Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman C4 Interview

[Fame Monster]

What I would say to that is she still makes her own choice and the opportunity is still there, also the idea that masculinity is bad and femininity is good isn't equality is it? If someone said "too feminine" there would be all sorts of kneejerk reactions, yet this sort of stuff gets said all the time of masculinity as if it's a problem.

I don't think there'd be a knee-jerk reaction if you pointed out that men are underrepresented as nurses, not due to a lack of ability or hard work, but because many of them perceive the job to be too feminine. These micro-decisions/prejudices/preferences come into play when we pursue a career irrespective of gender and for me that's what Peterson fails to recognise.

In my opinion, making laws to ensure equality of outcome (i.e. women/men making up 50% of jobs in professions) isn't desirable either because there will be people getting the job only on the basis of their identity and not because they are the best person for the job. But at the same time, vast inequality of outcome (90% of men working in a particular profession) will lead to the best person for the job choosing to study/do something else in some instances, abrogating any equality of opportunity and becoming self-fulfilling. The market won't rectify that and that's why I think it is the duty of government, for the good of society, to sometimes intervene (whether that be minimum quotas or another policy).

 

[Metalartin]

I don't think there'd be a knee-jerk reaction if you pointed out that men are underrepresented as nurses, not due to a lack of ability or hard work, but because many of them perceive the job to be too feminine. These micro-decisions/prejudices/preferences come into play when we pursue a career irrespective of gender and for me that's what Peterson fails to recognise.

In my opinion, making laws to ensure equality of outcome (i.e. women/men making up 50% of jobs in professions) isn't desirable either because there will be people getting the job only on the basis of their identity and not because they are the best person for the job. But at the same time, vast inequality of outcome (90% of men working in a particular profession) will lead to the best person for the job choosing to study/do something else in some instances, abrogating any equality of opportunity and becoming self-fulfilling. The market won't rectify that and that's why I think it is the duty of government, for the good of society, to sometimes intervene (whether that be minimum quotas or another policy).

That's not what I meant, I meant if you claimed femininity to be a bad thing in any way(ie something could be too feminine) there would be a reaction, yet masculinity is in itself highlighted as a problem by modern feminists and yet they don't see the hypocrisy in it.

I could see you were making more of a point about there simply being more women in the nursing scenario but I noticed you yourself avoided using the word feminine, perhaps subconsciously conditioned to avoiding putting it that way to avoid offence where the same wasn't true with the use of masculine.

As I said it's no longer about equality and many of them understand it and are happy with the idea of that, others though are bothered by the hypocrisy in it and are turning their back on the movement... perhaps there needs to be another movement now that really is about equality?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I don't think there'd be a knee-jerk reaction if you pointed out that men are underrepresented as nurses, not due to a lack of ability or hard work, but because many of them perceive the job to be too feminine. These micro-decisions/prejudices/preferences come into play when we pursue a career irrespective of gender and for me that's what Peterson fails to recognise.

In my opinion, making laws to ensure equality of outcome (i.e. women/men making up 50% of jobs in professions) isn't desirable either because there will be people getting the job only on the basis of their identity and not because they are the best person for the job. But at the same time, vast inequality of outcome (90% of men working in a particular profession) will lead to the best person for the job choosing to study/do something else in some instances, abrogating any equality of opportunity and becoming self-fulfilling. The market won't rectify that and that's why I think it is the duty of government, for the good of society, to sometimes intervene (whether that be minimum quotas or another policy).

The other major issue she didn't seem to pick up on well enough imo is this idea that traits that are more commonly found in men are more linked to success in the workplace. It was a bit unclear as to whether "success in the workplace" refers to personal career success or actual success of the company. Because if it's the former, then surely that's evidence of the exact point that men are rewarded purely because of their maleness. If it's the latter, then there's more of an argument that men are in those position because they're more effective, but even then, you could argue that they're more effective because they're operating in a system that maximizes their natural traits, and devalues the qualities that women are more likely to possess. He does say at one point that this might be the case and that we simply don't have the data on that yet. But to me, saying that men get paid more than women because they happen to possess particular qualities that are better rewarded in the workplace, and therefore that doesn't count as gender bias is ridiculous, especially when it's generally men who are making the decisions as to what is valuable to a company.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

Highlight for me(22:20):

She so wanted to say "fuck you I'm done with this".

What i think started to dawn on her was someone like Peterson actually encourages people to try and pull apart his opinions and views or subject them to the upmost scrutiny. He sees this a healthy process in how people form opinions, adapt stances as needed & also be able to convey ideas/views across to others without any mis-interpretation/straw manning.

The big problem nowadays is that a 'Listen & Believe' culture has developed, where people get to spout their opinions but can remove themselves from any scrutiny or criticism. They can do this by various methods, including removing any dissenting voices so they end up with an echo chamber, or dismissing criticism as abuse so it can be ignored, or attacking the messenger rather than the message.
This leads to the problem in that when they get faced with legitimate arguments against their views they find difficulty formulating coherent counter-arguments due to a lack of practise or by employing critical thinking.

My view is that better learning & education is gained when people's views/ opinions are subjected to full scrutiny. For instance last night i made a major fuck-up in the Trump thread because i tried to make a point regarding Gun Control, based on something i'd read a while about Obama introducing 20+ changes after one of the mass shootings. @ChicagoBlue rightly called me out of it, so when i back-checked i found i had mistaken Obama's 20+ 'Executive Actions' as being the same as 'Executive Orders' when there is a huge difference between those terms, which i found out about after spending 10mins reading up on them.

 

[MellowJoe]

Women prefer cleaning toilets. Men like working in sewers.

 

[Metalartin]

What i think started to dawn on her was someone like Peterson actually encourages people to try and pull apart his opinions and views or subject them to the upmost scrutiny. He sees this a healthy process in how people form opinions, adapt stances as needed & also be able to convey ideas/views across to others without any mis-interpretation/straw manning.

The big problem nowadays is that a 'Listen & Believe' culture has developed, where people get to spout their opinions but can remove themselves from any scrutiny or criticism. They can do this by various methods, including removing any dissenting voices so they end up with an echo chamber, or dismissing criticism as abuse so it can be ignored, or attacking the messenger rather than the message.
This leads to the problem in that when they get faced with legitimate arguments against their views they find difficulty formulating coherent counter-arguments due to a lack of practise or by employing critical thinking.

My view is that better learning & education is gained when people's views/ opinions are subjected to full scrutiny. For instance last night i made a major fuck-up in the Trump thread because i tried to make a point regarding Gun Control, based on something i'd read a while about Obama introducing 20+ changes after one of the mass shootings. @ChicagoBlue rightly called me out of it, so when i back-checked i found i had mistaken Obama's 20+ 'Executive Actions' as being the same as 'Executive Orders' when there is a huge difference between those terms, which i found out about after spending 10mins reading up on them.

Yep too many people unwilling to budge an inch to learn something new or hold their hands up when they are wrong, which is to concede something or retract something they've said. I think it's a good quality to have to be able to say "you know I didn't think of it that way, you sort of have a point there" or if possible to at least fact check someone else's claims without dismissing them outright because it contradicts a belief. The go to response seems to be get someone agreeable to back them up and try and outnumber the opposition.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

 

[MellowJoe]

We all have an ego, fine.. but we can still save face while admitting defeat. We usually never make outright bullshit statements.. 2+2 = 5 or sth. We don't want to go to sleep at night feeling like an arsehole.

 

[Fame Monster]

That's not what I said I said if you claimed femininity to be a bad thing in any way(ie something could be too feminine) there would be a reaction, yet masculinity is in itself highlighted as a problem by modern feminists and yet they don't see the hypocrisy in it.

I could see you were making more of a point about there simply being more men in the nursing scenario but I noticed you yourself avoided using the word feminine, perhaps subconsciously conditioned to avoiding putting it that way to avoid offence where the same wasn't true with the use of masculine.

As I said it's no longer about equality and many of them understand it and are happy with the idea of that, others though are bothered by the hypocrisy in it and are turning their back on the movement... perhaps there needs to be another movement now that really is about equality?

Not quiet sure exactly what you mean but I think masculinity is a huge problem at the moment for men (more so than femininity is to girls) but that’s another topic.

Also I agree with your point that it’s easier to criticise white males in society than it is to criticise Chinese Transsexuals for example.

 

[Metalartin]

Not quiet sure exactly what you mean but I think masculinity is a huge problem at the moment for men (more so than femininity is to girls) but that’s another topic.

Also I agree with your point that it’s easier to criticise white males in society than it is to criticise Chinese Transsexuals for example.

I would be interested how you can justify that statement as the notion of it is sexist, neither masculinity or femininity are problems to be solved. Men are told to accept and embrace femininity, where masculinity is a problem to be eradicated to some... it's just plain wrong to think that way. Isn't the point for people to embrace who they are, to be able to embrace both and see neither as better than the other, just different?