Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

I thought the lobster bit was brought up to discredit him.

Imo these animal based theories are always batshit and will change over time. He's the type who likes a story - probably makes him good for dealing with people building their life.

The focus on the gender pay gap irritates me tbh. Except that noone will pay much for "caring" jobs which a lot of women end up in.

The Carrie Gracie end of things I'll leave to Cathy Newman to get aerated about. In engineering I found it's equal pay and it's taking time out for work life balance aka family commitments that cause divergence. Where I've known sahds they have taken the low pay fitting round the kids route.

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.

There is the full interview on YouTube. He comes across better when he describes working with women to push for salary rises.

I watched a short clip and heard him on the radio with a different interviewer.

'Patriarchy is inevitable due to nature, says privileged white man...' seems a fairly familiar opinion, dressed up in fancy language and bluster.

I thought Cathy Newman did a bad job with him...kept putting words in his mouth and repeating "is gender equality a myth?" which is an odd question.

She might have asked why it was that women are supposedly more agreeable - because men punish them if they are not? She could have asked who is responsible for hiring decisions that result in less agreeable people getting the best jobs...men who are employing in their own likeness.?

Disappointing. I don't like how the news sets up right wingers as bogeymen and doesn't engage with their arguments properly. She could have ripped him to bits with better prerparation.

I suppose the issue is that he sees this as the natural order of things. I’ve heard him say things like ‘women and men, you like different things, I’m telling you’ just oversimplifying it. Also doesn’t understand equality thinks feminists want everything to be the same rather than understanding difference. Mind you a lot of people make that mistake. It’s just annoying because he’s a professor and ought to know at least something about feminist theory but he doesn’t seem to.

To be fair, the feminists he has to deal with in Canada and especially at his own institution do seem to be the queer theory fem types so he’s probably just got the wrong idea about gender theory from them.

She didnt seem happy...at all

It's a shame about him because he gets feminism so very wrong, he really has no understanding of ideas about gender or feminism at all and regularly makes himself look ignorant or foolish and yet he says some insightful things about the way leftist activists behave and believe in gender. I've heard him say things about traits agreeableness and conscientiousness before in terms of being on the political left or right and agreeableness leading to the kind of people who buy in to gendered ideology around pronouns. I think what he says about conservative and liberal personalities is interesting and useful but the rest of his ideas are deeply off-putting.

Peterson is a good example of a conservative christian type who I can agree with on certain principles - including his motivation, which I don't think is a hatred of trans or gay people but a genuine concern about a move towards blind acceptance of an ideology that makes no sense. However, it really grates when he talks about gender because he hasn't a clue.

When will we get some allies that we can work with?