Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

It's because women don't want to do hard physical jobs @EamonnWright and wouldn't be physically up to rescuing folk.

You don't think that there should or could be a way to reduce the impact of maternity on women at work?

And what of the fact that more women do childcare? Is that just a simple choice which men and women make equally? So any disparity is down to more women simply wanting to do childcare than men?

Lots of overtime done the last week by worker making sure the transport network was kept running. Folk were rescued. Powerlines that had been knocked down restored. 95%+ men I would say. Goof money in those jobs.

Why so few Women? Why is there not a media campaign to get more women into these workplaces?

AssassinateB : "Why would you say Maternity and childcare is not part of gender discrimination?"

Well in the sums, it's separate because maternity etc is separately identifiable.

But conceptually "discrimination" is usually about X treating Y differently from how X treats Z, which implies that X is actually making a decision to treat Y and Z differently. But if Y herself decides to take three years off work, and X has nothing to do with Y's decision then yes Y is getting different treatment from Z (ie Y isn't getting paid) but not because X is discriminating against her, It's just because she's not turning up to work.

So discrimination, conceptually, is not the same thing as disadvantage. Disadvantage may be unfair but the person to blame is God, not your employer.

Why would you say Maternity and childcare is not part of gender discrimination?

Double standards in action.
Man fucks up debate and looks silly on tv- individual man is considered an idiot.
Woman fucks up debate and looks silly on tv- feminism is a deluded concept because women just can't hack it in the big leagues.

AssassinatedB : "I was interested in whether anyone knew what the definition of gender discrimination included.'

I don't know and I'm ready to be corrected. But I think gender discrimination is simply assumed to be the residual - ie if the overall median pay gap is 9% and you do lots of fancy statistics which indicates that say experience counts for 0.8%, agreeableness counts for 0.6%, maternity and child care counts for 2.2%, job choice counts for 3.4%, and five other specific things count for 1.0% in total you get up to 8%. And then you have no explanation for the remaining 1% so you assume it's old fashioned sex discrimination. I think that's how they do it. (All numbers invented obviously.)

"Maybe someone who isn't put off by my disagreeableness might want to discuss that?"

You're gonna have to be disagreeable in person. Your dots don't scare me.

The question that I was going to ask, way back, was about the analysis of gender discrimination being only a small part of the pay gap. I was interested in whether anyone knew what the definition of gender discrimination included.

Maybe someone who isn't put off by my disagreeableness might want to discuss that?

AssassinatedBeauty : "you've invented a fiction about the situation I mentioned, assuming what you think must have happened"

Nope. That was simply a wholly impersonal explanation that men behaving disagreeably in the office do not always meet with success. I have no idea what you did, whether it was sensible or whether you were fairly or unfairly treated.

You keep on taking personally points that are intended entirely dispassionately and have the square root of zip to do with what I think of you. Which to the nearest decimal point is nothing, since I don't know you. But you have offered that you are disagreeable and I'm guessing from your sensitivity that you may be a bit neurotic (see different lecture.)

So

1. I don't care a diddley squat about you one way or the other, you're just text on a screen to me, as I am to you, but, since I am moderately agreeable and am content to help people who ask for help, especially if it costs me nothing in money or effort...
2. ...if you do want to find out more about what Peterson actually thinks, watch one of his lectures

@LeeMoore you've invented a fiction about the situation I mentioned, assuming what you think must have happened. Fascinating as an insight into what you're projecting, but irrelevant.

@PatriarchyPersonified I get that's what you think, or are suggesting. People have repeatedly projected their assumptions onto what I've posted. I explained my post, you've decided that wasn't sufficient and made assumptions again.

Assassinated

All I can see people doing on here is directly quoting your own words back to you, and then when you say that you are being misinterpreted, offering you the chance to clarify/explain, at which point you refuse, saying that we aren't really interested and are looking for a 'gotcha' moment.

I don't know how else to describe that other than not engaging and playing the victim.

AssassinatedBeauty : “How kind, to think I might be able to follow a lecture.”

You’re right, you are indeed disagreeable ☺

My point was that you should be able to follow the lecture notwithstanding that you would have missed all the previous lectures in which some of the foundations for this particular lecture were laid. Whereas if I were recommending a lecture on quantum mechanics, I’d suggest that you look at one on optics first.

“Why would it enrage me?”

Because you seem to be sensitive to too much emphasis on differences between men and women :

“I'm also saying that plenty of anti-women/anti-feminists will use his ideas to promote discriminating against women or to justify it.

PS

“As an utterly disagreeable woman, who has been sanctioned at work in the past for behaving as men typically do, this gets right up my nose”

Even for men, a disagreeable personality can be risky at work. Before marching in to your boss’s office and demanding a raise or you’ll quit you better be sure (s)he really doesn’t want you to quit, or that you’ve got another job offer lined up. I think the argument that disagreeableness helps on the pay rise front depends on the assumption that your employer really needs you. If so, being agreeable and not asking for a pay rise will cost you. But if your employer doesn’t need you then agreeably keeping quiet may be the better option.

Incidentally, the disadvantages of too much agreeableness are not limited to pay rises. Actually doing a senior managerial job competently requires being willing to make decisions that are going to make you unpopular. This is hard for agreeable people.

...and leaping to assumptions about my beliefs and motivations.

I am fed up of people putting words in my mouth, patronising me, and leap

Oh naff off with "playing the victim".

Assassinated

Yeah, I don't think you're really interested in anything other than a "gotcha" moment so you can demonstrate how unreasonable and irrational you think I'm being. My offer was sarcastic, probably hard to tell from text.

Erm, ok. Why enter into these kind of discussions at all then? It certainly comes across as though you were quite happy to give your opinion at length until you were challenged and didn't have an answer, at which point you played the victim?

Speaking for myself, I enjoy a good discussion on lots of different subjects, mostly because it helps me to understand them better. I'm not really that interested in people who agree with me, I much prefer to talk about things with people who disagree with my position. (there is a reason I'm a man discussing feminism on Mumsnet). I'm not trolling anyone, I'm genuinely interested in hearing logical opposing arguments.

(To be clear, I'm not opposed to feminism at all, just certain brands of radical feminist activism.)

I was interested in Peterson but I'm less interested in hearing from his brow-beating fanboys.

Yeah, I don't think you're really interested in anything other than a "gotcha" moment so you can demonstrate how unreasonable and irrational you think I'm being. My offer was sarcastic, probably hard to tell from text.

Assassinated

Really. What benefit is there in explaining my post when you have all decided what my motivations are.

You just offered to explain it.

You're missing an understanding of what I wrote, probably because of assumptions about my motivations. But I can try and explain it to you if you like?

We would all benefit from understanding what you meant and what your issues with Dr Peterson's "proper" science (your quotations, not mine) are.

Assassinated

Really. What benefit is there in explaining my post when you have all decided what my motivations are.

You just offered to explain it.

You're missing an understanding of what I wrote, probably because of assumptions about my motivations. But I can try and explain it to you if you like?

We would all benefit from understanding what you meant and what your issues with Dr Peterson's "proper" science (your quotations, not mine) are.

Really. What benefit is there in explaining my post when you have all decided what my motivations are.

Assassinated

I've got to agree with CoopGiraffe's assessment of your original post, its the one i took issue with as well.

I'd be interested in hearing your clarification/explanation.

You're missing an understanding of what I wrote, probably because of assumptions about my motivations. But I can try and explain it to you if you like?

@AssassinatedBeauty I'm referring to your original post:

"That'll get lost in the wind as all the usual anti-feminist types leap on the lobster hierarchy stuff and the "proper" science that he references.

This is what the sacked google guy was on about, that women are innately more "agreeable" and so any disparity in pay is because of that and not any active or unconscious discrimination.

As an utterly disagreeable woman, who has been sanctioned at work in the past for behaving as men typically do, this gets right up my nose."

If you're not saying his work isn't proper then why use quotations? Your last sentence is anecdotal and you specifically say what he's saying gets right up your nose which suggests you don't agree with what he's saying based on that anecdotal evidence.

What am i missing?

How kind, to think I might be able to follow a lecture.

Why would it enrage me?