Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

510 replies

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 16/01/2018 20:08

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

OP posts:
NickSharratsFeltTip · 23/01/2018 15:39

'meddle with people's heads' - you mean bring to consciousness prejudices that they may not have examined. Oh the horror.

theDailyShow · 23/01/2018 15:55

@Nick

"maybe... "

My breath's bated!

nauticant · 23/01/2018 16:02

well a fact is a fact is a fact isn't it....or hold on, maybe......

Newtonian gravity is a fact in certain circumstances and not in others.

theDailyShow · 23/01/2018 16:06

Newtonian physics is accurate enough to get a rocket to the moon.

Special relativity and general relativity honed the maths but made no difference to it being right or wrong. Even general relativity has its flaws.

I have no idea when a fact is not a fact.

makeourfuture · 23/01/2018 16:10

Special relativity and general relativity honed the maths

Well that is a bit of an under-sell isn't it?

nauticant · 23/01/2018 16:13

I have no idea when a fact is not a fact.

Maybe when an advance in science shows that an earlier model was wrong. I personally prefer thinking in these terms:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

to viewing things in such a black and white way.

makeourfuture · 23/01/2018 16:14

England is as big as Mexico!

Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News
theDailyShow · 23/01/2018 16:15

haha - Superceeded would have perhaps been a better description but I guess my point was acknowledging that even GR doesn't always hold true.

I want to know when facts are not facts; when they can ever be social constructs.

NickSharratsFeltTip · 23/01/2018 16:36

2+7 = 9 - but only in the realm of rational numbers.
protons, neutrons and electrons are not the smallest particles of the universe- we now have quarks.
there are not seven colours in the rainbow
it is a fact that I am a man (I am actually lying here - see it is not a fact actually)

Fact means a multitude of things.

Dissimilitude · 23/01/2018 17:02

Never mind facts. Model dependent realism is the way forward :-)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism]

Dissimilitude · 23/01/2018 17:02

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

makeourfuture · 23/01/2018 17:42

These are the sorts of things that happen! Just like here, in that class, someone will say, "What about Newton?" And off you go.

Now how it applies to xx or xy......

butwhowasreality · 23/01/2018 17:59

So the radfems finally showed up, didn't address a single one of his arguments, questioned the intelligence of people agreeing with him, derailed the thread, and now we're debating whether or not numbers exist.

What a time to be alive.

Also,

Certain cultures or groups do have tendencies to have certain characteristics.

The fact that this is seen as a controversial or debatable statement shows how far the left has fallen into insanity.

Seer · 23/01/2018 18:02

Lee "So if a man has to put in resources, he's going to choose which woman (of those available) is the best investment."

What do you see is the basis for determining the best investment? Reproductive health (ie beauty)? Something else?

Also, from what I understand about people who are still living in ancestral indigenous ways (ie humans living in more 'natural' ways, not affected by patriarchal conditioning), it seems that there tends to be little in the way of a dominance hierarchy (e.g. most of the power being held by a few men at the top), instead communities tend to be egalitarian and based around individual sovereignty and group cooperation.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's no dominance behaviour, just that if it exists it seems to be far more nuanced than in lobsters. Grin

I'm interested in your thoughts on this and also whether you believe that it's been taken into account in Peterson's theories.

AssassinatedBeauty · 23/01/2018 18:11

@butwhowasreality are you disappointed by that?

LeeMoore · 23/01/2018 19:08

As to "ancestral indigenous" groups I'm sceptical about the lack of a dominance hierarchy.

I clipped this out of a much longer piece :

"But what about egalitarianism? In a 2004 study, Michael Gurven marshals an impressive amount of cross-cultural data and notes that hunters tend to keep more of their kill for themselves and their families than they share with others.12 While there is undeniably a great deal of sharing across hunter-gatherer societies, common notions of generalized equality are greatly overstated. Even in circumstances where hunters give away more of their meat than they end up receiving from others in return, good hunters tend to be accorded high status, and rewarded with more opportunities to reproduce everywhere the relationship has been studied.13 When taking into account ‘embodied wealth’ such as hunting returns and reproductive success, and ‘relational wealth’ such as the number of exchange and sharing partners, Alden Smith et al. calculated that hunter-gatherer societies have a ‘moderate’ level of inequality, roughly comparable to that of Denmark.14 While this is less inequality than most agricultural societies and nation states, it’s not quite the level of egalitarianism many have come to expect from hunter-gatherers.
In the realm of reproductive success, hunter-gatherers are even more unequal than modern industrialized populations, exhibiting what is called “greater reproductive skew,” with males having significantly larger variance in reproductive success than females.15 Among the Ache of Paraguay, males have over 4 times the variance in reproductive success that females do, which is one of the highest ratios recorded. This means some males end up having lots of children with different women, while a significant number of males end up having none at all. This is reflected in the fact that polygynous marriage is practiced in the majority of hunter-gatherer societies for which there are data. Across these societies, the average age at marriage for females is only 13.8, while the average age at marriage for males is 20.7.16 Rather than defending what would be considered child marriage in contemporary Western societies, anthropologists often omit mentioning this information entirely.
According to anthropologists Douglas Fry and Geneviève Souillac, “Nomadic forager data suggest a human predilection toward equality, including gender equality, in ethos and action,”17 yet the available data do not support this notion in the slightest. On the contrary, in 1978 Robert Tonkinson had found that, among the Mardu hunter-gatherers of Australia, “Mardu men accord themselves greater ritual responsibility, higher status, more power, and more rights than women. It is a society in which male interests generally prevail when rights are contested and in the centrally important arena of religious life.”18 Among the Hiwi of Venezuela, and the Ache of Paraguay, female infants and children are disproportionately victims of infanticide, neglect, and child homicide.19 20 It is in fact quite common in hunter-gatherer societies that are at war, or heavily reliant on male hunting for subsistence, for female infants to be habitually neglected or killed.21 22 In 1931, Knud Rasmussen recorded that, among the Netsilik Inuit, who were almost wholly reliant on male hunting and fishing, out of 96 births from parents he interviewed, 38 girls were killed (nearly 40 percent).23
It is also instructive to compare the homicide rates of hunter-gatherer societies with those of contemporary nation states. In a 2013 paper entitled “From the Peaceful to the Warlike,” anthropologist Robert Kelly provides homicide data for 15 hunter-gatherer societies.24

From 1920-1955 the !Kung had a homicide rate of 42/100,000 (about 8 times that of the US rate in 2016), however Kelly mentions that, “murders ceased after 1955 due to the presence of an outside police force.” "

Seer · 23/01/2018 19:26

That's really interesting, Lee, thank you for digging that out. It certainly contrasts what I've heard on this topic before.

The comparison with Denmark's level equality was also interesting. I'm a bit distracted by children and dogs to think it through right now but I wonder if this has any relevance to the 'Scandinavian paradox' mentioned upthread (possibly not).

Seer · 23/01/2018 19:28

Also if you could share a link to the longer piece I'd be grateful, Lee. Smile

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer · 23/01/2018 19:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeeMoore · 23/01/2018 19:49

Seer : "What do you see is the basis for determining the best investment? Reproductive health (ie beauty)? Something else?"

I'm not the judge of course, evolution is. In other words a male has made the right choice of investment in a female if she produces lots of healthy, good quality children for him who survive to the next round of the reproductive games. That does not mean, of course, that the male knows that that's what he's trying to achieve. Merely that evolution has shaped his instincts accordingly. And as I indicated above, not just his instincts. His mum's instincts, his grandma's instincts, his big sister's instincts, his aunts' instincts will all be pointing in the same direction. They will all be warning him against a tramp who sleeps around.

So that has traditionally boiled down to :

  1. she's healthy (ie consistent with being able to get pregnant and support a pregnancy)
  2. she's young (but post menarche obviously). Young enough to stay alive until her six kids are at least four years old, before she dies at age 30-35
  3. physically attractive - ie symmetrical features and all the bits stuck on in roughly the right place, good body shape and distribution of body fat, and good skin and hair (markers of the absence of serious genetic defects and markers of good health)
  4. chaste (if her children are not yours you've wasted your life - totally) NB contra 2, you may want to scoop her up shortly pre menarche to maximise the chastity angle, and bet that she's not worldly wise enough yet to dare an illicit encounter with another man
  5. intelligent enough to do the household chores necessary to keep you and your kids fed and clothed while you go hunting bison. (Though if you have three wives, wife 2 and wife 3 only need to be intelligent enough to follow wife 1's instructions. So factor 5 is nothing like as important as the first 4 - because it can be outsourced.Though an intelligent wife may be able to help you in the male dominance hierarchy by picking up useful gossip.
Ruthlessrooster · 23/01/2018 20:10

meddle with people's heads' - you mean bring to consciousness prejudices that they may not have examined. Oh the horror.

No, I mean being compulsorily subject to a discredited test that has no observable effect on outcomes. Oh, the horror.

www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer · 23/01/2018 20:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer · 23/01/2018 20:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer · 23/01/2018 20:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeeMoore · 23/01/2018 21:08

Yippee "One thing I've heard JP say that this thread proves, is that in true debate you should really listen to the others views, and come from a standpoint of 'I may learn something, there might be some truth in what others are saying'. Doesn't mean you have to ultimately agree but always be open to that possibility."

Yes, but remember that "openness" is a personality trait with a distribution ranging from very open to very closed. Folk who like discussing and thinking about ideas that they haven't heard before are clustered at the open end. People from the other end find new ideas much less interesting and much more challenging. Debates are no fun if you're not interested in opposing ideas - unless you can just have a dominance fight rather than a real debate.

And sometimes the closed people are right. Sometimes it is time to stop chattering about new ideas, and get on with deciding on an actual course of action and implementing it. I'm sure anyone who has ever sat in a business meeting is familiar with that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread