Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

@Teacuphiccup

I want to see if @Artemis will put his/her money where his/her mouth is first.

Oh how thrilling

OK well I'm going to bed soon so I'll do it now

"If you could wave a magic wand and erase all social conditioning/stigma around the genders eg mens jobs, boys jobs, men are strong, women are caring, etc etc

Then there would still be inherent differences between the sexes and different outcomes.“

@Artemis7 disagrees with the above statement, he said "That is opinion not a fact and that is the problem, you are trying to claim this is fact, when actually it is simply a theory"

If we made all social stigma re gender etc disappear then:

There would still be more male soldiers than female soldiers

There would still be more male binmen than female binmen

There would still be more male construction workers than female construction workers

There would still be more males working on oil rigs or remote oil mining locations like Alaska, Siberia etc

There would still be more males working in coal mines, diamond mines and any other type of mine.

There would still be more males pursuing boxing, UFC and other combat sports as a career than women.

Do I need to go on, or have I made the point that social stigma isn't the only contributing factor to unequal outcomes?

Erm no

Some of those things you’ve posted might be true.

I think the oils rig one for example as some women will probably want not spend time with their children.

But there’s no reason at all why it would be 100% certain there’d be more Male bin men or construction workers. Especially as we move more towards technological advances that can do heavy lifting etc.

*soend time away from their children rather Freudian slip there

" Especially as we move more towards technological advances that can do heavy lifting etc."

In case you hadn't noticed then Refuse Lorries already have devices to lift the bins into the Lorry.

Also, I know we're talking about a hypothetical situation where there's no social stigma, but having to bend the rules by the referring to possible future technology in order to qualify your answer is cheating :)

"
But there’s no reason at all why it would be 100% certain there’d be more Male bin men or construction workers"

Ok, as a % how likely is it there would still be more male binmen and construction workers?

I have no idea.

Just like you don’t.

If you say you have no idea then you're implying that the only reason there aren't more women working as refuse collectors and in construction is because of social stigma

99% of building site workers are men - there are clearly other factors involved than "sexism" and "it's a job for the boys"

That’s not what I’m implying. What I’m saying is that I don’t know for definite how much falls on nature and how much falls on nurture, just like no one can be sure.

Construction is a total lads club and it’s a working site is a horrible place for a woman, have you heard accounts of what women who work on the sites have to put up with?
As it stands now I am not surprised that 99% of people working construction are men, you have to be willing to put up with a lot of shit and really love the job to be a woman in contruction as it stands and most people don’t want a life where they spend their time fighting when they could just work in a different industry. Then we get so used to seeing men on construction sites that the idea of anything else seems like madness, how could it be any other way than the way it is?

We have no idea how many women would work in construction if we had no social bias.
What I do know though is that I know lots of women who had a real passion for building things and creating things that if they’d been boys would have been steered towards construction but it was never shown to them as an option growing up. Just like I know lots of little boys who are really good at nurturing who weren’t steered towards jobs in caring.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the figures will be when we finally get to equality of opportunity, what matters is that we work towards it by dismantling things like stereotypes and stopping steering people to certain jobs simply because of what’s between their legs. Also challenging toxic working environments so that someone of either sex would feel comfortable within any workplace.

"What I’m saying is that I don’t know for definite how much falls on nature and how much falls on nurture, just like no one can be sure."

"Construction is a total lads club and it’s a working site is a horrible place for a woman, have you heard accounts of what women who work on the sites have to put up with?......Then we get so used to seeing men on construction sites that the idea of anything else seems like madness"

We are talking about a hypothetical scenario where all that stuff is removed/erased

I thought the original question was explained pretty clearly, but obviously not!

Just a reminder that my original statement was:

"If you could wave a magic wand and erase all social conditioning/stigma around the genders eg mens jobs, boys jobs, men are strong, women are caring, etc etc

Then there would still be inherent differences between the sexes and different outcomes."

Which @artemis claimed was an opinion not a fact

"We have no idea how many women would work in construction if we had no social bias."

The question is not "how many women", it was if there would still be more male construction workers than female construction workers, and soldiers, and miners, and oil rig workers etc etc

Eliminate all workplace sexual harassment and social stigma that building site work is a male job, you would still have more men doing it because it is a physically intensive job. It's that simple.

Social stigma/nurture/harassment isn't solely responsible for 1% of building site workers being women, lol

"What I do know though is that I know lots of women who had a real passion for building things and creating things that if they’d been boys would have been steered towards construction "

Not sure that's how it works

"Just like I know lots of little boys who are really good at nurturing who weren’t steered towards jobs in caring."

How do you measure something like that?

When you say little boy, I think of 5-6 year olds, maybe upto 10-11 at best. Generally speaking little boys are very sweet, then puberty/hormones kick in.

I don't know many schools that send career advisors to infant schools. LOL

You don’t know for 100% certain there would be more Male construction workers though, why are you so convinced you do?

Social stigma/nurture/harassment isn't solely responsible for 1% of building site workers being women, lol

What do you think it is then? Because in parts of the developing world it’s a much higher percentage of women in construction. In India between 20-50% but it’s difficult to count because so many of the women working construction don’t have papers.

"You don’t know for 100% certain there would be more Male construction workers though, why are you so convinced you do?"

Was answered above: "you would still have more men doing it because it is a physically intensive job"

"In India between 20-50%"

Lol, 20-50% is a pretty big variance, they're also massively exploited according to in.reuters.com/article/india-women-construction/building-indias-cities-silent-workforce-of-women-goes-unrecognised-idINKBN0KL03U20150112 so not sure that's the best example.

Regardless, my point was there would still be unequal outcomes in a stigma-free, harassment free world.

The fact you're only debating my construction example implies you agree with the rest.

Even if you only agree with one of my examples then that proves my point that there would still unequal outcomes.

I don't need to say any more, do I

there is an article/interview with him in the New York Times today

Yes the women in India’s construction trade are horribly exploited but it shows that women can work construction, there isn’t an innate physical or mental reason why they can’t.

I don’t think you’ve made the win you think you have.

I’ve only argued the construction one because I can’t be bothered to do the others, but with all of them the fact is is that we actually don’t know.

We can hypotheses all we like, we can do studies and discuss what we think the data shows, but we can have really productive conversations of both sides admit that neither have absolute truths.

*can only

@ fmsfms

I agree with Teacuphiccup there are technologies that can assist with many of these tasks. I also think that many jobs that involve brute strength will become automated in the very near future anyway.

‘If you say you have no idea then you're implying that the only reason there aren't more women working as refuse collectors and in construction is because of social stigma

99% of building site workers are men - there are clearly other factors involved than "sexism" and "it's a job for the boys"

I also agree with teacup on the above. You think that men just naturally like being builders and refuse collectors etc and not other traditionally ‘feminine’ jobs due to puberty/hormones? If so I think it is a completely ludicrous theory. There is no way to tell how many men and women would be in different occupations, as we have not gotten rid of social stereotypes for the sexes, in fact they are being pushed harder than ever, it is pure speculation and wishful thinking to state that more men will do X job and more women will do Y.

"Yes the women in India’s construction trade are horribly exploited but it shows that women can work construction, there isn’t an innate physical or mental reason why they can’t. "

Well now we're back at the women in third world Countries have less choice/options than Western women and must take certain paths in order to survive

"I’ve only argued the construction one because I can’t be bothered to do the others, but with all of them the fact is is that we actually don’t know"

Well you already semi agreed with me "Some of those things you’ve posted might be true."

" but with all of them the fact is is that we actually don’t know"

Wow stating the obvious - of course we don't but we can imagine.

The idea that social stigma and other social conditions are the reason why there are more men in the army than women is absurd

On this particular issue btw, I do think there are absolute truths in general

Me agreeing with you means jack shit though, it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t know so everyone is just making a theory.
My guess being the same or not as your guess doesn’t change the fact that we don’t know 100% so should be open to the other points of view, which Peterson isn’t.

‘The idea that social stigma and other social conditions are the reason why there are more men in the army than women is absurd’

It’s actually not absurd, the idea of there being 50% women in the army might seem absurd to you because it’s so far beyond what we’re used to but it’s actually not completely beyond the realms of possibility.

Why do you think it’s so crazy?

I have a personal question fms do you feel that your gender has stopped you from being able to express yourself or do anything that you want to do? Are you happy with the traditional role of a man?

"Why do you think it’s so crazy?"

I'm literally laughing out loud here. This is another example of:

"Scandinavia is great, they rank highly on equality, high parental leave, welfare provisions etc!"

"Ah yes but did you know the gender gap in nursing/stem got bigger in the Nordic Countries despite their best efforts to reduce it?"

"Scandinavia isn't THAT great, they still have high levels of domestic violence and aren't THAT equal"

I refer to earlier on in the thread, all the discussion about Petersons respect for men who won't use violence to solve disputes etc, there's posts on this page about the "consistent abuse of physical power of men towards women" and posts about "violence towards women"

So we've established that most of the posters here think that men are more inclined towards violence than women - and that definitely isn't due to nurture encouraging this violence, because the social stigma against men hitting women is VERY clear, as are the deterrents and risk of injury/death if you pick a fight with someone stronger/more capable.

So men must inherently/innately be more prone to violence than women. Therefore men are more likely candidates to join the army and be trained how to kill.

Social stigma or fear of harassment from men is not the reason why women aren't joining the army in equal numbers as men.

The need for violence, the need to kill and the potential for being face to face in a kill or be killed scenario with a larger stronger man is probably a pretty big deterrent

Have you been in the military fmsfms? I have.

“So we've established that most of the posters here think that men are more inclined towards violence than women - and that definitely isn't due to nurture encouraging this violence, because the social stigma against men hitting women is VERY clear, as are the deterrents and risk of injury/death if you pick a fight with someone stronger/more capable.

So men must inherently/innately be more prone to violence than women.”

I agree with you that men are more prone to violence, this does not have any bearing on non-violent jobs or non-violent stereotypes though. Also it does not correlate that if men are innately more violent (your words) that women are innately submissive. You seem to imply that it does, where as I would say if you took a bunch of men away to a desert island somewhere, then the larger men would dominate the smaller and get them to do many of the things that women do now (as often happens in prisons). It does not follow from that the smaller men were innately created to be dominated or were somehow lesser men than the larger men. It means that the larger men took advantage of their size to dominate the smaller men and subjected them. This is how I believe we have gotten to where we are now in society and why men dominate women, not because women are innately submissive or want to do the jobs, activities etc that many do, but because of this male dominance. I think that is where the disagreement is from my view. I have to bow out now, due the time.