Does this mean automatic feminist righteousness is flawed?

That gender is not the only thing?

Watch it and see what you think. I think Peterson is brilliant, but the interviewer was just like all interviewers, no more a 'bimbo', as she was called, than any of the others. More bad than good, but I don't think she was 'demolished' as commentators over-enthusiastic about Peterson would have us believe. Few males are able to stand up to Peterson, either.

Hard to comment on data, I know little about, save what's published as validated fact. one of which seems to be, women retire on about half the super of their counterpart men?

In any event, the interviewer should have done her homework and had marshaled validated facts and figures to present as irrefutable evidence. As the reported facts about super would seem to suggest?

She should have been able to pull up page after page of irrefutable facts to support her claims, which could still prove to be true?

As Robbie Burns would have said, "facts are chiels tha' dinna whinge!"
Alan B.

Jordan Peterson was brilliant in this interview. He remained calm and stuck to the facts the whole way through.

Cathy Newman, on the other hand, sat there and attempted to misinterpret absolutely everything Peterson had to say by extracting meaning that simply wasn't there. Newman made the mistake of going into the interview with the assumption that Peterson was a woman-hating misogynist and has, consequently, destroyed her credibility as a journalist. She made precisely the same erroneous assumptions that Cassie Jaye says she used to make:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY

Just about every response from Newman started with the words, "So, you're saying...", to which Peterson continuously replied with, "No, what I'm saying is..."

An analogy:

Peterson: "Sometimes a man may have to physically restrain a woman who becomes uncontrollably violent."

Newman: "So, you're saying that it's alright for men to beat women?"

The above exchange may not have actually taken place in the interview, but, astonishingly, it is not an exaggeration of the kind of counter-questions Peterson received.

It was a shameful piece of journalism, from an interviewer who spent an entire interview scrounging around for a 'Gotcha' moment that was never going to eventuate.

One woman makes a fool of herself and therefore ALL feminists have feet of clay - oh puleez.
But what can you expect for a rant featured in the Spectator where strawman "arguments" are the norm and everything is reduced to simplistic binary exclusions. And where it seems most, if not all of our problems are caused by deluded feminists.

Using the same "logic" it would be equally valid to say that the Beavis and Butthead character that now lives in the Whitehouse discredits ALL men, especially those who are "empowered" by his example to strut their misogynist stuff (and hands) onto the bodies of any attractive woman that they fancy.

Never mind too that the same insane-clown President has the emotional intelligence of a toddler (who throws tantrums whenever he is frustrated or criticized). As such he is now empowering and giving permission to all the emotionally retarded Beavis and Butthead type creeps that are all to common in Amerika (as depicted in the movie Beavis and Butthead Do America)

Daffy Duck, how did you get that moniker? Oh, yes I see!