Jordan Peterson explaining how 'identity' isn't something you can impose on others...its a negotiated position

Yes, his series of lectures have been made into podcasts.

I have listened to 3 or 4 of them. And I am hooked.

A 50 something year old mum is not his target audience. But it’s been years since I was last in a lecture hall and I enjoy his style and subject matter.

lucydogz yes he's appeared on various podcasts (R Brand, Joe Rogan) but he also has his own series. I actually checked on my iPhone but I can't see the Podcasts app for some reason. I do have it on my iPod and that's how I listen. But if you have a laptop or desktop (I think it needs to be Apple but not sure) you can find his podcasts on iTunes.

I think it's the other way round terfs. JP appears on other people's podcasts. He does many on his own, but doesn't get people in to talk to them. But do let me know if that's not right.

Solidarity that's painful to watch - what a bunch of morons. His approach is spot on, especially what he says at the end. There's actually a great comment from a trans person under the video. There's also a video chat of him and transwoman Theryn Meyer on youtube (haven't watched it but I heard it's good).

Yippee the podcasts are available on iTunes (I think) or if you have an iPhone you can search for his podcasts and subscribe (it's free). I highly recommend - easy to download and listen on tube/ bus etc.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMSmUzDt-7U

I have been following him for some time now and came across this link today.

You have to admire him for keeping his cool throughout this disruption.

I've been listening to JP podcasts which are a bit like Russell Brand's - he usually has a guest and the themes are varied, inside a main theme. The podcasts are awesome and in a way more interesting than the youtube lectures because he's interacting with some awesome people I'd never heard of, but who are doing great work within the areas that re problematic in society at the moment. Each podcast will have lots of info on the guest so people can look up their work as well.

I suspect JP would welcome a discussion about women's rights or even having more women in these discussions. He did mention a couple of women youtubers he follows/ watches (forgot names - must check).

I think he's brilliant and am completely baffled as to why people think he's alt-right. Is it because he's not a leftie?

@ippeeKiYayMelonFarmer

Yep I agree re the huge gap - and that's my beef with all those guys - they don't invite women to speak or as recently when Heather Heying was on JR, she's was talked over and seemed to defer to her hubby and JR - shame. But she doesn't seem to speak out about socialisation of women and male violence I think - but I need to listen to some more of her stuff - I get she's more in Peterson et Al's camp of biology - it's so frustrating. I posted about it on a reddit sub I belong to to verify my assumptions - as I'm trying to find ways to present the issues verbally and diagrammatically without diving into the academic theory (as it turns me off tbh). To bridge that divide for the women and men who may be open to listen. JP has talked about women and it's excoriating - he seems to have these stereotypes of virgin, mother and whore - I wish he wouldn't talk for women but I do like his acknowledging of the scope male violence but he doesn't talk about impacts…..

@lucydogz agree - a podcast is on my mind - I suppose as I don't know any other gender critical people where I am I feel a bit unsupported irl - ah well- I am a good presenter and only relatively recently waded into the radfem and gender critical space actively - I have believed in equity but have been too busy with other priorities to really participate and get around the issues

one of the good thing about social media is that there seems to be nothing to stop womens voices being heard in the same way. Anyone can do a podcast, after all.

Ah my words have not conveyed the complete picture - I have been watching Person, Rogan, Shapiro etc for weeks now , on and off and am engaged somewhere else in a discussion about why women's perspectives don't get a look in. I absolutely agree that the messages he conveys to male toddlers is much needed - i.e. grow up and build character. Easier said than done. So what he says I like however it's not the complete picture. The male view of life and on women is incomplete unless it actually mirrors what many of us experience - the adverse impact of male violence and their male entitlement on our lives, choices, health and economic security.

I love JP.

I also think if you told him (cf Cathy Newman) “so what you are saying is that the rest of us are superficial and shallow” he would (rightly) say, “That isn’t what I said at all.”

His lectures, talks and discussions are pretty incredible. Impossible to summarise why and how but they have really made me appreciate what a huge wealth of knowledge there is out there and how little I know. I can feel my brain expanding as I listen to him.

I agree that giving up after 5 minutes is sort of laughable, and you’re really missing out if you don’t give it a bit more effort.

He describes himself in one podcast as a "deeply religious person" which to me makes him sound like people who describe themselves as "very empathetic". The rest of us are so superficial and shallow. A lot of it seems intense naval gazing, many people are very good at that.

His rather woolly religious views make me wonder if he's that objective and rational. It does seem a bit of a hotch potch of beliefs, but that's probably because as an atheist I don't see how any logical intelligent person can believe in a god, or half believe.

I'm so in awe of the way Lindsay and JP express themselves, as well. Ferocious intellects, there.

I like how unbending he is. No excuses, no softening. I can't find a word to describe what I mean. He's excessively rational. I'm sure he isn't always right, but I think he'd be wrong for the right reason. It's that business of being subjective, I think. His objectivity denies the subjective experience of women, just as it denies the subjectivity of trans identity. We'd need to find a way to speak to him in objective terms.

womanformallyknownaswoman

Not much there to disagree with. There are very likely many factors at play. I tend to object to absolutist positions that don’t acknowledge any force but social bias (but that’s not what you argue) - I agree there is lots of room here for many interpretations of what evidence there is, and scope for more evidence to be collected!

Clearly not all jobs within a company like google involve coding or infrastructure engineering, though it is around 50%. I do think there’s a danger in the approach you suggest of emphasising non technical aspects of the work in that you end up reinforcing the current split inside these companies in order to meet company wide diversity targets, and reflecting the difficulty of finding female software engineers, they compensate in other areas. So you end up with an even bigger gender disparity between google engineering, and say google HR or google product management. The core issue at stake here is not enough female engineers, not females in google in general.

Software engineering is many things, and in most environments requires a range of soft skills; but at the end of the day, it is technical work requiring a significant interest in that - it has to appeal on that basis.

I’m still not sure I agree on the IT teaching front. CS degrees don’t reflect work because they’re academic degrees, they are not vocational. Pure CS is almost applied mathematics and will not even cover basic practical technical topics, never mind non technical, sticking instead to pure theory. I’m sure YMMV for other vocational style IT degrees.

One can definitely be trained to do this kind of work without a CS degree. But I’d argue for most work at the technical end of the range (which google qualified for), then having a numerate degree in a hard science is likely to help enormously - so we hit the same problem.