Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman
Discussion
motco said:
The Independent gives an 'independent' view of the reaction to the Newman-Peterson interview.
What a shower of s
t of an article. It's a victimised position escalated even further. Good job the comments seem to follow common sense. Greg66 said:
To many on here it seems, The Messiah.
To be honest, yes, not far off! 
So many people are getting fed up with all this twisting of the equal opportunities agenda moving from the position of 'everyone must have equal opportunity' to 'everyone must BE equal', so to find someone who can articulate so well and in such a reasoned manner why that is nonsensical is fantastic.
Look at the whining about unequal pay at Easyjet. On average, men earn more than women. 'Not fair' wailed the SJWs!
There are a majority of male pilots and a majority of female cabin crew who, for very obvious reasons earn different amounts. That's why there is a disparity. No suggestion that women can't become pilots, no suggestion that female pilots earn less than male pilots, or male cabin crew are paid more than female cabin crew in the same positions.
How can any right minded person argue that this is unfair - yet they did. And no one stood up and pointed out the obvious.
So to find someone who can - fantastic!
Ari said:
Look at the whining about unequal pay at Easyjet. On average, men earn more than women. 'Not fair' wailed the SJWs!
There are a majority of male pilots and a majority of female cabin crew who, for very obvious reasons earn different amounts. That's why there is a disparity. No suggestion that women can't become pilots, no suggestion that female pilots earn less than male pilots, or male cabin crew are paid more than female cabin crew in the same positions.
Exactly. Examples like this keep being misconstrued as unequal pay for the same jobs. Even Newman made that point in her interview when discussing the 9% median earnings gap.There are a majority of male pilots and a majority of female cabin crew who, for very obvious reasons earn different amounts. That's why there is a disparity. No suggestion that women can't become pilots, no suggestion that female pilots earn less than male pilots, or male cabin crew are paid more than female cabin crew in the same positions.
The problem as you rightly point out is that taking an average headline figure isnt comparing the same jobs. The job profile of male employees in many companies ‘on average’ is very different to that of female employees.
Moonhawk said:
The job profile of male employees in many companies ‘on average’ is very different to that of female employees.
One of my favourites is the argument that more women need to be on company boards as they are more compassionate, less adverse to risk and take a longer term view. Then in the next breath they refuse to acknowledge any differences at all between men and women. People should learn from Peterston on thinking before speaking
V8mate said:
covmutley said:
Interesting. Thanks!Ari said:
To be honest, yes, not far off!
So many people are getting fed up with all this twisting of the equal opportunities agenda moving from the position of 'everyone must have equal opportunity' to 'everyone must BE equal', so to find someone who can articulate so well and in such a reasoned manner why that is nonsensical is fantastic.
Look at the whining about unequal pay at Easyjet. On average, men earn more than women. 'Not fair' wailed the SJWs!
There are a majority of male pilots and a majority of female cabin crew who, for very obvious reasons earn different amounts. That's why there is a disparity. No suggestion that women can't become pilots, no suggestion that female pilots earn less than male pilots, or male cabin crew are paid more than female cabin crew in the same positions.
How can any right minded person argue that this is unfair - yet they did. And no one stood up and pointed out the obvious.
So to find someone who can - fantastic!
I'm not sure the complaints were about the gender pay gap per se, were they? Gender pay gap figures on their own don't really mean much (though no doubt sometimes they are misunderstood - perhaps intentionally - as representing pay differences for men and women doing the same job). They are simply a proxy to identify a gender role gap. As you say, no one is saying women can't become pilots; this sort of financial reporting is (at least as I see it) a means of trying to encourage women to aim for higher paid jobs in the first place. So many people are getting fed up with all this twisting of the equal opportunities agenda moving from the position of 'everyone must have equal opportunity' to 'everyone must BE equal', so to find someone who can articulate so well and in such a reasoned manner why that is nonsensical is fantastic.
Look at the whining about unequal pay at Easyjet. On average, men earn more than women. 'Not fair' wailed the SJWs!
There are a majority of male pilots and a majority of female cabin crew who, for very obvious reasons earn different amounts. That's why there is a disparity. No suggestion that women can't become pilots, no suggestion that female pilots earn less than male pilots, or male cabin crew are paid more than female cabin crew in the same positions.
How can any right minded person argue that this is unfair - yet they did. And no one stood up and pointed out the obvious.
So to find someone who can - fantastic!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This dialogue between Peterson and Canadian professor Stephen Hicks is highly informative on the subject of post-modernism, as are many of Hicks' other videos.They take some serious detours during this talk, yet Hicks brings them back to the divergent point every time. Another clear thinker and diagnostician, who seems to have a real grip on his subject matter.
Greg66 said:
As you say, no one is saying women can't become pilots; this sort of financial reporting is (at least as I see it) a means of trying to encourage women to aim for higher paid jobs in the first place.
Yes, and, arguably, jobs that at least some, if not many women do not want. When I think about my own wife, and lots of the other mums in our village, they choose to work part-time, or not alt all, to look after children and 'run the house'. That is what they want to do and there is nothing weak or undermining about that.
Peterston made the point very well- most men wouldn't want the highest paying jobs!
Greg66 said:
As you say, no one is saying women can't become pilots; this sort of financial reporting is (at least as I see it) a means of trying to encourage women to aim for higher paid jobs in the first place.
So why is it not pitched that way. Why is nobody asking women why they arent applying to be pilots or miners or oil rig workers in greater numbers.
Instead the companies are being called out, shamed and made to justify why a pay gap exists.
Also if the aim is to encourage more women into roles where men dominate - why is the reverse not happening. If an excess of one gender in a role is not a good thing - why arent similar questions being asked of companies or organisations which have roles where women dominate.
The fact of the matter is - there will never be median pay parity under the current conditions.
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?
stuckmojo said:
motco said:
The Independent gives an 'independent' view of the reaction to the Newman-Peterson interview.
What a shower of st of an article. It's a victimised position escalated even further. Good job the comments seem to follow common sense. I'd always, rather lazily, thought of Cathy Newman as intelligent and fair. Equally, of The Independent as unbiased and analytical.
Well, I was wrong - my own fault, I should have looked more closely at both.
Now it's clear to me that Ms Newman is a bluffer who doesn't even realise when she's out of her depth; while The Independent looks like some university NUS leaflet.
If only Dr Peterson's Twitter followers could share his civility and calmness.
Well, I was wrong - my own fault, I should have looked more closely at both.
Now it's clear to me that Ms Newman is a bluffer who doesn't even realise when she's out of her depth; while The Independent looks like some university NUS leaflet.
If only Dr Peterson's Twitter followers could share his civility and calmness.
Like everything in life data is key, inferring things from generalised statistics simply isn't true. As an example I work in a male heavy industry, when the company audited it's pay gap to ensure that with departments staff were being paid the same they found there was a big discrepancy for the average man vs woman, so they investigated, what was the reason? One guy was being paid substantially more than anyone else (of either gender) The generalised data says there's a pay gap, the specific data says one person is being paid over the odds, could have been a man or woman. People who use generalised data to prove points are liars or too dumb to see that they're not looking at the whole picture.
As has been said there no doubt is a gap but these high level simple statements are misleading and damaging. I happily hire anyone who fits the bill, most applicants are men, so we hire more men. I'd love to hire women they have different thought patterns and so it's a benefit to how we look at problems and work however I'd never hire someone who was less good than another candidate, gender just doesn't come into it.
As has been said there no doubt is a gap but these high level simple statements are misleading and damaging. I happily hire anyone who fits the bill, most applicants are men, so we hire more men. I'd love to hire women they have different thought patterns and so it's a benefit to how we look at problems and work however I'd never hire someone who was less good than another candidate, gender just doesn't come into it.
Ari said:
Greg66 said:
To many on here it seems, The Messiah.
To be honest, yes, not far off! So many people are getting fed up with all this twisting of the equal opportunities agenda moving from the position of 'everyone must have equal opportunity' to 'everyone must BE equal', so to find someone who can articulate so well and in such a reasoned manner why that is nonsensical is fantastic.
Look at the whining about unequal pay at Easyjet. On average, men earn more than women. 'Not fair' wailed the SJWs!
There are a majority of male pilots and a majority of female cabin crew who, for very obvious reasons earn different amounts. That's why there is a disparity. No suggestion that women can't become pilots, no suggestion that female pilots earn less than male pilots, or male cabin crew are paid more than female cabin crew in the same positions.
How can any right minded person argue that this is unfair - yet they did. And no one stood up and pointed out the obvious.
So to find someone who can - fantastic!
Most of all I hope she meets again with Jordan and they have a decent conversation and both leave feeling elated with mutual respect. I'm sure they both respect each other very much and to display this would fight against the unhealthy polarised narrative that is being encouraged.
Classic example of how the gender pay gap is portrayed in the media (and this is the FT, I've deliberately not chosen a left wing or tabloid headline).
EasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
EasyJet reveals 45% gender pay gap
https://www.ft.com/content/924d86e8-d38a-11e7-8c9a...
Note the word 'reveals', like it's some dirty secret that it's been forced reluctantly to share.
Now yes, the article goes on to explain why, but that is the headline.
And then you get this:
EasyJet has set a target that a fifth of new entrant pilots should be female by 2020. In the past year it said it had selected 49 female new entrant co-pilots, up from 33 during the previous twelve months.
Why? Why not simply recruit the best, regardless of gender, religion, race, height, eye colour or whatever.
This is the issue - gender equality should be about both genders having equal opportunity. In fact the word gender should be dropped.
It should simply be 'EQUALITY'. That's it. Everyone, rich, poor, gay, straight, fat, thin, has is judged by the same criteria.
But instead we have social engineering attempting to force some kind of equality to the result.
And the only way that can be achieved is by actively hiring because of gender (or race or whatever). Which means, bluntly, having some pilots who are arguably less good because you passed over a better candidate to select them in order to try and 'balance the books'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff