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

I didn’t say you were, Yippee, and I don’t think so.

On a totally unrelated note which doesn’t in any way prove my point, welcome to MN butwhowasreality! I’m sure watching JP’s hundreds of hours of tedious and repetitive YT videos will transform my worldview. Sadly I still have 40 minutes of Stefan Molyneux’s opinions on how Queen Elsa is brainwashing little girls to plough through before I can start on JP’s views of Marxism and Disney movies (why are all these oddballs so obsessed with Disney).

I’m sure once I finish I’ll realise JP has been flirting with me all along. Or I’ll want to gas the kikes. One or the other.

HoldMe, I have to assume that you're so angry and bitter because you have no actual argument?

Comparing him to 'alt-right' commentators does nothing but prove your ignorance. I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish.

Also how can you claim his content is 'tedious and repetitive' without having watched it?

Is that you, Cathy?

Is that you, Cathy?

Do we have to have this childish shit?

Sure all of us bitter and angry feminists are the same nauticant

This is a very good review and gives an excellent and fair summary of Peterson's worldview :

www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/21/jordan-peterson-self-help-author-12-steps-interview

Well done, Graun

An odd disparity with the one in The Observers sister paper I thought, when they generally strongly overlap.

Only just watched the full half hour interview. My assessment is that these are two people ostensibly poles apart but actually with different versions of the same politics.

Peterson is a nasty, right-wing piece of work cloaking his views in the false credibility of clinical psychology. As well as being sexist and racist, he thinks the be-all and end-all is the drive to succeed and make money. Newman on the other hand is your textbook, neoliberal feminist who thinks the same, the only difference being that to her mind women should have a good crack at being brutally competitive and money-grabbing too. Make some more women FTSE 100 bosses and then we have equal opportunity capitalism! Woo hoo, great times for the sisters!

I don't like either of them very much.

MarquisDeCarabas

Could you cite the racist and sexist remarks, and also where he said or inferred that the be-all and end-all is the drive to succeed and make money, all of which you state he made?

Could you also offer evidence against the empirical research which he offered in psychology which you dispute?

Marquis

About as incorrect a reading of Peterson's core beliefs as is possible. Having been an avid consumer of his Youtube videos for about 18 months now, I can categorically state that the drive to make money is probably the very bottom of his list of priorities. Certainly the videos of his undergraduate classes at UoT make it quite clear that he emphasises to his (multiracial and often female heavy) classes the importance of spirituality over material goods. And that is something that comes through in pretty much all his work.

Whatever people think of Peterson's explanations of the gender pay gap or whether indeed it even exists in the way that it is portrayed, he did ask an extremely interesting question of his undergraduates in one of his online undergraduate classes

His position, essentially, was that asking why there aren't more women at the highest echelons of business, law, industry and Govt is the wrong question. The question should be: why is it that significant numbers of men are willing to work insane hours, at the expense of their personal relationships, their family life, (the most important thing of all, as far as Peterson is concerned) and often even their physical and mental health and wellbeing, simply to satisfy a hollow craving for status and wealth, neither of which bestow any real feeling of satisfaction or fulfilment. That's a far more troubling question for society.

It's the other side of the same issue and not a radically new thought. What was his answer to that?

why there aren't more women at the highest echelons of business, law, industry and Govt is the wrong question. The question should be: why is it that significant numbers of men are willing to work insane hours, at the expense of their personal relationships, their family life, (the most important thing of all, as far as Peterson is concerned) and often even their physical and mental health and wellbeing, simply to satisfy a hollow craving for status and wealth, neither of which bestow any real feeling of satisfaction or fulfilment. That's a far more troubling question for society.

He also addressed this in the full interview - about 12 minutes in. He answered the question why aren't there more women running ftse 100 companies with 'Why would they want to'.

In my line of work the men (mostly) that make it to the top do exactly that - work 70 / 80 hours a week etc and I never saw that as something to aspire to. So no surprise that other women might feel the same.

Assasinated - Cathy Newman didn't ask him that question as far as I remember

I wondered if in the lecture that @Radicalrooster described he might have offered a theory or explanation for the question that he posed his students.

He did say 'that's part of it' when she said 'is it because women are more sensible and they want a nice life'. He also said 'men and women aren't the same but that doesn't mean they can't be treated fairly'

How is that misogynistic? Why is ok for a woman to say that but not a man?

I came on to say the same thing.

Having heard a couple of his podcasts, his primary motivation is human relationships and not money.

It's the other side of the same issue and not a radically new thought. What was his answer to that?

The obvious. That men tend to prioritise the wrong things, and that women do themselves no favours trying to emulate such unhealthy behaviours

Did he not attempt to say why men do that and women don't?

Jordan Peterson is one of the most sincere people who has any kind of voice around today. His only agenda is wanting to help people better their lives, men and women. The overwhelming majority of his students are women.

People are absolutely desperate to hear a bit of truth and logic.

It's disappointing how easily some people are fooled by the media. A number of posters in this thread have seen the words 'alt-right' in a Guardian/Independent headline and made their minds up on the spot. Some of the garbage being written could not be further from the truth.

It's much easier to believe he is this insidious 'alt-right' figure than to deal with what he's saying.

Thankfully, the majority of people here have seen through the bullshit.

Have you name changed to say that butwho

Or joined especially

Its just you must feel very strongly to join just to post how fab you think he is

Which is fair enough obviously

So subjects in here do trigger strong reactions

So should be some

Sorry but why do people keep plopping in here to try and shut down the conversation? I would genuinely like to know why as it's happened a few times now.

I've lurked MN for years. I'll admit that I usually read the AIBU section. I just felt like I wanted to chime in on this issue.