Gender Equality

Nov 2005
8,556
3,013
California
#3
The Myth.....that Jordan Peterson will shut up for five seconds and stop rambling lies and obfuscations of fact to let someone else speak!
What a demonstration of strawman arguments and half-concocted thinking Peterson presents!
First, somebody needs to introduce this man to the difference between "cause and effect" and things that just happen sequentially over time (one before another). He starts talking about things that happened in this year and things that later happened in that year and blindly assumes that one thing caused the other. :rolleyes:

The comments on women being "happier" in the 1950s / 1960s is a stupid one. I'll freely admit I was happier as a kid before I had to "adult", but don't mistake that with any kind of idea that I would rather live out my life as a child with fewer freedoms and being cared for. Liberation and responsibility come with a price and he is misogynistic to blindly assume that women don't want to pay that price
But more to a point, he blindly assumes that the "happier" change over time comes solely from the "equality" change, which is stupid.

He dismisses discrimination with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, providing blind mocking and proclaiming that the system has to be fair. He makes proclamations about women in law firms without looking at any other factor but gender while assuming everything else is equal. :rolleyes:
Forget The Glass Ceiling. Female Attorneys Now Face A Concrete Wall
Marcus: Why do you think it’s become more difficult?
Tursi:
There are a couple of reasons. And I deal only with large law firms, so bear with me. I think that the partnership pie is less likely to be cut up than it was years ago. They don’t make as many partners in law firms anymore. And most firms have two tiers. They have non-equity and equity.

Marcus: And I assume the few partnership appointments are more likely to go to men.
Tursi:
Yes. Women do get relegated to non-equity status.
....

You know something? They can all sing the song, ‘We’re promoting, retaining,’ whatever buzzwords they want to use. They’re having a hard time retaining young lawyers, gender-neutral. They’re having a very hard time keeping young lawyers engaged.

Some of the stuff he talks about he focuses solely on women, without bothering to address how men have changed over the same time period as well. Income inequality, wages that don't keep pace with inflation, etc, etc cause problems across the board but he solely wants to look at things and assume it's all about women and gender equality.


The question was too open ended and he just kept spinning claims without providing a lick of proof for his assessment or addressing other factors involved besides just "women don't wanna..." :rolleyes:
 
Dec 2016
5,201
2,654
Canada
#4
What a demonstration of strawman arguments and half-concocted thinking Peterson presents!
Years ago, many scientists got conned into accepting invitations to debate evolution with a young earth creationist nutjob named Duane Gish. Gish's "proofs" that the Earth was created in 6 days about 6000 years ago were laughable to everyone except the equally ignorant fundamentalist church members who got the notices to buy tickets whenever their "expert" was in town, and would cheer wildly for every idiotic point Gish tried to make. The prime tactic of Duane Gish was to just keep asking questions and demanding explanations from his debate foe/but never give him a chance to respond before launching another question AND changing topics with almost every question with no followups.....which became forever known afterwards as The Gish Gallop. Every aggressive rightwing speaker since then follows the same strategy as Duane Gish and...according to my Twitter and Youtube notices, impresses thousands of online rubes who repost clips of these clowns with titles: "Watch Jordan Peterson Destroy" fill in the blank

Real scientists, unlike Christian apologists who frequently debate the merits of their church, their theology or other beliefs with other Christian or other adversaries, are not equipped to perform as onstage debate performers...unless they've practiced it...like Massimo Pigliucci for one, who decided to study debating and get some practice before accepting more invitations to debate with creationists or worse: the less honest and straightforward "intelligent design" proponents. But, most of the time, a scientist's debating is all in written form...dealing with the objections of referees of science journals to get past the peer review process.

And, it's been noted zillions of times that very few people learn anything from any debate between two claimed experts on a given subject. People file in with their opinions already set..cheer for their side, snicker and even boo the opposing side, and everyone leaves the auditorium saying 'their side won!'
First, somebody needs to introduce this man to the difference between "cause and effect" and things that just happen sequentially over time (one before another). He starts talking about things that happened in this year and things that later happened in that year and blindly assumes that one thing caused the other. :rolleyes:

The comments on women being "happier" in the 1950s / 1960s is a stupid one. I'll freely admit I was happier as a kid before I had to "adult", but don't mistake that with any kind of idea that I would rather live out my life as a child with fewer freedoms and being cared for. Liberation and responsibility come with a price and he is misogynistic to blindly assume that women don't want to pay that price
But more to a point, he blindly assumes that the "happier" change over time comes solely from the "equality" change, which is stupid.
There are many, many sociologists and psychologists who believe the 'self-reporting' data from happiness and wellbeing surveys indicates peak happiness for BOTH men and women in the 50's and a downward slide ever since, BUT it has NOTHING to do with the patronizing, misogynist, wild ramblings spouted off by Jordan Peterson! Peterson just wants to put women back into the box of much more limited expectations of life several decades ago, and say 'see what happens when you demand a vote, the right to an education, and good jobs?'
Since he's a paid toady for the plutocrats on the right, he won't consider that women's liberation didn't have to be co-opted by the brutal, insidious forces of capitalism! Which don't give a crap about anyone's liberation, they just realized that more women out working meant more money to buy more of the crap they were selling! Instead of having both men and women working 60 hours a week and trying to manage a home and family issues, what would have happened if rising productivity meant splitting the jobs and the incomes, so that both men and women had more free time, instead of running around sleep-deprived! But, that would be a question Jordan Peterson would run away from and gallop off to the next accusation against liberals or women or liberal women, or whatever boogeyman he had nightmares about the night before!

Scientists who believe there is a strong correlation between income and wealth equality/and inequality with both mental and physical health data are never, ever accepted by rightwing assholes like Peterson! He, and other believers in 'pullyourselfupbyyourbootstraps' meritocracy...including another plutocrat favorite- Stephen Pinker, immediately dismiss self-reported data regardless of the size or consistency of the subject groups, in such instances where it may conflict with their notions about human behavior. BUT, a much, much better argument would be that men and women were happier in the America of the 1950's because it was the time when income inequality was at it's lowest. *

*I recall one of my Michigan uncles who worked at the GM Cadillac Plant and was a union rep, telling us how management were having a fit that mere line workers in the plant were earning enough to buy small cottages on Michigan's mostly desolate Northern Peninsula....historically a play area for the rich and powerful. It wasn't that the execs wanted more money, they had much better summer homes than the workers already; they wanted more Distance in lifestyle between themselves and the unwashed masses....and so, for the past 40 years, they sure as hell got that! But Peterson and a whole cast of shills who feed off the crumbs from the table of our oligarchs, they get paid to ignore all that and yell for our attention also, to try to divert us from noticing the restoration of feudalism in modern times!

He dismisses discrimination with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, providing blind mocking and proclaiming that the system has to be fair. He makes proclamations about women in law firms without looking at any other factor but gender while assuming everything else is equal. :rolleyes:
Forget The Glass Ceiling. Female Attorneys Now Face A Concrete Wall
Marcus: Why do you think it’s become more difficult?
Tursi: There are a couple of reasons. And I deal only with large law firms, so bear with me. I think that the partnership pie is less likely to be cut up than it was years ago. They don’t make as many partners in law firms anymore. And most firms have two tiers. They have non-equity and equity.​
Marcus: And I assume the few partnership appointments are more likely to go to men.
Tursi: Yes. Women do get relegated to non-equity status.
....​
You know something? They can all sing the song, ‘We’re promoting, retaining,’ whatever buzzwords they want to use. They’re having a hard time retaining young lawyers, gender-neutral. They’re having a very hard time keeping young lawyers engaged.

Some of the stuff he talks about he focuses solely on women, without bothering to address how men have changed over the same time period as well. Income inequality, wages that don't keep pace with inflation, etc, etc cause problems across the board but he solely wants to look at things and assume it's all about women and gender equality.


The question was too open ended and he just kept spinning claims without providing a lick of proof for his assessment or addressing other factors involved besides just "women don't wanna..." :rolleyes:
The greatest frustration I've had with standard, out-of-the-box liberalism is the avoidance of economic class issues! This how wealthy women have foisted "lean in" feminism and "breaking the glass ceiling" and other concerns that solely affect elite women being declared automatic concerns for the female half of the entire population. As for equal pay for equal work, compensation for the non-monetized work that women have to perform at home..especially childcare, these become exclusive, private burdens for women and the best she can hope for is that she married a decent man who will stick through thick and thin and share those burdens the best he can. And then rightwing religious conservatives wonder aloud: Why are birthrates falling?

From a socialist perspective, economic class identities trump race, gender, sexual orientation etc., and should be prioritized...not that I'm a class essentialist like some Trotskyite nutjobs like the idealogues at WSWS who try to shout down Black Lives Matter or the Me Too movements because 100% attention must be focused on economic equality. But when it comes to race, gender or sexual orientation, the wealthiest show themselves far more concerned with maintaining their wealth advantages and don't mind sharing the same attitudes as the rich white men who predominate in the top rungs of the wealth hierarchy. The only difference is some of them genuflect on occasion and make a few usually highly publicized statements and/or donations to these issue causes. I'm not saying recipients have to turn the money back, but no concessions should be made to billionaires of any color, gender or sexual orientation! And organizations that accept large grants and donations from billionaire liberal policy groups should be scrutinized for what else they might try to smuggle through to their readers or viewers.....Center For American Progress in particular!
 
Last edited:
Dec 2015
16,429
15,265
Arizona
#5
It is SO SO entertaining when MEN demonstrate their expertise on WOMEN--women's rights--women's bodies--women's minds. Jordan Peterson, Canadian Know-it-All, is a sad, pathetic little man---so full of himself---so puffed up---it's entertaining until it's not. AND if Peterson was an American he'd be the new GOD of the Right Wing.
The basic confusion over his message highlights a larger and sadder phenomenon. Peterson and the men who flock to him — clearly need something to fight against (snowflakes!), and something to fight for (their leader!).
I don't know about you, but I don't like angry-sounding MEN LIKE Peterson---people like Peterson--people who have ALL THE ANSWERS. People who are full of themselves. People who pander to young, male egos. People who don't seem to have an ounce of humility or humor.
Jordan's book "12 Rules for Life" is one I haven't read, but it's on my list. I understand it's VERY good, although touted as "hidden knowledge"?? I have read the reviews and Step ONE in the book is: Stand up straight and make sure the people you keep around you pull you up rather than drag you down. Is that life-altering and newsy?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2012
40,676
11,726
Lebanon, TN
#7
Men are 9 times more likely to be Killed on the job.

(What would the outcry be if 9 times MORE women were being killed while on the job)

72% of all wealth in the us owned by women

in divorces 8 times out of 10 the women get custody of the childern

8 times out of 10 men pay alimony to women. (how does this occur when 72% of all wealth is owned by women). it appears 7 times out of 10 MEN should receive the alimony based on distribution of wealth.

Women have longer life expectancy of men (3-4% longer) what would the out cry be if it was reversed.

Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power"
 
Likes: Sabcat
Apr 2013
37,518
25,575
La La Land North
#9
It is SO SO entertaining when MEN demonstrate their expertise on WOMEN--women's rights--women's bodies--women's minds. Jordan Peterson, Canadian Know-it-All, is a sad, pathetic little man---so full of himself---so puffed up---it's entertaining until it's not. AND if Peterson was an American he'd be the new GOD of the Right Wing.
The basic confusion over his message highlights a larger and sadder phenomenon. Peterson and the men who flock to him — clearly need something to fight against (snowflakes!), and something to fight for (their leader!).
I don't know about you, but I don't like angry-sounding MEN LIKE Peterson---people like Peterson--people who have ALL THE ANSWERS. People who are full of themselves. People who pander to young, male egos. People who don't seem to have an ounce of humility or humor.
Jordan's book "12 Rules for Life" is one I haven't read, but it's on my list. I understand it's VERY good, although touted as "hidden knowledge"?? I have read the reviews and Step ONE in the book is: Stand up straight and make sure the people you keep around you pull you up rather than drag you down. Is that life-altering and newsy?
And to add to his idiocy, he's a climate denier.
 
Likes: Clara007
Dec 2016
5,201
2,654
Canada
#10
It is SO SO entertaining when MEN demonstrate their expertise on WOMEN--women's rights--women's bodies--women's minds. Jordan Peterson, Canadian Know-it-All, is a sad, pathetic little man---so full of himself---so puffed up---it's entertaining until it's not. AND if Peterson was an American he'd be the new GOD of the Right Wing.
The basic confusion over his message highlights a larger and sadder phenomenon. Peterson and the men who flock to him — clearly need something to fight against (snowflakes!), and something to fight for (their leader!).
I don't know about you, but I don't like angry-sounding MEN LIKE Peterson---people like Peterson--people who have ALL THE ANSWERS. People who are full of themselves. People who pander to young, male egos. People who don't seem to have an ounce of humility or humor.
Jordan's book "12 Rules for Life" is one I haven't read, but it's on my list. I understand it's VERY good, although touted as "hidden knowledge"?? I have read the reviews and Step ONE in the book is: Stand up straight and make sure the people you keep around you pull you up rather than drag you down. Is that life-altering and newsy?
Take Jordan Peterson........Please! As Henny Youngman...the king of the one-liners would have said.

Peterson's success has come from mostly nobody else filling a void left mostly by liberals, who try to target whatever aid or benefits they advise based on race, gender or other identity markers, and have failed to realize that every group in society, even White Privileged young men are going to feel cheated as they come of age at a time when many fewer of them can reach the life expectations their boomer and older parents took for granted. But, rather than focusing on redistributing the wealth from the few who have gained massively from a jerry-rigged system that privileges the already rich, Peterson and so many others with similar and only slightly varied prescriptions of:
1. divide and conquer. Blame women for taking away those jobs instead of staying home and having more babies. And,
2. make it all the responsibility of the individual/ not society as a whole, to fix.

Some of his great advice to young men who are still living with their parents at an age when previous generations had already flown the coop is: "clean your room" and other earth-shattering pronouncements! Can't blame the billionaires for enriching themselves while student debt levels climb/wages stagnate, and even older gen-x'ers approaching retirement age see themselves as working until the very end, until they're too weak and sick and are on their way to going in the ground!
Not much different in most of his advice than what Oprah says or a whole cast of prosperity preachers of varying shades. The cult of the individual reigns supreme in online rhetoric while the world burns up around us!
 

Similar Discussions