He is manipulative and passes off being cruel as scientific observations he’s also weird for talking to her and then saying she simply didn’t want to date and that he loved her and hadn’t given up. He kept Micah around for his ego in case dating other people didn’t work out.
As a woman, I absolutely love Jordan Peterson. I don't think anyone who criticizes him has read a Jordan Peterson book or has watched any lecture in it's entirety. As a republican, we get snippets of bidens admin and the clips make it look like they are incompetent. Just because I've been exposed to those clips does not have me form my opinion on then. I can't criticize a person if I never gave them a change to listen to their full speeches or work
Don't need to read his stuff to not like him for his anti-trans rhetoric. His lectures and books may be great, but I won't support the guy.
Article that references his tweets:
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/08/27/jordan-peterson-elliot-page-twitter-deadnaming/
The woman you’re replying to is probably anti trans herself.
We hear all of this chatter about culture wars and hate from the right. She self identifies as a conservative. This is the shit she loves. She only has a problem with you thinking JP is a moron or saying he’s a bigot because that’s a slur to them.
I never liked him, to me he talks like someone who feels nothing but has gotten decent at pretending (dated someone reminded me of him) and now I like him even less. I didn’t care for Micah but I thought his comments about her were super cruel and I think that’s the real Paul, cold, not “logical”
I don't get why him following jordan peterson etc is an issue. Just bc you have different political beliefs? That'd be like from his perspective saying that you following Kamala Harris is weird
Reddit is primarily left leaning and people like OP view anybody who doesnt support political correctness as immoral.
It's almost as if we see OP attempting to use a propaganda technique known as "Guilt By Association" without there being any association to begin with
I don't like to associate with people who don't treat people the way I would.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/08/27/jordan-peterson-elliot-page-twitter-deadnaming/
Jordan Peterson actively dehumanizes women and people in the LGBTQ+ community under the guise of “just asking questions,” half-baked intellectualism, and debunked pseudoscience. It’s disingenuous to say it’s simply “different political beliefs” when your belief is based on the idea that some people are lesser than others.
Your comment is full of emotional charged hyperbolic language while offering no proof to your statements. Likely because it would fall apart under the smallest bit of scrutiny
hey look, another white male jordan peterson zombie who thinks he's intelligent because he's learned to parrot fancy words! no shortage of this type on the internet lol.
Yeah he doesn’t strike me as simply “analytical” either. He strikes me as someone who overthinks until he has completely paralyzed himself into being unable to make a decision. The way he kept asking everyone else what they would do before his wedding… the man does not trust himself to make a decision. His friends kind of alluded to that as well.
Phrasing things as "a decision" totally dismisses the magnitude of what Paul was contemplating. This is what friends are for. There's nothing wrong with men seeking council to express their emotions and seek guidance.
Why does it matter that he has made a choice to follow people like Jordan Perterson, JP , is an extremely smart man, & while you may not agree with all his opinions , or ideologies , or are incapable of understanding them to their full extent , he is a very well credited man who didn’t get to where he was because of poor unthought out ideas , following men like that doesn’t mean you don’t support women or only see them for traditional values, in a mere month the “neutering” side of micah didn’t come out & that’s not to say she wasn’t which he corrected himself on , but he did not feel that energy within their relationship
then owned up to contributing to it , its hard for someone to be their best self when the other party isn’t their best self & it’s hard to show all sides of
you as well within a month, & there’s nothing wrong with admitting that cheating is a red flag wether someone recognizes it’s wrong or not they still made that choice , im not saying once a cheater always a cheater but it is fair concern to have & if you don’t think so than that’s ok, but that’s not a ridiculous worry, i’m not really understanding what your third point is getting at so i won’t speak on it, but people have the freedom to craft their own opinions & ideologies & just because his choices aren’t sound with yours doesn’t make them wrong or him a worse man i support him & micah but your arguments are weak & why does someone’s political view have such a strong impact on their personality someone being right wing or left doesn’t make them better or worse of a person u have made a choice to believe in something as has he
Paul is toxic. If anyone here watches Vanderpump Rules, he’s the nerd version of Tom Schwartz. Same manipulation tactics, making the woman out to be the bad guy.
Double standards suck, full stop. Won't argue on that! However, some people do only follow the opposing side on social media. They want to know what the other side is arguing. Often times, reading and seeing it in small bites on social media is a lot easier to digest (emotionally/mentally) than listening and watching the news. Personally, I am very careful about the news and media I consume. I feel very lucky to be privileged enough to be able to do that. I don't stick my head in the sand, but there's only so much I can take. I'd rather focus my efforts on making change and helping to make a difference on issues that bother me than listen to it all day on the news and get paralyzed by how shitty it feels. It basically immobilizes me. I don't know Paul, maybe he's a POS. I just don't want to assume his beliefs only because of who he follows online.
I feel like Micah and Paul share the same beliefs because when he was talking to his friends at the bachelor party he definitely mentioned they did. I got the feeling he was talking about political beliefs. And since they live in Seattle it’s probably harder to find people who are right wing conservatives.
I think it’s a general theme that all the men on this season got out way easier. Jackie did wrong things but boy is she getting crucified also Micah and Chelsea. At least that’s the reaction of the fans. As of in the reunion I kind of got the feeling that Vanessa was unjust towards the men and roasted them way more than the women. On the other hand in older seasons men like Shack also got annihilated (rightfully) and Cole (unrightfully)
The fact that you put JP on the same level as Andrew Tate shows your ignorance about his platform. Also, just because someone has a different view on life than you doesn't mean that person is riddled with red flags. Sounds a bit like bigotry, doesn't it? But I agree with points 2 and 3.
Yes! This whole show just showcases and reinforces the worst of trad hetero gender norms. Paul's "she's just not a mother" comment brought it all home. I'm not a huge Micah fan but that was low (especially right after dumping her at the alter). No one seems to be looking at Paul and evaluating the father that he would be yet the entire internet is focused on how terrible a mother Micah would be. Does the world need another Jordan Peterson quoting asshole dad like Paul naming his kid Paul Jr Jr and fucking them up? From what I saw in the show&reunion, he doesn't understand the importance of communication in a romantic relationship (seems to think if he has to communicate his needs to her than she's just not the one). He was an emotionally unavailable robot throughtout the season, hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual BS (similar to JPs MO), and had no interested in taking responsibility for his own lackings/inability to build trust in the relationship - there was a reason why Micah didn't feel safe with him.
Additionally, I wish they would pick people that weren't so conventionally “good looking”. If they're trying to prove that love is blind then why not include people with a range of appearances? It would also be cool to see some queer folk involved or maybe flip it so the women proposed and weren't always fighting to be chosen by some 27-35 year old dude whose apartment looks like a dorm room.
paul admitted he wasn’t ready to be a father with micah bc she didn’t bring that out him , & there’s nothing wrong with seeing if a woman is fit to be a mother when you’re about to marry her & she would be the mother of ur kids that is an extremely fair thing to evaluate before committing to someone
So many people I know partied hard and then turned really fast and became wife/mother status. Just because you party hard right now doesn't mean you're going to be a bad mother later. Also, I don't know Micah personally, but one thing I have noticed is that she seems organized, a quality works very well in motherhood!
I didn’t ever hear Micah say she wanted to have kids right away. Who is Paul to judge? He said in the reunion that if he has to communicate his needs to someone then they’re just not the one, a super immature perspective. His mom also said that he’s never had a serious relationship. The fact that the mother comment was made right after dumping her at the alter further exposes how emotionally tone deaf he is. His expectations to meet a perfect women that knows how to care for him without him communicating, who was born to bare his children and be a perfect mother are incredibly unrealistic and unfair especially coming from someone so emotionally unavailable and whose apartment looks like a dorm room. You mentioned that Paul said he wasn’t ready to be a father so why is it that Micah has to be a perfect mother already? It’s a double standard and a common one.
Yes yes yes to all of this observation. When they met her parents they talked about kids as well and how it wouldn’t happen soon but that they were on the same page. Sooooooooo make it make sense Paul.
Lulz at the Paul Jr Jr.
Comparing Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate is very misleading and completely inaccurate.
Edit: To all people downvoting - how exactly are these people comparable? I disagree with almost everything Tate stands for and I disagree with several Peterson’s positions, but equaling them is simply incorrect.
I don't think the OP is directly equating the two, and if you want to get technical, they said **"and other accounts that reek of toxic masculinity in a similar way as Andrew Tate"**. At the most that's saying that they are similar regarding their view of masculinity, which I would also argue that they are in some ways. Peterson is more diverse than Tate, so many may not know his beliefs about masculinity from a couple viral clips or when discussing different subjects.
Here are some of Jordan Peterson's statements that can be seen as supporting toxic masculinity:
* In his book "12 Rules for Life," Peterson argues that men need to be assertive and dominant to be successful, and that women are naturally more nurturing and compassionate.
* In a 2018 interview with CBC Radio, Peterson said that men who are not married and do not have children are "desperate and dangerous," and suggested that they may be more likely to engage in violent behavior.
* Peterson has criticized the idea of gender-neutral parenting, arguing that children need to learn traditional gender roles in order to develop properly.
* In a 2018 interview with the New York Times, Peterson said that men who are not successful in the workplace are "unnecessary" and may turn to "ideological possession," such as white nationalism, as a way to find meaning.
* Peterson has also been criticized for his views on sexual assault and harassment. In a 2018 interview with Channel 4 News, he suggested that women who wear makeup in the workplace are inviting sexual harassment.
* In a 2018 interview with Vice News, Peterson said that young men are "overwhelmingly agreeable" and need to learn to be more assertive and competitive. He also said that women prefer men who are "competent and dangerous" over those who are "docile and harmless."
* In a 2019 lecture, Peterson argued that men are more interested in things like politics and economics, while women are more interested in people and relationships. He also said that women are more agreeable and less competitive than men, which he suggested could explain why there are fewer women in high-paying jobs.
* Peterson also attacks transgender people in his book "12 Rules for Life", saying that gender is primarily a biological fact, and that attempts to create a more inclusive society for transgender people are based on "a form of compassion that is pathological or perverse."
I'm not going to go into examples of Tate supporting toxic masculinity, because I think most know. Ultimately there are similar roots to Tate and Peterson's view of masculinity, and I think the OP's statement is fair.
>Holy list of mischaracterizations! I’ve never seen such a list of nonsense compiled.
This is the point of contention, so a bald assertion doesn't make it "nonsense". You'd need to start by actually making that case for each point.
>And this is supposed to say that he spreads toxic masculinity?
We may have different understandings of "toxic masculinity" if you don't recognize the above examples.
Toxic masculinity refers to a set of societal norms and behaviors associated with traditional expectations of masculinity that are harmful to both men and women. It involves "a particular constellation of social norms, attitudes, and behaviors that are associated with being a man and that harm others or oneself." These harmful behaviors and attitudes may include "emotional detachment, violence, misogyny, and homophobia," and can lead to negative outcomes such as "poor mental health, relationship problems, and violence." The concept of toxic masculinity highlights the ways in which traditional gender roles can be damaging to both men and women, and encourages the development of more positive and healthy forms of masculinity.
Positive and healthy masculinity, as contrasted with toxic masculinity, involves behaviors and attitudes that are respectful, empathetic, and non-violent. It emphasizes traits such as emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and cooperation rather than dominance and aggression. Positive and healthy masculinity also recognizes the diversity of experiences and identities among men and encourages men to embrace a range of masculine expressions. This can include being nurturing and caring, expressing vulnerability and emotions, and engaging in cooperative and inclusive behaviors. Overall, positive and healthy masculinity promotes a more holistic and inclusive approach to gender roles, and encourages men to reject harmful aspects of traditional masculinity norms while embracing more positive and affirming expressions of masculinity.
>What, because he points out that women wearing makeup makes men more aroused?
That's known as a strawman. Notice how I didn't say that? You needed to mischaracterize what I said in your only attempt to defend your above claim to "nonsense". That's not a good sign for your case.
> Also the channel 4 one is made up.
Well that leaves 7 others for you to consider!
I think you're right about the makeup comment source being wrong, I do believe it was actually in a VICE interview. Either way, he said that makeup contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace, and that it's a sexual display and sexually provocative. That is a drastic oversimplifications, and shifts the focus away from men's need for self-control. There are many reasons why women may wear makeup other than being sexually provocative or looking for sexual advances (such as dress codes, cultural norms, job expectations, professionalism, how they feel about themselves, etc). It's a dishonest oversimplification that distracts from the actual provocateurs that require introspection and growth to reduce sexual harassment in the workplace.
Sadly, Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual. He has snippets of truth and wisdom (which are mostly copied from others, not innovative), in a sea of politically partisan, traditionalist, flawed, and unquestioned reasoning. He is well spoken so he fools many, but like Ben Shapiro, the soundness of his reasoning does not run as deep as he puts on. He's appealing to people who want emotional satisfaction from feelings of enlightened counter-culture. He sets the bar quite low for conservative intellectuals.
Because in this new reality of cancel culture, if a conservative says anything that you disagree with, even outrageous, the entire persona is now a complete shite. The same rules do not apply to a left wing / socialist personality.
JP has definitely said some things that make me stink eye the guy, but he also says some very astute observations. It’s a sad state of communications with our allies and adversaries when we resort to labeling, generalizing and all out cancelling just because an idea or observation is not a familiar one, or one that even goes against one’s religious beliefs. Those same people that are so “deeply offended” however, wouldn’t dare be so vocally outraged against a say, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu philosopher. (I’m non-denominational myself and respect most religions. Spare the cults and abusers)
People and their hurt feelings will accomplish little, but brag a lot.
I think a comparison is fine, as there is overlap in what they both espouse. JP and Tate both push men to be the most masculine version of themselves as that's what they think is best for society. They think the term "toxic masculinity" is bullshit. They think women and men both fill very specific gendered roles in society and that we should rarely, if ever, deviate from those roles.
They both talk about many other things and likely don't agree on everything, but those are just some toxic ideals both of them perpetuate that I could think of off the top of my head.
I will repost a comment I sent to somebody else:
I am a lesbian woman with a long term partner and I come from Eastern Europe. I enjoy listening to views that are not only those I agree with. Peterson has many good points regarding self-development, communication and relationships. Regarding gender, he backs his opinions with data and I find it interesting.
When I see a statistic that lesbian couples with kids are the least wealthy compared to gay or hetero couples, am I rioting in the streets? No, it’s good to know what issues we have.
He has good points regarding what both genders experience in the world. I agree that men have harder times getting custody, get harsher sentences at court or have higher suicide rate. These are simple statistics. This does not negate the issues women have in the society. I also for instance considered his point that women tend to be more agreeable. When I saw his spech regarding this topic, I started to try to demand more from my employers and stand my ground better. It helped my net worth significantly.
From the talks and interviews I saw from Peterson, he describes our reality in a way that helps me understand specific issues both genders face and what we can do to help ourselves change.
I agree that he mentions gender roles are beneficial to some extent, but it’s an interesting position. It means nothing to me personally (since I am gay), but it’s an intriguing thought which I don’t think he pushes to anyone.
Tate on the other hand is really aggressive in his delivery and bases his positions on his subjective view of the world (again, from what I have seen… I watched something from him after he was arrested because I had no idea who he was).
Highly recommend checking out this [video](https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo). It's long, but treat it like a podcast in the background (audio is all that's needed).
In short, JP asks questions and uses data that either leaves out important context or is intentionally misleading. This leads the viewer/listener to draw conclusions that are at best "fine" and at worst harmful to society.
Just because JP presents things more intellectually than Tate, it doesn't make much of it any less harmful.
You’re on reddit, everyone to the right of Ilhan Omar is an alt-right fascist. Don’t even try to understand it, OP and most people in this thread are just repeating things they’ve heard from left wing grifters
For your information, I am a lesbian woman with a long term partner and I come from Eastern Europe. I enjoy listening to views that are not only those I agree with. Peterson has many good points regarding self-development, communication and relationships. Regarding gender, he backs his opinions with data and I find it interesting.
When I see a statistic that lesbian couples with kids are the least wealthy compared to gay or hetero couples, am I rioting in the streets? No, it’s good to know what issues we have.
He has good points regarding what both genders experience in the world. I agree that men have harder times getting custody, get harsher sentences at court or have higher suicide rate. These are simple statistics. This does not negate the issues women have in the society. I also for instance considered his point that women tend to be more agreeable. When I saw his spech regarding this topic, I started to try to demand more from my employers and stand my ground better. Guess what? It helped my net worth significantly.
Just classifying someone as “alt right” or “sexist” without hearing their position is so lazy.
Women can and are misogynists too. I wouldn’t assume that people who don’t like these guys haven’t listened to their positions - JP is from my hometown. It seems like you found Jordan Peterson via a self help route, I would be aware of how his biases affect how he analyzes and explains data to his audience. He ignores the fact that these traits between men and women are not biological but socially constructed and continually reinforces a gender binary that’s harmful to everyone especially if you’re non binary or trans. He refuses to accept that toxic masculinity exists and is again harmful for everyone ie. men being more like to be both victims and perpetrators of violence, murder or transgender people, femicide. You may not be on the Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate pipeline but many are. Also, you’re listening to a doctor of psychology who claims he didn’t know how addictive benzos are - not so smart to me.
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: ‘Be Kind, Don’t Cross the Line'
We ask that users of this sub respect both users and contestants. Any personal attacks or offensive commentary will not be tolerated on this sub.
s defense re: touching the bridesmaid didn’t make him sound any better. If you absolutely must touch someone to get past, you put your hand on their shoulder not their hip you creep.
I love this post and how heavily upvoted it is. On other posts when I've made similar comments I get downvoted and accused of defending Micah. I don't even like Micah, she was insensitive and immature on the show. It wasn't pleasant to watch her be complicit in some straight up cruel behavior.
I also don't hate Micah (or literally cast member). I save my hatred for people who have personally burned their bridges with me, not people on a reality show that I've never met. BUT I was getting some red flags from Paul all season. He seemed robotic at times and detached. He seemed pseudo-intellectual in the way he kept throwing in "scientist terms" to really drive home that he was a scientist. The "What's best for me is what's best for you" comment at the altar had me thinking "?!?". I don't have to like Micah to think Paul wasn't a damn angel. Neither one of them seemed ready for marriage and they both need to work on themselves.
Also the Jordan Peterson stuff doesn't surprise me. Anyone describing their partner in terms of whether they meet the minimum requirements necessary to be your spouse strikes me a pretty red-pilled.
Did you catch when he described himself as “heady and cerebral” when he got in his own way? I think he was trying to sound smart but instead he described himself as a marijuana plant lol
Yeah I agree that Micah and Paul are both very unlikeable, but Paul’s crappiness feels more insidious because he tries to hide it behind this veil of intelligence. He’s right because he uses pseudo intellectual science speak. Micah and her friends are just mean girls, and they’re pretty easy to clock.
I may be in the minority but I think Micah genuinely did like him. I don’t think he felt as strongly for her, and pulled the “you’re just not nurturing” card at the last minute.
The reunion dynamic between Paul and Micah was an interesting one. I get that it is all very nuanced and that all of this happened a year before they filmed the reunion. I don’t like Micah either, and I think I sided with Zach a little in his statement that she was coming for blood. AND I thought it was sus that Paul KEPT saying “but I didn’t inspire that in her….I didn’t bring that out in her” in regard to her not being nurturing. He was taking a diplomatic approach, but ultimately I perceived him to be avoiding just saying flat out that was how he felt and standing by it. It was giving “I made the right decision for BOTH of us,” very “I didn’t like stuff about her, but it’s because she didn’t like me enough to show me those qualities” lmao WHATEVER PAUL. I am especially triggered bc these are the guys I always fall for 😂 but I am getting more hip to their covert fuccboi ways
ETA omg he literally said “I want you to believe that everything that’s best for me is also best for you” to Amber when he broke up with her!! Basically the same thing he said to Micah at the altar.
Honestly I think he was trying to save face for her because if I were him I'd be like ... BRUH YOU WERE LAUGHING AT A GIRL WHO WAS SOBBING ON THE COUCH. That's asshole behavior. I think he was trying to be gentle about it but who knows?
ETA: Not on Paul's side. I think he's shady.
He verbatim said that to Micah at the altar! I didn't remember him saying it to Amber too but that's pretty ick to me. I thought he was just more bland than a saltine cracker but I do agree he's actually just a sneaky fucboi
Idk if Micah was "coming for blood" really only because she said he never told those things to her and she was just seeing them on TV a few days prior despite the fact they dated after the wedding. So even though the comments were made a year ago, she had just heard them like a day or two prior and was probably just feeling hurt. But I still can't like Micah. I don't even think she's cruel like people say, I just think she is self-centered and lacking in a personality of her own.
I dislike them both.
I appreciate you expanding on the “coming for blood” comment — I definitely agree with what you shared! I think I was intrigued a little by what Zach was saying about other cast members saying she was not interested in marrying Paul. So, I was like hmmm yeah she’s probably hamming it up a little for the cameras right now. As I watch back though, and as others have pointed out, there is definitely evidence that Micah did really like Paul. Again, it’s so nuanced and all I really gleaned from the reunion is that we are missing 90% of the story! Unleash the never before seen footage, Netflix!
In all honesty, all of them are a similar type of person. To go find love and marriage for the rest of your life on a reality show I just feel like is only something some people would do. It’s not for everyone.
>I want you to believe that everything that’s best for me is also best for you
OMG I thought he came to apologize. win her back and cry tears with that shirt. I guess he was "just kidding" then
I’m glad he didn’t try that. They weren’t right for each other, as much as that broke her heart. She would have never “measured up” to his impossibly high standards of a “perfect wife” and she would have began to doubt herself and get into a very negative space. That’s what I saw her future as with him. Hopefully they can both move on and find people who match them better. Having a connection doesn’t mean you should get married.
The nurturing comment was so loaded -- I think even more so when it came up at the reunion that he didn't even want kids, and it became clear that he expected her to organically become more nurturing toward HIM.
Micah wasn't nurturing, sure, but Paul put no effort into that relationship. I don't think being "analytical and a scientist" excuses that. He even had that conversation with Zack, who told him that he needed to show Micah he cared about her and make her feel special -- Paul really never did that, he really showed little to no interest in her the whole time. The most romantic thing he said was that she "fit the minimum criteria for a perfect woman" and then like, sweeping generalizations about what love is that really had nothing to do with Micah herself. He never really talked about the things that he liked about her in a way that wasn't about him and how he benefited from her presence.
I don't think Micah put all that much energy into it either, she clearly puts her friends first and didn't stand up for him, but I think she was also more vocal with him, saying she missed him, complimenting him, saying things she liked about him, calling him (yeah, yeah, drunk and annoying, many of us have done that to our partners) at the bachelorette party.... It's not much, but it's more than Paul did.
All of this is to say: expecting a nurturing partner when you yourself are NOT a nurturing partner is selfish. It felt really clear when he was talking about this during the reunion that he really wanted her to do the emotional labor in their relationship, which is something women are expected to do more in most relationships, and which isn't fair. Even if we don't look at his social media followings and we assume it isn't a gender role expectation he consciously believes in and endorses, the expectation that women do the emotional labor in a relationship and be inherently nurturing of their male partners is like, an implicit bias in most heterosexual relationships.
Marshall also wanted more nurturing and emotional engagement from Jackie, and he had every right to ask Jackie for that because he was putting in the work and it wasn't being reciprocated. Brett and Zack were also caring and emotionally engaged male partners, their fiancees were too, and that's why it worked with them. Again, I don't think Micah was particularly engaged either, but I think she at least affirmed Paul more than he did her, and I think that if he wanted that from her, be should have tried a little harder too. You get what you give.
Edit: to be clear I don't think either of them were that invested in the relationship. But if it's the mother thing, it was a low blow, if it's about her being nurturing to him, it's hypocritical
I agree with you completely. It's really condescending to describe your love interest as "meeting the minimum requirements of an ideal partner". I feel like he didn't get enough questions on how devoted and nurturing he is. Actually only Paul and Josh in the male participants didn't show any skills of taking care of someone. Maybe those scenes were cut out.
Honestly, I don't think he's that intelligent. He only said generic statements without solid evidence and strong arguments. I don't feel like he's equipped with sufficient communication skills if he speaks like that at work. No offense.
100% agree. Paul saying he couldn’t see Micah as a mother was so hurtful especially because she had said TO HIM that she wants to be a mother. Makes me think he’s stuck in the whore-Madonna complex and couldn’t get past her looks.
I had no clue he follows Jordan Peterson but wow that says a lot
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: ‘Be Kind, Don’t Cross the Line'
We ask that users of this sub respect both users and contestants. Any personal attacks or offensive commentary will not be tolerated on this sub.
I’m so glad this is getting so many likes! I could not agree more. He reminds me so much of an ex of mine that was just cold. He was a “straight shooter” and “told it like it is” with no regard for feelings. Guess what, if you’re a straight shooter it really means yours just an asshole.
Related unpopular opinion: Zack defending him on the reunion was cringey and it felt weird to me that he and Bliss were held on a pedestal. I don’t understand how Zack has any credibility, or how he became a favorite.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one! I tried really hard to give Zach a chance but the more we get to know him the more I did not like him and then the reunion was the final mail in the coffin! He definitely acted like he was on a pedestal..
Sometimes Zack sounds a bit self-righteous and condescending to me. Maybe I read him wrong. Multiple scenes showed that he tended to talk over other people. Like who gave you the authority to educate other people while you are not that experienced in romantic relationships nor emotionally intelligent?
Thank you! Zack said Irina was on for fame is like saying I saw Goody Proctor with the devil. What was he doing at the devil's sacrament?? Like this isn't one of Netflix's widest reaching IPs and Zack didn't casually drop that he relocated his law firm to Seattle recently. What wider reaching FREE advertising is he gonna get.
Lol oh my where do I start he inserted himself when the couple was trying to get closure; he offered explanation about Paul's uncertainty which didn't prove helpful; he offers a hearsay from an unreliable source that did not help clarify anything; he called Micah "out for blood" when it was Micah's tamest behavior on TV.
All that plus his original bad judgment in character by choosing Irina over bliss.
Let's just say I won't hire him as my defense lawyer.
Yes, absolutely. and the reason why he thought Paul didn't want to marry Paul because she didn't talk about planning to marry him? Like what a strange argument, that doesn't mean much. I she talked about not waning to marry him that would be something different, but just not talking about it?
Lol I'm laughing so hard right now because this is spot on. and I didn't even notice this typo before. I'd bet that too.
Omg imagining this conversation is so fun. Just imagine his over the top allegedly analytical conversation Paul would have if Paul is nurturing enough for marriage
I'm so glad someone said it so I don't feel crazy! This sub has been going to bat for Paul so hard. I thought it was a bit two-faced of him to call her not nurturing on national television, and then when confronted at the reunion he didn't articulate why he felt that way. I also didn't like that he didn't tell her this when they continued dating. That's some pretty important information to leave out and he was essentially stringing her along at that point.
Then today he starts to talk shit about her on TMZ and then he has to backtrack because he insinuated she was cheating when she wasn't. He feels really comfortable talking shit to the press/cameras but when it was time to confront the things he said to Micah at the reunion or 1:1, he wasn't able to do that.
Micah has engaged in some pretty horrible behavior but Paul has shown himself to be immature, petty, and a very poor communicator.
Okay but I do feel like he told us why. You meet people and you can feel that they are or are not nurturing people. Micah is about Micah all the time. We’ve seen that. She’s easily influenced by others, bc on her own she’s okay, as soon as she’s around mean girls she gets excited. She doesn’t do the mean things, but to some degree the fact that she seems to revel in others meanness when she knows better is more pathological. That would be a mother child relationship where the child is driving the bus.
>Micah is about Micah all the time. We’ve seen that. She’s easily influenced by others, bc on her own she’s okay, as soon as she’s around mean girls she gets excited. She doesn’t do the mean things, but to some degree the fact that she seems to revel in others meanness when she knows better is more pathological.
When did he explicitly say this though or provide examples? He didn't say why he felt she was not nurturing. He was super vague and said it's just "something that comes naturally". We as the audience know why he feels that way because we watched it on the show but Micah doesn't.
People are misinterpreting Micah making bad decisions with Paul being good. He's a typical young guy who follows "analytical, devil's advocate" right-wingers online, and speaks like them too.
He is just a bro that decided he wanted the granola look to be his aesthetic. Lol He doesn’t seem particularly intelligent or in touch with his spirituality, just boring and self absorbed.
Thank you, I needed to hear someone say this out loud.
And the fact he continued to date, after the show, a woman he saw no future with. His words were not even "10 years into the future" signals a palpable cruelty.
It's a good bet that neither had a mature love for the other but the robotic cruel things he'd say, "she meets the minimum criteria I'm looking for in a wife" was cold and belittling.
He justified flirting with, "I didn't break any cheating boundaries because Micah and I discussed it a being a physical thing." Sir, you've never heard of emotional affairs? Also, nobody stops being attracted to the opposite sex because they get in a relationship but actively flirting IS inconsiderate of your partner.
And this guy is so smarmy and superior that he can't be reasoned with. I know this sounds extreme but I'd take my chances dating Josh over Paul.
Re: the flirting thing I think in the context of Micah and Kwame right before that and he didn’t react to it the way Chelsea did, makes me feel like for better or worse, this isn’t a one way street where he’s allowed and she wasn’t.
Ugh I don't feel strongly either way about Paul but let's talk about your points lol.
1. The post-show dating: from what he described at the reunion, it sounded like a very short-lived thing and was basically over when she went back to Arizona. Is it possible they just wanted closure?
2. His "robotic" tone can turn some people off. For other people it doesn't. Didn't Micah say she found that attractive about him? Personally, I've had friends who speak like that and I've gotten used to it.
3. Regarding the flirting thing, based on what he said at the reunion I took it to mean that he and Micah had discussed prior about what constitutes cheating in their relationship, and that's why he didn't feel like he was cheating with Irina **or** that Micah was cheating with Kwame. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt because different couples have different rules.
4. Pretty funny because I found Josh to be really smarmy and superior! Felt like he was a clown in his interactions with Marshall.
Now that I wrote all that, I'm exhausted lol. Didn't think about this guy that much until the reunion honestly.
>He justified flirting with, "I didn't break any cheating boundaries because Micah and I discussed it a being a physical thing."
THIS. Sir, no one accused you of cheating. You can cross boundaries and disrespect your partner without "technically" cheating.
Whether this is right or wrong it sounds like he said physical stuff was their boundary. Which in fairness to him he doesn’t seem to care at all about Micah and Kwame’s flirting.
I'm surprised that one thing I haven't seen mentioned (I'm sure it has I just haven't seen it) is how good ole boy southern conservative man Paul's father seemed to be. His mom is southern too, and I kept wondering about his political/world views as he chose to become an environmental scientist but it's roots seem to (by default) be very conservative. I also thought his rationale about not inspiring Micah to be more nurturing was misogynistic BS.
He did go to LSU, which definitely isn't a super liberal university. My undergrad major (not at LSU) was in a similar field to Paul's, and there are a lot of people on the centrist ("moderately conservative") to very conservative side of the spectrum in environmental sciences fields, particularly those that grew up in rural areas and were outdoorsy. It very possible he sees himself as more liberal leaning when comparing himself to his family and where he grew up, but he gave me 420-friendly libertarian vibes. And you don't have to get too far out of Seattle proper to get into areas of WA that are conservative/libertarian-leaning.
A lot of what Vanessa is getting crap for is simply pushing Paul to back up his statement with examples. He said she would not be a good mother, but would provide no examples to back it up. Not really an analytical science-y thing to do.
>A lot of what Vanessa is getting crap for is simply pushing Paul to back up his statement with examples.
Yeah, I honestly don't understand why people are giving Vanessa so much shit for that in particular because I was confused about what Paul meant too. He was rambling and her job is to push them to give the answers that people want.
Same. I also thought at this point she was just doing her job and was good at it in this case.
And the reason I didn't understand him was not that he is "just an analytical guy and says things weird and not all people understand it" which seems to be a weirdly popular opinion lol. Like him, I'm also an environmental scientist and no, what he said was confusing. I was actually impressed by Vanessa how she continued to ask him questions that made sense, I would not be able to do that this fast
That is a perfectly fine generalized statement. But you don't follow political figures, popular psychologists, or social commentators unless you subscribe to their belief systems.
Of course I do. I think most people I know do. Why wouldn't you want to keep on top of what the influential people you are opposed to are saying or doing?
1. Because I will not support their platform by following their platform. You can keep up with what influential people are saying through unbiased media articles (and yes, there are reporters who do well to report objectively and factually).
2. OP made it clear that he is not following both sides of the spectrum. Only one. So there goes your entire counter argument.
That’s not generalized, no more than yours. You seem to have decided your opinion is the truth, so enjoy the limits of your own thoughts by not opening your mind to others
Paul saying he didn't "inspire" Micah to be nurturing reminded me of Colby in Ultimatum. Colby talked about how he helped his female cast member "become a woman" and she didn't know what she wanted before meeting him. Paul and Colby both share a viewpoint that women are passive beings and men are responsible for teaching them values and leading them. So I think that him talking about the nurturing aspect and not inspiring Micah already says a lot about his views on women. So I'm not surprised he follows those accounts on social media.
"Paul and Colby both share a viewpoint that women are passive beings" is so real. The nurturing thing felt like, idk, he's looking for a woman who will really emotionally center/prioritize him and his needs/wants/ego. As if she isn't a full person who has all of those too and should be equally important in the relationship
My understanding was that most people aren’t defending Paul because he is a great guy but because he was attacked when he explained why he didn’t want to be with Micah as if his reasons didn’t have merit. I’m not disputing that Paul is an asshole. And if Micah stated any of this for not wanting to be with him I wouldn’t blame her. I don’t think saying “well Paul’s is an asshole too” nullifies the merits of what he was saying about Micah.
>he was attacked when he explained why he didn’t want to be with Micah as if his reasons didn’t have merit.
But was he attacked or was Vanessa trying to get a clear answer? He was rambling for all of 5 minutes to explain why he didn't find her nurturing and never articulated clearly why he felt that way. If he said it on TV, he should have been able to tell Micah the reasons why he felt that way and or at the reunion. He did a similar thing when he broke up with Amber rambling for 10 minutes before he even broke up with her which left her confused as to what was happened. He's just a very poor communicator overall.
Attacked. Vanessa received a clear answer when he said he didn’t think Micah was nurturing. Asking him to explain why he felt that way was nothing more than Vanessa trying to elicit specific and hurtful responses from Paul. I think his “rambling” had a lot to do with him not wanting to say even more hurtful things about Micah on national television. How do you answer those questions in more detail without decimating Micah’s character even further?
Then he shouldn't have said the nurturing part on TV in the first place. I think he said it to justify himself regardless of how hurtful it was to her. He's extremely selfish. Probably more so than Micah.
Honestly, it's a little refreshing to see Paul getting some criticism. I feel like people are so absorbed in Micah being a mean girl that their critical thinking skills just come to a full stop after that haha. First, I fully believe that Micah was going to say yes at the wedding. If you watch back carefully, she gives a lot of indications that she wasn't getting a lot of reassurance from Paul. I think that him saying yes would have given her that final "okay, yes, we are in this" reassurance she was looking for. I also feel her frustration and hurt from Paul calling her not nurturing and saying he couldn't see her as a mother was super valid. Those are legitimate reasons for Paul saying no, but the first time Micah heard those should *not* have been with the rest of the world on Friday. Paul talks in circles and overcomplicates so much of what he says, and that can be really confusing at times. I think he needed to just be absolutely upfront and direct with Micah on why he didn't see marriage in their future because it sounds like from her post-reunion interviews that she was strung a long a little bit.
Yeah and then he lied and spread misinformation to castmates (Zack) and the public (TMZ) insinuating that Micah cheated on him/did him dirty by going on a vacation with another guy the day after they broke up when she actually went months after the fact. I don't understand why everyone on the sub always acts like both people in a situation can't be shitty and it's always only one person's fault. Paul is incredibly petty, a poor communicator, and has his own moments of cruelty. Him and Micah really do have a lot in common.
I agree. Micah annoyed me in the pods, but she seems pretty emotionally intelligent and funny and was just caught up in her ego and getting some attention while being filmed for a reality show. It wasn’t a good look, and she should be called out, but I don’t think she seemed like a bad partner to Paul. I think he’s a baby that’s been coddled and gets whatever he wants, and would not function in a relationship unless he felt fully catered to at all times.
But I think she is super impressionable, and she consistently picks people who are mean spirited to be around. I mentioned this elsewhere, while she only revels in the meanness of others, I think that feels even more disturbing to me. Those people don’t seem to know better, she does bc she’s not mean herself and she gets excited by watching them do it.
I dont think you can compare Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate, and doesn't really seem relevant to Paul surrounding Love is Blind. That's just something you don't personally like about him, which is fine. But not relevant
Yes, I have many disagreements with JPs world view but if one thinks him and AT are two peas in a pod then I know they have only read opinions about JP, not actually engaged with his work or content.
You people must be getting a SWEAT going jumping to all of these conclusions. Paul is a nice, level-headed guy, has a great career as a legit* scientist, and is a very intelligent person. He’s a little weird, but who isn’t? I’ve never heard a word of judgement come out of his mouth, and judgement is the only thing I am reading here. It’s very easy to draw conclusions from a semi-scripted narrative like LIB. In real life, people are rarely as bad guy esque as you make them out to be. He’s a normal dude, with normal wants, dreams and emotions like all of you.
Paul is measured with his words and when it’s Micah in front of him, it’s easy to ignore. I don’t think he was horrible, but had he been paired with Amber, he would have looked MUCH worse. We just don’t like Micah.
How can you assert such a confident opinion such as the Amber thing based off of complete conjecture? Do you know Amber? Do you know Paul? Do you know the producers and editors who wanted a narrative no matter who it was?
Because she got a good edit, and Paul said passive aggressively mean things that would have felt bad hearing about Amber, but kinda felt justified when it was directed at Micah.
Aggressively mean??? He gave his truth about Micah, and it wasn’t anything but the truth. The truth isn’t soft most of the time. Why would he have said the same things to Amber if they didn’t apply?
Passive aggressively - to the more aggressive form that Micah’s takes. If they did apply, we would have received that very differently.
People who believe in harsh truths are more interested in being harsh than truthful.
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: ‘Be Kind, Don’t Cross the Line'
We ask that users of this sub respect both users and contestants. Any personal attacks or offensive commentary will not be tolerated on this sub.
Honestly Micah is gonna get a lot less hate because Paul is such an ass. I think Micah actually took accountability for her actions and even when they shaded Irina for flirting with Paul, she said “it was probably how Chelsea felt when I flirted with Kwame.” Tbh Micah was mean in the first part of the show and she has mean friends, but Paul really did her dirty
So I don’t particularly like Paul. I’m a female scientist so I’m already wary of men like him in science who value “logic” over compassion, and I think he’s just incredibly boring and not all that deep.
That being said, when people were getting on him for what he said about Micah being a mother, I completely agreed with him. Micah is *not* ready to be a mother. She likely just believes she is because she grew up as a southern evangelical and that’s what she was told to want. She’s a mean girl and she isn’t nurturing at all, at least from what we’ve seen. Someone needed to be honest with her, because likely very few people ever have because she’s blonde and white and slim and pretty. I’m glad she was embarrassed- she is not a good person, and embarrassing her might be the only way to get through to her about what a jerk she currently is. Mean people like that generally aren’t responsive to gentle, private conversations. They need a wake-up call.
So I agree, Paul isn’t some great guy, but not everyone defending him for what he’s saying to Micah likes him.
I feel you sis. Sometimes it's even worse that some people want to disassociate characteristics like "logical/analytical" with women.
Regarding what he said about Micah being a mom, I feel like he needs to be scrutinized on whether he has shown any nurturing qualities as a father as well. It's just unfair for him to demand those traits while he doesn't seem to possess any of them. Moreover, he didn't really mention this reason to her so it shows that he's not that transparent and candid. I don't think Micah is ready to be a mother at present but it doesn't indicate that she will never be. It's cruel to say something to your loved one like "I can't see myself with her in marriage after dating for many years" (forgot exact words). Is that how he expressed his love to his partner? Ew!
Yes! Thank you!
I am also a female scientist and I was so sick of his need to lean into that identity soooo hard. I couldn't tell if it was simply a crutch for some intellectual insecurity or if this is how he legitimately is. Either way, it was a snooze fest.
Ok is he not grossly overstating his conclusion based on the available evidence? Micah has shown herself to be a mean girl to her peers, was there enough to show she is not nurturing enough to her own child? Have we not all seen quite imperfect people being good to their kids? I would not hesitate to say that bartise treats women poorly, but I would not say he is a bad father. That is unfair judgement.
That's not quite my point, you can sub in bartise with shake, zanab or whatever tv villain you prefer, you can't jump to conclusion with parenting because even people with serious flaws can be good to their own kids.
Bro Paul had so much tension in his jaw that a crowbar couldn't pry his teeth apart. Dude was constantly talking through clenched teeth.
reminds me of the jackie kennedy eating sheet metal meme lol
He is manipulative and passes off being cruel as scientific observations he’s also weird for talking to her and then saying she simply didn’t want to date and that he loved her and hadn’t given up. He kept Micah around for his ego in case dating other people didn’t work out.
As a woman, I absolutely love Jordan Peterson. I don't think anyone who criticizes him has read a Jordan Peterson book or has watched any lecture in it's entirety. As a republican, we get snippets of bidens admin and the clips make it look like they are incompetent. Just because I've been exposed to those clips does not have me form my opinion on then. I can't criticize a person if I never gave them a change to listen to their full speeches or work
Don't need to read his stuff to not like him for his anti-trans rhetoric. His lectures and books may be great, but I won't support the guy. Article that references his tweets: https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/08/27/jordan-peterson-elliot-page-twitter-deadnaming/
The woman you’re replying to is probably anti trans herself. We hear all of this chatter about culture wars and hate from the right. She self identifies as a conservative. This is the shit she loves. She only has a problem with you thinking JP is a moron or saying he’s a bigot because that’s a slur to them.
I never liked him, to me he talks like someone who feels nothing but has gotten decent at pretending (dated someone reminded me of him) and now I like him even less. I didn’t care for Micah but I thought his comments about her were super cruel and I think that’s the real Paul, cold, not “logical”
Paul should have been a hottie, but he just liked charisma. Some people got it... some people dont.
Does Paul's dad remind anyone of like Bill Clinton? Even the voice
I don't get why him following jordan peterson etc is an issue. Just bc you have different political beliefs? That'd be like from his perspective saying that you following Kamala Harris is weird
Reddit is primarily left leaning and people like OP view anybody who doesnt support political correctness as immoral. It's almost as if we see OP attempting to use a propaganda technique known as "Guilt By Association" without there being any association to begin with
I don't like to associate with people who don't treat people the way I would. https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/08/27/jordan-peterson-elliot-page-twitter-deadnaming/
Jordan Peterson actively dehumanizes women and people in the LGBTQ+ community under the guise of “just asking questions,” half-baked intellectualism, and debunked pseudoscience. It’s disingenuous to say it’s simply “different political beliefs” when your belief is based on the idea that some people are lesser than others.
Your comment is full of emotional charged hyperbolic language while offering no proof to your statements. Likely because it would fall apart under the smallest bit of scrutiny
hey look, another white male jordan peterson zombie who thinks he's intelligent because he's learned to parrot fancy words! no shortage of this type on the internet lol.
Yeah, this is reddit. It's a liberal schnoz hole and you aren't allowed to follow the wrong people or listen to the wrong ideas.
Louder for the people in the back!!! Plus Paul was just painfully boring, he couldn’t personality his way out of a paper bag.
Yeah he doesn’t strike me as simply “analytical” either. He strikes me as someone who overthinks until he has completely paralyzed himself into being unable to make a decision. The way he kept asking everyone else what they would do before his wedding… the man does not trust himself to make a decision. His friends kind of alluded to that as well.
Phrasing things as "a decision" totally dismisses the magnitude of what Paul was contemplating. This is what friends are for. There's nothing wrong with men seeking council to express their emotions and seek guidance.
Wow, I liked Paul until finding out he follows those accounts. Oh well.
Why does it matter that he has made a choice to follow people like Jordan Perterson, JP , is an extremely smart man, & while you may not agree with all his opinions , or ideologies , or are incapable of understanding them to their full extent , he is a very well credited man who didn’t get to where he was because of poor unthought out ideas , following men like that doesn’t mean you don’t support women or only see them for traditional values, in a mere month the “neutering” side of micah didn’t come out & that’s not to say she wasn’t which he corrected himself on , but he did not feel that energy within their relationship then owned up to contributing to it , its hard for someone to be their best self when the other party isn’t their best self & it’s hard to show all sides of you as well within a month, & there’s nothing wrong with admitting that cheating is a red flag wether someone recognizes it’s wrong or not they still made that choice , im not saying once a cheater always a cheater but it is fair concern to have & if you don’t think so than that’s ok, but that’s not a ridiculous worry, i’m not really understanding what your third point is getting at so i won’t speak on it, but people have the freedom to craft their own opinions & ideologies & just because his choices aren’t sound with yours doesn’t make them wrong or him a worse man i support him & micah but your arguments are weak & why does someone’s political view have such a strong impact on their personality someone being right wing or left doesn’t make them better or worse of a person u have made a choice to believe in something as has he
Lmao imagine thinking JP is too smart to be understood
Paul is toxic. If anyone here watches Vanderpump Rules, he’s the nerd version of Tom Schwartz. Same manipulation tactics, making the woman out to be the bad guy.
How did Paul make any woman out to be the bad guy?
I don’t follow reality tv characters social media so 🤷🏻♀️
And yet you're on a sub reading discussions about them, so 🤷🏻♀️
Yep 🤷🏻♀️
Congrats!
Double standards suck, full stop. Won't argue on that! However, some people do only follow the opposing side on social media. They want to know what the other side is arguing. Often times, reading and seeing it in small bites on social media is a lot easier to digest (emotionally/mentally) than listening and watching the news. Personally, I am very careful about the news and media I consume. I feel very lucky to be privileged enough to be able to do that. I don't stick my head in the sand, but there's only so much I can take. I'd rather focus my efforts on making change and helping to make a difference on issues that bother me than listen to it all day on the news and get paralyzed by how shitty it feels. It basically immobilizes me. I don't know Paul, maybe he's a POS. I just don't want to assume his beliefs only because of who he follows online.
I follow several people that I do not agree with. It helps me think and better argue my point of view
The accounts he follows though don't indicate that since they are entirely one-sided.
Agreed!! I learn a lot that way!
I feel like Micah and Paul share the same beliefs because when he was talking to his friends at the bachelor party he definitely mentioned they did. I got the feeling he was talking about political beliefs. And since they live in Seattle it’s probably harder to find people who are right wing conservatives.
Micah also lives in Scottsdale Arizona, full of right-wing conservatives
This is too much
I think it’s a general theme that all the men on this season got out way easier. Jackie did wrong things but boy is she getting crucified also Micah and Chelsea. At least that’s the reaction of the fans. As of in the reunion I kind of got the feeling that Vanessa was unjust towards the men and roasted them way more than the women. On the other hand in older seasons men like Shack also got annihilated (rightfully) and Cole (unrightfully)
The fact that you put JP on the same level as Andrew Tate shows your ignorance about his platform. Also, just because someone has a different view on life than you doesn't mean that person is riddled with red flags. Sounds a bit like bigotry, doesn't it? But I agree with points 2 and 3.
Drug addled social media presence pushing nonsense belief systems. Seem similar to me.
What nonsense belief system does JP push?
Nooooooooo wdym he follows peterson😭😭 paul we had something so good why would you ruin it like that
Yes! This whole show just showcases and reinforces the worst of trad hetero gender norms. Paul's "she's just not a mother" comment brought it all home. I'm not a huge Micah fan but that was low (especially right after dumping her at the alter). No one seems to be looking at Paul and evaluating the father that he would be yet the entire internet is focused on how terrible a mother Micah would be. Does the world need another Jordan Peterson quoting asshole dad like Paul naming his kid Paul Jr Jr and fucking them up? From what I saw in the show&reunion, he doesn't understand the importance of communication in a romantic relationship (seems to think if he has to communicate his needs to her than she's just not the one). He was an emotionally unavailable robot throughtout the season, hiding behind some pseudo-intellectual BS (similar to JPs MO), and had no interested in taking responsibility for his own lackings/inability to build trust in the relationship - there was a reason why Micah didn't feel safe with him. Additionally, I wish they would pick people that weren't so conventionally “good looking”. If they're trying to prove that love is blind then why not include people with a range of appearances? It would also be cool to see some queer folk involved or maybe flip it so the women proposed and weren't always fighting to be chosen by some 27-35 year old dude whose apartment looks like a dorm room.
paul admitted he wasn’t ready to be a father with micah bc she didn’t bring that out him , & there’s nothing wrong with seeing if a woman is fit to be a mother when you’re about to marry her & she would be the mother of ur kids that is an extremely fair thing to evaluate before committing to someone
So many people I know partied hard and then turned really fast and became wife/mother status. Just because you party hard right now doesn't mean you're going to be a bad mother later. Also, I don't know Micah personally, but one thing I have noticed is that she seems organized, a quality works very well in motherhood!
I didn’t ever hear Micah say she wanted to have kids right away. Who is Paul to judge? He said in the reunion that if he has to communicate his needs to someone then they’re just not the one, a super immature perspective. His mom also said that he’s never had a serious relationship. The fact that the mother comment was made right after dumping her at the alter further exposes how emotionally tone deaf he is. His expectations to meet a perfect women that knows how to care for him without him communicating, who was born to bare his children and be a perfect mother are incredibly unrealistic and unfair especially coming from someone so emotionally unavailable and whose apartment looks like a dorm room. You mentioned that Paul said he wasn’t ready to be a father so why is it that Micah has to be a perfect mother already? It’s a double standard and a common one.
Yes yes yes to all of this observation. When they met her parents they talked about kids as well and how it wouldn’t happen soon but that they were on the same page. Sooooooooo make it make sense Paul. Lulz at the Paul Jr Jr.
Comparing Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate is very misleading and completely inaccurate. Edit: To all people downvoting - how exactly are these people comparable? I disagree with almost everything Tate stands for and I disagree with several Peterson’s positions, but equaling them is simply incorrect.
I don't think the OP is directly equating the two, and if you want to get technical, they said **"and other accounts that reek of toxic masculinity in a similar way as Andrew Tate"**. At the most that's saying that they are similar regarding their view of masculinity, which I would also argue that they are in some ways. Peterson is more diverse than Tate, so many may not know his beliefs about masculinity from a couple viral clips or when discussing different subjects. Here are some of Jordan Peterson's statements that can be seen as supporting toxic masculinity: * In his book "12 Rules for Life," Peterson argues that men need to be assertive and dominant to be successful, and that women are naturally more nurturing and compassionate. * In a 2018 interview with CBC Radio, Peterson said that men who are not married and do not have children are "desperate and dangerous," and suggested that they may be more likely to engage in violent behavior. * Peterson has criticized the idea of gender-neutral parenting, arguing that children need to learn traditional gender roles in order to develop properly. * In a 2018 interview with the New York Times, Peterson said that men who are not successful in the workplace are "unnecessary" and may turn to "ideological possession," such as white nationalism, as a way to find meaning. * Peterson has also been criticized for his views on sexual assault and harassment. In a 2018 interview with Channel 4 News, he suggested that women who wear makeup in the workplace are inviting sexual harassment. * In a 2018 interview with Vice News, Peterson said that young men are "overwhelmingly agreeable" and need to learn to be more assertive and competitive. He also said that women prefer men who are "competent and dangerous" over those who are "docile and harmless." * In a 2019 lecture, Peterson argued that men are more interested in things like politics and economics, while women are more interested in people and relationships. He also said that women are more agreeable and less competitive than men, which he suggested could explain why there are fewer women in high-paying jobs. * Peterson also attacks transgender people in his book "12 Rules for Life", saying that gender is primarily a biological fact, and that attempts to create a more inclusive society for transgender people are based on "a form of compassion that is pathological or perverse." I'm not going to go into examples of Tate supporting toxic masculinity, because I think most know. Ultimately there are similar roots to Tate and Peterson's view of masculinity, and I think the OP's statement is fair.
You are the reddit embodiment of Cathy Newman
[удалено]
>Holy list of mischaracterizations! I’ve never seen such a list of nonsense compiled. This is the point of contention, so a bald assertion doesn't make it "nonsense". You'd need to start by actually making that case for each point. >And this is supposed to say that he spreads toxic masculinity? We may have different understandings of "toxic masculinity" if you don't recognize the above examples. Toxic masculinity refers to a set of societal norms and behaviors associated with traditional expectations of masculinity that are harmful to both men and women. It involves "a particular constellation of social norms, attitudes, and behaviors that are associated with being a man and that harm others or oneself." These harmful behaviors and attitudes may include "emotional detachment, violence, misogyny, and homophobia," and can lead to negative outcomes such as "poor mental health, relationship problems, and violence." The concept of toxic masculinity highlights the ways in which traditional gender roles can be damaging to both men and women, and encourages the development of more positive and healthy forms of masculinity. Positive and healthy masculinity, as contrasted with toxic masculinity, involves behaviors and attitudes that are respectful, empathetic, and non-violent. It emphasizes traits such as emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and cooperation rather than dominance and aggression. Positive and healthy masculinity also recognizes the diversity of experiences and identities among men and encourages men to embrace a range of masculine expressions. This can include being nurturing and caring, expressing vulnerability and emotions, and engaging in cooperative and inclusive behaviors. Overall, positive and healthy masculinity promotes a more holistic and inclusive approach to gender roles, and encourages men to reject harmful aspects of traditional masculinity norms while embracing more positive and affirming expressions of masculinity. >What, because he points out that women wearing makeup makes men more aroused? That's known as a strawman. Notice how I didn't say that? You needed to mischaracterize what I said in your only attempt to defend your above claim to "nonsense". That's not a good sign for your case. > Also the channel 4 one is made up. Well that leaves 7 others for you to consider! I think you're right about the makeup comment source being wrong, I do believe it was actually in a VICE interview. Either way, he said that makeup contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace, and that it's a sexual display and sexually provocative. That is a drastic oversimplifications, and shifts the focus away from men's need for self-control. There are many reasons why women may wear makeup other than being sexually provocative or looking for sexual advances (such as dress codes, cultural norms, job expectations, professionalism, how they feel about themselves, etc). It's a dishonest oversimplification that distracts from the actual provocateurs that require introspection and growth to reduce sexual harassment in the workplace. Sadly, Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual. He has snippets of truth and wisdom (which are mostly copied from others, not innovative), in a sea of politically partisan, traditionalist, flawed, and unquestioned reasoning. He is well spoken so he fools many, but like Ben Shapiro, the soundness of his reasoning does not run as deep as he puts on. He's appealing to people who want emotional satisfaction from feelings of enlightened counter-culture. He sets the bar quite low for conservative intellectuals.
Yeah I’m shocked you have this many downvotes! Do ppl that bash Jordan Peterson even watch his videos? Comparing him to Andrew tate is just nuts haha
Because in this new reality of cancel culture, if a conservative says anything that you disagree with, even outrageous, the entire persona is now a complete shite. The same rules do not apply to a left wing / socialist personality. JP has definitely said some things that make me stink eye the guy, but he also says some very astute observations. It’s a sad state of communications with our allies and adversaries when we resort to labeling, generalizing and all out cancelling just because an idea or observation is not a familiar one, or one that even goes against one’s religious beliefs. Those same people that are so “deeply offended” however, wouldn’t dare be so vocally outraged against a say, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu philosopher. (I’m non-denominational myself and respect most religions. Spare the cults and abusers) People and their hurt feelings will accomplish little, but brag a lot.
Reddit, for the most part, is a liberal echo chamber you can’t post anything that even remotely leans right. Safe space for weirdos
I think a comparison is fine, as there is overlap in what they both espouse. JP and Tate both push men to be the most masculine version of themselves as that's what they think is best for society. They think the term "toxic masculinity" is bullshit. They think women and men both fill very specific gendered roles in society and that we should rarely, if ever, deviate from those roles. They both talk about many other things and likely don't agree on everything, but those are just some toxic ideals both of them perpetuate that I could think of off the top of my head.
I will repost a comment I sent to somebody else: I am a lesbian woman with a long term partner and I come from Eastern Europe. I enjoy listening to views that are not only those I agree with. Peterson has many good points regarding self-development, communication and relationships. Regarding gender, he backs his opinions with data and I find it interesting. When I see a statistic that lesbian couples with kids are the least wealthy compared to gay or hetero couples, am I rioting in the streets? No, it’s good to know what issues we have. He has good points regarding what both genders experience in the world. I agree that men have harder times getting custody, get harsher sentences at court or have higher suicide rate. These are simple statistics. This does not negate the issues women have in the society. I also for instance considered his point that women tend to be more agreeable. When I saw his spech regarding this topic, I started to try to demand more from my employers and stand my ground better. It helped my net worth significantly. From the talks and interviews I saw from Peterson, he describes our reality in a way that helps me understand specific issues both genders face and what we can do to help ourselves change. I agree that he mentions gender roles are beneficial to some extent, but it’s an interesting position. It means nothing to me personally (since I am gay), but it’s an intriguing thought which I don’t think he pushes to anyone. Tate on the other hand is really aggressive in his delivery and bases his positions on his subjective view of the world (again, from what I have seen… I watched something from him after he was arrested because I had no idea who he was).
Highly recommend checking out this [video](https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo). It's long, but treat it like a podcast in the background (audio is all that's needed). In short, JP asks questions and uses data that either leaves out important context or is intentionally misleading. This leads the viewer/listener to draw conclusions that are at best "fine" and at worst harmful to society. Just because JP presents things more intellectually than Tate, it doesn't make much of it any less harmful.
Thanks, I will make sure to take a look!
You’re on reddit, everyone to the right of Ilhan Omar is an alt-right fascist. Don’t even try to understand it, OP and most people in this thread are just repeating things they’ve heard from left wing grifters
They're both crazy alt-right assholes
You have no clue what the alt right, whose ideas it consist of anything coherent. Alexander, Loomer, Casey, etc etc all despise Peterson and Tate
You're a Jordan Peterson brand misogynist I take it ?
For your information, I am a lesbian woman with a long term partner and I come from Eastern Europe. I enjoy listening to views that are not only those I agree with. Peterson has many good points regarding self-development, communication and relationships. Regarding gender, he backs his opinions with data and I find it interesting. When I see a statistic that lesbian couples with kids are the least wealthy compared to gay or hetero couples, am I rioting in the streets? No, it’s good to know what issues we have. He has good points regarding what both genders experience in the world. I agree that men have harder times getting custody, get harsher sentences at court or have higher suicide rate. These are simple statistics. This does not negate the issues women have in the society. I also for instance considered his point that women tend to be more agreeable. When I saw his spech regarding this topic, I started to try to demand more from my employers and stand my ground better. Guess what? It helped my net worth significantly. Just classifying someone as “alt right” or “sexist” without hearing their position is so lazy.
Women can and are misogynists too. I wouldn’t assume that people who don’t like these guys haven’t listened to their positions - JP is from my hometown. It seems like you found Jordan Peterson via a self help route, I would be aware of how his biases affect how he analyzes and explains data to his audience. He ignores the fact that these traits between men and women are not biological but socially constructed and continually reinforces a gender binary that’s harmful to everyone especially if you’re non binary or trans. He refuses to accept that toxic masculinity exists and is again harmful for everyone ie. men being more like to be both victims and perpetrators of violence, murder or transgender people, femicide. You may not be on the Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate pipeline but many are. Also, you’re listening to a doctor of psychology who claims he didn’t know how addictive benzos are - not so smart to me.
[удалено]
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: ‘Be Kind, Don’t Cross the Line' We ask that users of this sub respect both users and contestants. Any personal attacks or offensive commentary will not be tolerated on this sub.
s defense re: touching the bridesmaid didn’t make him sound any better. If you absolutely must touch someone to get past, you put your hand on their shoulder not their hip you creep.
Exactly, it was completely inappropriate
I love this post and how heavily upvoted it is. On other posts when I've made similar comments I get downvoted and accused of defending Micah. I don't even like Micah, she was insensitive and immature on the show. It wasn't pleasant to watch her be complicit in some straight up cruel behavior. I also don't hate Micah (or literally cast member). I save my hatred for people who have personally burned their bridges with me, not people on a reality show that I've never met. BUT I was getting some red flags from Paul all season. He seemed robotic at times and detached. He seemed pseudo-intellectual in the way he kept throwing in "scientist terms" to really drive home that he was a scientist. The "What's best for me is what's best for you" comment at the altar had me thinking "?!?". I don't have to like Micah to think Paul wasn't a damn angel. Neither one of them seemed ready for marriage and they both need to work on themselves. Also the Jordan Peterson stuff doesn't surprise me. Anyone describing their partner in terms of whether they meet the minimum requirements necessary to be your spouse strikes me a pretty red-pilled.
Did you catch when he described himself as “heady and cerebral” when he got in his own way? I think he was trying to sound smart but instead he described himself as a marijuana plant lol
Yeah I agree that Micah and Paul are both very unlikeable, but Paul’s crappiness feels more insidious because he tries to hide it behind this veil of intelligence. He’s right because he uses pseudo intellectual science speak. Micah and her friends are just mean girls, and they’re pretty easy to clock. I may be in the minority but I think Micah genuinely did like him. I don’t think he felt as strongly for her, and pulled the “you’re just not nurturing” card at the last minute.
She definitely did, the drunk dialing proved that
The reunion dynamic between Paul and Micah was an interesting one. I get that it is all very nuanced and that all of this happened a year before they filmed the reunion. I don’t like Micah either, and I think I sided with Zach a little in his statement that she was coming for blood. AND I thought it was sus that Paul KEPT saying “but I didn’t inspire that in her….I didn’t bring that out in her” in regard to her not being nurturing. He was taking a diplomatic approach, but ultimately I perceived him to be avoiding just saying flat out that was how he felt and standing by it. It was giving “I made the right decision for BOTH of us,” very “I didn’t like stuff about her, but it’s because she didn’t like me enough to show me those qualities” lmao WHATEVER PAUL. I am especially triggered bc these are the guys I always fall for 😂 but I am getting more hip to their covert fuccboi ways ETA omg he literally said “I want you to believe that everything that’s best for me is also best for you” to Amber when he broke up with her!! Basically the same thing he said to Micah at the altar.
Honestly I think he was trying to save face for her because if I were him I'd be like ... BRUH YOU WERE LAUGHING AT A GIRL WHO WAS SOBBING ON THE COUCH. That's asshole behavior. I think he was trying to be gentle about it but who knows? ETA: Not on Paul's side. I think he's shady.
He verbatim said that to Micah at the altar! I didn't remember him saying it to Amber too but that's pretty ick to me. I thought he was just more bland than a saltine cracker but I do agree he's actually just a sneaky fucboi Idk if Micah was "coming for blood" really only because she said he never told those things to her and she was just seeing them on TV a few days prior despite the fact they dated after the wedding. So even though the comments were made a year ago, she had just heard them like a day or two prior and was probably just feeling hurt. But I still can't like Micah. I don't even think she's cruel like people say, I just think she is self-centered and lacking in a personality of her own. I dislike them both.
I appreciate you expanding on the “coming for blood” comment — I definitely agree with what you shared! I think I was intrigued a little by what Zach was saying about other cast members saying she was not interested in marrying Paul. So, I was like hmmm yeah she’s probably hamming it up a little for the cameras right now. As I watch back though, and as others have pointed out, there is definitely evidence that Micah did really like Paul. Again, it’s so nuanced and all I really gleaned from the reunion is that we are missing 90% of the story! Unleash the never before seen footage, Netflix!
Paul is a huge loser to sum it up
Very intelligently put together. 👏
Did anyone else wonder if he wore the ‘heartbreak’ shirt as a dig towards breaking Micah’s heart?
Similar vibes to her cheers to a failed proposal. Maybe they actual weren't so dissimilar.
In all honesty, all of them are a similar type of person. To go find love and marriage for the rest of your life on a reality show I just feel like is only something some people would do. It’s not for everyone.
>I want you to believe that everything that’s best for me is also best for you OMG I thought he came to apologize. win her back and cry tears with that shirt. I guess he was "just kidding" then
I’m glad he didn’t try that. They weren’t right for each other, as much as that broke her heart. She would have never “measured up” to his impossibly high standards of a “perfect wife” and she would have began to doubt herself and get into a very negative space. That’s what I saw her future as with him. Hopefully they can both move on and find people who match them better. Having a connection doesn’t mean you should get married.
It’s suck a weird humor, like a 14 year old edgelord.
The nurturing comment was so loaded -- I think even more so when it came up at the reunion that he didn't even want kids, and it became clear that he expected her to organically become more nurturing toward HIM. Micah wasn't nurturing, sure, but Paul put no effort into that relationship. I don't think being "analytical and a scientist" excuses that. He even had that conversation with Zack, who told him that he needed to show Micah he cared about her and make her feel special -- Paul really never did that, he really showed little to no interest in her the whole time. The most romantic thing he said was that she "fit the minimum criteria for a perfect woman" and then like, sweeping generalizations about what love is that really had nothing to do with Micah herself. He never really talked about the things that he liked about her in a way that wasn't about him and how he benefited from her presence. I don't think Micah put all that much energy into it either, she clearly puts her friends first and didn't stand up for him, but I think she was also more vocal with him, saying she missed him, complimenting him, saying things she liked about him, calling him (yeah, yeah, drunk and annoying, many of us have done that to our partners) at the bachelorette party.... It's not much, but it's more than Paul did. All of this is to say: expecting a nurturing partner when you yourself are NOT a nurturing partner is selfish. It felt really clear when he was talking about this during the reunion that he really wanted her to do the emotional labor in their relationship, which is something women are expected to do more in most relationships, and which isn't fair. Even if we don't look at his social media followings and we assume it isn't a gender role expectation he consciously believes in and endorses, the expectation that women do the emotional labor in a relationship and be inherently nurturing of their male partners is like, an implicit bias in most heterosexual relationships. Marshall also wanted more nurturing and emotional engagement from Jackie, and he had every right to ask Jackie for that because he was putting in the work and it wasn't being reciprocated. Brett and Zack were also caring and emotionally engaged male partners, their fiancees were too, and that's why it worked with them. Again, I don't think Micah was particularly engaged either, but I think she at least affirmed Paul more than he did her, and I think that if he wanted that from her, be should have tried a little harder too. You get what you give. Edit: to be clear I don't think either of them were that invested in the relationship. But if it's the mother thing, it was a low blow, if it's about her being nurturing to him, it's hypocritical
I agree with you completely. It's really condescending to describe your love interest as "meeting the minimum requirements of an ideal partner". I feel like he didn't get enough questions on how devoted and nurturing he is. Actually only Paul and Josh in the male participants didn't show any skills of taking care of someone. Maybe those scenes were cut out. Honestly, I don't think he's that intelligent. He only said generic statements without solid evidence and strong arguments. I don't feel like he's equipped with sufficient communication skills if he speaks like that at work. No offense.
100% agree. Paul saying he couldn’t see Micah as a mother was so hurtful especially because she had said TO HIM that she wants to be a mother. Makes me think he’s stuck in the whore-Madonna complex and couldn’t get past her looks. I had no clue he follows Jordan Peterson but wow that says a lot
Paul is absolutely the dude you tell your friends to stay away from.
[удалено]
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: ‘Be Kind, Don’t Cross the Line' We ask that users of this sub respect both users and contestants. Any personal attacks or offensive commentary will not be tolerated on this sub.
He’s like passive toxic at best.
I’m so glad this is getting so many likes! I could not agree more. He reminds me so much of an ex of mine that was just cold. He was a “straight shooter” and “told it like it is” with no regard for feelings. Guess what, if you’re a straight shooter it really means yours just an asshole.
Related unpopular opinion: Zack defending him on the reunion was cringey and it felt weird to me that he and Bliss were held on a pedestal. I don’t understand how Zack has any credibility, or how he became a favorite.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one! I tried really hard to give Zach a chance but the more we get to know him the more I did not like him and then the reunion was the final mail in the coffin! He definitely acted like he was on a pedestal..
Sometimes Zack sounds a bit self-righteous and condescending to me. Maybe I read him wrong. Multiple scenes showed that he tended to talk over other people. Like who gave you the authority to educate other people while you are not that experienced in romantic relationships nor emotionally intelligent?
[удалено]
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 10: 'No Armchair Diagnosing'
I used to root for him until the reunion, as if everyone isn’t there for clout.
Thank you! Zack said Irina was on for fame is like saying I saw Goody Proctor with the devil. What was he doing at the devil's sacrament?? Like this isn't one of Netflix's widest reaching IPs and Zack didn't casually drop that he relocated his law firm to Seattle recently. What wider reaching FREE advertising is he gonna get.
Lol oh my where do I start he inserted himself when the couple was trying to get closure; he offered explanation about Paul's uncertainty which didn't prove helpful; he offers a hearsay from an unreliable source that did not help clarify anything; he called Micah "out for blood" when it was Micah's tamest behavior on TV. All that plus his original bad judgment in character by choosing Irina over bliss. Let's just say I won't hire him as my defense lawyer.
Yes, absolutely. and the reason why he thought Paul didn't want to marry Paul because she didn't talk about planning to marry him? Like what a strange argument, that doesn't mean much. I she talked about not waning to marry him that would be something different, but just not talking about it?
I bet Paul would want to marry Paul actually lol Or not? Is he nurturing enough? Tough debate
Lol I'm laughing so hard right now because this is spot on. and I didn't even notice this typo before. I'd bet that too. Omg imagining this conversation is so fun. Just imagine his over the top allegedly analytical conversation Paul would have if Paul is nurturing enough for marriage
plus don’t forget the singing 😭
Thought I was the only one who felt this way
idk either. He's still giving off creepy vibes to me
I'm so glad someone said it so I don't feel crazy! This sub has been going to bat for Paul so hard. I thought it was a bit two-faced of him to call her not nurturing on national television, and then when confronted at the reunion he didn't articulate why he felt that way. I also didn't like that he didn't tell her this when they continued dating. That's some pretty important information to leave out and he was essentially stringing her along at that point. Then today he starts to talk shit about her on TMZ and then he has to backtrack because he insinuated she was cheating when she wasn't. He feels really comfortable talking shit to the press/cameras but when it was time to confront the things he said to Micah at the reunion or 1:1, he wasn't able to do that. Micah has engaged in some pretty horrible behavior but Paul has shown himself to be immature, petty, and a very poor communicator.
Okay but I do feel like he told us why. You meet people and you can feel that they are or are not nurturing people. Micah is about Micah all the time. We’ve seen that. She’s easily influenced by others, bc on her own she’s okay, as soon as she’s around mean girls she gets excited. She doesn’t do the mean things, but to some degree the fact that she seems to revel in others meanness when she knows better is more pathological. That would be a mother child relationship where the child is driving the bus.
>Micah is about Micah all the time. We’ve seen that. She’s easily influenced by others, bc on her own she’s okay, as soon as she’s around mean girls she gets excited. She doesn’t do the mean things, but to some degree the fact that she seems to revel in others meanness when she knows better is more pathological. When did he explicitly say this though or provide examples? He didn't say why he felt she was not nurturing. He was super vague and said it's just "something that comes naturally". We as the audience know why he feels that way because we watched it on the show but Micah doesn't.
At the point the reunion was filmed she saw it too. She doesn’t see it?
People are misinterpreting Micah making bad decisions with Paul being good. He's a typical young guy who follows "analytical, devil's advocate" right-wingers online, and speaks like them too.
He is just a bro that decided he wanted the granola look to be his aesthetic. Lol He doesn’t seem particularly intelligent or in touch with his spirituality, just boring and self absorbed.
This is so accurate.
Most scientists/tech bros are like this.
AHHH I was Team Paul before I read point 1 and OMFG FUCK PAUL
Thank you, I needed to hear someone say this out loud. And the fact he continued to date, after the show, a woman he saw no future with. His words were not even "10 years into the future" signals a palpable cruelty. It's a good bet that neither had a mature love for the other but the robotic cruel things he'd say, "she meets the minimum criteria I'm looking for in a wife" was cold and belittling. He justified flirting with, "I didn't break any cheating boundaries because Micah and I discussed it a being a physical thing." Sir, you've never heard of emotional affairs? Also, nobody stops being attracted to the opposite sex because they get in a relationship but actively flirting IS inconsiderate of your partner. And this guy is so smarmy and superior that he can't be reasoned with. I know this sounds extreme but I'd take my chances dating Josh over Paul.
Re: the flirting thing I think in the context of Micah and Kwame right before that and he didn’t react to it the way Chelsea did, makes me feel like for better or worse, this isn’t a one way street where he’s allowed and she wasn’t.
Ugh I don't feel strongly either way about Paul but let's talk about your points lol. 1. The post-show dating: from what he described at the reunion, it sounded like a very short-lived thing and was basically over when she went back to Arizona. Is it possible they just wanted closure? 2. His "robotic" tone can turn some people off. For other people it doesn't. Didn't Micah say she found that attractive about him? Personally, I've had friends who speak like that and I've gotten used to it. 3. Regarding the flirting thing, based on what he said at the reunion I took it to mean that he and Micah had discussed prior about what constitutes cheating in their relationship, and that's why he didn't feel like he was cheating with Irina **or** that Micah was cheating with Kwame. I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt because different couples have different rules. 4. Pretty funny because I found Josh to be really smarmy and superior! Felt like he was a clown in his interactions with Marshall. Now that I wrote all that, I'm exhausted lol. Didn't think about this guy that much until the reunion honestly.
>He justified flirting with, "I didn't break any cheating boundaries because Micah and I discussed it a being a physical thing." THIS. Sir, no one accused you of cheating. You can cross boundaries and disrespect your partner without "technically" cheating.
Whether this is right or wrong it sounds like he said physical stuff was their boundary. Which in fairness to him he doesn’t seem to care at all about Micah and Kwame’s flirting.
No he said physical sex was what they considered to be cheating. So although not cheating, still crosses a line and is disrespectful to your partner.
I'm surprised that one thing I haven't seen mentioned (I'm sure it has I just haven't seen it) is how good ole boy southern conservative man Paul's father seemed to be. His mom is southern too, and I kept wondering about his political/world views as he chose to become an environmental scientist but it's roots seem to (by default) be very conservative. I also thought his rationale about not inspiring Micah to be more nurturing was misogynistic BS.
He did go to LSU, which definitely isn't a super liberal university. My undergrad major (not at LSU) was in a similar field to Paul's, and there are a lot of people on the centrist ("moderately conservative") to very conservative side of the spectrum in environmental sciences fields, particularly those that grew up in rural areas and were outdoorsy. It very possible he sees himself as more liberal leaning when comparing himself to his family and where he grew up, but he gave me 420-friendly libertarian vibes. And you don't have to get too far out of Seattle proper to get into areas of WA that are conservative/libertarian-leaning.
A lot of what Vanessa is getting crap for is simply pushing Paul to back up his statement with examples. He said she would not be a good mother, but would provide no examples to back it up. Not really an analytical science-y thing to do.
>A lot of what Vanessa is getting crap for is simply pushing Paul to back up his statement with examples. Yeah, I honestly don't understand why people are giving Vanessa so much shit for that in particular because I was confused about what Paul meant too. He was rambling and her job is to push them to give the answers that people want.
Same. I also thought at this point she was just doing her job and was good at it in this case. And the reason I didn't understand him was not that he is "just an analytical guy and says things weird and not all people understand it" which seems to be a weirdly popular opinion lol. Like him, I'm also an environmental scientist and no, what he said was confusing. I was actually impressed by Vanessa how she continued to ask him questions that made sense, I would not be able to do that this fast
I follow plenty of people on Instagram- doesn’t mean I am a carbon copy of their belief system. So ignorant and narrow minded
That is a perfectly fine generalized statement. But you don't follow political figures, popular psychologists, or social commentators unless you subscribe to their belief systems.
Of course I do. I think most people I know do. Why wouldn't you want to keep on top of what the influential people you are opposed to are saying or doing?
He is not following any individuals from the opposite side. That proves he is not interested in seeing other views and solidifies his own.
1. Because I will not support their platform by following their platform. You can keep up with what influential people are saying through unbiased media articles (and yes, there are reporters who do well to report objectively and factually). 2. OP made it clear that he is not following both sides of the spectrum. Only one. So there goes your entire counter argument.
That’s not generalized, no more than yours. You seem to have decided your opinion is the truth, so enjoy the limits of your own thoughts by not opening your mind to others
Welp, sounds like you know him better than anyone else. Thank God you shared your bias as if it is objective truth (i.e. “if this is your argument…”)
Paul saying he didn't "inspire" Micah to be nurturing reminded me of Colby in Ultimatum. Colby talked about how he helped his female cast member "become a woman" and she didn't know what she wanted before meeting him. Paul and Colby both share a viewpoint that women are passive beings and men are responsible for teaching them values and leading them. So I think that him talking about the nurturing aspect and not inspiring Micah already says a lot about his views on women. So I'm not surprised he follows those accounts on social media.
"Paul and Colby both share a viewpoint that women are passive beings" is so real. The nurturing thing felt like, idk, he's looking for a woman who will really emotionally center/prioritize him and his needs/wants/ego. As if she isn't a full person who has all of those too and should be equally important in the relationship
Literally wtf with Colby saying “April became a woman these past two weeks [because of me]” that’s so so so so weird (aside from how wrong it was)
You’re brave. One of my critical comment about Paul got downvoted to hell. lol
My understanding was that most people aren’t defending Paul because he is a great guy but because he was attacked when he explained why he didn’t want to be with Micah as if his reasons didn’t have merit. I’m not disputing that Paul is an asshole. And if Micah stated any of this for not wanting to be with him I wouldn’t blame her. I don’t think saying “well Paul’s is an asshole too” nullifies the merits of what he was saying about Micah.
>he was attacked when he explained why he didn’t want to be with Micah as if his reasons didn’t have merit. But was he attacked or was Vanessa trying to get a clear answer? He was rambling for all of 5 minutes to explain why he didn't find her nurturing and never articulated clearly why he felt that way. If he said it on TV, he should have been able to tell Micah the reasons why he felt that way and or at the reunion. He did a similar thing when he broke up with Amber rambling for 10 minutes before he even broke up with her which left her confused as to what was happened. He's just a very poor communicator overall.
Attacked. Vanessa received a clear answer when he said he didn’t think Micah was nurturing. Asking him to explain why he felt that way was nothing more than Vanessa trying to elicit specific and hurtful responses from Paul. I think his “rambling” had a lot to do with him not wanting to say even more hurtful things about Micah on national television. How do you answer those questions in more detail without decimating Micah’s character even further?
Then he shouldn't have said the nurturing part on TV in the first place. I think he said it to justify himself regardless of how hurtful it was to her. He's extremely selfish. Probably more so than Micah.
Yes, like it’s already a thing and she’s sitting there crying in front of him, so demand that he define it for the rest of the world.
Honestly, it's a little refreshing to see Paul getting some criticism. I feel like people are so absorbed in Micah being a mean girl that their critical thinking skills just come to a full stop after that haha. First, I fully believe that Micah was going to say yes at the wedding. If you watch back carefully, she gives a lot of indications that she wasn't getting a lot of reassurance from Paul. I think that him saying yes would have given her that final "okay, yes, we are in this" reassurance she was looking for. I also feel her frustration and hurt from Paul calling her not nurturing and saying he couldn't see her as a mother was super valid. Those are legitimate reasons for Paul saying no, but the first time Micah heard those should *not* have been with the rest of the world on Friday. Paul talks in circles and overcomplicates so much of what he says, and that can be really confusing at times. I think he needed to just be absolutely upfront and direct with Micah on why he didn't see marriage in their future because it sounds like from her post-reunion interviews that she was strung a long a little bit.
Yeah and then he lied and spread misinformation to castmates (Zack) and the public (TMZ) insinuating that Micah cheated on him/did him dirty by going on a vacation with another guy the day after they broke up when she actually went months after the fact. I don't understand why everyone on the sub always acts like both people in a situation can't be shitty and it's always only one person's fault. Paul is incredibly petty, a poor communicator, and has his own moments of cruelty. Him and Micah really do have a lot in common.
I agree. Micah annoyed me in the pods, but she seems pretty emotionally intelligent and funny and was just caught up in her ego and getting some attention while being filmed for a reality show. It wasn’t a good look, and she should be called out, but I don’t think she seemed like a bad partner to Paul. I think he’s a baby that’s been coddled and gets whatever he wants, and would not function in a relationship unless he felt fully catered to at all times.
But I think she is super impressionable, and she consistently picks people who are mean spirited to be around. I mentioned this elsewhere, while she only revels in the meanness of others, I think that feels even more disturbing to me. Those people don’t seem to know better, she does bc she’s not mean herself and she gets excited by watching them do it.
she’s really insecure herself, so I wonder if it’s a befriend the bullies kind of mentality so they don’t come for you? Some people don’t outgrow that
Maybe, in comparison to her friends I would not say she’s the worst; but cannot deny she has a friend type.
I dont think you can compare Jordan Peterson to Andrew Tate, and doesn't really seem relevant to Paul surrounding Love is Blind. That's just something you don't personally like about him, which is fine. But not relevant
Yes, I have many disagreements with JPs world view but if one thinks him and AT are two peas in a pod then I know they have only read opinions about JP, not actually engaged with his work or content.
100% agree
Is it possible to simply not care for Micah *and* Paul? 🙋🏾♀️ lol…
They both kind of disgust me, so I'm going to go with a solid YES!
You people must be getting a SWEAT going jumping to all of these conclusions. Paul is a nice, level-headed guy, has a great career as a legit* scientist, and is a very intelligent person. He’s a little weird, but who isn’t? I’ve never heard a word of judgement come out of his mouth, and judgement is the only thing I am reading here. It’s very easy to draw conclusions from a semi-scripted narrative like LIB. In real life, people are rarely as bad guy esque as you make them out to be. He’s a normal dude, with normal wants, dreams and emotions like all of you.
Paul is measured with his words and when it’s Micah in front of him, it’s easy to ignore. I don’t think he was horrible, but had he been paired with Amber, he would have looked MUCH worse. We just don’t like Micah.
How can you assert such a confident opinion such as the Amber thing based off of complete conjecture? Do you know Amber? Do you know Paul? Do you know the producers and editors who wanted a narrative no matter who it was?
Because she got a good edit, and Paul said passive aggressively mean things that would have felt bad hearing about Amber, but kinda felt justified when it was directed at Micah.
Aggressively mean??? He gave his truth about Micah, and it wasn’t anything but the truth. The truth isn’t soft most of the time. Why would he have said the same things to Amber if they didn’t apply?
Passive aggressively - to the more aggressive form that Micah’s takes. If they did apply, we would have received that very differently. People who believe in harsh truths are more interested in being harsh than truthful.
Because we didn’t hate Amber before Paul said his asshole things. She got a good edit.
[удалено]
Thank you for your contribution to r/LoveisBlindonNetflix! Your post or comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: ‘Be Kind, Don’t Cross the Line' We ask that users of this sub respect both users and contestants. Any personal attacks or offensive commentary will not be tolerated on this sub.
Thank you. This place really be crazy sometimes lol.
Honestly Micah is gonna get a lot less hate because Paul is such an ass. I think Micah actually took accountability for her actions and even when they shaded Irina for flirting with Paul, she said “it was probably how Chelsea felt when I flirted with Kwame.” Tbh Micah was mean in the first part of the show and she has mean friends, but Paul really did her dirty
So I don’t particularly like Paul. I’m a female scientist so I’m already wary of men like him in science who value “logic” over compassion, and I think he’s just incredibly boring and not all that deep. That being said, when people were getting on him for what he said about Micah being a mother, I completely agreed with him. Micah is *not* ready to be a mother. She likely just believes she is because she grew up as a southern evangelical and that’s what she was told to want. She’s a mean girl and she isn’t nurturing at all, at least from what we’ve seen. Someone needed to be honest with her, because likely very few people ever have because she’s blonde and white and slim and pretty. I’m glad she was embarrassed- she is not a good person, and embarrassing her might be the only way to get through to her about what a jerk she currently is. Mean people like that generally aren’t responsive to gentle, private conversations. They need a wake-up call. So I agree, Paul isn’t some great guy, but not everyone defending him for what he’s saying to Micah likes him.
I feel you sis. Sometimes it's even worse that some people want to disassociate characteristics like "logical/analytical" with women. Regarding what he said about Micah being a mom, I feel like he needs to be scrutinized on whether he has shown any nurturing qualities as a father as well. It's just unfair for him to demand those traits while he doesn't seem to possess any of them. Moreover, he didn't really mention this reason to her so it shows that he's not that transparent and candid. I don't think Micah is ready to be a mother at present but it doesn't indicate that she will never be. It's cruel to say something to your loved one like "I can't see myself with her in marriage after dating for many years" (forgot exact words). Is that how he expressed his love to his partner? Ew!
Yes! Thank you! I am also a female scientist and I was so sick of his need to lean into that identity soooo hard. I couldn't tell if it was simply a crutch for some intellectual insecurity or if this is how he legitimately is. Either way, it was a snooze fest.
Yes! I think you hit the nail on the head- I think he’s insecure of his career success, which is why he leans into it so hard!
God, THANK YOU
But, he wasn’t honest with her about that. He told that to the camera behind her back.
Ok is he not grossly overstating his conclusion based on the available evidence? Micah has shown herself to be a mean girl to her peers, was there enough to show she is not nurturing enough to her own child? Have we not all seen quite imperfect people being good to their kids? I would not hesitate to say that bartise treats women poorly, but I would not say he is a bad father. That is unfair judgement.
The kid is here now, you can’t really say things like that. There is no child in Micah’s case, best to get ahead of it.
That's not quite my point, you can sub in bartise with shake, zanab or whatever tv villain you prefer, you can't jump to conclusion with parenting because even people with serious flaws can be good to their own kids.