Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

[GeordieGenes]

If you go over to site stuff, MN are asking posters if they would like a webchat with Jordan Peterson! The thread is pretty negative, but I think it would be great to ask him about gender critical issues. He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

If you think this would be good, please go and say so on the thread!

Thanks deepwatersolo I knew it was something like that.

This sounds well and good in theory. In reality I have seen enough to know that men who are dumber than their female counterparts get promoted regularly. Because other factors are at play.

Oh tell me about it. Even many of the mediocre young boys of my acquaintance seem to punch well above their weight in terms of perceived achievement and free passes on behaviour.

Do women choose family over work? Or are women expected to be the care by default?

Probably a bit of both

Most women I know would also have been horrified by a role switch when their children were young, never seeing their children. But then you don't want to be vulnerable with no income of your own. It's difficult.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

The argument around 'interest' (e.g. women love the arts, while men love science) and consequent choice of education/profession being a significant factor in successful career outcomes collapses, when the argument becomes 'actually all those women studying X stopped being interested in field X and started being interested in having a family.

When 'sexed interest' utterly fails to correlate with 'prevalence of sex in profession', then 'interest' is not a significant factor.

Most women I know would also have been horrified by a role switch when their children were young, never seeing their children.

What is a role switch?

Why the need for a "role switch", why not have both parents involved to some degree in caring for children?

Men have not had to "woo". They have bought women from their fathers, simply kidnapped them like the vikings did, or otherwise took women by force in whatever way was the norm in their culture and time.

I was just coming to say this. For most of human history - and even today in some parts of the world - men didn't have to 'woo', they bought or kidnapped women. Women were/are chattel. And this idea (peddled by MRAs) that women were/are actively choosing to be treated as property is offensive, obnoxious bollocks.

Why the need for a "role switch", why not have both parents involved to some degree in caring for children?

Ah, now I get it. Me and my (male) partner split family leave 50:50 after kid was born. 7 months I stayed home, 7 months he stayed home, with the respective working partner always heavily involved. I don't even think in terms of role switch. That would imply I have some default role.

Am nodding along with you, deepwater.

It’s actually evolved into quite an interesting debate, though I have no strong opinion on whether JP should or should not be invited on, as I struggle to muster much interest in either him or in any other webchat I’ve never found them very informative (except the NSPCC one which never was, that was fascinating).

Re 'role switches'

Its interesting that there is still some reluctance to accept that women are primary care givers for very young children. You all know what I mean by role reversal but seem so very keen to deny it exists. There will be close to zero men who are caring for babies.

Why are we reluctant to accept this?

That would imply I have some default role.

Isn't the uncomfortable fact that we do have a default role on giving birth. Our whole bodies are designed exactly for it.

I don't know why this is offensive.

Oh tell me about it. Even many of the mediocre young boys of my acquaintance seem to punch well above their weight in terms of perceived achievement and free passes on behaviour

Ability has not been discussed. Personality sure has, your implication around 'free passes on behaviour' are that these boys are disagreeable and competitive?

On ability - IQ accounts for approx. 51% of how successful people are at work.

It is never just about ability.

Ability has not been discussed. Personality sure has, your implication around 'free passes on behaviour' are that these boys are disagreeable and competitive?

My implication was that these men (in my case) were sloppy in their work, partially because they left for their social life early (volley ball, fitness center...) and therefore did not want to invest the time, partially because they genuinely did not understand which blinds to include in their experimental design.

Considering that the discrimination of women in hiring and promotion processes is well documented (like the undeniable distinct evaluation of application letters, CVs..., mostly male bosses preferrably mentoring people who resemble them...), it is fair to say that women are vicimized when it comes to hiring processes and building careers.

Again, its not the only factor and when we push this idea and this idea only, we firmly place women in victim status and into helplessness.

There are many other factors at play here alongside this. We have discussed of the some but not even all of them. The simplistic explanation that women don't 'get on' because of discrimination doesn't ultimately move anything forward, as the stats bear out.

Isn't the uncomfortable fact that we do have a default role on giving birth. Our whole bodies are designed exactly for it.

The not offensive but intellectually lazy part is to conclude that giving birth somehow implies it assigns anyone to some particular role in the longer term.

I also have the distinct feeling that just because you maybe really chose this role, it is somehow a given for you that this is 'what women choose' and 'really want'. This may be the appeal JP has for you. He tells you, that you made the 'correct' choice. That may also be, why you dismiss the decisively distinct experiences of women who never made that 'correct' choice and even dismiss studies proving active discrimination of women in the work place.

Isn't the uncomfortable fact that we do have a default role on giving birth. Our whole bodies are designed exactly for it.

But giving birth is not care giving. There is absolutely no biological reason why a man can not care for a baby perfectly well. In the developed world a woman doesn't even need to be present for a baby to be fed. The idea that it is a role women that women should not only undertake but actively wish to has no basis in biology.

(Also our bodies are not designed for it, they evolved that way)

Again, its not the only factor and when we push this idea and this idea only, we firmly place women in victim status and into helplessness.

It is the one factor that needs proactive action to be combatted though, and shutting up about it won't achieve that. You may not give a shit about active disrcimination of women in the work place, because it does not affect you in your freely chosen 'family first' role. But many women are affected by it. Why do you advocate shutting them up?

Again, its not the only factor and when we push this idea and this idea only, we firmly place women in victim status and into helplessness.

Straight out of the MRA songbook. Highlighting well documented and evidenced discrimination against women makes them into victims. Except it doesn't, well, not unless you are the kind of person who attempts to distort feminism to make into something that centres men.

Its interesting that there is still some reluctance to accept that women are primary care givers for very young children.

That may be due to the fact that it is not a universal truth.

SophoclesTheFox

I also have the distinct feeling that just because you maybe really chose this role, it is somehow a given for you that this is 'what women choose' and 'really want'. This may be the appeal JP has for you. He tells you, that you made the 'correct' choice. That may also be, why you dismiss the decisively distinct experiences of women who never made that 'correct' choice and even dismiss studies proving active discrimination of women in the work place.

I work full time but only worked part-time when children were pre-school.

I have a good career. Not that that is particularly relevant, but you seem to have made some assumptions about me,

But giving birth is not care giving. There is absolutely no biological reason why a man can not care for a baby perfectly well. In the developed world a woman doesn't even need to be present for a baby to be fed. The idea that it is a role women that women should not only undertake but actively wish to has no basis in biology.

We seem to have entered a rabbit hole here. You seem to not be prepared to face biology on this.

Ask yourself if you know of one single mother who was not the primary care giver (unless because of death) in the first months of a baby's life, and that is despite there being adequate facilities to bottle feed babies now? You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that is social conditioning and biology plays no role in that.

I have a good career.

But you either never aspired to a competitive leadership role (which I assumed), or you did and never experienced double standards in case of a male competitor and therefore cannot believe it is a thing.

I really cannot wrap my head around why you would want women to shut up about the clearly documented biases regarding women (applications, papers...).

Thinking of it, if JP comes on, maybe the one question worth posing is:
'There are studies (Citation...) that demonstrate that identical application letters and CVs are rated distinctly, depending on whether they bear a male or female name. (a) How do you explain this? (b) Do you think it is victim-y to mention this?)'

I think this is where feminism IS about choice. Not the choice take your clothes off and be empowered but the choice to decide if you want to be a primary care giver, share the responsibility or to not have children at all (and many more in between).
Yes only women can gestate the babies but in order to facilitate the equality of opportunity that Peterson is so fond of talking about we need to acknowledge that this creates practical barriers for women in the workplace and mould society around that.
Not to say, well only women can have the babies so it's just natural that's what they want.

It's striking that when women have access to contraception and education (choice) far fewer babies are born.

We need a revolution in how society rears children, more work place crèches, childcare at public meetings/mp surgeries, shared paternity leave.

Not so all women can leave their babies but so that women have a full and true choice about it.

I really cannot wrap my head around why you would want women to shut up about the clearly documented biases regarding women (applications, papers...)

I have never said shut up about it. I have said don't push it as the ONLY reason why women don't 'get on'. You seem incapable of grasping there are other reasons why women aren't represented in STEM, Leadership Roles etc.

The point is there is NOTHING wrong or lesser about women having different biological statuses to men.

I am in a Leadership position btw