Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

If for sake of argument everything JP said was correct especially about this agreeableness thing (which I'm a little fuzzy on as even hyper ambitious men tend to be able to wind their necks in and be agreeable to their superiors whilst they progress). He seems to be advancing the argument that agreeableness is actually an impediment to women's advancement? In which case I can kind of see how that might be true. After all women who were not agreeable to the advances of Weinstein et al appear to have found their careers stall.

I'm also not surprised that many women agreeable or not may decide that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace grinds them down and I take issue with this 9% figure also as these neatly delineated "reasons" may in fact be comorbid and the sexism that Peterson in no way denies exists and in fact recognises as a factor. A woman may "choose" one thing but the sexism may be the straw that broke the camels back, and provide the final push to say "fuck it I'm not putting myself through this anymore". Until this doesn't exist at all we aren't going to be able to say we have a control group (which if we want to get all fancy and scientific about it).

Science is fantastic but Peterson slipped an awful lot under the radar simply by virtue of being "science" adjacent. He minimised the effect of sexism and misogyny but didn't actually bring any proof. What Northern European countries have shown whilst interesting does not actually establish causation. Correlation sure but correlation does not prove causation.

I'd never heard of Peterson till seeing a link on FB this morning and watching the (full) Ch4 interview. Ye gods, what a car crash. Cathy Newman seriously had a brain fail at about 22 minutes in, I don't know how the OP can see it otherwise .

I work in the meeja and have rarely seen an interviewee maintain an unruffled facade as well as Peterson did, it's impressive/scary in equal measures. Although I think there's a fair bit of rage seething under the surface... still his ideas are interesting and I'd be quite keen to read the book if it wasn't £16.

And having RTFT, thanks Lee for staying polite and informative, I hate it when these threads descend into a slanging match.

I don't think CN is obligated to provide evidence to me personally. I'd be surprised if c4 pay for security without some but maybe they're playing deep Machiavellian games.

And I think so much of this debate suffers from the assumption that the battle of the sexes must be a zero sum game.

I did say disproportionately. I have no evidence and I'm not sure I meant in volume. But as a woman, the routine nature of rape threats strikes a particularly visceral response in me.

In the meantime I'll have to make my infinitesimal contribution by trying to discuss contentious things calmly, hopefully learn something and refrain from abuse and ad hominem attack.

I love how Channel 4's plan to discredit JP and ''expose'' him as an ultra- bigot blew up in their face. The YT video has already passed 2 million views in a matter of days and his book is no2 on Amazon even though it hasn't even come out yet. Instead of exposing his as a right wing monster and slay him as the evil dragon they perceive him to be, they introduced him to a much larger, more mainstream audience. It's amazing how many people I've been hearing lately agree with everything he said, people who'd never heard of him before, both men and women. I'm especially with the number of young, bright women who support him.

This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny, and usher in a future brighter than anything we could imagine!

The abuse CN says she is experiencing is sadly all too credible given what we know other public figures, and yes i think women disproportionally, have suffered.

Male public figures receive almost 3 times more abuse on social media. I know of men who share many of Peterson opinions who receive dead animals in the mail on a regular basis. It's just that men are far less likely to complain about it.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cheep-shots-men-get-most-twitter-abuse-bxlk3x50dz5

I think many people are fed up with the type of interview that seems to be the norm these in most mainstream media : left wing, politically correct journalist/s gang up on guest with alternative views and the whole piece is a sort of ''Aha! so you admit you're Hitler!'' drinking game. The fact that such a high pay, high profile job is occupied by such an incompetent woman is great evidence that equality isn't exactly eons away. She is living proof of what Peterson was talking about.

but what evidence is there of abuse? shouldn't we have evidence? I'm not saying that there might not have had misogynistic abuse, but I saw none on her twitter feed. Just lots of posters saying she wasn't listening, just projecting.

I am just part way through my second JBP podcast on his biblical series and it is fascinating.

I started with the one on Joseph as I am quite familiar with the story and I was gripped through all 2.5 hours of it

Out of the 2.5 hrs - he probably only spent 30 mins on The Joseph story. He went off on tangents discussing all sorts of things. Bringing in myths from other cultures, Freud, Jung, observations from his clinical practice, other scientific disciplines.

It’s been 30 years since I was at University and it really is a amazing that such lectures are out there for the public to enjoy.

I am definitely going to listen to more of his lectures. But would also be interested in whether any other academics produce material that is accessible to the public.

Would love any suggestions if any of you out there know of any.

I suspect that my granny sees the world a great deal more clearly than you do, Lee. I hope yours is at least somewhat shielded from your unpleasant attitude towards older women by more reasonable relatives.

I'm a little depressed at the way this thread has developed. It started with a very constructive tone but seems to have descended. The abuse CN says she is experiencing is sadly all too credible given what we know other public figures, and yes i think women disproportionally, have suffered.

Lee Thank you for continuing to engage, I've found your contributions interesting and informative and plan to watch some more lectures. Thank you mostly though for maintaining a constructive tone throughout and progressing the discussion rather than descending to point scoring.

My my, this thread, in a part of the forum that often has the same old regulars, has certainly brought out a certain very dogmatic group, hasn't it.

AngryAttackKittens - if your granny's having hallucinations, you should check that she's actually taking her meds and not spitting out her pills when you're not paying attention. Also watch out for UTIs.

Breathlessimperfections- "The times are indeed a-changing and I for one can't fucking wait"

• i really hope this is the case.

That link someone posted about the Nordic gender paradox is incredibly relevant to the whole discussion. The fact that the most feminist countries on the planet have such ''terrible'' outcomes compared to far more traditional places can't be ignored (female bosses, STEM grads, pay gap etc). When men and women have the closest we have to free choice, they make the most stereotypical decisions associated with their gender. Another thing it doesn't mention is that nordic women have one of the highest part-time employment rate in the world. These countries are the happiest on Earth in every survey, year after year. The experiment has been a great success (even though it was a failure for the biology denialists).

Aw, bless, LeeMoore thinks that radfems are the only women who notice that some things men say are sexist and point that out.

My granny does that and I don't think she knows who Andrea Dworkin is.

Cathy Newman was an absolute joke, but then Channel 4 have always had a regressive liberal agenda. When you get someone in who knows what they're talking about, those with left-wing "we're all the same" derangement syndrome lose their minds because they can't deal with the facts of reality.

I couldn't find a single thing Petersen said that I disagreed with. Not only that, it wasn't like it was only his opinion - it was based on years of research and facts.

I think it is scary when a supposedly respectable newspaper can deliberately label a figure they disapprove of - JBP is emphatically not alt-right but now readers of the paper will think he is.

The Graun respectable? Good one. This is how marxists deal with oppressors : you don't debate or negotiate with them, you destroy them. Thank fuck they don't have the power they had in Russia 100 years ago. Peterson has mentioned in the past how tough it is to find someone to have a proper debate with. I believe he refers to them as the ''ideologically possessed''.

As for the interview, it seemed like she didn't understand a single word he was saying. I'm not talking about agreeing with him but just simply understanding his position. She simply talked at him, was unwilling to listen for a single second and treated his not as an individual but as a ''component'' of the oppressing class (straight, white, middle class male). A Borg like entity, if you will. People like her don't see individuals, they only see classes : oppressors and oppressed (though once you add in the intersectional nonsense the whole thing becomes a complete clusterfuck). He was ''on trial'' for holding a different opinion on things he's researched his entire academic life as a scientist (top clinical psychologist and ex Harvard professor) while her whole argument was based on her feelings and her distorted view of the world based only on identity politics and societal conspiracies. Like a geologist trying to explain a creationist that the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years. You could see how frustrating it was for him. It was so satisfying to watch her brain almost explode from the cognitive dissonance overload around the 23 minute mark. These people are like software, they can only do one thing they've been programmed to do. When faced with the unknown she just went into ''ERROR! ERROR!'' mode. Then she threw the lobster and their ''society'' at him , hoping to embarrass him but he easily outclassed her once more.

And perhaps she should have started the interview with the words of Jeremy Irons' character in ''Margin call'' : Maybe you could tell me what you think is going on here. And—please—speak as you might to a young child. Or a golden retriever. It wasn't brains that got me here, I can assure you of that!

BTW, his book is at number 2 right now on Amazon (mind you it's pre-orders only AND and it comes out at the same time with the Trump book). The times are indeed a-changing and I for one can't fucking wait.

I think it is scary when a supposedly respectable newspaper can deliberately label a figure they disapprove of - JBP is emphatically not alt-right but now readers of the paper will think he is.
Obviously I haven't seen all of her social media, but none of the hundreds of tweets that I have seen were abusive, just that she didn't do a good job. And we haven't seen any evidence of anything else. Looks like CN is part of the snowflake generation.
MP Debbie Abraham's has received a similar number of tweets , after she made a frankly stupid tweet (especially from a Shadow Cabinet member) about JBP. All of them calling her out on being, well, stupid. I'm anticipating her saying that she's been been abused. Which she has, in a way, but if you act unintelligently, you have to expect people to tell you that. Like CM

Only mildly satisfying. Paxo wasn't proved wrong (though I suspect he was wrong) because the Plaid guy himself didn't have the precise figures on hand to deliver the coup de grace. And it was really just on a rhetorical detail rather than the dismantlement of a substantive argument.

Even so, nice to see Paxo getting a good kick in the backside.

There's a fabulous interview (well circulated on line) where Paxman is dismantled by a Plaid Cymru economist. Very satisfying.

I think lucy was scared assassinated

So to be fair she is probably very able to spot exaggeration

How was that scary lucy

im assuming that you are not privy to all of her online interactions

Her twitter feed may well be perfectly benign but as far as i can see they were not just talking about twitter

So she's lying about it? Or exaggerating and treating normal robust criticism as abuse? Wow. She must be very cross about coming out worse from the interview.

"Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman "

One would hope that if there were actual threats the security specialists were the ones wth tall hats and blue flashing lights on their cars.

this is scary. Having followed her post-interview twitter feed and the comments on youtube I can vouch that the comments were not abusive, except for posters telling her that she came off badly in the interview. But hey, don't criticise a woman for doing a bad job, because it's abuse.

The reason that Cathy Newman's approach to the interview was misconceived is that she went into the interview believing that her job was to prove Peterson wrong, rather than to examine what Peterson is putting forward.