1  2  Next

I feel kind of bad for her, she must have been pretty embarrassed by this whole exchange.

   

I don't. She thought she was going to bully somebody with her radical leftist, 3rd wave feminist, social justice agenda like she has many times in the past but this time she got knocked on her ass by a superior intellect.

Schadenfreude...

I guess if her claims of death threats and such are true that kind of sucks, but as far as people noticing she got her ass handed to her, I'm fine with that.

   

Has Peterson said anything new or interesting?

   

I watched about half of the 20-minute vid and unless there’s some kind of epic owning in the second half I don’t think she looked silly. While he admits that there’s explicit sexism, he denies systemic bias baked into other contributing favours and many of the excuses Peterson offers fo the gender pay gap for example don’t hold up. For example he states women are more likely to choose professesions that pay less than men but many of those historically female-dominated professions pay less precisely because they’re female dominated and considered “women’s work”. The “agreeableness” wxcuse is also lame. First of all it’s a sweeping generalization and probably isn’t as true in the workforce anyhow. Are female criminal lawyers or trial judges aor senior executives more “agreeable” than their male counterparts? Probably not. In fact a lot of them would probably say they had to deliberately go out of their way to portray themselves as an “ice queen” or “battle axe” or “iron lady” to be taken seriously and get the same chances as their male peers. And yet even those women end up earning less on average.

   

Might be an attention span problem. Here are a quick 2 minutes to help you notice what's obvious to everybody else:

   

But we've heard Beave's opinion. Let's hear somebody else's

Don’t Feel Sorry for Cathy Newman, She Deserves the Mockery

   

Yeah that must be in second half. He does well there. The part I watched about gendered pay was as I noted above.

   

His 'excuses' aren't excuses at all. They are factual and proven reasons why certain gaps exist.

What basis, education or experience do you have to counter his statements?

   

Just watched him with Wendy Mesley. Words of advice to the alt right and the alt left: "Grow the hell up!" Well said.

   

He's a psychologist, anybody too far left or right is a "case study".

   

Employment practices and policy is the field I have worked in or alongside for the better part of the last 10 years and I have a professional designation in compensation management so I’m often “inside the room “ when employer HR departments are having these conversations.

Re-read my post. I didn’t say the other factors he named don’t exist.. I said he doesn’t seem to grasp that those factors also have discriminatory assumptions built in. And I provided some examples which I shouldn’t have to re-type but again: for example professions considered “women’s work” being valued less than male-dominated professions with similar skills requirements and levels of responsibility.

If you read my post you would also see what I said about genarlizations about women being more “agreeable” especially for those women with senior poisitions in highly competitive career fields. where they still have a pay gap. I mean check the logic: if women are inherently more agreeable than men, and the compensation program discrimayes against people who are more agreeable, then ipso facto the compensation program discriminaties against women. The fact that *some* individual women can overcome the disadvantage and *some* individual men may also be subject to it, due to some combination of luck and unique circumstances doesn’t make it non-discriminatory. All that matters is that a policy or practice disproportionately disadvantages one group. You might as well just have a uterus rax and say “we’re not discriminating against women, it’s just that women are more likely than men to have a uterus...but some women choose to not have a uterus and don’t pay the tax which proves there’s no discrimination”.

Also what organization intentionally rewards difficult, disagreeable and argumentative employees over more agreeable ones? The answer is almost none since disagreeablness is typically an undesirable trait in the workplace wheras the opposite (agreeableness) is usually something that employers are always trying to foster to promote teamwork. flexibility, collaboration, and reduce internal infighting, etc. Any organization that becomes aware of perverse incentives in its compensation program would probably quickly act to remove it, since unintentionally rewarding behaviours is a waste of money and poses risk fo unintended consequences and in 2018 that’s especially true where it also creates an unintended gender disparity. So in any large company with an active pay equity policy , a team manager and at annual salary increase time that's recommending larger raises for the male teammates than female teammates with similar roles and performance ratings that’s probably going to raise a red flag with the compensation manager and the pay equity policy probably dictates under what circumstances raise disparities are permissible for employees in similar situations. An argument that the men were more disagreeable probably wouldn’t cut it. If all employees do the same job and have the same performance ratings then most PE policies will require they receive similar raises- not identical but the variance should be very small. Of course small businesses don’t have the same formal policies and procedures or the resources to implement them and even some larger ones are just internally disorganized or don’t enforce their own policies due to lack of leadership but most of yur big employers and household name companies would have something similar to what I described above.

   

With due respect, if I were to be working around cars, it wouldn't make me a mechanic any more than being dealing with HR people makes you a psychologist.

Like you, I have extensive experience without any formal designation and won't pretend to know what he knows on that level and neither should you.



First off, before you ask me to re-read your post, I'd suggest you practice what you preach.

You commented on a video you didn't completely watch. I read your post completely before replying.



However, women aren't the only people who are agreeable.

Yes, woman are more agreeable but there are men with the same personality trait. That trait isn't unique to women and if it was, then you could claim it was discrimination.



Many, actually.

Many organizations have women and men at the top or in management/supervisory positions that would be considered 'difficult' on their best days. I saw it from my first job to my last. I've have had to work with both and was amazed at how they ended up in their position with what I considered a terrible attitude.

   

I said I have a formal designation in compensation management and that is a subject matter that includes Pay Equity. I don’t simply “deal with” HR, my career is HR, where for the last decade I’ve worked inside employers HR team as salaried staff and as an external resource to support an employer’s HR department.

. No, I addressed that false argument directly in my previous post. See my comment where I say “All that matters is that a policy or practice disproportionately disadvantages one group.” Some women are rewarded for “better than a typical women“ and aren’t mistreated. Some men are punished for being “no better than a typical woman “ Doesn’t mean the typical women in the workplace aren’t being treated unfairly. The opposite in fact.



Many, actually.

Many organizations have women and men at the top or in management/supervisory positions that would be considered 'difficult' on their best days. I saw it from my first job to my last. I've have had to work with both and was amazed at how they ended up in their position with what I considered a terrible attitude.[/quote]

So for one you’re talking about executives not ramk and file employees and secondly even then the female employees often end up earning less and/or getting second- tier leadership roles despite the fact that senior leadership is where we’re LEAST likely to find “agreeable” women given what it takes to get to that level. More than half of Canadian firms have no female executives, only 5% have female CEOs and only 2 of the 100 top paid CEOs are women. I don’t think an ill- proven link to “agreeableness “ is the culprit.

Most organizations don’t deliberately incent disagreeableness among the rank and file. In fact unless you’re a law firm or maybe the Axe Capital hedge fund in the show Billions, you want your staff to get along with each other , be easy to please, be flexible, collaborative, pull together for the good of the company, etc. And you don’t want to always be rewarded for always demanding more money from you. Go into your next job interview and tell them you’re used to always getting the highest raises possible because you’re disagreeable and see if you offer the job. Now I’ve seen weary managers begrudgingly placate pain in the ass employees just to make the problem go away but employers are starting to crack down on this especially in the larger companies.

   

I said that I don't have the designation.



You're entitled to your opinion. However, I'll refer to the clinical psychologist on this.



Jordan discusses that point directly. You've made the assumption that women want these top executive jobs. As he discussed, agreeableness is just one of the factors. Like the host, you're focusing on a single point ignoring the rest of what was said.

Why aren't you concerned at the number of men (or lack thereof) in the field of healthcare? Why are there so many more female doctors and nurses? School teachers? Social workers? Psychologists and ironically, HR Managers?

Many would assume that men don't enter the field of nursing, for example, because they don't want to. However, if this situation was reversed and it was a woman entering a male-dominated field, the assumption would automatically be that there are sexist barriers, not that they really have no interest.

   

I think Mr. Peterson has performed a public service here. This will have a good deterrant effect on mindless interviewers, I hope. Mind you, it's always good to keep in mind that the qualificaitons required for being a TV interviewer are to be look good on TV.

   

1  2  Next