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!

I watched the interview and it seemed to me that he was making the age-old argument that the gender pay gap is largely due to women's choices, not the patriarchal system.

According to Peterson, women choose lower paid careers (but he's vague about why those careers are so low paid). According to Peterson, women are more agreeable than men, and so, don't aggressively compete with men within a male system (but he's vague about what conditioning makes women so agreeable, but not men).

As for the 'Gotcha' response ... this was typical male bullying. She was merely taking a moment to process what he said. He used the opportunity to declare a victory. That is the real reason that 'this formidable man attracts literally millions of followers online'. There is a huge anti-feminist movement online. That movement trawls every nook and cranny to reveal a male pundit who, in their view, 'demolishes' a feminist argument.

In other words, a man who puts an uppity woman in her place.

Hear, hear and well said, Killarney!
Alan B.

As much as I respect Arndt's opinion, and as much as I admire Peterson's work and methods, I think its always fraught to 'see' or identify "pivotal moment[s]" this close to the event.

Maybe we can look back in a year or three and accept that this was indeed a watershed event, but we are too close to it just now to know.

The ability of the left to just ignore data that they don't want to be true, the ability of the mass media and their internet allies, to bury unwanted information and the fact that this type of thing requires more than a twitter meme to understand it, all means, to me, that this won't change much.

For example, the notion of the gender pay gap is just too useful for the SJW-brigade to allow mere facts to limit its use. So Peterson's 'victory' there means nought. Ditto the claimed right against being offended.

Perhaps the one thing that Peterson has achieved is to show others how to confront and cower those who elevate feelings over facts. If that lesson is learned then it might indeed become a watershed moment.

Killarney, he didn't put her in her place, she did it all by herself.
Trying to use that totally debunked gender pay gap argument was an embarrassment she will never live down.

Evidence may be gleaned in previously male dominated areas women have moved into. Education is such an area.

An aspect of this move has been much being part-time to balance family commitments where a male partner is the major bread-winner. When time comes to stand up for better conditions, due to having consequences more for discretionary spending than survival, the part-timers backed by bread-winners temper group militancy that may lead to better outcomes. This may give the appearance of gender based conflict aversion/agreeableness.

I believe GP's may become similarly impacted in time, and may become public servants in public clinics and hospitals in the truer sense of servitude.

OTOH, I'm sure clinical psychs have valid ways of measuring agreeableness. Any challenge has to be aimed at the measuring instrument.

The wage/pay gap.

Pre 1970's men and women were paid different wages for the same work, what is not recognised is that some industries also had a single mans wage and a married man's wage.

Legislation came in, and men and women are paid the same wage for the same work, so any career that is covered by an award, men and women are paid the same hourly rate.

Where it is perhaps not so clear is where there are individual contracts.

But in the public service, education, health and thousands of other jobs/careers men and women are paid the same hourly rate/weekly wage/salary.

Now it gets muddy, teachers are paid more than nurses, and this varies between the states as well, some are higher, some are lower on the pay rates.

So then what each career earns begins to be compared to each other, now with teachers, I understand men are more likely to move into higher paid levels. then it is claim that male teachers earn more than female teachers, even though both male and females are paid exactly the same at the same levels and years of experience.

The other trick is too say that male teachers earn more over their career, than female teachers and the main reason is female teachers can become pregnant and take time off to raise a family. So a male teacher may put 40 years into working as a teacher and a female teacher may only work a total of 20-30 years as a teacher.

The only way a female teacher could keep the same number years and work the same number of years as a male, would be not to have children.

So in order to have the same amount of superannuation as a male teacher, two things would be necessary to make up for the loss of superannuation, female teachers who choose to have babies and break their career need to be paid an higher salary than male teachers doing the same work and that contributions to their superannuation continues, whilst they raise their children

What tend to be forgotten in the superannuation race.

Firstly men, tend to rather conveniently die earlier than women, so the odds are on that the wife will inherit his superannuation.

Secondly, divorce and property settlements, tend to favour the ex wife and she gets a significant portion of his superannuation.

And all this tops up her own retirement funds.

sorry Wolly B facts will never count against regressive narratives. You might endanger victimhood funding. Imagine you did a phd on women's studies by being accurate like your summary. You would definitely fail.

A point in the video; in the workplace women are more agreeable.
Some asked why are women more agreeable ?
It is probably in their genes.
Also I am reminded of the story of the women of Athens.
In protest about the men wanting to go to war they removed themselves
from their husbands beds.
The men soon gave in.

Much of the current feminist argument is very aggressively anti men.
If men withdrew many of the things they do for women, eg wheeling out
the bins, sorting out that noise in her car, getting those jam bottles
open, those ring pull cans, setup the video recorder, do something
about that damn dripping tap in the shower, fix the lock on the wire
door, change the light in the lounge room, get up into the roof space
on the years hottest day to check if there is a possum in the roof etc etc etc,
perhaps they might take a less aggressive attitude to their menfolk.

I am sure that women can do all these things but they don't.

runner, you are right in that I would fail.

Killarney, you claim that the' Gotcha". was typical male bullying.

Yet the female interviewer was using a technique called verballing.

She was trying to exaggerate and add negativity to what he was saying, and this is a typical female bullying technique.

I viewed the interview, I don't think it was a pivotal moment and I don't think feminism clay feet were exposed.

He did however raise some interesting ideas, that were never fully explored or finished.

Killarney wrote;

"There is a huge anti-feminist movement online. That movement trawls every nook and cranny to reveal a male pundit who, in their view, 'demolishes' a feminist argument."

All throughout history there have been underground movements, Christianity was perhaps not the first, but has been well document. Even today in some countries, Christians hold secret worship. Then there was the war of the roses. In recent times we had secret guerrilla warfare against the Nazi's.

Killarney is Irish and the Irish opposed the British rule and takeover, they had secret opposition to the British

People in Russia and China could be hanged or for uttering unacceptable ideas or thoughts, so underground movements flourished even in the threat of death.

Pol Pott, and the killing fields where thousands of intellectuals were re-educated, usually by killing and children were informing on adults.

Listening to another interview of Peterson and this is the world we are headed for, if the current thought philosophy continues unabated.

Watch it where? Is there an accessible URL?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Thanks Wolly B. An interesting interview. Nether individual bested the other because they weren't in competition to that end. But multivariate analysis beat univariant analysis and the brain sure as hell bested the gut, and neither participant typified a gender identity.

Things might be starting to get interesting, firstly there was Cassie Jaye and the Red Pill and now Peterson is making the headlines.

I don't care about this issue.
As far as I'm concerned women get paid an hourly rate exactly the same as a man. The rest is overblown bs.
And I'm not surprised 3rd wave feminism is burning out.
I'm not surprised because I predicted it would.

quote

I have been far more terrified of making a fatal error in the last eighteen months than I have been thrilled about my newfound notoriety. I have been walking a very thin tightrope. I only have to say one thing, in all the things that I have said since September, and I have come close!

The social justice types who have been trying to bring me down have focused on three or four things that I have said and tried to make them into a cause celebre. So far, they haven’t been able to make it stick, but believe me, I’m not counting on that to continue. And I also understand that, well, you know, the Yin and Yang symbol. Let’s say that I’m in the white serpent at the moment, and things are all going swimmingly. But there is the black dot that can always manifest itself, and things can shift for you very, very rapidly, and I’m very aware of that.

unquote.

"What's wrong with Women's Studies?" Professor Janice Fiamengo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFy0HMxsn4I

So Killarny is not only men.

Grown adults acting like children should be put back on kids wages anyway.