Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.
I didn't say it was. He's certainly done well out of it but that's because of what she did, not him. If he actually saw the whole thing coming and planned it this way, he's even more intelligent than I thought he was.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.
TV news is meant to be broadcasting in the public interest. A series of strawman arguments is not quality journalism. When I watch C4 news, I expect something a little better than a left-wing version of a Daily Mail article.0 -
finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.
TV news is meant to be broadcasting in the public interest. A series of strawman arguments is not quality journalism. When I watch C4 news, I expect something a little better than a left-wing version of a Daily Mail article.
Ok.
I can’t see the fuss either way tbh.
He talks sh!t, she doesn’t really pin him down. Big deal.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.
TV news is meant to be broadcasting in the public interest. A series of strawman arguments is not quality journalism. When I watch C4 news, I expect something a little better than a left-wing version of a Daily Mail article.
Ok.
I can’t see the fuss either way tbh.
He talks sh!t, she doesn’t really pin him down. Big deal.
What do you particularly disagree with? For me, his whole take on sex/gender is that sexism exists but it doesn't explain differences between men and women entirely, and that innate AVERAGE differences should also be taken into account.0 -
It’s not I disagree. It’s just nonesense assumptions that help him frame everything in his favour, when the broad sweep of evidence, history suggests he’s talking b*llocks.
It’s like a mixture of just the whole problem; that the structure of our knowledge is patriarchal and techniques used by conspiracy theorists who blow up narrow discrepancies to make massive generalisations in their favour.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:
If we're going to talk about unsubstantiated, what on earth has any of this to do with leftist politics?Alex99 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:HEqual?
Bahahahaha.
You throw this unsubstantiated stuff out like:
"Maybe his supporters should lay off the death & rape threats?"
You seem to have no issue smearing someone in this way. Classic lazy leftist way of trying to shut someone up.
Someone who entitles their blog Hequal is setting out their prejudices pretty clearly. The argument in that blog is just "yeah, well they did it, too". Oh well that's alright then, so long as they flung more sh*t than you. Keep on fighting the fight, brother.
Have you looked at the blog? Look at the posts and then decide whether they're invented or credible.
Yes, I've looked. It's not so much the veracity of the claims that bothers me - I mean goodness knows how the author holds down a proper job as well as ceaselessly fact checking all those evil feminists - as the monumental self-pity. Talk about a persecution complex... It's as if someone (claiming to be a road safety campaigner) was trying to convince the world that cyclists are the greatest risk to modern society by meticulously reporting every incident where a cyclist runs over a granny or a small child, and no other road accidents whatsoever. If that's the stuff you're reading, no wonder you think the whole JP interview furore is some feminist conspiracy.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It’s not I disagree. It’s just nonesense assumptions that help him frame everything in his favour, when the broad sweep of evidence, history suggests he’s talking b*llocks.
It’s like a mixture of just the whole problem; that the structure of our knowledge is patriarchal and techniques used by conspiracy theorists who blow up narrow discrepancies to make massive generalisations in their favour.
Which nonsense assumptions and which evidence on which point?0 -
finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.
TV news is meant to be broadcasting in the public interest. A series of strawman arguments is not quality journalism. When I watch C4 news, I expect something a little better than a left-wing version of a Daily Mail article.
Ok.
I can’t see the fuss either way tbh.
He talks sh!t, she doesn’t really pin him down. Big deal.
What do you particularly disagree with? For me, his whole take on sex/gender is that sexism exists but it doesn't explain differences between men and women entirely, and that innate AVERAGE differences should also be taken into account.
Taking that at face value, the sexism is the bit we can do something about and is the bit with no merit; we're more or less stuck with our genes, so why waste time wondering about the small part of the problem we can't change?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It’s not I disagree. It’s just nonesense assumptions that help him frame everything in his favour, when the broad sweep of evidence, history suggests he’s talking b*llocks.
It’s like a mixture of just the whole problem; that the structure of our knowledge is patriarchal and techniques used by conspiracy theorists who blow up narrow discrepancies to make massive generalisations in their favour.
Which nonsense assumptions and which evidence on which point?
Oh mate come on.
This is the problem with this stuff. It's 10 times as easy to say bulls!t then it is to methodically go through it and explain why it's all a crock-of-sh!t.
Go have a start with the assumption that assertiveness is correlated with any kind of business success, let alone causation, and start from there. That's a patently obviously boll*cks one.
You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
Or that companies with better gender diversity, particularly at senior level perform better, even when forced to with quotas.
It's just so tedious the whole thing.
What I want to know is why he identifies a problem with certain new tropes that occur with men and his solution is to bang on about how feminism is overrated. What's his real agenda there?0 -
Slight diversion: BR's swear filter thinks that fact-checking (fact checking with a hyphen) is worthy of a line of asterisks.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Mate, it's not some kind of war. She's in the business of journalism, he's in the business of selling books. Their interests coincided for the purposes of the interview.
TV news is meant to be broadcasting in the public interest. A series of strawman arguments is not quality journalism. When I watch C4 news, I expect something a little better than a left-wing version of a Daily Mail article.
Ok.
I can’t see the fuss either way tbh.
He talks sh!t, she doesn’t really pin him down. Big deal.
What do you particularly disagree with? For me, his whole take on sex/gender is that sexism exists but it doesn't explain differences between men and women entirely, and that innate AVERAGE differences should also be taken into account.
Taking that at face value, the sexism is the bit we can do something about and is the bit with no merit; we're more or less stuck with our genes, so why waste time wondering about the small part of the problem we can't change?
The man's job is psychologist. I'd imagine that knowing which differences are innate and which come about through socialisation would be pretty interesting to any psychologist.
Also, there are important consequence. If, say, women are more naturally inclined towards working with people (care work, for example), then to improve gender equality, you might want to look at conditions in the domains which are currently female-dominated, rather than just telling women that if they want better salaries they should study computing.0 -
this is why there is a gender pay gap, the UK's businessmen on a night out...
https://www.ft.com/content/c6c8d488-006 ... 0ad2d7c5b5
this, unfortunately is how a lot of men view women.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It’s not I disagree. It’s just nonesense assumptions that help him frame everything in his favour, when the broad sweep of evidence, history suggests he’s talking b*llocks.
It’s like a mixture of just the whole problem; that the structure of our knowledge is patriarchal and techniques used by conspiracy theorists who blow up narrow discrepancies to make massive generalisations in their favour.
Which nonsense assumptions and which evidence on which point?
Oh mate come on.
This is the problem with this stuff. It's 10 times as easy to say bulls!t then it is to methodically go through it and explain why it's all a crock-of-sh!t.
Go have a start with the assumption that assertiveness is correlated with any kind of business success, let alone causation, and start from there. That's a patently obviously boll*cks one.
You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
Or that companies with better gender diversity, particularly at senior level perform better, even when forced to with quotas.
It's just so tedious the whole thing.
What I want to know is why he identifies a problem with certain new tropes that occur with men and his solution is to bang on about how feminism is overrated. What's his real agenda there?
Well mate, if I can call you that.
If women only have 27% of the wealth but account for 80% spending decisions, perhaps it time that men started to assert themselves to address the balance?
Henpecked of Britain, rise up.0 -
finchy wrote:
Also, there are important consequence. If, say, women are more naturally inclined towards working with people (care work, for example), then to improve gender equality, you might want to look at conditions in the domains which are currently female-dominated, rather than just telling women that if they want better salaries they should study computing.
That's missing the point.
They're the kind of assumptions we're talking about.
The argument goes that society constructs this big gender identity well beyond the realms of the physical differences between men and women (take a trivial example, the different between calling someone a p*ssy and a d!ck). That it informs how people behave.
So saying 'people behave x so it can't be a construct' misses the whole point.
All evidence suggests that gender diversity in pretty much all businesses, or organisations, save for ones were physicality takes priority, improves performance, so maybe the gender identities that push genders apart to do differentt roles isn't optimal?0 -
mamba80 wrote:But i did stop watching when he compared transgender activists with left wing dictators like Mao (who killed millions) but were nothing like a right wing killers like Pinochet, that just showed his bias..... he is apparently a big hit with the alt right....cant think why.
Except he didn't - he was saying that they shared a common ideology that the individual is entirely subsumed into the collective. Don't agree with him on everything and I'm certainly not alt-right, but he has a point.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It’s not I disagree. It’s just nonesense assumptions that help him frame everything in his favour, when the broad sweep of evidence, history suggests he’s talking b*llocks.
It’s like a mixture of just the whole problem; that the structure of our knowledge is patriarchal and techniques used by conspiracy theorists who blow up narrow discrepancies to make massive generalisations in their favour.
Which nonsense assumptions and which evidence on which point?
Oh mate come on.
This is the problem with this stuff. It's 10 times as easy to say bulls!t then it is to methodically go through it and explain why it's all a crock-of-sh!t.
Go have a start with the assumption that assertiveness is correlated with any kind of business success, let alone causation, and start from there. That's a patently obviously boll*cks one.
You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
Or that companies with better gender diversity, particularly at senior level perform better, even when forced to with quotas.
It's just so tedious the whole thing.
What I want to know is why he identifies a problem with certain new tropes that occur with men and his solution is to bang on about how feminism is overrated. What's his real agenda there?
Well mate, if I can call you that.
If women only have 27% of the wealth but account for 80% spending decisions, perhaps it time that men started to assert themselves to address the balance?
Henpecked of Britain, rise up.
That's pretty much exactly what the guy says at the top of the interview. And then makes some grand assumption about what women want in a relationship with men.0 -
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Go have a start with the assumption that assertiveness is correlated with any kind of business success, let alone causation, and start from there. That's a patently obviously boll*cks one.
Why is it patently obvious b*llocks. Note that assertiveness is not necessarily the same as unpleasantness.Rick Chasey wrote:You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
There's a big difference between the developed world and the developing world.Rick Chasey wrote:Or that companies with better gender diversity, particularly at senior level perform better, even when forced to with quotas.
Fair point, and I agree that it is better for all groups to be represented in positions of power/influence, whether in business, politics, education or whatever, but unless I missed it, I don't recall him saying anything to the contrary in the interview.Rick Chasey wrote:It's just so tedious the whole thing.
What I want to know is why he identifies a problem with certain new tropes that occur with men and his solution is to bang on about how feminism is overrated. What's his real agenda there?
He was asked some questions. He answered them. And again, I don't see him defending sexism, merely pointing out that traditional feminist analysis isn't the whole solution, and you also have to look at evolutionary psychology. OK, so that makes him a hero for reactionaries, but then should he just stop speaking because people don't understand what he's saying?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.
Boys are falling behind in schools overall, and only make up a 1/3rd of university attendees. That's not getting started on workplace deaths, homelessness stats, suicide, and the general malaise that's been building since the late 90s. Identity politics has overtaken class politics, and it just doesn't work. That isn't to say women should get back in the kitchen, but masculinity is consistently demonised.
I was shocked at the first Tory conference after Brexit that May said you're worst off in the UK as a white boy - it was the first time I heard a political establishment admit that it had essentially failed vast swathes of the population. Obviously continuing to cut public services won't do any good for those struggling at the bottom, but the principle of the statement was incredible after literal decades of Oxbridge 'managers' blatantly ignoring the harm they were doing to huge amounts of people. Labour took/continue to take their old working class base for granted - at least the Tories don't pretend to care. It was why I supported Brexit - despite being indifferent to the EU overall.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:finchy wrote:
Also, there are important consequence. If, say, women are more naturally inclined towards working with people (care work, for example), then to improve gender equality, you might want to look at conditions in the domains which are currently female-dominated, rather than just telling women that if they want better salaries they should study computing.
That's missing the point.
They're the kind of assumptions we're talking about.
The argument goes that society constructs this big gender identity well beyond the realms of the physical differences between men and women (take a trivial example, the different between calling someone a p*ssy and a d!ck). That it informs how people behave.
So saying 'people behave x so it can't be a construct' misses the whole point.
All evidence suggests that gender diversity in pretty much all businesses, or organisations, save for ones were physicality takes priority, improves performance, so maybe the gender identities that push genders apart to do differentt roles isn't optimal?
Once again, I need to state that it's not necessarily one or the other. Nature and nurture can play a part. I think that we can all understand that boys and girls are often raised differently, but that doesn't negate the evidence that their are innate average differences between males and females.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.
Sure, but what has that got to do with masculinity? I've heard the line that the traditional role of being the breadwinner through a job at the local male-dominated mine/factory/steelworks is gone. This suggests the problem is an uncertain future and a lack of self worth. I get that working in a SportsDirect warehouse on variable hours doesn't hit those two needs in a way that 20 years in a foundry would but why is that only affecting young white working class males?
The mines, etc are not coming back so we/they'd better find a new definition rather than clinging on to an obsolete one.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
There's a big difference between the developed world and the developing world.
Further to this, are we talking about the amount of money spent which is decided, or the number of purchases? Given that in many parts of the world, food is a major component of spending, and women tend to be responsible for food, I could well imagine that women make 80% of household spending decisions even in poorer countries.0 -
Sgt.Pepper wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.
Boys are falling behind in schools overall, and only make up a 1/3rd of university attendees. That's not getting started on workplace deaths, homelessness stats, suicide, and the general malaise that's been building since the late 90s. Identity politics has overtaken class politics, and it just doesn't work. That isn't to say women should get back in the kitchen, but masculinity is consistently demonised.
I was shocked at the first Tory conference after Brexit that May said you're worst off in the UK as a white boy - it was the first time I heard a political establishment admit that it had essentially failed vast swathes of the population. Obviously continuing to cut public services won't do any good for those struggling at the bottom, but the principle of the statement was incredible after literal decades of Oxbridge 'managers' blatantly ignoring the harm they were doing to huge amounts of people. Labour took/continue to take their old working class base for granted - at least the Tories don't pretend to care. It was why I supported Brexit - despite being indifferent to the EU overall.
It’s white working class.
Posh white boys do fine.0 -
finchy wrote:finchy wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:You can have a look at the purchasing power of women who, apparently, make 80% of household spending decisions but only possess 27% of the world's wealth.
There's a big difference between the developed world and the developing world.
Further to this, are we talking about the amount of money spent which is decided, or the number of purchases? Given that in many parts of the world, food is a major component of spending, and women tend to be responsible for food, I could well imagine that women make 80% of household spending decisions even in poorer countries.
Ok if it’s not your money are you really making the decision?
Or is the decision being outsourced to you?
Is it actually a reflection, not of female purchasing power, but of a natural tendency to reduce their role to merely looking after the home?
We could have these back and forths about pretty much everything he says. Hence the tedium.
What he says roughly correlated with what we as a society expect genders to behave. That’s the point; why do we expect them to behave like that? Is this just a modern version of the arguments against fensle emanciparion? “That’s just how women are; too emotional; irrational at certain times of the month.”
I’m sure lots of men sagely nodded their heads when that was said 100+ years ago.0 -
I can’t speak for everyone but in our marriage the money is our money.
The person spending it is the one best to do so. No other demarcation.
Isn’t suggesting that it is merely outsourced a tad patronising to both parties?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:I can’t speak for everyone but in our marriage the money is our money.
The person spending it is the one best to do so. No other demarcation.
Isn’t suggesting that it is merely outsourced a tad patronising to both parties?
I think using that stat as a way to say women 'decide the market place' as total BS. That's the point I'm making.
When you square it up with other evidence the interpretation looks wildly off.0 -
rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Is there? There's a lot of noise from a small number of men whining that they're not allowed to act like d***heads* anymore. It's fair to say that I have limited sympathy for that viewpoint.Rick Chasey wrote:There’s absolutely an issue in and around young men and masculinity.
The solution isn’t to whine about male inequality.
*Obviously they word it differently.
Yeah I think there is.
I think the whining is a symptom of a bigger problem.
Working class white kids in the UK are seeing their performance in schools nosedive as a group, whereas almost all other groups are improving, for example. There's lots of things to suggest it's a brewing issue.
Sure, but what has that got to do with masculinity? I've heard the line that the traditional role of being the breadwinner through a job at the local male-dominated mine/factory/steelworks is gone. This suggests the problem is an uncertain future and a lack of self worth. I get that working in a SportsDirect warehouse on variable hours doesn't hit those two needs in a way that 20 years in a foundry would but why is that only affecting young white working class males?
The mines, etc are not coming back so we/they'd better find a new definition rather than clinging on to an obsolete one.
Although he didn't go into this in the C4 interview, JP suggests that what young men need is simply a 'purpose', to be useful. It doesn't have to be working in the local mine or foundry.0
