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

[AssassinatedBeauty]

@LeeMoore you've invented a fiction about the situation I mentioned, assuming what you think must have happened. Fascinating as an insight into what you're projecting, but irrelevant.

@PatriarchyPersonified I get that's what you think, or are suggesting. People have repeatedly projected their assumptions onto what I've posted. I explained my post, you've decided that wasn't sufficient and made assumptions again.

[LeeMoore]

AssassinatedBeauty : "you've invented a fiction about the situation I mentioned, assuming what you think must have happened"

Nope. That was simply a wholly impersonal explanation that men behaving disagreeably in the office do not always meet with success. I have no idea what you did, whether it was sensible or whether you were fairly or unfairly treated.

You keep on taking personally points that are intended entirely dispassionately and have the square root of zip to do with what I think of you. Which to the nearest decimal point is nothing, since I don't know you. But you have offered that you are disagreeable and I'm guessing from your sensitivity that you may be a bit neurotic (see different lecture.)

So

1. I don't care a diddley squat about you one way or the other, you're just text on a screen to me, as I am to you, but, since I am moderately agreeable and am content to help people who ask for help, especially if it costs me nothing in money or effort...
   
2. ...if you do want to find out more about what Peterson actually thinks, watch one of his lectures

[AssassinatedBeauty]

The question that I was going to ask, way back, was about the analysis of gender discrimination being only a small part of the pay gap. I was interested in whether anyone knew what the definition of gender discrimination included.

Maybe someone who isn't put off by my disagreeableness might want to discuss that?

[LeeMoore]

AssassinatedB : "I was interested in whether anyone knew what the definition of gender discrimination included.'

I don't know and I'm ready to be corrected. But I think gender discrimination is simply assumed to be the residual - ie if the overall median pay gap is 9% and you do lots of fancy statistics which indicates that say experience counts for 0.8%, agreeableness counts for 0.6%, maternity and child care counts for 2.2%, job choice counts for 3.4%, and five other specific things count for 1.0% in total you get up to 8%. And then you have no explanation for the remaining 1% so you assume it's old fashioned sex discrimination. I think that's how they do it. (All numbers invented obviously.)

"Maybe someone who isn't put off by my disagreeableness might want to discuss that?"

You're gonna have to be disagreeable in person. Your dots don't scare me.

[Doobigetta]

Double standards in action.
Man fucks up debate and looks silly on tv- individual man is considered an idiot.
Woman fucks up debate and looks silly on tv- feminism is a deluded concept because women just can't hack it in the big leagues.

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Why would you say Maternity and childcare is not part of gender discrimination?

[LeeMoore]

AssassinateB : "Why would you say Maternity and childcare is not part of gender discrimination?"

Well in the sums, it's separate because maternity etc is separately identifiable.

But conceptually "discrimination" is usually about X treating Y differently from how X treats Z, which implies that X is actually making a decision to treat Y and Z differently. But if Y herself decides to take three years off work, and X has nothing to do with Y's decision then yes Y is getting different treatment from Z (ie Y isn't getting paid) but not because X is discriminating against her, It's just because she's not turning up to work.

So discrimination, conceptually, is not the same thing as disadvantage. Disadvantage may be unfair but the person to blame is God, not your employer.

[EamonnWright]

Lots of overtime done the last week by worker making sure the transport network was kept running. Folk were rescued. Powerlines that had been knocked down restored. 95%+ men I would say. Goof money in those jobs.

Why so few Women? Why is there not a media campaign to get more women into these workplaces?

[AssassinatedBeauty]

You don't think that there should or could be a way to reduce the impact of maternity on women at work?

And what of the fact that more women do childcare? Is that just a simple choice which men and women make equally? So any disparity is down to more women simply wanting to do childcare than men?

[AssassinatedBeauty]

It's because women don't want to do hard physical jobs @EamonnWright and wouldn't be physically up to rescuing folk.

[Rufustherenegadereindeer1]

We so need a sarcastic emoji

[EamonnWright]

I thought men had privelage though? Those hard, body breaking jobs are not privelage. Doing a job like that means you die younger. 97% of workplace deaths are men.

Do women just want more money for less work and less death or what?

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Yes, thank goodness someone has finally understood what women want.

[sawdustformypony]

Yes, thank goodness someone has finally understood what women want.

Party !!

[EamonnWright]

Explain to me where my privelage is in the workplace then. A proper privelage is living longer. Not falling to your death from a half built block of flats.

Maybe we are getting somewhere right enough.


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5265409/Police-ordered-change-way-recruit-dog-handlers.html

All we need to do is ask criminals to run away slower.

[AssassinatedBeauty]

The idea of privilege in this context is not about all men having privilege over all women, in all specific aspects of their lives.

That dog handler article. The police force involved failed to objectively justify why their test was necessary. Other police forces don't use that test, and therefore have more women dog handlers. What is it that you have a problem with about the decision?

[Collidascope]

Anyone know where prostitute comes in the list of most dangerous jobs? Or is it a job like any other except when it comes to counting how many will be murdered by a 'client'?

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Prostitution won't count because its women choosing to do less work for more money. Any danger they encounter is self inflicted for cash. Totally different to men getting killed whilst rescuing folk or rebuilding after a disaster.

[EamonnWright]

The idea of privilege in this context is not about all men having privilege over all women, in all specific aspects of their lives

So it's an abstract nonsense then.

Men die younger because they work harder. 97% of work related deaths are men. There is female privelage in the workplace. How on earth can you know these facts and still persist? Is getting less money worse than dying?

[EamonnWright]

Ok so there's 2 feminists calling prostitution a job. This is weird

[AssassinatedBeauty]

Because you don't like or understand the definition doesn't mean it's nonsense.

[LeeMoore]

AssassinatedB : "You don't think that there should or could be a way to reduce the impact of maternity on women at work?"

Well, so long as we don't get it muddled up with the original subject which was the gender pay gap and how much of it has to do with discrimination...

...I'm mostly a free market sort of person, and so I think that employers will usually have an interest in accommodating their valuable female employees when it comes to maternity and childcare. But the extent to which such accommodation is valuable will depend on the value of the female employee to the employer. So if you're a top notch banker or lawyer, or business manager, your employer will do more or less anything to accommodate you because you're worth a lot of money to them. (I'll mention though that my own experience in this area is slightly discouraging. For my sins I used to work in a place where we had lots of very high powered high quality female employees, and we bent over backwards organisationally and financially to accommodate maternity and child care. But more than 75% of the time, once the baby popped out, the mother did not want to come back to work, either at all, or as a full time employee. And these were women who loved their jobs and were absolutely convinced, pre baby, that they were definitely coming back to work. Actual babies can change your perspective.) Whereas if you're a cashier in the supermarket you're not worth very much. You're easy to replace cheaply. And then depending on your business, it may be very easy or very difficult to accommodate female employees and their maternity plans. So holding a job open for a female employee is usually very easy for a large employer (unless she has a critical specialist job where you need to hire a replacement.) But holding jobs open in small companies can be really difficult. You just don't have the flexibility. You've got nine employees, five of them women, two get pregnant - what do you do ? If you hire two replacements when the first two get back you've got 20% excess staff. If you don't hire replacements your other workers have got 20% extra work to do. So a market solution is to let different employers make whatever arrangements fit their business.

The consequences would likely be greater job differentiation. Women who wanted children would gravitate to employers who offered good maternity arrangements and away from employers who didn't. I recognise however that such a laissez faire approach would never be allowed in the real political world.

"And what of the fact that more women do childcare? Is that just a simple choice which men and women make equally? So any disparity is down to more women simply wanting to do childcare than men?"

Loads of different reasons, some of which is free choice, some of which is pretty much dictated by nature, and some of which is influenced by female mate choice. So if you have a baby without having a regular partner, then you're kinda left holding the baby. And if you make a "typical" choice of a man of roughly your educational level and job prospects, but who is 5 years older than you (and therefore 5 years higher up the ladder) on average it's going to cost your family less if your career comes second to his.

For what it's worth there are studies showing that in families where Mum has the good job, and Dad is the stay at home househusband, Mum still finishes up spending more hours on childcare than Dad ! (On average.) So if you want to tilt at the windmill of unequal child care, good luck.

[EamonnWright]

Because you don't like or understand the definition doesn't mean it's nonsense

The word privelage has a meaning. A definition.

[pisacake]

I thought it was quite interesting.

A few things: some of his supporters have said 'it was great because normally he just get people nodding enthusiastically the whole time, but here more of him came across'

The entire interaction was unquestionably gendered: she has got thousands of 'bitch' type comments, because she is a woman, while he for his part has given some nudge-nudge-wink-wink allusions to the gender dynamic:

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/953918614947729409
twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/953385332367486976

His basic point was 'women choose to go into childcare, men choose to do science, and this is because of innate differences, and science jobs obviously pay better'. The argument Newman was making was along the lines of 'childcare should pay as well as science does', which is obviously silly.

The other thing he was saying was 'men will demand more money, women won't', to which her reply was 'well companies should just pay women more without them asking'. You pay the bloke more because he's demanding it and says he has a new job somewhere else and it'll cost you £50k to replace him. He was saying 'but I trained some rich women how to overcome this', in a manner that suggested he's a fighter for women's rights, but wasn't really anything of the kind.

Overall I felt that the Newman/Petersen dynamic and public response to it was the most telling thing. She had all kinds of female adjectives applied to her ('shrill', 'hectoring', 'bitch'), whereas even deliberately constructed insults of men are not entirely negative 'manspreading' suggest power, dominant behaviour, which is what business/competition is about, 'mansplaining' is a man showing off his knowledge, and so on.

Most women in senior positions will get these kinds of adjectives applied to them, their behaviour is seen as aberrant, and surveys show women prefer male bosses. As he said, consumer decisions and so on are made by women, so in theory this could be changed, but in practice relatively few women choose feminist businesses.

[AssassinatedBeauty]

The word has a meaning. So does the concept of male privilege in feminist theory. It doesn't mean that all men have privilege over all women in all aspects of their lives at all times.