You may remember that Jordan Peterson in the infamous Newman interview stated ‘controversially’ that one reason [just one reason] that women are under-represented in certain industries or jobs is that they pick jobs in other areas that are more suited, some might say, to female characteristics.
Someone at C4 must have sense of humour releasing this….
A survey of 13,000 children has suggested that their career ambitions are massively influenced by how wealthy their parents are and whether they are girls or boys.
Girls favoured becoming teachers, nurses and hairdressers, while boys talked of becoming pilots or mechanics. But the survey from the Education and Employers’ charity said girls did focus more on academic success than many boys, who seemed influenced by popular culture.
So Peterson is right.
Who was it just a while back who was absolutely monstered by the liberal thought police, including the hypocritical BBC, for suggesting the very same proposition, that girls and boys did not think exactly the same about life and what they wanted from it? Prior to that you could hear BBC presenters casually assert exactly the same thing…but when the chance came to vilify some poor fellow on the right, of course, that all went out the window. Ah yes…it was the chap at Google with the internal memo that leaked out...and he was sacked….by the new diversity tsar who didn’t like his unorthodox and diverse thinking….
In August of 2017, an internal document about diversity written at Google by James Damore was published online without his permission (Wakabayashi, 2017). In it, Damore contended that extant Google diversity policies were poorly designed because they ignored biologically rooted sex differences. He argued that these biological differences, and not invidious policies and biases, likely contributed more to the skewed sex distribution of Google programmers (more men than women) than many (mostly liberal) analysts believed.
From the Guardian…
“Google’s sexist memo has provided the alt-right a new martyr”
Or just someone who was right.
And a very good spot by Guest Who [via David Jones]….C4’s Ben de Pear [real name!] was up in arms about the abuse Cathy Newman had received, however it seems he is quite happy to abuse people himself….or ‘like’ people who do…..
Here's @Channel4News editor, @bendepear , approving an abusive tweet pic.twitter.com/bEqaTZlnY7
— David Jones (@metaburbia) January 21, 2018
And oh yes…the ‘traumatized’ Cathy Newman…….the tweet, from a C4 producer, has now been deleted of course….and no police called….
Channel 4 and the rest of the mainstream media claim that Cathy Newman feared for her life after her disastrous “debate” with @jordanbpeterson led to violent threats on Twitter.
Here’s what her producer wrote. pic.twitter.com/dMTZ3cbGhj
— Space Force Cpt. Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) January 21, 2018
The Conservative party had an opportunity to clip the wings of the marxists in National TV but Mr Cameron decided to give them a free pass. And so, for the far-left bbc and the equally far-left C4, it’s onward comrades and Vive fake news.
What these commies never recognise is that nothing lasts and eventually they will get their comeuppance.
Feminism, I`m afraid, has turned into THIS?
A lucid academic, seared and hunted down by the left and the snowflakes DARES to use facts, evidence and data to counter some poppet who`s earning far more than him. And who clearly is not at risk of getting banned or assaulted for daring to speak his chosen disciplnes in any public forum?
Yet Channel 4 get away with this?
The Left is never as wicked and violent when it gets shown up in public for the lying lazy Susan that it has now become.
And Peterson showed them up as good as anybody in recent times.
If only there was a performance-related component to Jordans pay. And-to be fair-a nice tip for Newman too who did us all a great service in showing us all the paucity and obtuse nature of “feminism”.
My heroines of the past would enjoy the fact that “BBC Women” on a quarter of a million for being unable to think in their Jimmy Choos(or Doc Martens as required), would brazenly go onto freeview to tell the cleaners and nursery staff that THEY-not they-are the new victims of patriarchies and sexist structures. Poor Jane Garvey eh? Who do I send my minimum wages to then?
Channel 4 learnt well from the BBC.
Facts and figures are not as important as “feelings” and they attack from all sides at all time.
Typical BBC, just as an example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42730942
Bridget Bardot called some of the #MeToo stars hypocritical, so how does the BBC respond? Beside slagging her off the article they make sure if there is dirt on someone and it is irrelevant to the story they still fit it in to discredit her further.
“Bardot, who is now known as a prominent animal rights campaigner, has previously been fined for inciting racism following anti-Muslim comments.” linking it to an article from 2008.
What is that to do with the story itself? We should then have all articles finishing in simmilar vein?
After every David Cameron related article they would mention that he previously had a sexual relationship with a head of a pig? Or that Jeremy Corbyn previously shagged Diane Abbot ? Gary Lineker previously dodged TAX? Nope, of coure one rule for one and one for another. Typical BBC….
I’m guessing that the Hollywood wimmin are starting a new trend on not wearing make up and trying to look like chaps – I think the horribly thick Kiera knightly was doing the same at some awards doo. I feel their self love will prevent them such a course of action pretty soon.
The National Union Of plastic surgeons must also be worried if the ladies are taking on a Puritan streak..
This video is worth watching on this subject. Jordan Peterson defends himself from an ardent liberal femenist presenter on Channel 4 who admits – eventually – to running out of torrid accusations against his reasoned logic.
She has met not only her equal – but a far superior intellect backed up by clinical evidence that the liberal wishy-washy western liberalism of left wing idealogue woman to be totally flawed on every level. You can see how the liberal media defends the indefensible in terms of ‘sentiment’ with little scrutiny of valid contradictions to their own ‘equality’ argument (which are then ignored). C4 is very much like the BBC in this respect this ‘episode’ which is very revealing of the faulty ‘feminist’ argument is not based on ‘observable facts’ but leading to a great DEPRESSION in both Woman and Men. This ’emotional’ disorder that they (the BBC and C4) cannot see except as female or (trans) male ‘victims’ which – as Jordan Peterson states is ‘factually untrue’ reporting – as he points out in this video. He has my vote and I plan to buy his book on why the liberal left are making our UK westernised children deeply depressed with this constant media bias and diatribe against their natural abilities and resiliance. They become unable to make simple decisions on what their identity is.
It’s almost as if she doesn’t WANT to understand the clinically reasonable things he’s saying.
It’s almost as if she doesn’t WANT to understand the clinically reasonable things he’s saying.
It’s worse than that. She can’t afford to understand what he’s saying, because that would destroy her entire worldview of women as victims of an evil oppressive patriarchy.
One point that JBP has made many times, but didn’t quite come across in the interview is: What happens to job choices in countries which have done the most (ie Scandinavia) to ensure open access for both genders? Answer: People choose traditional gender roles; nurses are 20-to-1 skewed female, engineers are skewed 20-to-1 male.
Freedom of choice increases gender differences, rather than eliminating them, as poor Cathy would want to believe.
Cathy now has clear choices: Take a “leave of absence due to stress-related issues”, and reappear after a respectable period in a role more suited to her capabilities, such as a cooking show.
Or she could educate herself, (Oxford University having signally failed to do so) and emerge as somebody of some value to the community.
Someone shared it, perhaps here, but I can’t find it again to give credit when sharing again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK2-xYyNpYk
I am about halfway through (it’s almost 2hrs) and was tagged at the end of a Milo YouTube where he also had great points to make, and again in a fair rational way in stark contrast to the shrill harpies in the MSM.
Who likely do not see they are sending the book sales of Milo, Ann Coulter and the Prof. through the roof with those utterly fed up with the pond life dominating the media and trying to shape our lives to fit their nasty narrow ideals.
Off to Amazon to get all three.
These crash and burns of Cathy, Paxo, etc, should be the foundations of media training for any competent politician seeking the educate and inform the public rather than be ratings fodder.
There really are not that many techniques, and they are so laid bare as no more than media dirty tricks simply by watching masters of the counter-craft swat them away.
If I had but one critique of the Prof., who does entertain and admit to mistakes, is his reference to ‘my trolls’.
Clearly understandable what he means, but with what I call ‘stenographic selectivity’, any edit suite can easily sample that and turn it, without context or tonality, to suit.
But, with luck, it may be too late for ‘the editors’. Few by now can take anything they put out as anything other than propaganda backed by censorship.
Another, there is?
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/15/michael-rectenwald-nyu-lawsuit/
Lee Clarke
2 days ago
The mistake professor Peterson makes is making the assumption that the lobster theory applies to plankton. Which is the life form of the BBC.
A comment on the talk of Prof Peterson on the BBC.
Peterson says “She was fighting the person, she thought I was ”
This is common with libmob
Normally they seek to apply a label and fight that
.. instead of countering your actual argument points.
That’s why you get “So what you are saying”
ie a CathNew misrepresentation
I usually shout “Misrepresentation ! You’ve strawmannned me
I can debate based what I actually said, but not on that strawman”
Here’s a link to the 12 min Milo deconstruction
– Peterson’s new Fox News interview about Youtube censoring the video where he rebuts people calling him a White Supremacist