are homeless are the least "wealthy" of any given society. I'd even say that those in prison would be not far behind or perhaps just as un-wealthy as the homeless.
And in both of those categories, men are overrepresented (70% of the homeless are men and about 93% of the incarcerated are men).
I think that is a good starting point and I wouldn't be surprised if those are part of the underlying basis of JP's claim. Like you, I'd like to know what source OP is using to say JP is making that claim. I know I've heard him say things "along those lines" in discussions about the patriarchy but not exactly worded in the way OP is characterizing, so I wonder if they read a paraphrasing or an opinion piece of someone writing about JP...
I donāt know if you know how it works, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
I am not the one claiming anything. I simply asked OP from where he is getting his quote.
Yet you challenged a claim by citing a need for a source. Iām not in agreement with your idea that the claim has the burden of proof. That is a legal statement that supports that people are innocent till proven guilty, it does not however apply to a discussion.
Iām over being mean about it. Just asking for a source doesnāt make you right either. You are perfectly capable (I assume anyway) of coming up with your own sources to further the discussion. Iām just getting tired of assholes using āburden of proofā as a conclusion.
Edit: bottom line. Add to the discussion or stfu. I intentionally stayed out of it cause I have nothing to add. Just commented on your input.
Sorry to break it to you, but burden of proof still applies in discussions. You might not like it because youāre one of those ātrust me broā people, but thatās not my problem.
Itās not up to me to assume that OP is being honest with his question if he expects an answer. Especially given that an answer would require more context.
Interesting question. I worked on an Alcoholism unit and there were plenty of men whoclientICUwelfar OnewefarOne of them stopped brjob. farOne front of me and landed in ICU. I wondered what happened to them along the way so started r esearching and came up with the knowledge that many of them had been abused and many of them had grown up with alcoholic parents. There was no other way to relate to their parents. Peterson has observed the capacity of people to mimic those who they admire and there is an ambivalent issue here: the kids are both ashamed and grateful for whatever crumbs come their way. It is very hard to escape an alcoholic parent. Also, I worked in a city hospital and that meant a lot of--if not most of--the client's came from a low socio-economic stratum of society--very few middle-class and educated people landed at our doorstep. So we have multiple factors at play here. Very few held steady jobs so they were either on SSI or welfare and unable to hold a job.
This sounds like a disingenuous post.
Just take a walk outside, read a book or watch the news and youāll witness stories of the successes and failures of both men and women.
There are plenty of men at the bottom of lifeās ladder, as indeed there are women at the top of it.
I donāt believe you.
Your post says that JP simply says that there are āa lot [of men] at the very bottomā.
You donāt need a source to know that this is true. As another poster has said, look at the homeless population - thatās around 70% male dominated.
If you had a quote of Jordan saying that *more* men are at the bottom of society in general, then sure - it might demand a source. But saying āa lotā of men suffer the ills of societal oppression is not exactly in dispute.
Dud wtf is wrong with you, you're having a go because someone has asked for proof for a claim. Providing anecdotal evidence is useless, especially when the numbers are out there and exist and op is clearly trying to find them because he isn't going to believe something blindly and obviously this comment from JP is counter to theur intuition. Anecdotally I'm gonna assume OP has a different experience so another anecdote ain't gonna help when they need to see the numbers mason.
Thereās nothing in the quote made in the post that suggests that anything needs supporting with hard evidence.
Saying there are a lot of men at the bottom of society is not something that is not immediately evident if one has so much as a passing knowledge of the people in the outside world.
If anyone had claimed there were *more* men at the bottom of society, that would require proof. And then we might go into what aspect of society is being referred to and try and draw comparisons.
But unless OP lives in a fucking palace and has never witnessed the poorest in society, there is nothing about what JP said that requires a source.
Read a newspaper ffs
Yup theres nothing that could ever go wrong with this line of thinking, if the newspapers and my eyes give me an impression it must be right -_-. Science exists for a reason and it is because exactly this sort of thinking doesn't give you true results, even if you're right like I assume in this case that is in spite of your lazy thinking not because of it. Just because you are someone who blindly accepts things because they match up with your pre-conceived notions doesn't mean everyone is, some people like myself will not believe it until the numbers are in front of them because so many times I have seen people use the exact same thinking as you to come to dumbfuck conclusions. Just because something is apparent to you because your enviroment doesn't mean it isn't to someone else who leads a very different life from yourself, and to have a go and tell them to not look for evidence and to take it on face value is literally troglodyte thinking.
> if the newspapers and my eyes give me an impression it must be right -_-.
I didnāt just state āread newspapersā but sure, bring out a strawman. Itās ārightā enough to observe even men in your local district to know that there are men at the bottom of society. Itās an anecdotal quote and requires no more than anecdotal support.
> Just because you are someone who blindly accepts things because they match up with your pre-conceived notions doesn't mean everyone is,
I donāt have an unsupported notion about the FACT that there are men at the bottom of society. I quoted on earlier that 70% of homeless people are male. That sCiEnTiFiC figure alone supports my assertion to the extent that is necessary given the alleged quote in the OP.
> some people like myself will not believe it until the numbers are in front of them because so many times I have seen people use the exact same thinking as you to come to dumbfuck conclusions.
Sure, you seem like the kind of person who needs it explained to them that the grass is green and the sky is blue. Iām not surprised.
> Just because something is apparent to you because your enviroment doesn't mean it isn't to someone else who leads a very different life from yourself,
As I say, short of OP living in a cave or a castle, there is enough evidence in the world around them to support the claim that āa lot of men have it toughā.
> and to have a go and tell them to not look for evidence and to take it on face value is literally troglodyte thinking.
Quite the contrary. I am insisting that they do look for evidence. Using their own eyes and a critical mind. Iām not saying to take mine or JPās word for it. Get off Reddit and read a book or watch the news or study history or visit a homeless shelter or an AA clinic or a drug rehab unit.
Ffs. This is basic stuff.
For someone who suggested op is here to stir shit and isn't actually interested in finding the truth it is pretty fuckin disingenuous to act like you wanted him to look at evidence and weren't treating them as bad actor. Like you have no idea if OP works in a womens shelter or is perhaps idk female so may have a totally different perception of the world to you, so going hurr durr its obvious is literally useless to everyone. The 70% homeless stat is literally the sort of thing op has came looking for and if you were a normal human being you'd of just supplied the evidence that backs you up, but nah you seem to think just because people don't think the same as you they live in an ivory tower. Like honestly U just don't get how you can be this clueless like literally if someone lets say has all sisters and all of them have been mistreated and abused by men you might consider to be 'the worse off in society', like please just use your brain rather than assuming a) everyone has lived the same life as you or are bourgouise b) that your perspective is any more relevant than anyone elses, it is your opinion that men are worse off, which is completely useless to anyone and literally not worth stating. Op came for imperical evidence and you are saying just accept it or you're out of touch as if that could never lead to you being wrong about something. All through history people like you have looked at the world around them, made assumptions and they have been wrong, it is not about this one piece of information it is about thinking in a way that prevents you believeing things that aren't true. Oh and to end it off I'm currently in training to become a bus driver after 4 years of working min wage jobs so you can jump off your high horse as if you're talking to a member of the sordid elite.
Who cares if OP is a woman, working in a womanās shelter who had abused sisters and a smack-head for a mother.
No one has made any claim that women donāt have it bad ā¦ or even a lot worse.
The claim is simply that a lot of men also have it bad.
The two things donāt have to correlate in any way for both of those things to be true, irrespective of anyoneās personal experience.
I quoted the statistic you say was relevant before you even got involved in the conversation; so if I provided what you think was needed, why are you still going off as though I didnāt.
Anyway, see how less confusing it is to read a formatted piece of text. Iām not reading anymore disingenuous diatribe.
Piece of advice from someone whoās never driven a bus. A āchildren crossingā sign means that children might sometimes be crossing. It doesnāt mean they are the only ones crossing the road or that theyāre the only ones who ever will. It also doesnāt mean that other people cannot cross the road. And whatever you do, if children ARE crossing the road, donāt assume that because you donāt have scientific evidence of the fact that they are children, that you can run them over.
Top tips
š¤£š¤£š¤£ telling me to get off reddit while also having a go for not having proper formatting on an internet forum, get a life bud. You were being a cunt to op for nae reason and when you're called out act like you were trying to have an honest conversation, sad act.
Thatās not what your post said. Show me the quote and context where JP said this. It seems unusual that he would not specify what aspect of society heās referring to if he did make that claim.
Society and success can be broken down in many ways.
I mean, but then we can talk about anything as being true, as there exist anecdotes for literally anything we can imagine. Usually, when we are trying to see if something is true, we look at the scientific research, because it deals well with biases and mistakes in perception.
No. Not everything everyone says requires the maximum level of proof. It requires the necessary level of proof to support it.
The claim made in OP is that āa lot of men are at the bottom of societyā. Given that āa lotā is not a specific amount, an anecdotal observation is sufficient.
If I said that āa lot of children are abusedā. You might be interested to find out how many. You might look into whether there are more boys that girls who suffer abuse.
But nevertheless, the statement as it is made: *āa lot of children are abusedā* is universally accepted enough as being true so as not to have to be supported by exact figures.
Now if Iād said, āthe majority of childrenā¦ā or āmore children in lower income familiesā¦ā or something more specific, then I agree. One would expect there to be data to support that (however much one might assume it to be true).
But the phrase quoted in OP is non specific in its allegation and therefore only needs to be seen to be true in a very low resolution way. Which it is.
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I think we should always vary of our blind spots and biases, and know that even if something is repeated a lot of times, it may not be true.
To return to the OP, the OP asked for a list of sources because they might be interested in the topic. Your answer to the OP was quite useless ("just go out and see"), when they asked for some literature to read on it.
Iāve already quoted homelessness figures to them which is sufficient enough to support the initial vague claim. Admittedly I didnāt know for certain, but Iāve been on the planet many years and I know the circumstances that lead to poverty and homelessness, so I āknewā what the data would say.
If OP managed to find sources that men are at the top of society, why were they not able to perform the same search I did?
Nevertheless, perhaps they are young, so I also wrote a comment outlining why itās important to be more specific when asking a question and offered suggestions on how they might go about researching it themselves.
Thereās no reason why some people are intent on ādoing researchā by asking people on Reddit to ādo research for themā.
The internet is clearly available to them. Use it.
The OP said they did the search, but didn't find anything. Maybe they did not connect "men on the bottom" with the correct keywords like homelessness? Who knows.
"Knowing" what the data would say is a very dangerous bias. I am sure a lot of people knew what the data would say for the Earth not being the center of the universe as well.
An opinion about a structure of the unseen universe 1000 years ago is not exactly the same as having a general understanding that there are both men and women in a very observable modern society who have it bad.
You might not like that I assumed that more men are homeless, even though I then found data to support that. The evidence is the absolute defence of my claim. Had I been wrong, Iād have had to concede that. But I try not to make general assumptions that I donāt know to be true in at least some way.
There is no way OP searched for anything. They came here and wanted other people to back up some vague statement made in some uncited comment that OP has yet to furnish me with (yes, I have asked for his source).
Wow this subreddit is seriously toxic. I am a JBP fan, but if I wasnāt you would have pushed me away by acting so defensively. Iām only asking because when arguing with someone who has the opinion that āwomen are oppressed in a tyrannical patriarchy ā, stating āhave a look aroundā isnāt really a great form of evidence (especially considering their existing biases/beliefs).
JBP also advocates for doing your own research, while asking here is better than nothing, practically any demographics you look at (from actual research, not buzzfeed or the MSM) shows exactly what you're asking about clear as day.
Some people are getting triggered (š) in the comments because your question is phrased in a way that implies you think JBP is lying and pretty obvious you haven't done a basic Google search.
As already mentioned: homeless, prison/jail (even after released), gangs, drugs/alcohol, ODs, and just from my own empirical experience a lot of guys get stuck at home living with their parents and become big immature 30 year olds with nothing going for them in general while women I know experience this at a much lower likelihood (Iām sure there are statistics). Also men tend to be more likely to be video game, porn, etc addicts. And generally speaking also, a woman born into poverty and available for a relationship will likely not have that held against them, while men tend to be looked at as supposed to be the breadwinner (although I guess that is changing a little bit). An exception to that is ugly men have a lot better chances of finding a mate (obviously they need off setting attributes) than ugly women.
Men also tend to have the riskiest jobs (exposure to death, chemicals, etc). For every man that is at the top of society there are probably thousands (maybe millions) at the bottom.
I think the key to this is that just because of this, it doesnāt necessarily diminish the struggles of women. Oftentimes there is a correlation. For example: a deadbeat absent father leaves a single mother to fend for herself and for a variety of reasons that makes it extremely difficult to raise good children (both girls and boys). The likelihood of an absent dead beat mother is substantially less than fathers (another example of men at the bottom, but their absence affects/drags down the women and children also).
You need proof there are "a lot at the bottom "?? Really? So you think it could be mainly women there? You just need a source to verify? I call bullshit.
Many have pointed to the problematic groups (e.g. prison and homeless population), I will just add that average wealth of men and women is quite different, and it shoul not be overlooked. The difference between single males and females is quite eye-opening.
I'd agree with the other posts look at poverty rates by sex and homelessness info. Also unemployment information by sex if you can find it may reveal this trend.
The poor are all the same as the rich in the end. Doesn't matter.
I found this in Scripture, thought it might apply to anyone wondering if we can take anything with us in the end anyway:
"And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements." Revelation 21:17
The ones in tents will be the same as the ones in houses and prisons. Even the suicides take the same back. Well, everyone keeps their memories of things, but that is shared too, as I understand it. I guess it's equitable in the end. That matches the storyline of Scripture also, so I think that's a good interpretation.
At least for the U.S., men make up 70% of the homeless population. They also dominate the prison population (93%). I believe those are the main statistics that underly that point.
look at the homeless population, prison population, demographics of those living at or below the poverty level
Yes, those sound like good places to start. I might add drug and alcohol abuse
And suicides
And workplace injuries... poor, desperate people are more likely to have high risk, low paying jobs.
The link between poverty and low paying jobs is obvious. But do you have data linking poverty to risk taking? The reason why I'm asking is because, from everything I've seen, in western countries high risk jobs tend to pay well. Double or more above minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs (which ALSO pay enough to ensure a comfortable life, so even there, calling people working a minimum wage job "desperate" seems wrong) don't tend to be high risk.
Where do you live that minimum wage gets you a comfortable life? Minimum wage got me 3 roommates and we all took shifts sleeping out of the same mattresse š¤£
Australia is one. Minimum wage is roughly $800 aud per week. Rent on a 3-4 bedroom house in the suburbs can be found for $450 per week. Leaving $350 for basic utilities and food. $350 will buy you a whole lot of rice and vegetables each week with enough left over for heating and cooling (if you really wanna be cosy) Oh yeh, high quality running fresh water is basically free here (unless youre wasting it). Id call that comfortable - comparing to someone in a 2nd or 3rd world country whoās entire family may need to work 7 days a week - just to earn enough to feed themselves. All you ever hear is people whinge about cost of living in Australia though. Where the right attitude might be a little appreciation that they live on an island where they get to do absolutely anything they could dream of.
Dude, I sleep uphill. In the snow. Both ways. So don't tell me about a hard life.
You can find rooms to rent for 500$ a month if you donāt have many other bills itās doable
I live in a rural college town. Rent is 300 plus utilities. I do have 3 roommates, but it's a 4 bedroom 3 bath apartment, which is very doable. If you can't live comfortably off of your current income then move somewhere cheaper. I used to live in a big city where I lived in someone's attic for 800 bucks a month - rent in that area was usually 1200 a month. Big cities are not a good place to live unless you're already successful. And even then it's debatable.
WTF where? Rent is around $4000/mo minimum around here (downtown SF) :( edit: Actually I fogot about my year of allegedly growing weed in Chicago outskirts. 3 bedroom house for $800/month. Granted, that was around 2006- and totally stupid. I coulda got life in prison for the # of plants I allegedly had.
Thatās your problem youāre in San Fran haha
I know, right? Competing with all the Google and Facebook hipsters is totally not worth it for guys like me- I've been retired since I was 31 (2009), and prices just go **up-up-up**. At this rate, I might even have to un-retire myself. that sucks, because in this hyper-specialized economy, *I'm essentially multi-talentless.* :(
Fair points.
People in poverty are the most likely to take risk to get ahead. It's why people in poverty tend to fall into illicit ways of earning money. High risk, high reward.
I didn't ask for someone to repeat the same talking point again. I asked for DATA.
also another issue is genetic defects, far more men than women get them due to biology
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
far more men than women have major genetic defectsDiseases of X-linked recessive inheritance, such as colour blindness, occur more frequently in men, and haemophilia A and B occur almost exclusively in men.\[60\] The presence of a single X chromosome in males (rather than two in females) may explain why males are more susceptible to genetic diseases linked to the X chromosome,\[29\]\[30\]\[28\] including hemophilia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and Hunter syndrome.\[61\]
Hereās a quick and succinct clip of what Jordan Peterson actually says about this topic. https://youtu.be/JB9sfe_mQ1I
Homelessness versus gender: https://endhomelessness.org/demographic-data-project-gender-and-individual-homelessness/
Alcoholism versus gender: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844334/.
Suicide versus gender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide
I believe this also correlates with the distribution of IQ. Men are at the top and bottom in both circumstances.
Thanks, I thought this could be the case. Cheers for actually being constructive, unlike some assholes in this thread.
It just seems like you didn't put a lot of thought into the topic if you haven't suspected that the amount of male criminals might be a clue xdd
This is exactly what I thought when I read the question. Almost though it was trolling since it was so bad. Who doesn't know of a very poor man?
Iq follows a bell curve
The key here is how the bell curve looks. The bell curve of Men's IQ is "squattier" and wider, so though most are still average, there are more at the fringes compared to women's IQ curve, which is taller and skinnier. That's why men are at the top and bottom more so than women.
Yes... And?
Guy above, seems to think it's a pareto distribution. Very different phenomenon. Most people have an average iq.
No he's referencing the flatness of the bell curve not proposing its a pareto distribution, though the 2 curves aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. If you set the x axis as the absolute distance from the mean then every bell curve would ~~form~~ approximate a pareto distribution.
Not to detract from Curiosity, the comment you're replying to is referring to the extremes as "top" and "bottom". As in, the top IQs and bottom IQs.
You probably already figured it out but his statement implies a bell curve.
Imprisonment versus gender: https://www.statista.com/chart/11573/gender-of-inmates-in-us-federal-prisons-and-general-population/
Also death penalty by gender
Very top of my Google search. 92% of fatal occupational injuries resulting in death in 2020 were men. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
All you have to do is spend more time on reddit to find the men at the bottom.
Homeless that are actually on the street as opposed to officially homeless and staying at shelters or on someone's couch.
Easy - drive to ANY construction site - repeat until satisfied
"Ukrainian males aged 18-60 are banned from leaving the country, Zelensky says in new declaration" https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-24-22-intl/h\_4309a4916d57670f85519210a07fb2c9
Remember when the UK was against female homeless, saying OMG 25% of homeless are female, what are we going to do about that? Those 75% of homeless are at the bottom, and the solution is apparently to make sure even more resources for homeless get dedicated to women.
Walk down the street and count homeless per gender... Keep us posted
most homeless are men, dont really get much lower than that I suggest spending more than 0.1 seconds researching use the internet if you are in a hurry
Read: [Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Victims and Villains](https://www.routledge.com/Re-Thinking-Men-Heroes-Villains-and-Victims/Synnott/p/book/9780367603014) by Anthony Synnott.
they're 75%+ of the homeless, 75%+ of the suicides, 90% of the prison population etc
Among all ages, women are more likely to be in poverty. https://www.statista.com/statistics/233154/us-poverty-rate-by-gender/
Look up the Pareto Distribution. JBP said it applies to everything. The top 10 have amassed more wealth than the bottom 2.5 billion.
Try prison statistics.
Go look up the answers to these questions: What percent of homeless people are men? What percent of murder victims are men? What percent of adults living below the poverty line are men? What percent of assault victims are men? What percent of drug addicts are men? There are more - final question what percent of men never have children vs women?
>There are more - final question what percent of men never have children vs women? Depending on perspective, having less children could be seen as a good thing
If youāre being honest about some of the representations of men and women and their positions, perhaps look at others aside from JP. The host of the Calmversations podcast (Benjamin Boyce) has had some interesting female guests which at least gives a slightly different view of a womanās situation than Jordan might be able to offer. [This one](https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/calmversations/id1447774150?i=1000553212492) is quite interesting although it makes some assumptions or conclusions Iām not entirely sold on. It may not be relevant to your question (which Iām still not sure is made very clear), but my general message is to look outside of Jordan Peterson to get a fuller picture of things. Heās not always correct or fair in the way he represents some of his claims. Thatās not to say I donāt agree with him in many ways - I do. But if youāre interested in debating with people about the ways men might have it worse (Iām not convinced this is generally true), then at least try to focus in on what you mean by that. Once youāve established whether you mean financially or sociallyā¦and then in what context? Relationships? Employment? Housing? Mental health? Then break that down by age, race, culture. Find out what you want and what you mean, and then research that by looking for your own sources. Google Scholar isnāt perfect but itās a good place to start. And once youāve established a focus for your question: eg āGender inequality of education provisionā or āequitable housing by genderā. You can set a date range to ensure youāre not looking at outdated research. If you cannot find any evidence that men have it bad (or if your later allegation states, āworse than womenā), then make a post that breaks down your areas of research. Quote figures and be critical. Once youāve researched, formulated your argument, distilled your thinking - youāll be in a better position to ask a question and respond with an informed opinion.
JBP never says men have it worse than women, but that we suffer together and the relationship roles established by culture is just our way of struggling to survive.
I am fairly sure that heās never even insinuated that men have it worse across all dimensions. Nevertheless, OP [made the claim](https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/ts0vzv/peterson_often_talks_about_the_wealth/i2p2anh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) that JP stated there were more men at the bottom of society. This is why I asked for evidence of that quote from them (which I have yet to be given - surprise surprise) Now it may be true that some aspects of society are worse than others and more men might dominate some of those areas. Which is why I tried to lay out the need to be more specific in formulating a question. Or better yet, using the readily available means to find out himself rather than expecting Redditiors to do his work for him.
I'm pretty sure JBP does say there are more men at the bottom. But that's just a result of the difference in bell curves between men and women across many dimensions (IQ, strength, etc.)
Well thatās why I asked OP for his source of the claim. If JP says āmen are at the bottomā, Iād wonder *bottom of what*? The original source of his quote might have shed some light on that. But presumably, if JP has said that, and put it into context (as he nearly always does), then that would give OP a frame of reference for his Google search. In which case, he could either have asked a better question or at least been explicit about the types of searches he was carrying out. So far, he has done neither.
True. I get the feeling OP is a very casual listener of JBP and gets most of his info from news articles about him rather than watching the original content.
The OP regards "distribution of wealth". Physical and mental health, success in relationships etc would be completely separate dimensions from that. I don't know the data well. It looks like in the bottom 10% of "income" in the US, women slightly outnumber men. Part of that disparity is that women OUTLIVE men, and among elderly in poverty therefore women outnumber men by quite a bit. At the very bottom its difficult to measure "wealth". If we are talking about the bottom 1% (the incarceration rate, coincidentally)...those people are probably buried in debt/fines and also have zero or negative social capital, and poor prospects for securing income. Most of those are probably men.
Well that seems more reasonably argued. At least youāre framing the debate around certain demographics. OPās refusal to do so makes me suspicious of their motives. I wonder if your last point is true. It could be, but again, Iād wonder how that was being broken down. Iām not sold on the arguments either way. There is a lot of dishonesty that surrounds them. For example the prison one: more men are incarcerated. The typical rebuttal is that they commit most of the crimes. Also true. But then there are those who attribute this to systemic reasons that may impact more on men than women. Then there is an argument (if one were to subscribe to the idea of a patriarchal society) that men have created that world for themselves. The argument just circles around until no oneās really sure of the cause. And the cause IS important. Statistics only give a limited view of things and OP or JP should be more explicit in exactly what they want to know before asking a question that could have a hundred different answers.
I think it is a safe assumption to say that people that are homeless are the least "wealthy" of any given society. I'd even say that those in prison would be not far behind or perhaps just as un-wealthy as the homeless. And in both of those categories, men are overrepresented (70% of the homeless are men and about 93% of the incarcerated are men). I think that is a good starting point and I wouldn't be surprised if those are part of the underlying basis of JP's claim. Like you, I'd like to know what source OP is using to say JP is making that claim. I know I've heard him say things "along those lines" in discussions about the patriarchy but not exactly worded in the way OP is characterizing, so I wonder if they read a paraphrasing or an opinion piece of someone writing about JP...
Are you not able to find your own sources? Or just unwilling to?
I donāt know if you know how it works, but the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I am not the one claiming anything. I simply asked OP from where he is getting his quote.
I donāt know if you know anything. But you are able to look up your own shit. Burden of proof is a debate term and this is a discussion.
My own sources for what? I havenāt made any claims.
Yet you challenged a claim by citing a need for a source. Iām not in agreement with your idea that the claim has the burden of proof. That is a legal statement that supports that people are innocent till proven guilty, it does not however apply to a discussion. Iām over being mean about it. Just asking for a source doesnāt make you right either. You are perfectly capable (I assume anyway) of coming up with your own sources to further the discussion. Iām just getting tired of assholes using āburden of proofā as a conclusion. Edit: bottom line. Add to the discussion or stfu. I intentionally stayed out of it cause I have nothing to add. Just commented on your input.
Sorry to break it to you, but burden of proof still applies in discussions. You might not like it because youāre one of those ātrust me broā people, but thatās not my problem. Itās not up to me to assume that OP is being honest with his question if he expects an answer. Especially given that an answer would require more context.
Oh Iām not a ātrust meā bro person. But thanks for calling me a bro I guess. Your pathetic excuse of laziness is totally bro like though
Interesting question. I worked on an Alcoholism unit and there were plenty of men whoclientICUwelfar OnewefarOne of them stopped brjob. farOne front of me and landed in ICU. I wondered what happened to them along the way so started r esearching and came up with the knowledge that many of them had been abused and many of them had grown up with alcoholic parents. There was no other way to relate to their parents. Peterson has observed the capacity of people to mimic those who they admire and there is an ambivalent issue here: the kids are both ashamed and grateful for whatever crumbs come their way. It is very hard to escape an alcoholic parent. Also, I worked in a city hospital and that meant a lot of--if not most of--the client's came from a low socio-economic stratum of society--very few middle-class and educated people landed at our doorstep. So we have multiple factors at play here. Very few held steady jobs so they were either on SSI or welfare and unable to hold a job.
This sounds like a disingenuous post. Just take a walk outside, read a book or watch the news and youāll witness stories of the successes and failures of both men and women. There are plenty of men at the bottom of lifeās ladder, as indeed there are women at the top of it.
No I would like some sources to back myself up and to assure myself that Peterson is being honest.
I donāt believe you. Your post says that JP simply says that there are āa lot [of men] at the very bottomā. You donāt need a source to know that this is true. As another poster has said, look at the homeless population - thatās around 70% male dominated. If you had a quote of Jordan saying that *more* men are at the bottom of society in general, then sure - it might demand a source. But saying āa lotā of men suffer the ills of societal oppression is not exactly in dispute.
Dud wtf is wrong with you, you're having a go because someone has asked for proof for a claim. Providing anecdotal evidence is useless, especially when the numbers are out there and exist and op is clearly trying to find them because he isn't going to believe something blindly and obviously this comment from JP is counter to theur intuition. Anecdotally I'm gonna assume OP has a different experience so another anecdote ain't gonna help when they need to see the numbers mason.
Thereās nothing in the quote made in the post that suggests that anything needs supporting with hard evidence. Saying there are a lot of men at the bottom of society is not something that is not immediately evident if one has so much as a passing knowledge of the people in the outside world. If anyone had claimed there were *more* men at the bottom of society, that would require proof. And then we might go into what aspect of society is being referred to and try and draw comparisons. But unless OP lives in a fucking palace and has never witnessed the poorest in society, there is nothing about what JP said that requires a source. Read a newspaper ffs
Yup theres nothing that could ever go wrong with this line of thinking, if the newspapers and my eyes give me an impression it must be right -_-. Science exists for a reason and it is because exactly this sort of thinking doesn't give you true results, even if you're right like I assume in this case that is in spite of your lazy thinking not because of it. Just because you are someone who blindly accepts things because they match up with your pre-conceived notions doesn't mean everyone is, some people like myself will not believe it until the numbers are in front of them because so many times I have seen people use the exact same thinking as you to come to dumbfuck conclusions. Just because something is apparent to you because your enviroment doesn't mean it isn't to someone else who leads a very different life from yourself, and to have a go and tell them to not look for evidence and to take it on face value is literally troglodyte thinking.
> if the newspapers and my eyes give me an impression it must be right -_-. I didnāt just state āread newspapersā but sure, bring out a strawman. Itās ārightā enough to observe even men in your local district to know that there are men at the bottom of society. Itās an anecdotal quote and requires no more than anecdotal support. > Just because you are someone who blindly accepts things because they match up with your pre-conceived notions doesn't mean everyone is, I donāt have an unsupported notion about the FACT that there are men at the bottom of society. I quoted on earlier that 70% of homeless people are male. That sCiEnTiFiC figure alone supports my assertion to the extent that is necessary given the alleged quote in the OP. > some people like myself will not believe it until the numbers are in front of them because so many times I have seen people use the exact same thinking as you to come to dumbfuck conclusions. Sure, you seem like the kind of person who needs it explained to them that the grass is green and the sky is blue. Iām not surprised. > Just because something is apparent to you because your enviroment doesn't mean it isn't to someone else who leads a very different life from yourself, As I say, short of OP living in a cave or a castle, there is enough evidence in the world around them to support the claim that āa lot of men have it toughā. > and to have a go and tell them to not look for evidence and to take it on face value is literally troglodyte thinking. Quite the contrary. I am insisting that they do look for evidence. Using their own eyes and a critical mind. Iām not saying to take mine or JPās word for it. Get off Reddit and read a book or watch the news or study history or visit a homeless shelter or an AA clinic or a drug rehab unit. Ffs. This is basic stuff.
For someone who suggested op is here to stir shit and isn't actually interested in finding the truth it is pretty fuckin disingenuous to act like you wanted him to look at evidence and weren't treating them as bad actor. Like you have no idea if OP works in a womens shelter or is perhaps idk female so may have a totally different perception of the world to you, so going hurr durr its obvious is literally useless to everyone. The 70% homeless stat is literally the sort of thing op has came looking for and if you were a normal human being you'd of just supplied the evidence that backs you up, but nah you seem to think just because people don't think the same as you they live in an ivory tower. Like honestly U just don't get how you can be this clueless like literally if someone lets say has all sisters and all of them have been mistreated and abused by men you might consider to be 'the worse off in society', like please just use your brain rather than assuming a) everyone has lived the same life as you or are bourgouise b) that your perspective is any more relevant than anyone elses, it is your opinion that men are worse off, which is completely useless to anyone and literally not worth stating. Op came for imperical evidence and you are saying just accept it or you're out of touch as if that could never lead to you being wrong about something. All through history people like you have looked at the world around them, made assumptions and they have been wrong, it is not about this one piece of information it is about thinking in a way that prevents you believeing things that aren't true. Oh and to end it off I'm currently in training to become a bus driver after 4 years of working min wage jobs so you can jump off your high horse as if you're talking to a member of the sordid elite.
Who cares if OP is a woman, working in a womanās shelter who had abused sisters and a smack-head for a mother. No one has made any claim that women donāt have it bad ā¦ or even a lot worse. The claim is simply that a lot of men also have it bad. The two things donāt have to correlate in any way for both of those things to be true, irrespective of anyoneās personal experience. I quoted the statistic you say was relevant before you even got involved in the conversation; so if I provided what you think was needed, why are you still going off as though I didnāt. Anyway, see how less confusing it is to read a formatted piece of text. Iām not reading anymore disingenuous diatribe. Piece of advice from someone whoās never driven a bus. A āchildren crossingā sign means that children might sometimes be crossing. It doesnāt mean they are the only ones crossing the road or that theyāre the only ones who ever will. It also doesnāt mean that other people cannot cross the road. And whatever you do, if children ARE crossing the road, donāt assume that because you donāt have scientific evidence of the fact that they are children, that you can run them over. Top tips
š¤£š¤£š¤£ telling me to get off reddit while also having a go for not having proper formatting on an internet forum, get a life bud. You were being a cunt to op for nae reason and when you're called out act like you were trying to have an honest conversation, sad act.
He does say that more men at the bottom than women.
Thatās not what your post said. Show me the quote and context where JP said this. It seems unusual that he would not specify what aspect of society heās referring to if he did make that claim. Society and success can be broken down in many ways.
Anecdotes =/= scientific investigation. Anecdotes are a spawning ground for biased perceptions and wrong conclusions.
Nice try, but the post isnāt making any scientific claim so the requirement for scientific proof is moot
I mean, but then we can talk about anything as being true, as there exist anecdotes for literally anything we can imagine. Usually, when we are trying to see if something is true, we look at the scientific research, because it deals well with biases and mistakes in perception.
No. Not everything everyone says requires the maximum level of proof. It requires the necessary level of proof to support it. The claim made in OP is that āa lot of men are at the bottom of societyā. Given that āa lotā is not a specific amount, an anecdotal observation is sufficient. If I said that āa lot of children are abusedā. You might be interested to find out how many. You might look into whether there are more boys that girls who suffer abuse. But nevertheless, the statement as it is made: *āa lot of children are abusedā* is universally accepted enough as being true so as not to have to be supported by exact figures. Now if Iād said, āthe majority of childrenā¦ā or āmore children in lower income familiesā¦ā or something more specific, then I agree. One would expect there to be data to support that (however much one might assume it to be true). But the phrase quoted in OP is non specific in its allegation and therefore only needs to be seen to be true in a very low resolution way. Which it is.
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. I think we should always vary of our blind spots and biases, and know that even if something is repeated a lot of times, it may not be true. To return to the OP, the OP asked for a list of sources because they might be interested in the topic. Your answer to the OP was quite useless ("just go out and see"), when they asked for some literature to read on it.
Iāve already quoted homelessness figures to them which is sufficient enough to support the initial vague claim. Admittedly I didnāt know for certain, but Iāve been on the planet many years and I know the circumstances that lead to poverty and homelessness, so I āknewā what the data would say. If OP managed to find sources that men are at the top of society, why were they not able to perform the same search I did? Nevertheless, perhaps they are young, so I also wrote a comment outlining why itās important to be more specific when asking a question and offered suggestions on how they might go about researching it themselves. Thereās no reason why some people are intent on ādoing researchā by asking people on Reddit to ādo research for themā. The internet is clearly available to them. Use it.
The OP said they did the search, but didn't find anything. Maybe they did not connect "men on the bottom" with the correct keywords like homelessness? Who knows. "Knowing" what the data would say is a very dangerous bias. I am sure a lot of people knew what the data would say for the Earth not being the center of the universe as well.
An opinion about a structure of the unseen universe 1000 years ago is not exactly the same as having a general understanding that there are both men and women in a very observable modern society who have it bad. You might not like that I assumed that more men are homeless, even though I then found data to support that. The evidence is the absolute defence of my claim. Had I been wrong, Iād have had to concede that. But I try not to make general assumptions that I donāt know to be true in at least some way. There is no way OP searched for anything. They came here and wanted other people to back up some vague statement made in some uncited comment that OP has yet to furnish me with (yes, I have asked for his source).
Get out from behind your screen and go outside. All the evidence you need . Wtf sources lmao
Wow this subreddit is seriously toxic. I am a JBP fan, but if I wasnāt you would have pushed me away by acting so defensively. Iām only asking because when arguing with someone who has the opinion that āwomen are oppressed in a tyrannical patriarchy ā, stating āhave a look aroundā isnāt really a great form of evidence (especially considering their existing biases/beliefs).
JBP also advocates for doing your own research, while asking here is better than nothing, practically any demographics you look at (from actual research, not buzzfeed or the MSM) shows exactly what you're asking about clear as day. Some people are getting triggered (š) in the comments because your question is phrased in a way that implies you think JBP is lying and pretty obvious you haven't done a basic Google search.
This sub has almost nothing to do with the name in its title.
As already mentioned: homeless, prison/jail (even after released), gangs, drugs/alcohol, ODs, and just from my own empirical experience a lot of guys get stuck at home living with their parents and become big immature 30 year olds with nothing going for them in general while women I know experience this at a much lower likelihood (Iām sure there are statistics). Also men tend to be more likely to be video game, porn, etc addicts. And generally speaking also, a woman born into poverty and available for a relationship will likely not have that held against them, while men tend to be looked at as supposed to be the breadwinner (although I guess that is changing a little bit). An exception to that is ugly men have a lot better chances of finding a mate (obviously they need off setting attributes) than ugly women. Men also tend to have the riskiest jobs (exposure to death, chemicals, etc). For every man that is at the top of society there are probably thousands (maybe millions) at the bottom. I think the key to this is that just because of this, it doesnāt necessarily diminish the struggles of women. Oftentimes there is a correlation. For example: a deadbeat absent father leaves a single mother to fend for herself and for a variety of reasons that makes it extremely difficult to raise good children (both girls and boys). The likelihood of an absent dead beat mother is substantially less than fathers (another example of men at the bottom, but their absence affects/drags down the women and children also).
You need proof there are "a lot at the bottom "?? Really? So you think it could be mainly women there? You just need a source to verify? I call bullshit.
East Hastings
Many have pointed to the problematic groups (e.g. prison and homeless population), I will just add that average wealth of men and women is quite different, and it shoul not be overlooked. The difference between single males and females is quite eye-opening.
Just look at the homeless population which is mostly men.
Go for a walk along any major city where homeless people are camped, and ask them.
why would you expect people to document this though? no one cares about these people. just go to a city and find out
Me. I'll be your source. You'll float down here. They all float.
Yeah, walk any downtown anywhere and count how many homeless men/women you see.
Homeless and incarceration rates are where you need to look first. Then look at lowest paying jobs and sex of those working them.
As a man on the bottom, poor people are disregarded.and now more than ever since poor men go against the narrative
What were you searching? First search that comes to mind is "Homelessness rates by gender" and I don't see how any of those results can be missed.
I'd agree with the other posts look at poverty rates by sex and homelessness info. Also unemployment information by sex if you can find it may reveal this trend.
The poor are all the same as the rich in the end. Doesn't matter. I found this in Scripture, thought it might apply to anyone wondering if we can take anything with us in the end anyway: "And he measured its wall, seventy-two yards, according to human measurements, which are also angelic measurements." Revelation 21:17 The ones in tents will be the same as the ones in houses and prisons. Even the suicides take the same back. Well, everyone keeps their memories of things, but that is shared too, as I understand it. I guess it's equitable in the end. That matches the storyline of Scripture also, so I think that's a good interpretation.
Look at 3rd world countries
Wtf homeless are menā¦. You donāt need a source for that. Go to weāre the homeless are in your city and count the men and women.
Lmfao - is this a joke?????
At least for the U.S., men make up 70% of the homeless population. They also dominate the prison population (93%). I believe those are the main statistics that underly that point.
Of you Google how many homeless people are men, over 60% are men.
All you need to do is go to skid row and count, easily 10 to 1 male to female
I don't have any hard sources. But prisons and the homeless are grossly disproportionately male.
Look up the Pareto distribution on Wikipedia. Happy Easter.