BBC Womens pay gap

[Moonhawk]

Funk said:

What was interesting though was Peterson's comment about the Scandinavian countries which have tried this and the outcome was that you still end up, he says, with a ~20/1 ratio of women to men in nursing/medicine and similar inverse result in engineering with 20/1 men-to-women ratio for example. Given equality of opportunity, the results seem to show that men and women just seem to like different jobs better, even where those roles don't, on average, pay equally. The only way to produce equality of outcome would be tyranny and forcing people into fields in which they don't tend to want to work.

The thing I don't get is. If this is all the work of an evil patriarch conspiracy trying to keep women down, why has this patriarchy chosen to push women into touchy feely, warm, office based roles - and given themselves a hard time by choosing to do hard, labour intensive, dangerous roles often working outside exposed to the elements.

It makes no sense.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 20th January 21:38

[saaby93]

ash73 said:

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't follow this at the time but it comes across as a storm in a teacup. What's the problem with referring to someone by their preferred pronoun? How does it compromise your freedom of speech? Try referring to someone's precious baby as "it" and see what reaction you get. I'd rather move with the times and adapt.

I thought in the video Peterson did say people should be referred to by their preferred pronoun
the problem was with it being dictated by law and ensuing penalties
or am I due a Parrot

[Funk]

ash73 said:

Not sure what happened to Funk's post but I enjoyed reading it, thanks for taking the time.

I deleted it because I was concerned that what I mentioned in it might happen to me. The irony of that isn't lost on me.

[SpeedMattersNot]

My daughter turned up to school on her 4th birthday proudly wearing a Spider-man badge. The first thing the female teacher said was "..Spider-man?! What's she wearing that for...why not My Little Pony or something.."

As a budding teacher of science, this was very depressing. My daughter loves racing cars, and Katy Perry, and horses, and riding her bike, and computer games, and cooking, and fighting (play fighting with me) and she loves trying to help me fix things.

The sooner egalitarian is the new buzz word or term, the better.

[WinstonWolf]

SpeedMattersNot said:

My daughter turned up to school on her 4th birthday proudly wearing a Spider-man badge. The first thing the female teacher said was "..Spider-man?! What's she wearing that for...why not My Little Pony or something.."

As a budding teacher of science, this was very depressing. My daughter loves racing cars, and Katy Perry, and horses, and riding her bike, and computer games, and cooking, and fighting (play fighting with me) and she loves trying to help me fix things.

The sooner egalitarian is the new buzz word or term, the better.

She could have worn a spider woman badge.

[saaby93]

WinstonWolf said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

My daughter turned up to school on her 4th birthday proudly wearing a Spider-man badge. The first thing the female teacher said was "..Spider-man?! What's she wearing that for...why not My Little Pony or something.."

As a budding teacher of science, this was very depressing. My daughter loves racing cars, and Katy Perry, and horses, and riding her bike, and computer games, and cooking, and fighting (play fighting with me) and she loves trying to help me fix things.

The sooner egalitarian is the new buzz word or term, the better.

She could have worn a spider woman badge.

Is it no longer allowed to have opposite sex opposite gender role models?

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

Is it no longer allowed to have opposite sex opposite gender role models?

Apparently not

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18033198

http://www.startupdaily.net/2017/03/lack-female-me...

https://www.thebusinesswomanmedia.com/female-under...

[Goaty Bill 2]

ash73 said:

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't follow this at the time but it comes across as a storm in a teacup. What's the problem with referring to someone by their preferred pronoun? How does it compromise your freedom of speech? Try referring to someone's precious baby as "it" and see what reaction you get. I'd rather move with the times and adapt.

As I said, I followed this closely. Daily in fact, between the first video to the passing of the Bill.
That does not however mean that I could have listened to or read everything, nor imply that I could not be incorrect on some points.

saaby93 said:

thought in the video Peterson did say people should be referred to by their preferred pronoun
the problem was with it being dictated by law and ensuing penalties
or am I due a Parrot

I think saaby93 answered that quite accurately so....No parrot required

Many commentators in the Canadian transgender 'community' seemed to be quite adamant that it would lead to forcing those darned 'cis-norms' to 'speak properly'. Apologies for having to rely strictly on memory for that aspect.

Many others argued that C-16 would have no such effect, yet each argument against Peterson that I read or watched would somehow manage to ignore the connection between the Canadian DoJ website, and the Ontario codes and definitions,
It seemed not unreasonable to assume that this was intentional, and that the connection was therefore critical. Let's face it, most people simply read the opinion, and if it agrees with theirs, they will look no further.

ash73 said:

I've watched a couple of Peterson's presentations now, the 12 rules one was thought provoking but his Biblical series is meandering repetitive waffle. Would be interesting to see him in a debate with Kraus & Hawkins though.

Previous quoting removed for brevity

How about the 'Pinocchio' and 'Lion King' lectures?

For many (I dare say most) atheists, especially those raised on a diet of Hitchens and Dawkins, it can be very difficult to allow the mind to separate the rejection of religion from the understanding the effects on human development of the mythology of religions.
While the series is broadly described as 'Biblical' he refers freely to pre-Bible times, much older belief systems and symbology, and to other religions that were existent in the same periods that the Bible covers, as well as eastern religions and belief systems.
It is all very Jungian in the approach.
It would certainly easier to follow if you have either a broadly Jewish, Muslim, Christian upbringing or a familiarity with Jung's archetypes.
I would suggest that his lectures on Nietzsche and Jung might help with some context, short of reading the Bible and/or Jung.
To be clear for those that have not approached the Biblical series, it is not a 'call to faith' or an exhortation to convert, nor a defence of the church. It is focused on the development of western society and our morals and ethics.

I'm not sure exactly which either Kraus or Hawkins precisely. A google search on either produces a myriad of results.

Peterson did a couple of lengthy discussions with Sam Harris.
The first discussion dragged forever on a single point. The second being more productive.
Typically, support for which side 'won' was generally divided along who one was supporting from the beginning. I doubt either won any 'converts' as a result.
The amount of respect given to each by the other should indicate to an admirer of either, that the other may well be worth paying attention to as well.

[Mike_Mac]

saaby93 said:

WinstonWolf said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

My daughter turned up to school on her 4th birthday proudly wearing a Spider-man badge. The first thing the female teacher said was "..Spider-man?! What's she wearing that for...why not My Little Pony or something.."

As a budding teacher of science, this was very depressing. My daughter loves racing cars, and Katy Perry, and horses, and riding her bike, and computer games, and cooking, and fighting (play fighting with me) and she loves trying to help me fix things.

The sooner egalitarian is the new buzz word or term, the better.

She could have worn a spider woman badge.

Is it no longer allowed to have opposite sex opposite gender role models?

Well from some stories in recent times it's apparently the case that you can't have role models from other races, so that wouldn't surprise me!

[Joey Ramone]

ash73 said:

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't follow this at the time but it comes across as a storm in a teacup. What's the problem with referring to someone by their preferred pronoun? How does it compromise your freedom of speech? Try referring to someone's precious baby as "it" and see what reaction you get. I'd rather move with the times and adapt.

As above, his objection centred on that matter of compelled speech. His concern was that bill C-16 effectively dictated language to be used that particular context, with the potential for censure and prosecution if the correct language was not used. Authoritarian leaning towards totalitarian in his opinion.

Peterson's interview on the Joe Rogan podcast is excellent. And while I'm not too enamoured of his Biblical series, I find Peterson's thoughts on religion most interesting. As a Christian, he's a fairly brutal opponent for the 'fictional sky fairy' mob. Most of whom appear to stalk these boards.

[Goaty Bill 2]

SpeedMattersNot said:

My daughter turned up to school on her 4th birthday proudly wearing a Spider-man badge. The first thing the female teacher said was "..Spider-man?! What's she wearing that for...why not My Little Pony or something.."

As a budding teacher of science, this was very depressing. My daughter loves racing cars, and Katy Perry, and horses, and riding her bike, and computer games, and cooking, and fighting (play fighting with me) and she loves trying to help me fix things.

The sooner egalitarian is the new buzz word or term, the better.

In spite of my instinctive dislike for radical feminism and enforced social engineering, I find the idea of pigeonholing children according to their biological sex deeply disturbing, and at the least annoying.
While I find the argument for a likely uneven distribution of results to be compelling, it remains quite clear to me that many women can and do excel in technical and leadership roles.

Of course, your daughter's teacher may well have simply expressed herself poorly.
Many are the utterances I would wish to retrieve, remake and deliver again.

[Russian Troll Bot]

He retweeted this thread which sums up the fallout from the C4 debate quite well. They lost the argument so deflect into claims of online abuse and having to hire extra security (no evidence provided), associate him with the alt-right then get all media outlets to repeat it

https://twitter.com/CheekiScrump/status/9547762848...

[saaby93]

Russian Troll Bot said:

He retweeted this thread which sums up the fallout from the C4 debate quite well. They lost the argument so deflect into claims of online abuse and having to hire extra security (no evidence provided), associate him with the alt-right then get all media outlets to repeat it

https://twitter.com/CheekiScrump/status/9547762848...

I'm not convinced 'they lost the argument'
That only applies if you think C4 was taking him on
If you think of C4 as putting forward the questions others have been asking it becomes much more reasoned and he managed to counter everything well.
Is there anything on the Beeb about this?

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

If you think of C4 as putting forward the questions others have been asking it becomes much more reasoned and he managed to counter everything well.
Is there anything on the Beeb about this?

If that was the case - there would have been no reason to try and put words in his mouth.

She said "so you're saying" so many times during that interview it's become a meme. Almost without exception, she had got totally the wrong end of the stick.

This wasn't just about asking questions - there was clearly a pre-conceived agenda behind the interview (if not from C4, then certainly from the interviewer).

I have downloaded and parsed a transcription of the interview from the youtube closed captions. Reading it back is quite an eye opener (if anyone is interested in it - PM me - it's probably too big to post here - 6 pages in MS word using 8 point font)

[Russian Troll Bot]

saaby93 said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

He retweeted this thread which sums up the fallout from the C4 debate quite well. They lost the argument so deflect into claims of online abuse and having to hire extra security (no evidence provided), associate him with the alt-right then get all media outlets to repeat it

https://twitter.com/CheekiScrump/status/9547762848...

I'm not convinced 'they lost the argument'
That only applies if you think C4 was taking him on
If you think of C4 as putting forward the questions others have been asking it becomes much more reasoned and he managed to counter everything well.
Is there anything on the Beeb about this?

She was certainly trying to trip him up and put words in his mouth, which failed every time. If you get to a point where one side admits they can't think of a response to your point, I think you'd be justified in claiming victory. Oddly enough there doesn't seem to be anything on the BBC, but the Guardian, Mail, Mirror, Evening Standard, Times and Independent have all covered it, focusing only on the apparent abuse.

[Randy Winkman]

saaby93 said:

Russian Troll Bot said:

He retweeted this thread which sums up the fallout from the C4 debate quite well. They lost the argument so deflect into claims of online abuse and having to hire extra security (no evidence provided), associate him with the alt-right then get all media outlets to repeat it

https://twitter.com/CheekiScrump/status/9547762848...

I'm not convinced 'they lost the argument'
That only applies if you think C4 was taking him on
If you think of C4 as putting forward the questions others have been asking it becomes much more reasoned and he managed to counter everything well.
Is there anything on the Beeb about this?

I ignore anything that uses the word "destroyed". It just shows its posted by someone who thinks they already know all the answers.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

She said "so you're saying" so many times during that interview

Cant blame her for that, it's become quite common practice among interveiwers. It happens quite a lot too here in PH
Whenever anyone says to me now 'so youre saying' the stock answer is 'no - thats what youre saying, read what I said'

[Goaty Bill 2]

ash73 said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

For many (I dare say most) atheists, especially those raised on a diet of Hitchens and Dawkins, it can be very difficult to allow the mind to separate the rejection of religion from the understanding the effects on human development of the mythology of religions.

I'm agnostic but anyhow the issue I'm having with it, apart from just being incredibly verbose, is that he seems to be suggesting ancient stories were written by people who understood the devine nature of consciousness, whereas I think they survived by a process of natural selection and he's projecting his own ideas about consciousness onto them.

He uses Michelangelo's Creation of Adam as an example, where God may depict the physical structure of a brain, which is certainly interesting but it was painted during the renaissance.

First paragraph;
To begin, Peterson is certainly Darwinian. An example I used earlier to 'allow your bad ideas to die rather than your physical self' is Darwinian in its foundation; in other words, those that don't allow their 'bad ideas to die' risk physical harm, and potential removal from the gene pool, or lessen their access to the more desirable partners for procreation.

The idea around the ancient stories seems to be more that they developed and grew and refined over time, and then are finally written down as the culmination, up to that point in time, of a sort of collective wisdom in a format serving a similar purpose to a parable, or classic fairy story containing a valuable lesson.
It is freely acknowledged that some of that wisdom may be out of date for the modern world.

To address the first point last, his verbosity is likely an insurance that he gives as many people as possible some background to the stories. He is after all positioning these lectures for the general public, many of whom, even Christians, will be quite ignorant of the details of the stories.


Second paragraph;
I know the work in general but, unfortunately haven't watched enough episodes, to comment on those specifics.
On the face of it, it does sound a bit 'out there', but without watching the episode and deriving the context, it would be impossible to comment.

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

ant blame her for that, it's become quite common practice among interveiwers. It happens quite a lot too here in PH
Whenever anyone says to me now 'so youre saying' the stock answer is 'no - thats what youre saying, read what I said'

I'd expect a highly paid C4 interviewer to be operating at a slightly higher level than a forum troll though.

[anonymous-user]

Moonhawk said:

saaby93 said:

ant blame her for that, it's become quite common practice among interveiwers. It happens quite a lot too here in PH
Whenever anyone says to me now 'so youre saying' the stock answer is 'no - thats what youre saying, read what I said'

I'd expect a highly paid C4 interviewer to be operating at a slightly higher level than a forum troll though.

And those that use 'so what you're saying' are trolling, and are deliberately misinterpreting and/or ignoring what was said to align with their particular opinion/position.

So either she is an incompetent interviewer or a highly paid troll (I think Milo Y already has this job though). The former would be especially odd, as from her background she's clearly intelligent.