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

[SingingSeuss]

I agree. I like Cathy Newman but she let herself get angry.... a shame, it could have been a really good interview.

[ftw]

I think Cathy Newman did a terrible job here. If you didn’t already know him (and I didn’t) she seemed to just be shouting random shit at him that wasn’t about what I could hear coming out him mouth.

Re traits, I got the impression that he was talking about traits as measured/observed. I don’t believe he said (in this interview) anything about where those traits came from (socialisation vs innate etc). Except for the lobster.

[Lucydogz]

she was too lazy to do her research IMO. Forever saying 'you say this....' for him to (rightly) deny it. Shame, because it could have been interesting.

[ftw]

I thought she’d over-researched actually - so she wasn’t adresssing what he was saying right in front of her.

[ftw]

But it was definitely an odd interview.

[Bumblebzz]

I'm sure I will be out of my depth here too...but having watched the Ch4 news excerpt, so not the whole interview, I couldn't help but feel very underwhelmed by his stance and argument. He struck me as massively unimaginative because he didn't or couldn't conceive of a new way of designing the workplace to make it work for women (shared / enforced (use it or lose it) paid parental leave, flexible working, top-down changes in workplace practices to eliminate/discourage the 100 hour week high flying males who have SAHW to facilitate them, etc to address the barriers for women. Instead he focused on how women can't cope/succeed in a man's world against men. Yes. Because the workplace was designed by men and for men. It needs a fundamental shift. I'm sick of being trained/coaxed to be more like men at work. Fuck that. What can't they change their ways.

[Lucydogz]

I think you should watch the full interview before commenting. I've read elsewhere that C4 edited it to make CN come out better.

[PatriarchyPersonified]

PricklyBall

I don't think many people who are proponents of the "equality of opportunity" position think that things are fine the way they are purely because it's physically possible for everyone to have the same opportunity. To pick on one example you cite, "woman have the same opportunity to go into STEM so it's just their choice to not".

It's obviously not as simple as that. There are societal issues such as the ones you describe (emphasis of maths at school/toys aimed at boys instead of girls etc) that have an impact as well.

The position most people take (including me) is more nuanced than that. Forcing equality of outcome by using quotas or other artificial measures is just as unlikely to solve the underlying problem in the long run.

Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome are not two binary positions, surely there is a continuum of different positions in between the two, it's just that some people come down closer to the opportunity side of the debate, because (as you admit yourself) it's intrinsically fairer?


As for your point about "the establishment expecting anyone worthy of advancement to look like them", I'm not sure where you get that from?

[ftw]

Bumble, my much simplified take on it (the whole thing) was that he thought it could be done but he wasn’t much interested in being the one to do it, and that it was one of those things where it could be done but you wouldn’t necessarily like the outcome. He was more interested in it as a science than as real people’s lives, I thought. (Which, IMO, is okay in an academic.)

[Childrenofthestones]

Lucydogz said .......
"I thought Cathy Newman was totally outclassed and out of her depth."


Sadly, quoted for truth. She let herself down.

[Missymoo100]

I got the impression watching the interview that she had been given a brief beforehand- being that she had to cause him to slip up and say something foolish. The means to this was by blatant twisiting of words, talking over him and putting words in his mouth.

[RedToothBrush]

Erm, if I'm not mistaken this guy was using Neuro-linguistic programming speech patterns.

The method and pattern with which he spoke was not natural. Its deliberate. Its controlled. And its controlling.

Against that I am not surprised at anyone struggling to interview.

[bambambini]

I found his arguments quite clear but willing to look into neuro linguistic speech patterns.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

red

That makes sense

I thought it was just me...or that there was something wrong with him

[Missymoo100]

I think he spoke slowly and deliberately because he was thinking carefully about what he was saying, the choice of words used- as interviewer was intentionally trying to misrepresent what he was saying at every turn.

[ftw]

He was definitely choosing words carefully, no doubt. No idea if that makes it nlp or what his motivation for doing so was.

[ThisIsAStory]

I think CN let herself down by being utterly incapable of understanding basic statistics, misquoting him to set up a strawman she could argue with and oversimplifying.

I think JP came out well because he was calm (although clearly has controlled fury about libertarian threat to language in Canada) and corrected her misquotes clearly and simply. And also because he retained perspective to laugh gently at himself too.

I think CN is intelligent so not sure what was on with her prep/briefing. But I also think she was so sure her perspective is right that she failed to engage properly with him.

And agree with posters, I think he was often clearly describing evidence, population tendencies and social phenomena, not making a comment about what should occur. I actually thought I'd really enjoy working with him as a woman colleague.

[Missymoo100]

They were trying to get him to say something which they could edit down and make him look bad, he was wise to choose his words carefully. The interviewer kept misrepresitng what he said all the time... every other question was "so your saying this....(misquote). It was a ridiculous interview

[RedToothBrush]

Close you eyes and think of an American Televangelist.

Same shit. But for a MRA.

[Lucydogz]

So, can you give us one thing he was wrong about redtoothbrush? Or are you, like the interviewer, just throwing random stuff in?

[mooncuplanding]

I watched the full interview and thought she was a bit lost with him, he has very compelling and seemingly reasoned responses.

And actually I took away a few things from him - YES I am too agreeable at work. I went off googling him and watched a video where he said "organisations employ conscientious and agreeable middle aged women and exploit them with their over commitment and lack of complaint in doing more work than others"

I recognise that in myself. He does a lot of work with women to be less agreeable. It is a bit LeanIn but with something added, as in another video he talked about connecting with your cruel side, not being cruel but actually embracing the capacity to be cruel. On first glance this sounds horrific, but women are socialised to never look at their dark side and I'm interested in that.

He also said that the competitiveness in men to get to the top is essentially underwritten by physical violence and strength. Even in the corporate world, the underlying male vying is based on the possibility of a fight. Depressing but I agree. I probably call it cock waving at the moment, but I think that's too kind / agreeable as a description.

I'm trying to understand his position on feminism and 'natural hierarchies' not sure I've got it yet.

Interesting

[SonicBoomBoom]

I enjoyed the interview too. I am interested in exploring his thoughts more but I am very turned off by the idea of his YouTube videos due to the halfwit men who seem to be his fans.

Pay gap - I think he needs to dig a little deeper into himself.

Women running companies, he says the evidence doesn't support it that conscientiousness, agreeableness and compassion are good traits for success of the company (something like that anyway). I'd argue that he cannot make that judgement as there aren't enough women there yet. And when they do get the jobs it's usually following a massive fuck up (by a man) so it's not a like for like comparison.

Also, were there not studies that showed women look for long-term stable growth, whereas men want short term massive wins, and then they run before the house of cards falls down? So I guess it depends on what you consider success. It's no surprise which sex were the captains of industry in 2007-8.

[RedToothBrush]

No. I'm saying that what he said will have had extra power to anyone it chimed with, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.

Its also very difficult to interview anyone who speaks like this. It makes most styles of interview look weak.

Unless you are familiar with it, you are going to look poor in comparison as a result. Even good interviewers who normally have good technique and come up well against difficult interviewees.

His low tone, anyone who speaks in a way that isn't similar look more combative. And it creates a frustration too, which manifests itself in heightening that effect.

I felt uncomfortable watching it. It wasn't from what was said by either party. It was from the way it was said.

My point is, who do you think would do a better job?

I doubt it was because Cathy Newman was poorly prepped. Its more that this guy is exceptional in provoking the response he wants from others around him.

[mooncuplanding]

[mooncuplanding]

sonicboomboom

Most of his videos are just him giving lectures at his university