Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman
Discussion
Greg66 said:
Funk said:
I'm sure they're already well aware of what a pilot is and that they could, should they so wish, apply to become one - is a 'recruitment drive' needed? To say that women aren't applying to be pilots because they've not seen an advert telling them that women can fly a plane is actually insulting to women.
Good job no one has said that then. Greg66 earlier said:
What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it.
Funk said:
Greg66 said:
Funk said:
I'm sure they're already well aware of what a pilot is and that they could, should they so wish, apply to become one - is a 'recruitment drive' needed? To say that women aren't applying to be pilots because they've not seen an advert telling them that women can fly a plane is actually insulting to women.
Good job no one has said that then. Greg66 earlier said:
What EJ should be saying (and doing) is that it is encouraging more and more women to apply through targeted recruitment drives. Often an unbalanced workforce stems from an unbalanced pool from which people are recruited. Balance the pool first, then look at how you are recruiting from it.
No one has suggested that women don't apply to be pilots because they are labouring under some misapprehension that they cannot - ie are not capable; it is beyond the capabilities of the female form and mind - fly a plane.
A targeted recruitment drive of the type I referred to is one to encourage women to consider seriously a career that they might otherwise have passed by.
V8mate said:
Janluke said:
Mothersruin said:
Just skimmed that thread and its not too far from some of the comments on this one ie Peterson made some good points, posters agreed with some of what he said but questioned some of it, Newman didnt do a great job Why do feminist think he's wrong on (or misunderstands) feminism?
Or do feminists just feel they have to say that? (hopefully this isn't the case; they seem to be having a reasonably reasonable discussion)
Greg66 said:
The "said" referred to "that women aren't applying to be pilots because they've not seen an advert telling them that women can fly a plane".
No one has suggested that women don't apply to be pilots because they are labouring under some misapprehension that they cannot - ie are not capable; it is beyond the capabilities of the female form and mind - fly a plane.
A targeted recruitment drive of the type I referred to is one to encourage women to consider seriously a career that they might otherwise have passed by.
It is probably best to stop digging now.No one has suggested that women don't apply to be pilots because they are labouring under some misapprehension that they cannot - ie are not capable; it is beyond the capabilities of the female form and mind - fly a plane.
A targeted recruitment drive of the type I referred to is one to encourage women to consider seriously a career that they might otherwise have passed by.
Moonhawk said:
Men (on average) work longer hours, take less time out of work. They work in heavier, dirtier, more dangerous or risky jobs (97% of workplace fatalities and 62% of workplace injuries involve men). They retire later. They prioritise pay over work life balance more. They are more likely to work unsociable hours, work away from home, or do night shift work. They are prepared to (and do) commute further or longer.
These are all factors that Peterson was alluding to in his interview.
Adding all those factors up - is a 9% difference in median pay across all workers really that big?
Very good points.These are all factors that Peterson was alluding to in his interview.
Adding all those factors up - is a 9% difference in median pay across all workers really that big?
DeejRC said:
Have any of you actually read the actual book? Or researched it?
Sorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
The emergence of the 'liberal left' and what they stand for. By extension, antifa, militant feminists, blm, trans activists etcSorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
Aphex said:
DeejRC said:
Have any of you actually read the actual book? Or researched it?
Sorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
The emergence of the 'liberal left' and what they stand for. By extension, antifa, militant feminists, blm, trans activists etcSorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
Not-The-Messiah said:
Aphex said:
DeejRC said:
Have any of you actually read the actual book? Or researched it?
Sorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
The emergence of the 'liberal left' and what they stand for. By extension, antifa, militant feminists, blm, trans activists etcSorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
Moonhawk said:
DeejRC said:
Have any of you actually read the actual book? Or researched it?
The thread is about the C4 interview - isn't it?London 2018 Jordan B. Peterson on 12 Rules for Life - YouTube
Aphex said:
DeejRC said:
Have any of you actually read the actual book? Or researched it?
Sorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
The emergence of the 'liberal left' and what they stand for. By extension, antifa, militant feminists, blm, trans activists etcSorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
There is a reason I actually asked the question! The C4 interview is only of relevance or interest because of Cathy Newman/De Pear using the emergence of the BBC gender pay issue as an editorial angle. Almost everything she talked about actually has little to do with the book and philosophies he was originally brought over to discuss and publicise. Apart from the first 5mins or so. Which as I said previously is actually where the really interesting ideas were and could do with being discussed - but as nobody has bothered reading the book or looking up what it actually talks about, everybody has ignored.
Peterson doesn't actually say much of anything new or controversial really. Its mostly The Leviathon with added psychological insights via Jung.
Hobbes got it pretty much 400 yrs ago but had enough common sense not to need any psychologists tell him anything.
Greg66 said:
The "said" referred to "that women aren't applying to be pilots because they've not seen an advert telling them that women can fly a plane".
No one has suggested that women don't apply to be pilots because they are labouring under some misapprehension that they cannot - ie are not capable; it is beyond the capabilities of the female form and mind - fly a plane.
A targeted recruitment drive of the type I referred to is one to encourage women to consider seriously a career that they might otherwise have passed by.
So should there also be a targeted drive to encourage men to become flight attendants? Or is the fact that the majority of FAs are female simply because men in general are less interested in the role?No one has suggested that women don't apply to be pilots because they are labouring under some misapprehension that they cannot - ie are not capable; it is beyond the capabilities of the female form and mind - fly a plane.
A targeted recruitment drive of the type I referred to is one to encourage women to consider seriously a career that they might otherwise have passed by.
It's interesting that if you look at adverts in aviation magazines for commercial pilots courses, the students shown are almost always female, presumably just the kind of targeting you want. Unfortunately the feminists protest because showing female students being taught by male instructors is demeaning to women.
V8mate said:
covmutley said:
Interesting. Thanks!He uses the example of when the Spanish first arrived in South America bringing with them diseases like chickpox which killed off 90% of the native population within a short period of time. It could be argued there is a logical evolutionary rationale of self preservation which might have caused a visceral dislike of "foreigners"
He goes onto argue that this instinctive reaction isn't one of fear of foreigners but is the much more significant emotion of disgust.
And he extends the point to Hitler to explain why he was so keen on exterminating Jewish people; he wasn't fearful of them, but rather he was disgusted by them. This explains why he prioritised their extermination in the Holocaust, even when it wasn't helpful to his war efforts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff