TW: Sexual Harassment
One of the most famous… or I guess infamous clips of Jordan Peterson —the Rouge clip— is usually taken in the context of: women should not wear makeup in the work-place because it puts them at risk of sexual harassment.
And, one step further than this “it’s for their own safety” argument, is the concept that JP is victim-blaming women— proposing that sexual harassment against a women is an inevitable result of a woman’s actions.
Let’s dissect Jordan Peterson’s rhetoric. See why it’s effective. But more importantly, why it’s destructive.
Before I begin: if videos are more your speed, you can watch my video on the topic here.
JP: Is there sexual harassment in the workplace? Yes. Should it stop? That’d be good.
This is quite the uncontroversial statement to begin an argument with. Although, it is said in a very… Jordan Peterson manner of speaking. I can literally hear his voice writing out the quote.
I don’t think anyone who views this clip from any perspective will argue the contrary opinion. This is the introduction to his argument. There is sexual harassment, it’s bad. But, he then goes on to state an abstract thesis: sexual harassment in the workplace will continue as is unless we change the current rules.
JP: Will it? Well not at the moment it wont because we don’t know what the rules are.
Where Jordan Peterson gains his critiques on this video, is his claim that wearing makeup in the workplace is a current societal rule detrimental to women’s safety.
In framing this clip as “we don’t know what the future holds,” Jordan Peterson automatically frames anything he says as a hypothetical. Even when he later delves into the practical, it is shielded by this hypothetical veneer. All this builds to plausible deniability: the idea that Jordan Peterson has enough leeway to be able to deny ideas that are interpreted from his videos.
We could consider this the magic of Jordan Peterson. He never needs to claim something definitively. He never needs to state, “makeup leads to sexual assault,” with definitive proof; he just simply needs to imply that if women don’t wear makeup they might be safer. With this implication, the viewer can take away what they wish.
Jordan Peterson will throughout this clip frame the future as a set of rules. This is very reminiscent of his at one point 12 rules on life, which later turned into 24 rules on life. These twelve rules similarly use this Jordan Peterson methodology of abstraction. This is just something to keep in mind when analyzing his ideologies.
Interviewer: How many years will it take for men and women working in the workplace together—
JP: More than 40… Here’s a rule: how about no makeup?
Every time I see this part of the video I laugh… because it’s absurd. Jordan Peterson’s claim that it will take a minimum of 40 years for sexual harassment in the workplace to stop is a claim I have literally never heard, read, or seen; and Jordan Peterson doesn’t back it up… so its validity is dubious at best. A time-frame and idea that Jordan Peterson most likely came up with on the spot.
His idea, though, is that there is a time-frame of how long it will take to learn “what the rules are.” An idea that is intentionally kept vague. Are the rules social rules? Workplace rules? What kind of rules are they? And what are “the rule’s” limitations? All we know is that we need these rules in order for workplace sexual harassment to stop.
Jordan Peterson explores this loose thought further with a hypothetical rule: “women should not wear makeup in the workplace.” As the rules are kept vague, Jordan Peterson can target any idea, and his focus is on women’s fashion choices. Why not men’s fashion choices? Why not make the rule “no sexual harassment in the workplace.” That is the ultimate rule… so why not?
If Jordan Peterson made the rule simply “no sexual harassment in the workplace,” it would be up to society to enforce this rule, and for the individual to self-regulate according to this rule, meaning men cannot sexually harass women, and those who witness sexual harassment should call it out. In targeting specifically women, Peterson lifts the responsibility of not sexually harassing people off of men.
Obviously anyone can commit sexual harassment but this specific clip focuses on men harassing women, so how does JP achieve this narrative?
JP: Why should you wear makeup in the workplace? Isn’t that sexually provocative?
At this point, Jordan Peterson moves from the hypothetical to the practical. No longer is it a question of “if women were to stop wearing makeup in the workplace” to “why should women wear makeup in the workplace to begin with?” His declaration: wearing makeup in the workplace to be a form of sexualization. And when pressed on it, asks “well what is it?”
JP: What’s the purpose of makeup? Why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal. Why do you put rouge on your cheeks? Same reason.
Jordan Peterson presents to his audience one view of makeup: it is a thing women use to sexualize themselves.
In making this argument in the practical, with a veneer of the grander hypothetical argument, JP shifts the autonomy of sexual harassment from men to women. Sexual harassment is an action. An action that, in this case, is committed by one person onto another. And because this is an action, it is done with autonomy. When this autonomy is shifted onto women, the action is complicated. When a woman commits the act of wearing makeup, she is inviting the non-autonomous man to commit sexual harassment onto her. With this abstraction, harassment is now the responsibility of women, not men.
JP: Now I’m not saying that people should not use sexual displays in the workplace. I’m not saying that. But I am saying that is what they’re doing. And that is what they’re doing.
Jordan Peterson concludes by shifting his argument back into the abstract. He shifts back to a realm of plausible deniability. He is not attacking women for wearing makeup. He is not victim blaming them. He is just saying that them wearing makeup is sexually provocative.
Therein lies the danger of Jordan Peterson; and this will be my final point. Jordan Peterson is one person. If Jordan Peterson commits sexual harassment, he is one individual committing sexual harassment against another. Because of his plausible deniability, he can easily defend allegations that he is victim-blaming.
But, Jordan Peterson has an audience. An audience that easily reaches into the millions, and in making these comments, is not defending his own views… He is instead giving millions of people the tools to abstract their own views and possible sexual harassment. Millions of people now have the tool of saying: “women wear makeup as a form of sexual provocation.” The liberal use of this argument is saying just that. Women should not wear makeup. But the more dangerous use of the argument is that women are asking for sexual provocation when they wear makeup. That by virtue of them wearing makeup, they are consenting to sexual advances.
I obviously don’t condone sexual harassment. Women wear makeup for all sorts of reasons, and even if it is for sexual provocation, it does not alleviate men of the autonomy in the act of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is an action that the burden always falls on the one who commits the action, not the one affected by the action.
