This is interesting.

[johnofgwent]

Both clearly had opposing agendas. That the person being interviewed has an agenda he or she wants to sell is par for the course. It is rather less acceptable when the interviewer themself has an agenda, because that causes friction, constant interruptions, closing down of responses and wilful misinterpretations to fit the interviewer's own agenda, and there was clearly some of that going on.

However the guy himself was propagating certain overgeneralised assumptions, eg that women are more agreeable than men and that being less agreeable is the way to succeed. I don't buy that over generalisation and the route to personal success should never be by being a bastard, because that can be more bad for companies than good for them.

I think there are some legitimate reasons for the gender pay gap, largest of all being that women are far more likely to drop out of their careers than men for child rearing reasons and if they return it often needs to be at a lower level until they work their way up again. This is one reason why fewer women get to the top. Also lower down the pay scale women are more likely than men to do part time jobs for childcare reasons and these are often fairly low paid. These are facts that feminists don't like to acknowledge.

But there are also more sexist reasons why fewer women get to the top as well, including gender based assumptions about them by some leading men. And a lot of rising to the top is enabled by the old school tie networking amongst high flying males from which women are in part excluded because they never went to the same schools. The inherent problem here is that most private schools are not mixed gender, so women are excluded from the top male schools.

So the reasons for the pay gap are partly structural and sexist, but also partly related to the choices women themselves choose to make. Most people in these type of debates are utterly partisan, either exclusively blaming the former or exclusively blaming the latter when it is actually a bit of both. We cannot nor should we try to block the choices women choose to make, but any barriers based upon sexist assumptions we should be trying to break down.

I don't buy into the idea that being an irritating bullying bastard should be the path to achievement and success. But I've had the best part of 46 years now, more actually, in which it is starkly clear those are the qualities in abundance in the top dog or bitch.

When I chose to die rather than continue fighting to breathe the last thought before it all went black was at least I'll never have to deal with that BITCH in Gatwick. BITCH not BASTARD.

And then the wife resuscitated me. Not convinced I forgive her for that. Especially this month. 

[johnofgwent]

Then you missed the end where she tries to twist his words about trans issues.

Peterson answered every one of her points, remained calm despite her baiting and gave an all round common sense approach, as usual.
He's one of the heroes of truth these days.

I'll go back and watch that. Cheers.

[srb7677]

Both clearly had opposing agendas. That the person being interviewed has an agenda he or she wants to sell is par for the course. It is rather less acceptable when the interviewer themself has an agenda, because that causes friction, constant interruptions, closing down of responses and wilful misinterpretations to fit the interviewer's own agenda, and there was clearly some of that going on.

However the guy himself was propagating certain overgeneralised assumptions, eg that women are more agreeable than men and that being less agreeable is the way to succeed. I don't buy that over generalisation and the route to personal success should never be by being a bastard, because that can be more bad for companies than good for them. 

I think there are some legitimate reasons for the gender pay gap, largest of all being that women are far more likely to drop out of their careers than men for child rearing reasons and if they return it often needs to be at a lower level until they work their way up again. This is one reason why fewer women get to the top. Also lower down the pay scale women are more likely than men to do part time jobs for childcare reasons and these are often fairly low paid. These are facts that feminists don't like to acknowledge.

But there are also more sexist reasons why fewer women get to the top as well, including gender based assumptions about them by some leading men. And a lot of rising to the top is enabled by the old school tie networking amongst high flying males from which women are in part excluded because they never went to the same schools. The inherent problem here is that most private schools are not mixed gender, so women are excluded from the top male schools.

So the reasons for the pay gap are partly structural and sexist, but also partly related to the choices women themselves choose to make. Most people in these type of debates are utterly partisan, either exclusively blaming the former or exclusively blaming the latter when it is actually a bit of both. We cannot nor should we try to block the choices women choose to make, but any barriers based upon sexist assumptions we should be trying to break down.

[Barry]

Well I watched half of it and I say he is right

Then you missed the end where she tries to twist his words about trans issues.

Peterson answered every one of her points, remained calm despite her baiting and gave an all round common sense approach, as usual.
He's one of the heroes of truth these days.

[johnofgwent]

Well I watched half of it and I say he is right

The journalist is coming at him with the repeated line that such and such a percentage of women say that they are paid less then men doing the same job and that is unfair, while he is pushing back with the quite obvious statement that he has no dispute with the claim that women are not being paid as much, but that this has little to do directly and solely with the fact that they are women and far more to do with the fact that they exhibit certain for want of a better word i will say "traits"

I particularly liked his point that there is a characteristic of being perceived as reasonable and empathic (not his words but the best i can find without going back and listening again) and that persons showing those traits are generally paid less for their job because they are not argumentative and unpleasant enough in their pay negotiations to get more.

I think he is right becase in forty five years of working in science and engineering it is usually the unpleasant bastards who get the big bucks and to be honest that includes the women at the top of the places i've worked at.

[srb7677]

it's worth putting on here. 

I very much doubt that but will reserve more comment only for when I can actually be bothered to look at it.

I will though say that I recognise the supposed journalist from Channel 4 News and she is hardly one who comes here singing the Internationale whilst waving the red flag.

Except in your fevered imagination where anyone to the left of Norman Tebbit with a pen in their pocket is automatically a leftish journalist.

[Nick]

Not watched it all yet but enough to know it's worth putting on here. 

https://youtu.be/K5f4fUDZU7o