Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

Lucydogz said .......
"I thought Cathy Newman was totally outclassed and out of her depth."

Sadly, quoted for truth. She let herself down.

Bumble, my much simplified take on it (the whole thing) was that he thought it could be done but he wasn’t much interested in being the one to do it, and that it was one of those things where it could be done but you wouldn’t necessarily like the outcome. He was more interested in it as a science than as real people’s lives, I thought. (Which, IMO, is okay in an academic.)

PricklyBall

I don't think many people who are proponents of the "equality of opportunity" position think that things are fine the way they are purely because it's physically possible for everyone to have the same opportunity. To pick on one example you cite, "woman have the same opportunity to go into STEM so it's just their choice to not".

It's obviously not as simple as that. There are societal issues such as the ones you describe (emphasis of maths at school/toys aimed at boys instead of girls etc) that have an impact as well.

The position most people take (including me) is more nuanced than that. Forcing equality of outcome by using quotas or other artificial measures is just as unlikely to solve the underlying problem in the long run.

Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome are not two binary positions, surely there is a continuum of different positions in between the two, it's just that some people come down closer to the opportunity side of the debate, because (as you admit yourself) it's intrinsically fairer?

As for your point about "the establishment expecting anyone worthy of advancement to look like them", I'm not sure where you get that from?

I think you should watch the full interview before commenting. I've read elsewhere that C4 edited it to make CN come out better.

I'm sure I will be out of my depth here too...but having watched the Ch4 news excerpt, so not the whole interview, I couldn't help but feel very underwhelmed by his stance and argument. He struck me as massively unimaginative because he didn't or couldn't conceive of a new way of designing the workplace to make it work for women (shared / enforced (use it or lose it) paid parental leave, flexible working, top-down changes in workplace practices to eliminate/discourage the 100 hour week high flying males who have SAHW to facilitate them, etc to address the barriers for women. Instead he focused on how women can't cope/succeed in a man's world against men. Yes. Because the workplace was designed by men and for men. It needs a fundamental shift. I'm sick of being trained/coaxed to be more like men at work. Fuck that. What can't they change their ways.

But it was definitely an odd interview.

I thought she’d over-researched actually - so she wasn’t adresssing what he was saying right in front of her.

she was too lazy to do her research IMO. Forever saying 'you say this....' for him to (rightly) deny it. Shame, because it could have been interesting.

I think Cathy Newman did a terrible job here. If you didn’t already know him (and I didn’t) she seemed to just be shouting random shit at him that wasn’t about what I could hear coming out him mouth.

Re traits, I got the impression that he was talking about traits as measured/observed. I don’t believe he said (in this interview) anything about where those traits came from (socialisation vs innate etc). Except for the lobster.

I agree. I like Cathy Newman but she let herself get angry.... a shame, it could have been a really good interview.

Do you think it was an issue of not doing enough prep, or that she is not capable of asking relevant questions to a man with the intellect of Jordan Petersen?

I thought Cathy Newman was totally outclassed and out of her depth.

Well said.

And in light of the context, which was about the two female bbc employees being paid significantly less than the two men for exactly the same role, suggesting equality of outcomes is not desirable is very revealing.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was simply that the establishment (which includes university academics, who may have admirable qualifications - but it was easier for them to go through the system to get those qualifications) still expects people worthy of advancement to look like them - white, middle class, male.

And the problem with the "equal opportunities, not equal outcomes" line is though it sounds admirably fair from the perspective of he towers of academe, the real world doesn't work that way. I think liberals (and philosophically I am very drawn to classical liberalism) start some Rawlsian thought experiment where we all sit around in a room, magically gifted with perfect rationality but no actual life experience, and decide what sort of society would be fair in ignorance of our eventual position in it (I'm a big fan of Rawls, incidentally, and I think the thought experiment is an interesting one - but it's flawed). If you start from there equality of opportunity sounds fine - anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps in principle. But in practice, it's like the quote about "anyone can eat at the Savoy grill, millionaire and pauper alike..." - the point of course being that although there's no law stopping the pauper from going there, they couldn't afford it.

A focus on equality of opportunity often ignores all the things, overt or hidden, making it harder for people at the bottom of the heap - whether due to sex, ethnicity, social class - to access these fabulous opportunities. And saying that equality of outcome doesn't matter because humans are naturally subject to variation, and you wouldn't expect everyone either to be capable of becoming or of wanting to be a top surgeon fails to address the fact that you can't tell whether a particular person lacks the interest, or has been told it's not a job for "their type" at an early age, or genuinely hasn't got the capability, or has been through a school system which has prevented them from finding that they do have that capability.

I suspect the Petersons of this world look at say, the preponderance of women in "caring" professions like nursing, and the dearth of women in STEM subjects, and say "well, we have an education system which allows women to go into STEM (equality of opportunity), so this just shows they don't want to (no equality of outcome, but for perfectly acceptable reasons)." Whereas I want to know how many of those girls were given dolls rather than lego technics, laughed at at school for showing an interest in maths, couldn't stand the sexism and sexual harrassment as the only girl in their GCSE computer coding classes... And also (coming back to the "white middle class men at the top is the state of nature") thing, why it isn't the same across all cultures (in some countries, parents and teachers encouraging children in careers choices see computing, for example, as a route out of poverty for both sexes).

He said something about 'equal outcomes aren't desirable' and neglected to add 'for men, naturally, who rather enjoy being paid a penis bonus.'

I think his take was that women competing for the top jobs, the top money - wasn’t necessarily that great - as men who have those jobs are usually fucked up, with crap relationships and crap family bonding time - in that aiming for that, might not make you happy.

I think his take on things is really interesting. I stopped following him on twitter because he draws a lot of arsehole men.

PricklyBall, he's a clinical psychologist, he isn't just some privillaged white man. Maybe his views on feminism are mostly on point. He's classic libertarian. Equal opportunities is desired but not equal outcomes. I agree.

Strenge - I thought it was Newman was spluttering and lost. He handled it much better and if it was a competition - would have bern the winner. Really interesting interview.

I’d like to heat her views on it once she’s sat and rewatched it.

He said something about 'equal outcomes aren't desirable' and neglected to add 'for men, naturally, who rather enjoy being paid a penis bonus.'

He spoke like an MRA.

For my part, I personally belief that trans people are mostly genuine but that transwomen are, and remain, biologically male (and that's fine - but women's rights are about protecting us against the discrimination society imposes on us because of our biological difference).

But like you, I don't think law should force us to speak a certain way, or censor us expressing opinions.

Yes, Peterson is one of those "shit, I find myself on the same side as a complete twonk" moments. He is totally and utterly right on free speech, right about trans issues, and totally and utterly wrong about feminism. But also (turning from the message to the medium) also comes across as one of those privileged white male types with a penchant for letting you know exactly why he is right who you wouldn't want to be stuck next to at a dinner party.

Happy to support him on free speech issues, about which he is correct, but he's sexist to the bone and doesn't acknowledge that socialization is a thing that exists and has an impact on people's behavior.

His argument is that for women to get top jobs and top salaries were going to have to compete against men. As he said, men aren't just going to roll over. To compete you have to be combative and dedicated and disagreeable. I agree with him on that.

I also agree with him on the free speech and pronoun stuff. I personally believe that trans people are mostly genuine and trans women are women etc but I don't think it should be law to force people to speak in a certain way.

I've heard him before. He does not understand feminism, at all. Just thinks that men and women behave differently due to an innate essence.

What he does believe in, however, is freedom of speech. Passionately.

Is on record utterley defying his university's (and country's) policy of preferred pronouns. Saying he is prepared to be imprisoned for his beliefs.

He has no problem with people calling themselves what they want, but he has a massive problem being forced do so himself, by a government mandate.

He has come in for an awful lot of abuse, as a result. Which is why I started to watch him. But I was massively put off by his lack of understanding over the reasons for women's disadvantage.

It's incredibly frustrating seeing someone so clever get it so wrong.

men got higher salaries because they were prepared to work harder than women were.

Not in the companies I'very worked for.

I once saw JP argue that men got higher salaries because they were prepared to work harder than women were. I haven't bothered with him since, tbh.

He was interviewed at length on radio 5 on Monday afternoon and came across very well, I thought