BBC Womens pay gap
Discussion
Not-The-Messiah said:
Comprehensively pwn3d.1.7 million views
44k likes (vs 1k dislikes).
Could this be the start of a sensible and appropriate debate in the MSM re the pay gap and the current wave of feminism (which by any other metric could be considered misandry).
Edited by g3org3y on Friday 19th January 19:41
g3org3y said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Comprehensively pwn3d.1.7 million views
44k likes (vs 1k dislikes).
Could this be the start of a sensible and appropriate debate in the MSM re the pay gap and the current wave of feminism (which by any other metric could be considered misandry).
Edited by g3org3y on Friday 19th January 19:41
The gender pay gap has been demonstrably rubbished, eg the recent report by Kate Andrews of the Institute of Economic Affairs, but still unchallenged articles keep appearing in the press, and talked about by politicians, as if it is really down to discrimination.
In my view it will need a lot more women to realise what is going on and start to raise concerns and fears for their male relatives and friends. Men don’t listen to other men I’m afraid!
Too Drunk to Funk said:
This "Pay Gap" thing seems to based on a fairly ludicrous assumption that all men get paid the same money for doing the same job.
As one person points out in the comments; 99.9999% of men are not running FTSE 100 companies either.(I can not confirm with absolute certainty the accuracy of this figure)
It is not easy for anyone to become 'top lobster'.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
As one person points out in the comments; 99.9999% of men are not running FTSE 100 companies either.
(I can not confirm with absolute certainty the accuracy of this figure)
It is not easy for anyone to become 'top lobster'.
Indeed - and there are a hugely disproportionate number of men working in dirty, labour intensive and dangerous jobs.(I can not confirm with absolute certainty the accuracy of this figure)
It is not easy for anyone to become 'top lobster'.
Moonhawk said:
Indeed - but there are a hugely disproportionate number of men working in dirty, labour intensive and dangerous jobs.
I’m sure you’re wrong about that, surely feminists would be calling for equality in dirty, dangerous jobs too wouldn’t they and not just jobs they see as highly paid, Office based, high status jobs? Oh no, wait......... equality when it suits, of course, I forgot......
C4 calls in security experts after presenter suffers online abuse
Guardian does its best to associate Peterson with the alt-right (again);
"Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right"."
Apparently either did not listen to or failed to understand Peterson's reply on the transgender pronoun controversy (or laziness, or misrepresenting);
"Peterson rose to prominence in 2016 when he released a video lecture series in which he said that his right to free speech meant he would not use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender students at the University of Toronto."
Thankfully offers this bit of good sense;
"Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. There is no suggestion that Peterson, Delingpole or Murray are behind the threats or instigated them."
Ms. Newman replies to Douglas Murry's ( Spectator blog)
"... I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with Jordan Peterson as did hundreds of thousands of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas."
Fair enough Ms. Newman.
And she deals with it all quite reasonably on her twitter account to all appearances.
Guardian managed to get the word "misogynistic" in four times including the title. Well done.
And we witness the problem that occurs when anyone, be they left or right orientated, feminist or men's rights, whatever the topic, expresses a sensible and properly considered argument, the hard of thinking take it as a cue to launch an attack and threats against the 'other side'. Absolutely unacceptable. (though I admit, I have seen no direct evidence myself)
Sadly there will always be extremists at either end of the spectrum. They do nothing to improve the debate.
Guardian does its best to associate Peterson with the alt-right (again);
"Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right"."
Apparently either did not listen to or failed to understand Peterson's reply on the transgender pronoun controversy (or laziness, or misrepresenting);
"Peterson rose to prominence in 2016 when he released a video lecture series in which he said that his right to free speech meant he would not use gender-neutral pronouns for transgender students at the University of Toronto."
Thankfully offers this bit of good sense;
"Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. There is no suggestion that Peterson, Delingpole or Murray are behind the threats or instigated them."
Ms. Newman replies to Douglas Murry's ( Spectator blog)
"... I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with Jordan Peterson as did hundreds of thousands of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas."
Fair enough Ms. Newman.
And she deals with it all quite reasonably on her twitter account to all appearances.
Guardian managed to get the word "misogynistic" in four times including the title. Well done.
And we witness the problem that occurs when anyone, be they left or right orientated, feminist or men's rights, whatever the topic, expresses a sensible and properly considered argument, the hard of thinking take it as a cue to launch an attack and threats against the 'other side'. Absolutely unacceptable. (though I admit, I have seen no direct evidence myself)
Sadly there will always be extremists at either end of the spectrum. They do nothing to improve the debate.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Guardian managed to get the word "misogynistic" in four times including the title. Well done.
The irony is - the way she question him, the condescending tone, the constant attempts to trap him or misconstrue his words. Her attitude could easily be interpreted as misandry.Would she have taken the same tack had it been a woman sat in his chair?
Donbot said:
I seriously doubt it. Prepare for a load of doubling down and deflection.
... a few moments later...Goaty Bill 2 said:
I saw the original interview and therefore followed the aftermath a lot on both Twitter, YouTube etc. She was subjected to lots of ridicule, mocking, criticism and laughter, from all sides of the political spectrum TBH, not just 'Right-Leaning' sites, but I can't recall seeing any 'vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threat(s)'... maybe C4 is still on the 'hurt feelings = violence' platform?I suspect that this is more C4 trying to spin back to their original planned narrative though - that JP is nothing more than a misogynistic and Trans-Phobic Far Right mouthpiece with bigots for followers. Saves having to face up to the fact that their presenter came away looking incredibly foolish and that her arguments were demonstrably made of straw.
oh never mind the clip
The full thing is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
The strawmen on PH have nothing on the way she was trying to twist things around
The full thing is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
The strawmen on PH have nothing on the way she was trying to twist things around
Mike_Mac said:
Donbot said:
I seriously doubt it. Prepare for a load of doubling down and deflection.
... a few moments later...Goaty Bill 2 said:
Pesty said:
My guess.
That clip has gone viral, it’s been viewed millions of times and is being posted across the globe on forums like this one.
She’s been outed as incompetent, biased, illogical and out of her deapth.
Quick play the victim card get everybody in side again.
In all fairness, and not to excuse her lack of preparedness, there really aren't many people capable of actually debating Peterson on his subjects. She was way out of her league.That clip has gone viral, it’s been viewed millions of times and is being posted across the globe on forums like this one.
She’s been outed as incompetent, biased, illogical and out of her deapth.
Quick play the victim card get everybody in side again.
Her mistake, aside from not knowing her opponent (basic Sun Tzu my dear woman), was in attacking/debating rather than simply interviewing.
I would bet very strongly that Peterson knew her work very well before he walked in and sat down.
One thing that makes him so damned difficult, is that he does listen very carefully to exactly what people actually say and debates them directly on the stated point.
He can often become passionate to the point of raging fury or even tears when lecturing or speaking, but in debating he remains as cold as ice, without losing his ability to be courteous and even charming.
She couldn't have done a better job of getting his views aired if she'd planned it that way.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Pesty said:
My guess.
That clip has gone viral, it’s been viewed millions of times and is being posted across the globe on forums like this one.
She’s been outed as incompetent, biased, illogical and out of her deapth.
Quick play the victim card get everybody in side again.
In all fairness, and not to excuse her lack of preparedness, there really aren't many people capable of actually debating Peterson on his subjects. She was way out of her league.That clip has gone viral, it’s been viewed millions of times and is being posted across the globe on forums like this one.
She’s been outed as incompetent, biased, illogical and out of her deapth.
Quick play the victim card get everybody in side again.
Her mistake, aside from not knowing her opponent (basic Sun Tzu my dear woman), was in attacking/debating rather than simply interviewing.
I would bet very strongly that Peterson knew her work very well before he walked in and sat down.
One thing that makes him so damned difficult, is that he does listen very carefully to exactly what people actually say and debates them directly on the stated point.
He can often become passionate to the point of raging fury or even tears when lecturing or speaking, but in debating he remains as cold as ice, without losing his ability to be courteous and even charming.
She couldn't have done a better job of getting his views aired if she'd planned it that way.
At the end, he thanks her and dips his head to be lower than hers, psychology for recognising a worthy opponent
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Her mistake, aside from not knowing her opponent (basic Sun Tzu my dear woman), was in attacking/debating rather than simply interviewing.
Exactly - she clearly had no idea what she was talking about. She was citing figures not knowing what they actually mean and making baseless claims against his well researched and well argued points.As you say - why not just interview him with an open mind and accept that there may be more to the whole 'gender equality' debate than a simple tabloid headlines of "9% difference between men and women's median pay" or "pink bicycle helmets cost more than blue ones" can possibly cover.
saaby93 said:
n the full version I think she did ok, as did he
I watched the whole thing and she did anything but ok.She misinterpreted or misconstrued almost every single one of his points.
She rapidly changed the subject on multiple occasions when he fired an uncomfortable question back her way.
She made multiple dubious and baseless claims and misrepresented statistical data (like the 9% difference in men and women's median pay).
Her 'lobster' comment was just ludicrous.
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 20th January 13:19
Moonhawk said:
I watched the whole thing and she did anything but ok.
She misinterpreted or misconstrued almost every single one of his points.
She rapidly changed the subject on multiple occasions when he fired an uncomfortable question back her way.
She made multiple dubious and baseless claims and misrepresented statistical data (like the 9% difference in men and women's median pay).
I meant ok in the sense that she put forward ( in sequence) the awkward questions that were being asked elsewhere of him and managed to elucidate reasonable responses - which is probably why he thanked her for going thereShe misinterpreted or misconstrued almost every single one of his points.
She rapidly changed the subject on multiple occasions when he fired an uncomfortable question back her way.
She made multiple dubious and baseless claims and misrepresented statistical data (like the 9% difference in men and women's median pay).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff