Jordan B Peterson

[CandyTiger]

I was given '12 rules for life' by the above author. At first I was insulted that the person who gave me this book, actually thought I needed a self-help book (I don't btw).

I decided to read it anyway. I am not really impressed by the so called 'intellectual' Peterson. He has a bit of a reputation for arguing with feminists.

I am very interested in what other people think of Peterson.

Thanks, in advance.

It also led to the selection (and election) of Jack Dromey, Harriet Harman's other half.

We didn’t need an all woman shortlist to elect our two female prime ministers.

Wow, 2 female prime ministers. That’s equality right there

I would prefer elected policians that competed with all available talent.

I don’t believe you get that with all women shortlists. And there is always a question mark around the comprtancy of anyone who had to rely on a AWS to get elected

Obviously it would be great if politicians were selected on merit rather than sex but this doesn’t happen - men are consistently selected over women, and there have been countless all-men shortlists so it’s only reasonable that the balance be tipped in favour of women occasionally.

Of course Jordan Peterson would argue that parliament being full of people who look like him is a coincidence - those people who look like him also happened to be the best person for the job.

Jordan Peterson is all for equality of opportunity but not for equality of outcome.

If there are structural reasons which prevent women applying or if women need active mentoring then of course these need to be addressed.

They tried. There’s a lot of research. The problem has been nailed down to when presented with a list of candidates for selection in a winnable seat, the committee, when given a free choice, will generally pick someone who looks like Jordan Peterson. The only way that has been reliably successful in getting around that and making an impact on the make-up of Parliament is to not offer them the Jordan Peterson option.

I absolutely love him.
I think he is a genius and presents common sense in a unique way.

His advice to directionless young men is spot on

interesting use of the term 'genius'
Donald Trump is also a 'genius'

noblegiraffe

I would suggest that actively preventing selection through free choice in favour of a method that results in the selection of your favoured candidates (or candidates with the desired background) is one that is fraught with peril, if only for how it will be portrayed by political opponents.

(I'm more in favour of growing the candidate pool by encouraging more people of different backgrounds to apply - though I appreciate this would take more time to bear fruit I think it would result in better candidates being selected - how many of the '97 'Blair babes' can we remember now?)

better candidates being selected

Why do they have to be memorable? How many male MPs have been instantly forgettable? How many male ones that you remember are/were competent? How many were totally shite? Women shouldn’t need to be fantastic to get elected when that doesn’t hold for men.

Research shows again and again that lots of women don't want to work the insane hours necessary to achieve some positions I would question why that is considered necessary. It is only possible for men to do it because women do the essential unpaid work. Perhaps men should reconsider why they need to be workaholic, it isn't healthy or productive.
The issue of equality is around power and the fact that male power has resulted in a world made to fit them, not women .

Personally I'd want the strongest candidate selected rather than look to fill a quota system.

I think one of the problems the Left in general faces right now is that they know how they want the committee to be made up in terms of representation but, beyond that, they seem a little short of ideas.

(I don't know your political allegiance, it just dovetails with an ongoing feeling that the Left seems to have lost its sense of purpose in the last few years and now seems to be going all in on identity politics, of which fixed shortlists is a part).

Do you think it’s the case that currently the strongest political candidate is selected when the selections overwhelmingly fit a physical type?

The Conservatives had a similar set-up in 2010 with Cameron’s A-list, which contained both women and ethnic minorities, so it’s not just the left trying to address the issue of under-representation.

He's not remotely feminist.

www.macleans.ca/opinion/is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person/

NG

For Labour, the point is moot - the Blair regime was borderline presidential so he was less bothered about having strong candidates with their own views than walking votes (of either sex). Once Team Corbyn start putting their own stamp on membership lists then they'll also go for the walking vote option (they see the MPs role as being to implement the wishes of the CLP - Luciana Berger was told this in no uncertain terms).

I'd rather have Jess Phillips than either of the above - she may be prone to the odd gaffe (Cologne) but at least she's her own woman with her own hinterland.

As for the Tories, I read an article by, I think, Isabel Hartman on how Cameron had appointed multiple female ministers when in coalition who then went on to become full ministers when the Tories got a majority. The Labour women under Corbyn have had it harder as they've had to go from obscure backbench MPs to Shadow Cabinet Ministers without the apprenticeship of a Junior role. (I don't think Diane Abbott was ever going to be a disaster but still...).

I'm always surprised on GE night by the number of returned MPs that I've never heard of (as I do follow politics quite a lot). If half of them were female it wouldn't change much (if anything), but I feel that it should always be about selecting the strongest individual rather than focusing on group representation.

(rests aching typing finger).

I feel that it should always be about selecting the strongest individual

Is that how it currently is?

Is having a 50:50 representation in parliament a reasonable aim?

Is there a better, more efficient way of achieving this than rigging the ballot in favour of women occasionally, just as it has been rigged in favour of men since forever?

'Diane Abbott was ever going to be anything but a disaster'

No party has ever lost a general election in this country when led by a woman!

noblegiraffe

If 50/50 representation is your goal then you're for equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, which brings us back to Jordan Peterson again.

But we can’t have equality of opportunity until we have equality of outcome, I don’t think. Women will continue to be overlooked in selection while they are a minority group in parliament. People’s perception of an MP (which is what influences candidate selection in winnable seats) needs to change and that won’t change without representation.

Basically, I think Peterson opines authoritatively on things that he hasn’t actually looked into very much. This appeals to people who also don’t know very much about those things, and annoys those who do.

It is only possible for men to do it because women do the essential unpaid work

But how are we going to change things? Women could (and should) stop doing this “unpaid” work for starters, but not sure we should prevent high achievers from continuing to be productive.

Kids are the elephant in the room. Is it any coincidence that prominent women leaders are all childless? They’ve found the same for women CEOs as well. Priorities do change for women, but not for men it seems. Long mat leaves naturally mean that men and childless women have an advantage, those years out of the workplace set mothers back quite a bit. I don’t see any way out of it really. I actually think long mat leaves do a disservice to driven women, it really should be 4-6 months at most (if you want to get ahead, that is. Otherwise take as long as you need)