Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Just on. He was saying that people are different due to ' agreeableness, women being more likely to be so; men less so, hence the gender gap

It's the first time I have ever seen Cathy Newman angry. And he was spluttering a bit, first time for him too, for me, I think.

Watch it on + 1

I agree with some of Petersen's views but he didn't come off at all well here

For another "both sides of his mouth" example, just look at the case of Newman herself. Believe it or not, the comment a couple of days ago urging his followers not to harass her was the first time he's ever acknowledged that his followers do this, and told them not to.

This despite the links I shared above, that show that he routinely links to his "enemies" personal Facebook pages etc and essentially sics his followers on anyone he doesn't like (interesting sidenote: doing this is what got Yiannopolis banned from Twitter).

I'd give him credit for that - but it didn't last. This morning we got the other side of his mouth, as he tweeted that there was no proof, clearly she's lying. Guess he won't be reining his army in again in a hurry.

I can't really bf to read all the posts here, but one thing I'm curious about is how many people here are regular posters in this forum.

It doesn't seem particularly interesting if most are not, as there must be a million other places to read about JP on the internet.

There are a million other threads to comment on - not sure why you felt the need to do so on this one in the way you did, but you did.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2762217-General-Trans-Discussion-Thread

I first heard about him from reading that thread

Peterson was not corrected on several accounts:

• failed to address the pay gap: there is no justification that the BBC presenters who do EXACTLY the same job get paid so drastically different amounts. It is due to nothing other than sex

• multivariate analysis surely does show factors other than sex having a role to play in the pay gap. However, many of these factors co-vary with sex. It isn't enough to assert that character leads to, in part, the pay gap when women are socialised to exhibit the behaviour. In the end, it all comes back to having a uterus.

• asserting that hierarchy is natural is no justification of said hierarchy (natural fallacy) and certainly does not preclude the argument that powerful people (white men) use it to their advantage, particularly leveraged in the capitalist paradigm we live in

• reference to rad fems reveals he does not understand the rad fem agenda i.e. liberation is the goal, not equality politics (also CM's weakness)

• the Scandinavian experiment is so widely known, surely CM could have been better prepared? Where there are little to no barriers to women entering all/most professions, why is there such a marked split between the sexes? I am happy, as are most feminists, to accept men and women have different interests. The life of the average women is different from men. Secondly, societal expectations of gender roles are still strong in the Scandinavian countries. You don't go wiping out generations of institutional misogyny over 10 years. But it's great they are trying to change the tune!

My main gripe with this guy and the google exec, is why are they doing this? These very same arguments have been used throughout modern times to justify the status quo. I was watching some 80s footage of Thatcher in Parliament - it is still extremely shocking to see the gender imbalance. This imbalance was justified by all the things Peterson says: women want other things, they don't compete well with other men, they are too nice for politics, they don't want power enough, and so on. So fundamentally I question Peterson's motivation.

A couple of interesting links on pay equity:

www.oesw.leg.mn/PDFdocs/PE_Report_Summary.pdf
The State of Minnesota's three-decades-long, largely successful effort to eliminate structural pay inequality among thousands of State employees (an interesting counterpart to Scandinavia).

An overview of the literature on pay negotiation - basically women negotiate less because they correctly expect to be penalised as bitchy and pushy when they do: hbr.org/2014/06/why-women-dont-negotiate-their-job-offers

I think the link that Marquis linked is very instructive.

As YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer says “everything he says seems reasonable and factually based- his conclusion being that the lefts idea that everyone is the same and environment can produce egalitarian ideals vs the rights idea that if everyone just got off their arse and tried harder they too could be successful, are both equally wrong. I think that’s true, and all the IQ evidence supports that.”

So the defining example that Marquis chose to demonstrate Peterson’s horns and tail actually shows him as a perfectly reasonable, politically middle of the road, reality based person, showing genuine concern about some of the unpleasant facts of life.

As to the company he keeps…..his house is full of paintings of Lenin. He is not afraid of looking at the dark side and engaging with it. One of his admonitions is that you will find the answer where you least want to look for it. So ad hominems bounce right off him. Why would he care if he’s retweeting something from a low level Nazi official ? What matters to him is whether the content is true, false or worthy of comment. Not who made it. Of course if he spotted a tweet by AHitler or JStalin or PPot and recognised the tweeter as a mass murderer I imagine he’d make an aside. But the idea that he has the time to weed his twitter garden by investigating the provenance of tweets and comments is absurd.

Quit the ad hominem stuff and engage with the arguments. Or ignore him if he bores you. The fact that he may once have conversed with Beria does not make him a devotee of Beria. He may have been telling Beria to stop murdering people.

Sorry but that is in no way informative other than to give women a crap wishy washy way of negotiating. It doesn't say anything about the difference in negotiating with men or women. It's bad advice actually.

I didn't read into it that article that women expect to be penalised as bitchy and pushy. I read that as make sure you pretty up your words when you negotiate and use empathy, otherwise your awful assertiveness might make people dislike you. Fuck that

Was going to click on the top link but I can't deal with any more shit journalism today

That was for Holdme regarding the second link

None of its reasonable at all Lee. He's just very good at making it seem like that.

I can't believe I'm having this debate on a feminist forum. The world is all upside down at the moment.

That's a State report, not "journalism".

You're going to have to make the effort to actually click through to the scientific studies linked from the Harvard article.

It isn't really on to repeatedly demand scientific refutation of Peterson's pseudoscience, then when you are directed towards some, refuse to read them.

his house is full of paintings of Lenin

psml. One of those moments when you think "nah, that can't possibly be true" and then you google it and... yeah. It's true.

It's like the Dilbert Persuasion Man (another pseudoscientific charlatan making money exploiting sad young men on social media) living in a giant castle shaped like Dilbert's head.

Oddballs, the lot of 'em.

I haven't demanded anything at all. I have politely clicked on a few links you have posted.

As you are so persistent that I'm not wasting your time a read through that report and this was the closing statement

To close the lingering 11 cents gender wage gap, not only will more women have to go into
traditional male occupations, but more men will have to go into traditional female occupations. If
office/clerical jobs were held equally by men and women, and skilled craft jobs were held equally by
both genders, the state government wage gap would decrease to 2 percent, no longer a significant
difference.

I really don't understand what point you are trying to prove with the links but it's not doing your argument much good unless you have a different interpretation for the above

I'm with you Marquis. Madness. The alt-right love the ad hominin accusation. They do not like admitting that people who spout stuff they agree with may have an agenda. In the fake news world we live in, reputation actually speaks more truth than words. If you live your beliefs then that is recommendation of the sincerity of your views. If you say you want the advancement of women yet campaign long and hard for the opposite...well, you're justified in coming up with a damning conclusion.

.

“The State of Minnesota's three-decades-long, largely successful effort to eliminate structural pay inequality among thousands of State employees (an interesting counterpart to Scandinavia).”

Er, this is not a counterpart to the Scandinavian experience. Even a little bit. The Scandinavian experience is that even if you try quite hard to create equal opportunities for men and women to go for any job they want, they still seem to want to sort themselves – to some extent – into different sorts of jobs. (Note that the evidence for this isn’t simply Scandinavia. So once upon a time there were social barriers blocking women from getting into and advancing in all sorts of professions. When these institutional barriers are lifted – do women want to become engineers ? Well, it turns out, no, not very much. But perhaps that’s just social attitudes changing at a molasses type rate. So how come the molasses rule doesn’t apply to medicine ? How come women have achieved parity and beyond in medicine, but engineering is still in the stone age?)

Anyway the Minnesota effort seems to be about government jobs, not private sector jobs – so nothing whatever to do with the wages being set in a market. Just wages set via the political process. And the Minnesota experience still shows men and women sorting themselves into different jobs ! And to the extent that the pay gap between men and women has narrowed it’s the result of “equal pay for equal work” rules. But of course what the “equal pay for equal work “ rules actually mean is “equal pay for different work.” Various boffins get together and decide that this sort of job is of “equal value” to that sort of job. But since all the sums are done at a desk by boffins, and not in an actual market, we don’t know that these jobs actually have equal value. Or rather since the same boffins often attempt similar exercises in the private sector to try to demonstrate discrimination we know that their sums do not hold water. Because they find that private sector jobs that get paid different amounts in a real market are of “equal value.”

So the Minnesota experience indicates that the government can narrow the difference between the pay of men and women in its employ by choosing to pay the women the same as they pay the men, whatever jobs they’re doing. Yup, the government can do that. The government can also finance the building of a bridge over a river. This doesn’t show that left to their own devices, bridges naturally grow over rivers.

What does achieving parity in medicine mean, in detail?

Interesting to see the respect gap between Jordan Peterson, respected tenured scientist (lol), vs the "boffins".

Also interesting to see the grim libertarian underpinnings of so much of this line of thought (which is also the basis for much of the Scandinavia criticism in the US).

Not that I expect much better from someone happy to handwave away "gas the kikes". How dare we expect poor little Jordan Peterson to scroll down two tweets before endorsing a white supremacist. I expect all the anime pornography distracted him.

Marquis : "None of its reasonable at all Lee. He's just very good at making it seem like that."

OK, show us where he fooled us.

What did he claim was so that isn't so ?

It's no surprise to me that women have flooded into medicine. Still a job centered on people = meets gender expectations, whereas tech is still seen as a boy's job. Factor in the belief of 'innate' sex bias (girls are crap at maths - see Cordelia Fine) and you go a long way towards explaining why we see what we see. Even if sex differences in abilities truly exist, it is still worth getting more women in tech (and other professions) for many reasons other than waffley notions of 'gender equity'.

AssassinatedB : “What does achieving parity in medicine mean, in detail?”

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Physicians,_by_sex,2015(%25)_HLTH17.png