@@Lepacaable Centrism, a balanced voice from both sides of the argument? That is EXACTLY what we need to have in 2022! The other side needs to be heard you know. Liberals and even the extreeeme Social Democrats need to have just as much time to say their opinions as the Nazis and White Nationalists!! There needs to be just as much talk about policies that hurt low income people as there are that dont want them dead! Cant have too much of one thing now can weeeee?😘
I thought I'd jump to the paradox debunking just to challenge an assumption and was hit with this. It's way too late to learn a new fallacy right now, but I appreciate how straight to the point and fact based it is. This is not what I've found before when I looked.
I love how after years all you fools can do is come up with faulty logic and then collect in tiny cults to act like your misunderstandings are real. You literally framed your comment, which is edited, he considers her possessed precisely because she is a woman. He said people like you and her are possessed by ideology, because that's what it is, these ideologies possess you. That's why even college graduates will straw man him, like the evolutionary biologist who claimed that Jordan Peterson claim that he was an evolutionary biologist was false, when he knew better than anyone the distinction between the biologist who focuses on evolution and the intellectual who believes in evolutionary biology. Over and over again you idiots point to that example and others that just prove how complelty inept you are when it comes to actual debates and care more about unproven ideas and clinging to them, possessed. Jordan constantly claims that ultimately he doesnt know what to believe, but that requires getting in to details that are so far out of the field of anyone that tries to "debunk" him. At least he isnt so self absorbed as to claim he actually knows anything for certain, but clearly you dont even know that. Even Sam Harris comes at him with ideology, and the only response he gives is a steel man of historical beliefs, and if you think that your ideology is a better explanation for reality than the stories and metaphors he talks about, you are possessed and likely occultist, if not just waiting to die because you dont even know what you are, much less who you are.
Your comment has zero logical coherence. How does him being disagreeable negate the argument that women are more agreeable than men? If anything it strengthens it.
The existence of extreme individuals doesn't disprove medians. That's like saying immigrants tend to be poorer, so there are no rich immigrants. Uh, no, the average immigrant can very well be poorer, all while the richest citizen can very well be an immigrant. Extreme outliers can influence the average, but not really the median or the distribution.
The thing Ben said infuriated me. Ever since I was a kid, I excelled at maths and science. I loved astronomy, physics and electronics. Guess what? I was actively and explicitly discouraged from my passions and talents by parents and teachers due to my sex. Eventually, I got depressed and dropped out of school. I am now pursuing a PhD in neuroscience, but my partner with similar intellectual abilities and interests is far ahead of me because they were seemingly never discouraged from their interests in chemistry and other STEM subjects. I envy them so much. I had to fight so hard for people to accept my natural talent in the sciences, and even for me, I am full of self-doubt and worries due to all the poison that was given to me as a kid.
It's also so stupid because he can't possibly speak on it since he hasn't grown up as a girl. He only sees it from the outside, and how much are we willing to bet that he hasn't actually talked to any women about their experiences? A single anecdote is enough to disprove him because "no one has ever" great job.
I'm actually a girl and I never faced this kind of discrimination. In fact my uncle was discouraged from taking sciences. I think this might not be a sexist problem and completely something else. Well I don't think women are weaker in STEM either, I study sociology and know that current education system is kinda easier for women than men because of the different average psycologies.
@@veenajoshua9461 I think it differs for an individual. Just because you have never faced discrimination doesn’t make her situation any less than what she experiences which is sexism. I admit even I myself was never discouraged from taking STEM but it’s because my family is supportive and where I’m at atm. For OP’s circumstances is completely different I suppose.
@@veenajoshua9461 both the original comment and yours present anecdotes. the difference is that the first anecdote was not presented as if it were evidence for systemic sexism, but you presented yours as if it were evidence against it.
The Ben Shapiro part of girls not possibly being told to not be interested in math is what I thought for a long time, until I looked back on my school years. When I was in highschool, the counselor gave a talk to the women (only the women) in the class about how worrying too much about being smart could turn you into a bad person. The more I think about that day the more unbelievable it gets. This was an institution that prepared kids for university, they actively wanted women to pursue higher education and still they came up with stuff like that.
I’m afab and went to an all girls’ highschool, and the music teacher straight up told the class “Girls aren’t naturally good at spacial recognition so they should give up on math”….
I was actually told as a teenager to add more arts/languages subjects to my curriculum because it was too focused on science and not ‘balanced’ enough for a girl. In the Netherlands…. So I guess Ben Shapiro can suck it
"A 10% pay gap isn't that much." This is an absolutely hilarious statement in the context of inflation being about 9% over the past year and people are absolutely up in arms over it. That 10% is A LOT. That is the difference between retiring years earlier or not. Being able to save for your children's education or not. Your entire rainy day fund.
The most impressive thing Peterson has ever done is the fact that he has to be debunked by so many different disaplines because he talks about so much stuff he doesn't understand. From Biologist, to the Bar association of Canada, economics, fellow psychologists, philosophers, even supermodels are making fun of him. I'd di e of embrassement if I said so even half the amount of things he said that were just so wrong and easily debunkable, just the line about staying awake for 27 days due to Apple Cider would be to much on it's own. Yet for Peterson he just goes on, it's fascinating how one man can have such an undeserved ego and prefers to be ignorant on every topic he talks about, his the defintion of Dunning Kruger.
it doesn't help that each debunking of his shit still circulates his viewpoints and elevates him to a place of visibility. Like to an extent it's good for people to know that JP isn't the self-help Daddy we all needed, but at some point, any publicity is good publicity, you know?
A word on those "bad labor jobs" dominated by men. I live in the south bronx, and for a time volunteered teaching math to women getting their GED so they could get into construction. (BRICK LAYING LITERALLY) the nonprofit I was working with was all about helping working class women with less education get the kind of better paid better benefits jobs mostly held by working class men. Many were single mothers and they just needed to make more per hour since they had fewer hours to works. And they were willing to work HARD (and even study hard with me!) We found that if we placed fewer than 5 women at a job site they would end up stressed out and miserable. We had to send them in as "pods" because the guys at the jobs were such endless assholes. I'm talking harassment, groping, hazing, making them do all of the worst tasks and blaming them for everything that went wrong. But with a group of women they could have each other's backs. All this was worth it because service industry jobs... the kind many of these women had are just so terribly paid. Cleaning and caregiving is even worse. It was worth it to go through ALL THAT for these women to get the "bad labor jobs" that men are suffering under.
Yea, I plant trees for a living, and it's VERY physically demanding work, the trees can weigh up to 100kg and we move them mostly by hand, and we're largely digging holes without power tools or mobile plant and in pretty sticky clay soil, which is difficult. Sometimes we literally have to dig through stone. The majority of my company is women, and the best in my state? All women, hitting incredible productivity levels and taking the crew boss position more often than not (I've had one crew boss that wasn't a woman, and he is a transmasc nonbinary guy). Not all hard labour/undesirable jobs are male dominated, and it definitely varies when class, race and location are factored in, heck, even transgender status impacts this statistic. The men on the crew tend to do fairly average jobs, middling numbers with average quality, the women tend to smash higher numbers with higher quality results. We're all paid the same wage rate, but have the ability to make bonuses based on piece rate if our piece rate exceeds our hourly rate. It's minimum wage, but women tend to make small bonuses in my state while men don't, but once you go interstate the men are making massive bonuses. All of this to say that Peterson is cherry picking his undesirable jobs in order to increase the statistics he has to support his point. Like, I was scared to start work as a transgender woman in a new workplace, but because the crew is largely either cis women or trans people of various genders, not only am I safe within my company, but the presence of other women and trans people makes me safer on shared worksites. We often work with and around civil construction companies, and they tend to be pretty uncomfortable workplaces if it's just one or two of us, but when there's at least three of us we know that we have someone to speak up on our behalf and corroborate our stories if we have to report problems to HR. We had a sexual harassment incident recently and it was swiftly dealt with. On a recent worksite we first had gender discrimination (the crew boss drove in sandals instead of her boots because it's safer, and changed to boots onsite but the civil construction crew were all making rude comments about it and ridiculing her for it.) and then racism (the crew boss has a very thick Vietnamese accent and there were a couple of workers mocking it very subtly) so it's not like we escape it entirely, but we can feel like we have a way to deal with it when it does occur. It's ridiculous that people like Peterson and his fans think we a) don't want these jobs and b) aren't facing discrimination when we take them. I enjoy my job, it's hard work for fairly minimal pay but it's rewarding to see a huge estate of plants that I planted. It's guilt free, because it's restorative work environmentally, and it's a way to be a contributing member of society. I wouldn't trade it for the world, but I would love if I could go to work and not have to deal with the bs the men outside of the company come with. (The men in the company are great, we have a very healthy workplace culture and a zero tolerance policy for any discrimination or harassment of any sort) I've had men laughing at me for struggling with particularly hard soil after literally spending 7 hours planting trees in similar soil while their entire job is done with power tools and mobile plant. Which just made me feel like shit because, well, I was literally working harder than them and they were mocking me for it. And I say that I was working harder with confidence, because I've done half of their jobs and they're by no means soft work, but they're not as hard as some of those men like to make them out to be.
My only comment when guys whine about hard labor jobs or dangerous jobs is to turn around the same rhetoric about the pay gap they spew about gender pay gap stuff. "Well why did you choose a high danger job? It's not our fault that men and their biology choose to take on higher danger careers and make choices that decrease their livelihood. Fight to make the workplace less dangerous? That's ridiculous! You cant fight nature and make steal mills less deadly. OSHA is liberal garbage pushed on us by the left."
@@Jane-oz7pp I think the barrier to entry creates a sort of survival bias, where only the overperforming women tend to stick around in these male-dominated environments, making it so that the average output of women who persists is higher than the average man's output, since the women who persists are the top of the top while the men are just a wide array of very fluctuating outputs. I've worked with some of these women, who did both forestry and agriculture. Great workers, lots of fun, at least those I've come across. But they really aren't your "average" woman. If anything, though, in my parts at least this is yet another example of the opposite discrimination actually being true. I've never heard of an employer refuse to hire a woman, or even rant against women workers, but I have heard them do so for male workers. Because your average woman will never even apply to agriculture/forestry jobs, the % of dud female workers is pretty low in the industry. When you hire a female applicant, odds are you'll have a hard-working and trustworthy worker. For men, though, you get all kinds of applicants, and many of them are unreliable, lazy, don't show up, or actually rob their employers. I've had a few employers were literally every single other male colleague I've had was egregiously unfit to work due to terrible work ethics. Employers aren't dumb. Sure, maybe in the 1960s they were, but not in 2022, not everywhere anyways. When 75% of your male employees end up literally robbing you, while you never have any issues with any of your female employees, you will have a great bias when handling future applications. And it won't go according to the commonly held narrative of sexist discrimination. The toxic cultures in some industries predominated by (usually low-education) men, such as construction, is an entirely different issue independant of the exagerated wage gap allegations often made. Yes, they certainly dissuade women from joining, and having more women in these jobs would lessen this dissuasive impacts. And legislative measures against harassment is totally justified, nobody deserves to be harassed. But even if you were to take extreme measures, taking men out of the equation completely by forming female-only crews, for example, there's still nothing to suggest that the traditional gender prefferences would erase themselves. And that we'd get 50% women rates in construction. Or that it'd be desirable to have the government force people into non-traditional industries just to attain parity. I look at traditionally female professions, and I balk at the idea of having to finish my career in one of them due to quotas squeezing me out of male or non-gendered industries. They already make a decent salary, most make more than I do. And it's not like I lack the education or competence for some of them, I've had a a job in an overwhelmingly female profession. I just don't like them. They pay well, for the most part, and you aren't on your knees in the blazing summer sun all day long, but almost always in ACed comfy buildings. But most of them are people-care, and I... don't like doing that. If you take teaching, for example, there aren't few male teachers because men are discriminated against, it's just that few men actually care for it. And the few that do mostly take specialist roles, such as physical education, music, or second language. Is anyone arguing that this is some sexist plot and that we need to have quotas for 50% of kindergarden teachers to be males? Nobody's saying that. Why the "wage gap feminists" aren't, I can't say, but as a man, I'd say we don't want those jobs. Not because of the pay, because it's fairly good (the world isn't limited to the US, lots of places pay their teachers good). Not because of the working conditions, because they are good, you get the summer off, regular schedules, weekends off, no evening shifts, you get AC in the summer and heating in the winter. But really only because the average man doesn't care to spend all day with a horde of brats, teaching them that biting other people is bad. I've got enough of that with my own kids, no thanks taking care of other peoples' kids. Now, I have no idea of those male teachers are any better than the female teachers, as the female laborers often are, but the fact that they exist and are a minority should in no way serve as pretext for the creation of quotas or to otherwise explain some form of discrimination. If higher than average wages and better than average working conditions isn't enough to lure more men into these traditionally female professions, then just perhaps one should be cautious about being overeager to associate gender imbalances in other industries as being solely the fruit of discrimination.
I'm a Statistician who's worked in the private industry for 10 years now. The amount of politicians or public figures that misrepresent, misconstrue or obfuscate statistics to fit whatever narrative they're trying to present genuinely makes my blood boil. Not only that, but trying to convey to others the weaknesses off certain statistical approaches feels like fighting an uphill battle at times In my experience if a statistical analysis I do confirms something they already believe they run with it no questions asked yet if it doesn't reveal what they believe they question me relentlessly. Not sure where I was going with this besides just airing my frustrations. 😅 In conclusion: I really struggle with how people who don't truly take the time to study a subject can somehow gain enough notoriety to present incorrect interpretations of studies from a subject they have little to no understanding of (or worse they do understand and choose to ignore it) Really fascinating video though.
People only care about the statistics that tell them what they want to hear. As a professional in that field, you should know that. They don't want answers, they want to feel good about the decisions they were going to make regardless of the advice anybody else could givethem.
@@rubyrootless7324 The most common pitfalls of statistical analysis from everybody, experts included, is using the data in irrational ways, reaching conclusions that the data does not actually support.
I fooled myself thinking "I was just bad at physics" seeing how my brothers are expected/pushed to be good at it, ultimately exploring it in college as well. All the way until high school I felt embarrassed at every physics class because I knew my place wasn't there so I tried to make myself as invisible as possible, just to not hinder the class or something (whatever I was thinking back then). I went into architecture because I loved drawing and maths, that was my comfort zone - it made sense. That's when I inevitably found out I had to take physics classes as well and guess what - I really enjoyed them. There was no more pressure from outside forces. There were enough female classmates taking the class and actively participating in it. The whole environment changed so I had loads more confidence in my own understanding capacity. I didn't just immediately think "I'm bad, I should shut up", instead I really listened and tried to figure things out without that anxiety clouding my judgement and giving me panic attacks whenever anyone asked me anything. It had gotten to the point when the teacher could've asked me something as simple as writing the same equation in a simplified way - which only needed basic maths to figure out - but because it was the physics class, I genuinely had a lump in my throat doing that at the blackboard and, as a result, it took me waaaay longer than if I were to do the same thing in the maths class. I didn't even know why I had this struggle for so long, I just thought I was weak or simply not that smart, although I was accepted among the first 20 people in the high school ranked first in my city and went on to the same in college. You start believing you're just doing what you're being told, but you're actually not smart, anyone could do it.
Sounds more like general confidence issues than anything. I've seen this in a lot of women I've tutored, they understand the material but aren't confident in their comprehension. Honestly I've felt a similar way - I took a long break from school and my attitude coming back was very much, "anyone can do this, I'm just following instructions," but eventually I realized that I genuinely do have a talent for math and engineering - but I'm still skeptical about how far that goes. Either way, it sounds like you have talent and the world needs more people like you to solve tough problems.
Your experience is so familiar. I also struggled with physics at school although I was good at everything if I had a decent teacher. It is a common belief that girls are bad at math. After grade 9 I joined a new school. At my old school I was always selected to represent my school in science or writing competitions. So when my new math teacher told that a competition is coming, I stayed after the class to speak about it. There was about 10 boys, a girl who was truly talented in math and went on to study it at uni and there was me. When teacher saw me, I sences her surprize and disappointment. "You? Are you sure you want to go?" Honestly, it was the first time in my life a teacher talked to me like that. For boys she gave enthusiastic "Yes, you're going!" And for me it was "Meh, are you sure?" The worst part is that this teacher was female, she didn't reflect on what she was doing, what messages she was giving to girls. Not taking math as a subject for final exams means student cannot go on to study economics, sociology, architecture, medicine, pharmacy, computer science and many more career paths are simply closed. Negative selection into these professions begins very early with sexist teachers.
@@__loafy__ She didn't fail though. She had anxiety about her capabilities because of the sexism of her environment. Personal responsibility is well and good, but societal forces do in fact influence people's lives.
Outstanding work. The thing that’s always made me wince about JP’s ‘analysis’ of academic literature is his apparent complete misunderstanding of statistics, such as the tortured multivariate manipulation you started with. You’ve explained many of his mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, very well.
Cool to see you here, Rohin! As someone with a physics background, I've always winced as well. He just goes on and on with inferences and deductive reasoning based on very weak statistical claims, and he's more sure about it than esteemed physicists would be even after having experimental results from CERN and 20 years of experiments and theory providing compelling evidence based on far fewer variables. His arrogance is a detriment to science and scientific thinking as a whole, and especially social sciences.
It is remarkable how you can fool hundreds of thousands of people into believing you are some great intellectual by spouting vague word salads with the occasional bit of common sense followed by non sequiturs.
It's amazing how much more interesting it is when our presenter doesn't just say "I know the literature and it says what I say it does" instead of actually describing what the literature says
@@nayelhuda6945 he could have said that, instead Peterson said "I know the literature and it says what I does." This is a lie. He obviously does not "know the literature," and it in fact says the opposite of what he says it does.
@@MKotnis Even the author of this video gives JP the credit that he never misrepresents any study. The whole critique of the video is on interpretation
As a PhD statistician in epidemiology, thank you for mentioning causal inference and the ecological fallacy. It’s worth noting that a school of thought states that one cannot perform causal inference using the counterfactual framework on factors that cannot be “manipulated” (assigned sex at birth, race, etc). Just one of many reasons why disparities are so difficult to study!
@@Ignasimp yeah, he means the value that is written into your birth certificate. That is assigned at birth. That's why he writes "assigned gender at birth" and not simply "gender".
@@flobbie87 value? What are you talking about. Gender is a synonim for sex in this situations. What they write down is their sex. No one is assigning anything, it's an objective description of reality.
@@Ignasimp, yeah, right. And at birth a value is written into the gender or sex field of your birth certificate. I thought this was called "assigning gender at birth". Is that incorrect?
I work in Korea, not the US, but the point about the same behaviours (such as being disagreeable) being rewarded/punished differently for men and women really struck home. I am a Swedish woman, and Sweden is a pretty gender equal country, all things considered. When I first got to Korea and met our agent, a middle aged woman with children who was self-employed as an agent for foreign companies interacting with the local economy, I was shocked. She got results, but the way she got them was by always flattering and apologizing and dressing femininely and speaking in a high-pitched voice. I initially disliked her, because I felt this was simultaneously demeaning and manipulative behaviour, and that she was contributing to the problem. After working in Korea for a few years, I changed my opinion. She would have never gotten to where she was without adopting those behaviours, because those were the behaviours which worked for women. If she had been rewarded for being straight-forward and no-nonsense, the way that men in similar positions were, she would have adopted those behaviours instead. This was not HER personality, it was only the personality she had been forced to adopt by a system which treats men and women differently.
I wrote this comment before watching the whole thing and feel rather sheepish after scandinavian countries featured so heavily in the paradox portion. I would like to add that Sweden has worked hard on encouraging aforementioned parental leave to be taken by fathers in more equal parts in more recent times. I don't know enough about STEM graduations, but certainly I remember being aware as a child that maths was more for boys (but also being already armed with stats saying there was no difderence in ability).
@@eolill I don't know about you being sheepish in this instance. Maybe you should just be more confident in the idea that you put forward, that Sweden is a pretty gender equal country. With that, I assume, that you felt you had a choice. Ideally, it would be beneficial in modern society for more women to have such a choice, since I feel a lot of women wanting children for example put them on hold for a career and with that their personal happiness. Or maybe I'm running too far with your point.
It's funny that you think there's such a thing as "HER personality". All personality is socioculturally constructed including men's behaviour. Toxic masculinity is a reflection of immature western culture
This is interesting. Although, I wonder if there could also be a selection effect? That the women who have those specific personality traits are the ones more likely to succeed. As opposed to, as you assert, "that [it] was not HER personality." Part of me always feels like some of this analysis is just a weird way of saying that "dressing femininely," or "speaking in a high-pitched voice" is inherently worse. Which seems sexist. It can sometimes feel like people just want to impose different gender norms, as opposed to eliminating them. Also, if a man were to "dress femininely," or "speak in a high-pitched voice," would you say that was not HIS personality?
It's impressive that Peterson will keep insisting that we need a multivariate analysis to explain the pay gap, then dismisses every single variable that doesn't contribute to his conclusion.
Isn't that a better way to reach to conclusions? Having a multivariate analysis instead of one or two? I don't think JP has ever denied "discrimination" as one of the variables.
@@eliechallita I hope you watched this video critically and didn't take it as a gospel. For the most part this video attacked JP's arguments for being reductive. I would also agree that he doesn't explain about it enough. But I don't think anyone can say that the factors he brought up are wrong. Like I don't think anyone can say that career choice doesn't affect wage gap or pregnancy doesn't affect wage gap or the personally difference doesn't affect the pay gap at all. The discussion starts when we get into nuances.
I’m a woman in a male-dominated field (software engineering), and my undergrad degree was even more male-dominated (electrical and computer engineering). The retention rate in ECE at my school was about 70% overall (meaning for 100 freshmen in ECE, only 70 graduated in that major), but the retention rate for women was closer to about 10%. It was significant. I’m lucky I survived studying a subject that I throughly enjoyed, and I’m very lucky I now have a good job using my degree to architect complex software systems, and I know I make more money than the average woman in America, which is a privilege I do not take lightly. But within my field, do we tend to get paid less? Yes!!!! I don’t know the exact number, but I do know 2 things: women tend to suffer from imposter syndrome to a much farther degree which precludes them from negotiating for higher salaries like their male peers, and hostility to women in terms of family planning pushes women out of the field entirely far more often than men. The fact that I ended up where I did can largely just be attributed to the fact that I’m a bit of an asshole and I would totally get a degree purely to spite my 7th grade math teacher (fuck you ms odgers, algebra was never that hard, you’re just a shit teacher and shittier human being). Most people do not live on spite alone, and they shouldn’t need to. When dealing with all the stresses in the modern world, it’s an excessive and often insurmountable barrier for young women to overcome society’s constant nagging to choose a womanly field or even drop out of the workplace entirely to raise their husband’s children as opposed to pursuing higher paying (aka male-dominated) careers. Jokes about my assholery aside, I went into engineering for a genuine love of the field. I like to say that if color theory tells us how to understand the beauty of fine art, then mathematics tells us how to understand the beauty of the physics that construct the natural world and wider universe. As for the T in STEM in particular, in early computing, a lot of women actually had a significant contribution to the field. But around the 80s, there was suddenly a huge drop in the number of women in the field. There’s a lot debate about that root cause, but a large portion of this seems to be related to the fact that the 80s saw a rise in commercial sales of personal computers, and the advertising heavily pushed the belief that PCs were for boys. This significantly changed the culture in tech from the space age advance of science of the 40s-60s to the proto-tech-bros like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the 70s-80s. It’s wild, not only does misogyny drive women away from fields, but it even drives out women already in that field! Also in regards to Ben Shapiro’s brain dead statement about girls reading poetry: growing up my favorite school subjects were always math and art. I thought about going to art school until halfway thru high school, and that decision was really reinforced by people treating my math ability as just a good little girl with good grades (lmao if only they saw how I almost failed English a few times), and art was my real talent that society found palatable. I owe my engineering degree to my HS comp sci teacher who was one of the only people in my life at that time that encouraged me to challenge myself and feel proud of my accomplishments, as opposed to nearly every single other adult in my life that kept telling me not to burn myself out on something “just too hard.” So yes, Ben, a lot people actually DO tell little girls who are good at math to go away and read some poetry. Dumbass 🙄 Lmao I started writing this comment before I finished watching the video, and then you started mentioning the phenomenon of women dropping out of tech in the 80s. Fun fact, the word computer existed long before electromechanical devices became common. In WWII, the word “computer” largely referred to women in agencies such as Bletchley Park who were employed in quickly and accurately computing mathematical solutions to aid code breaking and engineering development. The electromechanical devices that replaced their jobs then inherited the title of “computer”. For an interesting example of women’s role in this type work, I highly recommend Hidden Figures, a fantastic movie/novel that shows the affects of misogynoir on absolutely brilliant individuals in NASA in the 1960s
The company I work for celebrates women who excel in engineering and though it’s commendable it’s embarrassing for both sexes. It feels as if women were a rare specie or some special child that needs support. Your example and that of others shows that women are fully capable to do mans jobs. No issue. The problem is with our society constantly putting gender expectations on us. My friend recommended this video to me out of curiosity but I’m no where near as smart as him or you or the TH-camr so not sure how this comment will be received but there you go. My opinion stated. Have a good day!
When I was in Compsci there would be one hostile male per class- most guys were fine but they'd never speak up against the one and I had to deal with one in every room I entered. Also, guys would help each other left and right, but if I reached out it proved I wasn't good enough. And when I didn't reach out I wasn't a team player. I don't know if that crap is still going on, but it made life a lot harder than it needed to be for me, and I was already screwed enough by ADHD. Which I got diagnosed with late, because I'm female, and consequently didn't learn to manage.
I loved reading this! I feel like we could have been twins if I didn't have massive social anxiety holding me back. I loved math and art too... and being a spiteful asshole. I had a science teacher that lightly encouraged me to go into some scientific field. I also think our 7th grade math teachers might have been twins too. Fuck them and good for you!
What you say at 30 minutes in is so true. In schools while doing lab work the women were explicitly told to take notes and jot down data while the men did the actual experiment. This was ironically presented as a "gender equal" solution instead of just picking someone at random to do the note taking without regards to their s3x
Hahaha this is such a farce. What country do you guys live in? Saudi Arabia? In most US schools, the guys sit in the back and huff glue and get scolded by everyone, are often mocked by and told by the teacher that they are a hopeless failure, while the women sit in the front, excel in class, are the teachers favorite, and get the most education and professional opportunity.
@@kanal7523 Not just a meme, There are too many studies for me to list here but you can find on google that clearly show that women Graduate highschool at a higher rate then men, graduate college at a higher rate then men, and vastly outperform men in achieving valedictorian status I saw one study had it 4-1 women for valedictorian. The idea that men are the beneficiaries of our education system is a meme, men are neglected by our education system, as evidenced in multiple studies.
@@kanal7523 Must be the patriarchy, right? Its obviously the Progressive, Euro-American Globalist wing that's been unilaterally in control of education for the last 40 years. They are pushing an agenda that is not good for young people. They are attempting to produce a population of docile, controllable sheep, but humans aren't sheep, they are breeding mental illness. Its completely obvious they are suppressing individual choice and attempting to turn the human into a hive organism. If you're a 14-16 year old male who doesn't want to sit and listen to lectures, you don't need to be punished and medicated into sitting and shutting up in complacency, you need to be working and learning a skill, and joining the work hierarchy, the sooner a male starts participating with and competing professionally with peers in the community the sooner they will assimilate as a useful member of the society.
I personally left an 17 an hour factory job and chose to stay as an 10.25 per hour server over men coming up and touching/hitting on me when I was super tired at the end of my shift, too tired to even think right half the time. I would still get harassed as a server in a retirement home, creepy old men, but it wasn't as bad as in the factory and it was MUCH easier to get help from all the women in my workplace
Many times what people tell you about yourself has a huge effect on you. Till 9th grade I had a fabulous science teacher who told me I had a nack for digging deep into the scientific concept even though I didn't get them at first and I excelled at science. Later on for 3 years my different science teacher humiliated over the fact that I was not able to give on the spot answer to questions they explained a minute ago. I went from being one of the top 2 students in my class in science to last and even my parents were confused. It has just lately gotten batter for me as I started talking charge of my life again. So try believing in yourself, it isn't easy lord I wish it was, but some time you need to lie yourself how good you are so your actual become good.
"Till 9th grade I had a fabulous science teacher who told me I had a nack for digging deep into the scientific concept even though I didn't get them at first" Pandering to females. No male receives even a fraction of this attention
"I went from being one of the top 2 students in my class in science to last and even my parents were confused" 2nd teacher didn't inflate the grades of female students in science as much
@@GK-op4oc i really need you take a look at yourself in the mirror and read that comment to yourself and then think if that’s the kind of person you want to be. Let me clarify I AM A MAN. Also I was top of my class in every subject but Arts. Also this was in India. Teachers are not gonna inflate your grades, that’s just not something that happens here cause these grades don’t matter. Only the government test does, which are anonymous and checked by third party.
I've always been a "tomboy" and I remember vividly when I was young imagining going into school and work for what I was interested in but full stopping at the fact that I would have to put up with being the only girl most of the time. I'd be in the spotlight for nothing and I'd have to constantly prove myself and any failures would be because women don't belong there and so on. This was a little more than 20 years ago. I'm always very impressed by girls and women who push through that or seemingly don't let it get to them. I was too young to realize that there would also likely be sexual harassment.
Same. There have been two career paths I was interested in but decided not to pursue because they're extremely male dominated and after looking into womens experiences in those fields was discouraged beforehand. I'm not a person who's good at dealing with confrontation or sexism or stuff like that, so I knew I wouldn't stand a chance at sticking it out in those fields anyway.
I get why you shied away from it - the sad counterpoint is, your decision to not enter into male-dominated fields perpetuates them being male-dominated. I get why you chose not to, and I don't mean to criticize you or anything, I'm more writing this in case someone reads this who's in a similar dilemma. _Every_ profession has started out as a male-dominated field, with very few exceptions. The only thing that can end inequality is people stepping up against these odds. So for the people struggling with "should I?". Try it. No choice you make is final, and if you tried and didn't cope well, you can always try something else / somewhere else. And then at least you know you've tried, and there's no regret of not at least having tried to go for something you're passionate about. Also, gen z are very different from prev generations. I studied chemistry 20 years ago, worked for years as a physicist. Now I'm back at uni, getting a software engineering degree. 20% of us are identifying as women, and my first surprise was that they're all treating me and including me, as if I wasn't 20 years older than them. The second pleasant surprise was: we're equals - I haven't witnessed a single instance of exclusion or discrimination or anything like that, against any minority, in my 1 year in comp-sci so far. This is a _very_ different experience compared to my experience in chemistry. Where we were 40% female, and I'd hear at least one stupid "joke" a week targeted at women. The danger I'm seeing is .. people are more likely to share negative experiences than positive .. and I fear, all the reports of negative experiences might skew a reader's perception of a field. So in essence, what I'm trying to do is weigh in with positive experiences :)
As a Norwegian, my grandma lived in an era where she had access to the economic welfare, but still had to petition to formally divorce her husband. So the way people like Peterson and others talk about gender equality as the elimination of gender roles, or elimination of even the governments intervention in those gender roles, is just... off to me.
@@Layonbedge It's already changed, I'm just saying that these seemingly contradictory ideas have coexisted already. There is an underlying continuation of gender roles, though they're comparably loose next to merely decades ago.
What's sexist about needing to petition to formally divorce? Unless only the woman needs to do that, while the man doesn't, as I believe is the norm in sharia countries. The old colonial civil code here layed out gender roles in marriage, but that was replaced with a modern civil code decades ago. Men and women are now equal in marriage, in rights and duties, but you still can't just divorce for no reason overnight.
@@bobseven310 wasn't that the case before colonial civil law as well? You do know that Gender roles and patriarchy existed in non western countries long before colonialism right?
Yeah... that reminds of my own country. There was a MP (Member of Parliament) who wanted to equalize things for men and women. Under Canadian law, she could become Prime Minister, however, she still needed her _husband's_ signature to sign a lease to a house/apartment she was going to be staying at in Ottawa for her time as an MP... Double Standards much? ROFL. This was back in the 1970's I think... So, well within Mr. Peterson's Life Time.
@@aralornwolf3140 I do not understand. What's wrong about that? When married couple shares money, obligations, debts than it is obvious that some types of contract have to signed by both husband and wife. Mine friend wanted to fix canalization in his house, he needed his wife's signature on every form, on every contract.
My housemate works for Doosan Babcock as a nuclear engineering apprentice. The course started out with 30% women and 70% men. 100% of the women on his apprenticeship course have quit over the past 2 years, following multiple s*xual harassment accusations that have not gone to investigation. They still use photographs of the women who have left to promote the apprenticeship. The one woman who stayed the longest before quitting (a year later than the others) was the daughter of one of the managers on the site. She has had to leave recently, due to a steady decline in mental health over the two years she's been on the course, particularly in the past year. Only 3% of the men have left in the past 2 years. My male housemate has complained many times that he has to "waste his time" doing sensitivity training once a year for 2 hours. He says all the other men on the course feel similarly, and particularly towards the training about gender equality, since they don't have any women working there anymore.
I've bee to these "training" events. Wagging your finger doesn't change behavior. You need to locate the individual causing the problem and confront them. Lecturing normal people doesn't do anything but annoy them, and it won't do shit to the target who is just sitting there with his arms folded.
I knew women on my engineering courses, non of them reported what you said. One of them went on to do her degree in nuclear engineering, the other 'bashed and dashed' a guy with severe depression on my course lol
It's really heartening to have someone who actually understands the economics side of this talk about it for once. It feels like so often all we hear about is the bad interpretations and laypeople having to counter it!
Its important to keep in mind that is an intentional strategy. Expert analysis systematically is deprioritised to encourage politicisation of culture war topics. Simplified issues allows establishment media to encourage reactionary engagement which in turn helps ratings
I know right? It's hard to argue off the bat with "fax and logic" types with bare bones stats like this without any of the sociological contexts, especially if you cant cite any studies that show them. Even if those biases are blatantly obvious to anyone who doesnt bury their head in the sand.
@@marlenaanderson7594 sociology is the least scientific discipline to exist. Lol i've hardly ever seen a sociological study that was worth a dime. Read economists insead of sociologists.
@Leo Hagen economics don't asume people are rational. That's a myth. And sociology is the most ideologically influenced discipline. Saying that sociology isn't build upon assumptions is the most absurd claim I've ever read about this topic. I've studied some sociology and it was all bs and propaganda. Economics are far more empirical.
Like all people he gets stuff wrong. We all do. He gets stuff right too. What's important is the conversation/discourse. Without JPs proclamations, this excellent video wouldn't have been made.
@@evitanigaminU he's really good with vague, broad, common sense life advice like "clean your room", and of course, "wash your penis". That pretty much covers his authentically helpful contributions.
@@evitanigaminU his stuff on developing a good attitude, work ethic, focusing on yourself rather than criticising everything around you (this is usually a better attitude), being very careful when critiquing ancient wisdom and institutions, the failures of diversity, equity and inclusion, the destructiveness, contradiction and hypocrisy of making inclusion your only priority, his series on genesis was excellent and exhibits so much value to be found in scripture (even ignoring metaphysics and religious ceremony if you wish), his pearls of wisdom on the value of struggle, challenge, going out on a call to adventure, taking on as much responsibility as you can bear, how essential maintaining intimacy is in a relationship, how important it is to rough and tumble play with your kids, how important it is to challenge them, to allow them to explore the world without impediment, the importance of a two-parent family, how the west has become soft and ungrateful (after centuries of poverty, we now virtually all live to a high standard and still complain). His lectures on personality are very interesting, I love the takes he has on the density of archetypes in classic stories. I love his story about meeting a woman who is about as downtrodden as a person could ever be, turning up to a group for similarly downtrodden people with a dog to see if she could cheer up and help anyone else coming to the group. His takes on how to listen properly, his takes on the problem of perception, how even ostensibly objective scientific observations require an ethical choice - you must choose which observations to make over others and interpret the data ethically. Typing this made me realise how much I've learned and enjoyed listening.
Your channel is a god send. You've talked about gender inequality in the economics field before, but I'd assume biases and in group preferences also keep people out with certain political leanings. That's why it's so important we have your channel in leftist TH-cam.
The funny thing is, a guy can get up on stage and say "there's no discrimination against women, they are lying to you and it's all an attack on men" boom, easy. But to argue the opposite you need to sit through an hour video carefully going through the data and discrepencies to fully explain why that statement is wrong...
This is why the “marketplace of ideas” may sound nice, but it only works if everyone is arguing in good faith and according to the facts. But if one is not really interested in discussion, but pushing their ideology they can just spout BS in such mass that it cannot be addressed all in one debate. If these people get a platform, the rise of fascist ideas in the population is just the foreseeable result.
@@neoglacius She has not 'debunked' the wage gap - she RESEARCHED it and explained the causes of a good portion of it. The gap still exists - we just know more about WHY.
@@dmob881 yes, she explained is not because of discrimination but because of her personal choices and lifestyle, so thats why is it doest exist for disc reason thus is legit
Even if men are categorically different than women in measurable ways that give men an advantage in the workforce… doesn’t that just mean that there is a bias towards traits perceived as masculine? A gender bias, if you will? What would make aggressive people more successful than people who cooperate, if there wasn’t a society-wide preference for one over the other?
Not only that but the same traits are perceived differently for men and women. Like assertiveness. Claiming that to be down to genetic is pretty wild and something I'd like JP to prove before making such assertions.
@@XMysticHerox I believe there was a social psych paper published back in 1990 that showed how different social groups in reference have different perceptional scales. Forgot the paper off the top of my head.
I think the implication is supposed to be that it isn’t a bias towards natural masculine traits per se, but towards traits that are beneficial in a realistic work scenario. These traits just happen to be perceived or manifested as masculine in society (I don’t think Peterson would think this is just a perception but something more fundamentally different between men and women).
@Christopher Grant He definitely accepts the conclusion too quickly that men are just better fit for some work. If only he'd have as much skepticism about statements on male fitness as he does about literally any claims of structural inequalities.
No. Women just fucked up their career by not fighting hard and competiting. I am just reversing answers to comment pointing out that boys are far behind girls in school in OCED and western countries.
Thank you for this video! As a woman in STEM, I struggle a lot with internalised misogyny. I grew up in a conservative environment and struggled with self esteem and lack of female role models. Because of this, I was very close to falling into the pseudoscientific Jordan Peterson misogyny rabbit hole. Over the last 3 years I managed to somewhat unlearn that stuff and videos like yours really help a lot with that.
@@ataarono She didn't say she's struggling *in STEM*, just that being in STEM causes her to struggle with internalised misogyny which makes perfect sense. Being around guys a lot, especially if you're considered "one of the guys", you hear a lot of sexist ideas thrown around casually and it's super easy to internalise it and start rejecting everything feminine in yourself and others and deem it less than. I personally experienced this as a young teenager playing video games day in, day out. Guys would tokenise me as "one of the few good ones" then proceed to talk shit about "girly girls" with me and it took me a long time to stop accepting that and realise just how shitty it was.
I think the issue is that calling the issue the "pay gap" and constantly highlighting figures like 0.70 cents to the dollar makes it seem like the issue is solely that sexist male bosses are arbitrarily giving women lower salaries than men and we just need to pay them more and problem solved. The problem isn't really "pay" (at least not mostly), it's an employment and education problem.
@@sebsebski2829yes, we're absolutely living each in our own bubbles, with 0 external factors to contribute to type and amount of work each person in our society has access to. 🤡 Your argument doesn't even work if we omit gender from the discussion entirely. Like you're gonna tell male coal miners in a dying industry in West Virginia, or Auto Workers in Detroit in the 80s losing their jobs "yOu'd eArN mOrE iF yOu wOrkEd mORe" Seems you haven't thought this through for even one second.
What if woman just dont want to have a job in certain male dominated industries. I dont understand why there has to be equal representation in any field. If you want to go for it, go for it.
As someone with a STEM degree and a job in STEM, this video has encouraged me to look more critically at the types of data and studies provided to me (along with their inferred takeaways) and look more curiously and skeptically at what can truly be gleaned from them. This video is immensely helpful at dispelling narratives that misrepresent data without context. Great work!
The "Alt-right" Pipeline is conceptually self-defeating in his need to clasify Swatika socialist as far-right and the dediniton of all those that opposes the far-left anti-values of equality, abolition of freedom of asociation with anti-discrimination laws. And most important reliance in ths negation of economic and sociological laws to make ppssible that minimal intervention means tirany.
@@engelsteinberg593 Thinking Peterson is remotely alt-Right is your L. If anyone's actually listening to Peterson, they will never go down that extremist route.
@@networknomad5600 Thinking that there is something such an a evil "Alt-Lite" definitions vary, but all of them are about being disident of mainstream or being agai st the egalitarian far-left extremism. (There may be racists or white nationalists, because was ddfined as someone that shares ideas with the "alt-right movement" except that of white supremacists (is to note that a jump from "Alt-lite" to "Alt-right" is to go as non-whites are moral pacients and as such there are deserving of proper justice to nonwhites have no moral value whatsoever or lesser than whites. In any case a qualitative jump of great magnitude.) Letting aside that the miscaracterization that I gave to alt-right (From far-left source claim about alt right, the term is just such non sense that the term should never be ised and replaced by white supremacist of right wingner [This may vary by variant], and this is as long the far-left can be belivable in the claims that those who called themselfs alt-right were white supremacists). In any case those that are claimed to have "fallen in alt-right" are more precisely called to have "fallen in lite-right" and in any case being against the devil of the left and being racists makes you a "lite-right" from some sources and by other makes only the first is needed. In any case There is no evil, trought the virtue of the racism can be discusssd in what respects ethics is is no a evil, and the former anti leftism and disagreement with corrupted "mainstream right (specially in France)" is a correct position, that would include all that disagree with the neofacists ideals of the ortodox left.
@@networknomad5600 you don’t understand the concept. A “pipeline” in this context means people who follow Peterson are more likely to listen to fractionally more extreme views until they become alt-right. As gender essentialism is nonsense but yet a cornerstone of the alt-right, his place in the pipeline is pivotal.
I started looking at studies more carefully the moment I had to reproduce one as part of a project. You start seeing gaps in a lot of papers where the start has a lot of info, the end will have a lot of info, but only the good papers will get you from point A to B.
Brilliant breakdown. I’ve been linked to Peterson’s inaccurate “explanations” of gender inequality many times before so it’s nice to see a comprehensive critique of them.
I find the only people who buy into Peterson tend to be people not really worth my time dealing with. I legit have more important things to do like... changing my cat's litter. If they are already whole hog a follower of his they need to take the steps to deradicalize before anything we say does much good. Meanwhile, observers get exposed to more Peterson bullshit.
@@Otokogoroshi Peterson's message isn't radical. Neither is Shapiro radical. Ya'll are absolutely way off track to even remotely think such a thing. If you want to demonize them, you have a rude awakening coming for you in midterms when The People get a say in what's going down in our government again.
@@networknomad5600 Ben "even if global warming is real and sea levels increase people could just sell their houses and move lol" Shapiro isn't radical?
@Rachel Forshee Here's the issue. Ben Shapiro and JP are very intellectual people. However, that builds an ego to "Im invincible". Makes them think that everything they say is true, however, it's not. But, when they get disproven, it makes people, who were so desperate to disprove his point see as tho "They are always filled with bullshit".. which again is not true
as an afab albanian, i was discouraged into pursuing stem fields at school (in the UK), but i was pressured to pursue them by my parents, i thought it was just because they were immigrants but i had no idea how communism had affected the culture. despite the fact that albania is very misogynistic, particularly amongst the lower class, all the girls in my family were pressured to do well in school and pursue a high paying career by their parents. i was quite good at stem subjects, i obviously wasnt the best, but i was naturally inclined. the ONLY reason i didnt pursue them is because it was male dominated, and i felt that as a female i could never excel compared to my male classmates. like i felt inferior because of my sex. i dont know where i got that logic from, but it was an idea externally instilled in me. so i purposely flunked all my subjects and despite not studying and daydreaming in class i still got a decent grade. i feel shit knowing that if i tried harder i could have pursued stem and i really wanted to but i just kind of gave up :/
I wonder if other commenters will show up to say "so girls fucked up their economics prospects, they are to blame", like when they do blame boys when people point out in this comment section that boys are way behind girls in term of education in most OCED countries.
@@XXNNssTIMis im lower class you bloody twat. im allowed to say what i want because my family is part of the lowest class in albania. take a sociology class and wisen up. that was so disrespectful. you're taking away and ignoring the struggles of lower class people. how utterly shameful. i bet youre middle class too lmfao
I'm a scandinavian woman in Stem. I taught myself programming at 8 yrars old, but thought I was bad at math until my early 20s. I'm in my mid 30s now, and I've been writing my own softwares for 10 years. But my father told me a month ago about a male relative who does "real programming", not "letting the computer do it", like me. He thought the graphics engine I was using was doing my job...
I'm only to the end of part 2, but it's uncanny seeing all of these studies explain almost exactly my experience as a woman in a VERY hyper-masculinized field (physics/engineering). Well... FORMERLY in that field, since I just left the industry after a decade in large part because I couldn't take the constant barrage of insidious sexism, psychological negging, and corporate gaslighting affecting my mental health. I busted my ass to get a Master's of Science degree in this field, worked my way up to a six-figure USD salary (after starting out of grad school being paid WELL below the industry's standard for an entry-level bachelor's grad), and I still just couldn't stand it. I've since taken up teaching at a small local college- adjunct, of course, so I'm both hourly and not allowed to be paid for much more than class time- which leaves me working ENTIRELY UNPAID preparing for class since I'm not willing to let my students' experiences suffer because of a structural inequity. You can probably imagine the magnitude of the paycut I just experienced... and yet, it's worth it for the sanity alone. How disappointing.
oh my god i had the same experience. I'm only a college sophomore, but I was captain of my robotics team in high school. Since the male programmers on our team were not good with managerial and secretarial stuff, I took on all of that responsibility to compensate. Our advisor ended up punishing me with more work for not spending enough time on the programming -- even though I was keeping up with what they were working on AND practically managing the whole team on top of it. I was very upset and suspected sexism from the start - but the idea that even the undervaluing of "caretaking" tasks in the first place is sexism kind of blew my mind
I took a teaching job once, non-unionized contract, a bit like yours. Even if I calculated that I spent as much time out of class as in class (first time giving it, had to prep everything), and thus halved my effective hourly wage, I was still making more than I was in my previous male-dominated job. I disapprove of the increasing propensity of higher education to rely on non-tenure staff, but not because it's some kind of sexist plot, but just simply because it's anti-worker. That's just employers constantly chipping away at workers' rights, the fruits of neoliberalism. Women aren't being specifically targeted, if anything, they are mostly unscathed. Yes female-dominant industries had some setbacks, but did you see what happened to the factories? Where are the blue collar jobs young men could once aspire to? There are barely any left. Unionization rates for men basically halved since 1980, and it's now below womens' unionization rate, which itself kept stable since then. And that's both because the governments killed our male-dominated industries (with free trade) and transformed our male dominated public service into a mostly female one. Not many unions left outside of public service. Teachers in primary and high school get good pay, even accounting for the prep time (which a lazy person can seriously cut to a minimum, and with even the non-lazy after a few years you just end up with a ton of pre-made material to re-use), and despite having two full months off per year. How many "male" jobs make that much money with those many hours? And no weekend/night shifts? None that I can think of.
Anecdotally, I have a friend who did computer science and she said that her mostly male peers had very backwards, misogynistic attitudes sometimes directed at her.
Please don't leave stem. Stem needs women like you. Many of the greatest physicists and mathematicians ever who just happened to be women had to face the same problem of sexiesm. But they broke through it. One example that I can give you is of my favorite physicist/ mathematician. Her name is Emmy Noether. She gave what are literally the foundations of mathematical physics, called Noether's theorems. These theorems revolutionized physics and are still doing it as these theorems contained within them what is considered by most physicists as the most beautiful or profound idea ever in physics. That is that symmetries in laws of physics are what gives rise to conservation laws. These theorems and ideas are at the core of modern fundamental physics. She had one of the toughest lives, ofcourse sexiesm was the biggest but when some things did appear to go in her favour, the nazis took power and she had to move to usa. After that, she died shortly after at a young age of around 60 in 1935 due to some cancer surgery or something like that. She also revolutionized mathematics by founding the field of abstract algebra and some other contributions and thus became one of the few people in the entire history of humanity to have revolutionized both maths and physics. Einstein wrote in her obituary in New York times about how she was this creative mathematical genius who was held in highest regards by most competent mathematicians of the time. I highly encourage you to read about her life and work. I hope this inspires you. Please join the stem fields back. The world needs women like you. Stem needs women like you.
You know, I think my complete and utter inability to see the appeal of Peterson during the pay gap clips there is almost singlehandedly the reason I never fell into the alt-right as a teen - I saw a link in a reddit thread posted by a Peterson evangelist, watched the debate, tried hard to get why he was being described as so smart or whatever, and failed utterly. Hard to claim legitimacy through eloquent language when I can't parse what he's trying to say in the first place lol
When people would claim he destroyed an interviewer who was unfair to him, I would watch the same clip and come away with the opposite perception, utterly baffled.
People just like the idea of someone sounding intelligent, it doesn't matter if they can't follow it or if what they are saying makes sense. Look at Jacob Reese Mogg in the UK, Ben Shapiro talking fast to obscure the fact he is saying nothing and untrue statements.
@@waltonsmith7210 yes exactly! the only real knockout match he's ever had imo is with cathy newman, and even in that interview he said a bunch of dumb shit. but all that got overlooked cause cathy did a fairly terrible job otherwise. and so when we had anyone remotely competent and knew how to ask the right follow up questions: jim jeffries, the vice reporter, matt dillahunty, zizek, etc. he came off as a complete nimrod just goes to show how far someone can get memorizing a thesaurus
That’s like saying Obama became president, so there’s no racism. Y’know Robert Smalls became a Congressman, what was stopping other former slaves from succeeding in life?
One of the key things I’ve learned in university is how much we don’t *really* know. If you approach these kinds of topics with genuine curiosity of the different methodologies, I think that’s when shit gets good ie it spurs even more questions and a drive to partake in studies of your own. It’s priceless and *essential* for everyone to have a seat at the table if we want better quality and in-depth research.
THIS VIDEO IS 100% PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! THIS VIDEO IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS CREATING A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT JORDAN PETERSON NEVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!! FEMINISTS CLAIM THAT THE "SEX PAY GAP" EXISTS """"BECAUSE"""" OF DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON STATED THAT THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" DOES """"NOT"""" EXIST """"BECAUSE"""" OF """"SEX DISCRIMINATION""""!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS NOT THE "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE" OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP""!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS THE """"REASON(S)"""" FOR THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH """"SEX DISCRIMINATION"""" IN AND OF ITSELF; AND IS ENTIRELY, 100%, DUE TO DIFFERENT CAUSAL FACTORS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HAS """"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"""" TO DO WITH """"DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX""""!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
This is so true. Having finally lifted the veil covering mine eyes I can now clearly see the animal glint in yours. I see what makes you tick and the basic tragedy of it and I feel nothing but love.
There was study on Khasi (Indian matrilineal society) and they found that women score on assertiveness higher than men even in some patriarchal societies and ofc higher than Khasi men. So this traits might work the other way around - the more resources you have, the more assertive you can be.
That shouldn't surprising. When you have resources you can afford to take risks, including taking social risks by being assertive. For example, if I had a nest egg of 10 million dollars, I'd be more willing to speak openly about policies I find disagreeable at my work place.
Something I have never heard anyone mention in regards to the gender pay gap is the fact that 70-80% of job openings are never posted publicly and are instead filled through networking and word-of-mouth. We have no idea how many job opportunities people under the misogyny umbrella are missing out on. This includes not only women (cis and trans!) but also multiple categories of trans people that get misgendered as women. I went through this recently when a friend offered me a job at his company and even offered to pay me to train for the position. Soon after his girlfiend got jealous and he blocked me to appease her. The offer that had been mine went to a mutual guy friend instead. I lost that job offer explicitly because I am assigned female at birth. Sure, its anecdotal, but that's my point. We have no idea how often job offers are given to cis men, when others aren't even getting the chance to interview.
THIS VIDEO IS 100% PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! THIS VIDEO IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS CREATING A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT JORDAN PETERSON NEVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!! FEMINISTS CLAIM THAT THE "SEX PAY GAP" EXISTS """"BECAUSE"""" OF DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON STATED THAT THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" DPES """"NOT"""" EXIST """"BECAUSE"""" OF """"SEX DISCRIMINATION""""!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS NOT THE "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE" OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP""!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS THE """"REASON(S)"""" FOR THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH """"SEX DISCRIMINATION"""" IN AND OF ITSELF; AND IS ENTIRELY, 100%, DUE TO DIFFERENT CAUSAL FACTORS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HAS """"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"""" TO DO WITH """"DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX""""!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
You can just say women and femmes. ''AFAB nonbinary'' is itself pointless to specify outside of medical scenarios. Or women and people that society views as women (which applies to some non-passing trans guys as well who may also be discriminated)
@@ataready8810 (Note, this comment and the comment I am responding to no longer make sense because of edits I made to my original comment. My original comment said "women and AFAB non-binary people" and I have since edited it as response to the conversation that follows.) I am AFAB non-binary and I chose to use that language for a reason. Not all AFAB non-binary people are femme, so it doesn't make sense to use those terms as synonyms. I am not femme, but when I am misgendered I am misgendered as a woman. I therefore experience misogyny because I am AFAB. I wish me being AFAB was only relevant in medical contexts but that's just not true, it is very relevant in the context of misogyny. You are right that I should have just said AFAB people though, since I did forget to include trans men that don't pass or who are in the closet. That was a mistake, I just remembered AFAB non-binary people because I am one. I will edit my comment accordingly. Lastly I would like to politely suggest (I don't mean this to be rude or confrontational at all) that you not correct people on the language they use to describe their own identity. They usually will have a good reason if you ask. The conversation here was still productive though and I am still grateful for your comment, so maybe if you had phrased it as a question instead? Like, "Can I ask why you chose to say AFAB non-binary instead of....?" Etc. I think that wouldn't have rubbed me the wrong way as much. Thanks!
@@mvo9856 Your comment was very polite. I'm sorry for rubbing off the wrong way. I should have phrased it as a question. And you're right, in the sense that society views you as a woman but you're non-binary, 'femme' doesn't cover you. It mostly just feels lonely seeing 'AFAB people' being used to refer to many things about being trans or discrimination as I'm a trans women. I don't mind it in relation to things determined by AGAB, genitals, early childhood experiences etc. But AMAB trans people get a lot of the same shit for being outside of the norm or being fem that AFAB trans people do. Trans women and non-binary transfeminine people face as many troubles as other trans people in the workforce. Transfem people lose their 'male privilege' when they become visibly gender non-conforming. Trans women are paid 60 cents on average for every 1 dollar the average worker receives. That number is 70 cents for trans men and non-binary people. I would appreciate it if you included AMAB trans people. I believe that there's more to gender discrimination than AGAB - many times it's as much as people show about themselves or decide to visibly perform outside of their AGAB or normal gender roles. I still really value your comment. The gender pay gap is rooted in misogyny and patriarchal society. Getting rid of the perception of people seen as women as being 'lesser' would do a whole lot of good. I don't want to lessen your experience.
loved the video, but there is one (insignificant) mistake I noticed. when you mentioned sweden having one of the highest rates of sexual harrassment, you neglected to recognise that the reason behind this is them having a more robust reporting system when it comes to sexual harrassment, making the statistic much less shocking than it may initially seem.
In Eastern Europe generally speaking the scientists get quite a low pay, so the reason why the percentage of women in STEM is significant might be because there are less men interested in it cuz of low salaries.
They are. They are also hard for men. You need a very high IQ to be good at them. And the amout of women that are smart(in a sence of having a high IQ) is just too low compared to men.
@@haobinlu my IQ is fine, thanks. Never got many problems with math, maybe it gets difficult if you study it as a single subject but if you need it as a tool, all you need is to put in the work. My biggest qualm studying CS were mediocre men with doctorates desperately trying to prove me wrong in my choices
There's a number of reasons. Many people have an internal model that Generally considers women less competent. There's also a bunch of other social factors at Work. Short Version: even while supposedly optimizing Profit, companies and especially people have deficient information and Models of reality.
Your question is addressed in the video. I won't even provide a timestamp because it would waste my time looking for it, and I know you wouldn't even watch it. I know you wouldn't watch it, because you had the gonads to come down to leave this stupid comment and left without even watching the vid in the first place.
the only bit of proof we need for how exploited women are in the home economy is to look at the prices for having someone who isn't your wife do the labor. a personal chef, daycare, a full-time social worker, a laundry cleaner, a janitor, and perhaps most of all a fucking surrogate. David Graeber was pretty close to the truth when he said in "Bullshit Jobs" that the more socially necessary your job is, the less you get paid. ffs pregnancy is the *most* socially necessary labor and pregnant people have to pay money to do that. giving birth is literally called "labor".
@@user-gf6xb1xl8g Not much development necesary, frankly. Just cut the parent a check every month for however long. We know when pretty much every kid is born already because of issuing birth certificates, so hardly any additional recordkeeping would be necessary.
Wait, if women are earning less money than men in large part due to being more agreeable, isn't that gender discrimination? If the economic system is set up in such a way that it punishes the way women are, and rewards the way men are, then that is a systemic issue. e.g. The school system is often cited as favoring girl's method of learning over boys preferred method of learning. As a result, girls outperform boys. Peterson and his conservative troglodytes would be the first to call this discriminatory against boys. Why doesn't systemic discrimination suddenly apply when it's women who are put at a disadvantage? Gotta love how Peterson describes gender discrimination while trying to produce an argument against the concept.
@@neoglacius Ruthless competition is discriminatory when it favors traits that have no relation to how well you do your job. That's like basing promotions in an office job on physical strength, and then arguing that it's not discriminatory towards the physically weak. It's inefficient. This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.
@@romanbarna1316 *discriminatory when it favors traits that have no relation to how well you do your job* being competitive is related to how well you do your job, because willing to compete even withyourself to be better everyday is extremely important to create innovation and revenue , is an active for a company, in fact when most of fems select a partner they act exactly the same way dicarding people if not 'ambitious' or too 'comfy', regardless how kind and good loving person he is
@@neoglacius That's probably one of the dumbest comments I've read this week. Bonus points for referring to women as 'fems' like a proper incel. Congratulations. In regards to your argument: again, agreeableness is not linked to lower performance in most jobs. In fact, in most jobs requiring team effort, agreeableness *enhances* job performance. Agreeableness is not the same as competitiveness either. You're arguing in favor of some random set of personality traits to determine paychecks rather than skill. Stop pulling arguments from your ass.
It is pretty obvious that there are a great number of things that Peterson does not understand. Having a cult following is not doing him any good in my opinion. The man has been close to a breakdown for some time.
"They really believe that a man and a woman doing the same job are sitting there, and the woman's making $0.75 to the man's dollar?" Well duh we do. I was a fully certified 12 volt electrician at Best Buy, and I found out my new male trainee was making $1.25 more than me. There's a reason your employer doesn't want you sharing what you make with your coworkers.
@Ronald Nygma except no western establishment such as best buy would be dumb enough to open themselves up getting sued in the name of "oppressing women"...theirs literally no upside to doing so
Employers get away with all kinds of illegal shit on a massive scale, especially in service jobs. The restaurant industry runs on labor code violations and wage theft is rampant in hourly positions. Most employees don't know their rights or even if they do they can't afford to raise a stink. Lawsuits are expensive. Complaining might lose you the job and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you just can't take that risk.
As a person from those post-soviet and Muslim countries (I can speak for Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, but others are pretty similar too), I have to provide some additional info, so that people unaware of the region aren't misled. While women studying STEM is normal in these countries, sexism is still rampant in these countries and women's experience is much worse compared to European women. Yes, many women study STEM, but the goal of studying for most women is to find a better husband (the goal set up by their parents that is, but often internalised by women). Once they graduate, they are very unlikely to work in high-paying jobs, especially male dominated ones. And if they marry, they must takeover household duties in addition to their work (if they are allowed to work that is), which means they have to do easy or part-time jobs. Post-soviet countries have a problem of people not working in the area they studied for, and it's much worse for women. Another thing is expectations around childrearing. It's seen as a female job, so after the maternal leave, women are often encouraged to stay home and take care of the kids, or again downgrade their career and take some easy, low-paid job. Also, if a wife earns more than a husband, prepare for trouble. The sexist narratives see men as breadwinners and their income makes them real men and gives them control over women. So, when they can't earn more than their partners it makes them feel emasculated and that fact is often discussed in friend groups and is joked about. I've personally witnessed a family breakdown because of this. So don't be fooled by simple numbers of STEM graduates, they don't mean what they look like. Soviets were usually good at making cosmetic changes and not really fundamental ones and this one is a proof of that.
It's not a sexist narrative that men are traditionally the bread winners. Thats just history as it existed untill some matter of decades ago. Cause for nearly all of human history people had to have something like 6 or 8 kids cause half them died before growing up and some simply wouldnt reproduce even once adults. Also most people were either self sustaining farmers or running a small family business before a hundred years ago so both husband and wife did basically the same job for the same pay including looking after kids and the household. Than everyone moved into the cities and got jobs at factories but since someone still had to watch the kids and do household things (there was no electric appliences), and one job could pay most bills and most the industrial jobs were immensily physically dangerous and intensive, men became the "bread winner." Now that we have appliances, need only 2 (2½) kids to maintain population, work environments are far safer and immensely diverse in type, send our kids to daycares and schools, and need 2 incomes to pay the bills, we do need to adjust to a new era/lifestyle were both men and women are both breadwinners and homemakers alike. Although obviously there's still going to be the 2 to 6 years a woman has to look after each child she has. (Or we can just give on the human race being a thing if women don't want to birth people anymore i guess) And yes we should start paying women to be mothers. Its totally work that contributes to society.
@@sananguliyev4940 i guess, if you mean that narrative being expected to continue as the norm today. I just feel like a lot of people from the last few generations don't look behind them at where we came from and just assume every dissadvantage, difference or inequality only exists because men are evil bastards and purposely made all these differences when we all get together in our boys only club tree houses and discuss how we can hold women back.
@@sananguliyev4940if you're going to call the narrative of what he said specifically sexist then there must be a solution otherwise you're just calling it that for whatever reason. So what is the solution, or is reality just sexist because it is
@@OsirisMawn solutions are often subjective depending on your goals. If you want a more fair and egalitarian society, getting rid of sexist narratives is the solution. If you want population growth and stable families, some forms of sexism can be beneficial. Regardless of how your "ideal" society looks like, it will come with trade-offs. However, my argument was purely descriptive. If there are different rules for different genders, those rules are sexist, regardless of reasons why these rules are in place.
You know you're deep down the breadtube rabbit hole when you recognize every single guest quote reader voice lol Also this was an excellent essay, one of the best ones I've seen in a while, thank you so much for all the work that you do man :3
When jp says perhaps eqiality should include more aggressive women and women in prison i literally face palmed. There are feminists who've spent literal decades critiquing male pattern violence and the failure of prisons to the broader society. But naturally jp wouldnt acknowledge that because he hasnt bothered to learn much aboit the groups he argues agaisnt.
@@Smulpaap123 regardless, that ignores that he's looking at the problem the wrong way. Why is it that when the topic comes up, it's about putting more women in prison? Why is that the standard? Why isn't the question framed as, "what is happening to send more men to prison, and what can we do to lower that?" Not even to mention that women are less likely to be jailed because of discrimination. There's often an inherent view that violent women are less dangerous, or that men who are victims of violence at the hands of women are simply weak. It's just looking at the whole question with the wrong framing. I do see your point that the question of the gender wage gap is mostly about higher paying jobs, but I think it also looks over the fact that a lot of the times once the conversation moves past whether or not the gap exists, it's starts to ask much more fundamental questions like, "why is one thing high paying when the other isn't?" Or even "what is labor?" "Why are some things considered with paying for compared to others?" "What do these things say about expectations of people?" Etc
@@helpme5785 No it's is not about "putting more women in prison", nobody wants that. It's not the standard, it's a hyperbole. With regards to why the question isn't framed differently, that's because the conversation surrounding equality is always about getting more women in higher positions. So for the sake of equality you'd need women in "lower" positions as well. It's honestly strange to get so caught up on the framing of the question. If you want to talk about getting fewer men in prison then go ahead, but it's an entirely different issue.
@@Smulpaap123 it's not strange to get caught up in the framing, if the framing isn't questioned then we will always miss the bigger picture. Eventually the conversation needs to move onto considering why certain positions are considered lower than others, and vise versa. In a sense, I'm agreeing that it's wrong that the conversation is only about higher paying jobs, I'm just pointing out that bringing up hyperbole like that is kinda useless because it's difficult to move the conversation along to things like that if we're always stuck on whether or not discrimination exists.
@@helpme5785 To me it seems that making a big deal out of a statement that shouldn't have been taken literally is what would cause one to miss the bigger picture. But it's honestly pointless to continue talking about this. We more or less agree that the conversation shouldn't just be about the high paying jobs.
I find it funny that Peterson describes women as more orderly in that interview and then describes them as chaotic in his actual books. Like, can you have any consistency in your beliefs, please?
I think it's supposed to be a "metaphysical chaos", but what theat means exactly and how or why it's associated with feminity in his Jungian simmered writings will get you lots of bloviated backtracking.
It means that emotionally women have more highs and lows ('chaos') on average than men, but in terms of wanting structure in life and orderliness in their surroundings, women on average are higher than men.
@@decekfrokfr3mdx - That is the narrative being pushed. Empirical evidence for it is slim. Men throw absolute public tantrums without being labelled emotional, while some stoic woman give no outward sign of emotion and are slandered as hysterical anyway. Bias predominates.
“It’s not a problem of capitalism, it’s a problem of people being dependent for the first 18 years. How do we monetize that?” Jesus Christ Jordan 🤦♂️ that’s got to be one of the most brain dead responses I’ve ever heard. Your concern is how to “monetize” people?! And you don’t see the connection to capitalism?! The entire concept of “monetizing” people is the fundamental problem of capitalism. How do you best utilize the labor force of individuals to increase your capital stock. We put laws in place to prevent children from being monetized specifically because they were easy to monetize. The issue is that you think about people in those terms in the first place. Why should we invest in children without knowing how that investment can be monetized in the future? The socialist answer is simple. You invest in them because they are human being deserving of that level of care from their society. It’s only the capitalist viewpoint that considers how that investment will result in a future monetary gain.
The interviewer was implying that women should be paid to have and raise children, and Peterson explained how that isn't feasible because children have no/negative monetary value. What are you not getting?
@@flacornmallrat But children have monetary value, if you make them work. You can start as soon as at 5 yo, and they could be making profits by 12. Of course you need to reduce costs, so be careful on your spending when making your child's business model.
@@flacornmallrat Jokes aside, it's true that a policy which consists in paying women to have and raise children has a lot of problems involved, it can't be the solution. It still doesn't change the perceived problem of care work being less valued even though it is fundamental to a functioning human system. Edit: major vocabulary mistake.
God I love your videos, I can see the economics training in how you formulate the full arguments of a video and it makes it really easy to follow point by point.
this was an absolutely wonderful piece. I always appreciate long form debunking videos of “facts and logic” types. really loved the analysis of how benefits for mothers can actually increase gender disparity unless those benefits specifically include state funded child care and elder care.
I went to an engineering school wanting to be an engineer. I was one of two women in my class. To no one's surprise I quit because the culture was super toxic. It's sad b/c I really liked my high school computer classes and my sister went into engineering. I sometimes wish I would have stuck it out but I knew for my mental health I had to get away from certain people, so I don't think I made the wrong choice by leaving.
Most male engineering students don’t discriminate with their lack of social skills. They are rude to everybody. Huge problem once you get into engineering. One student would literally insult everybody on his senior design team. High IQ with disagreeableness bring a lot of problems along with it.
When I first entered universtiy and was moving into the dorms my mom was with me and she was blown away at how the engineering department was almost completely split gender wise, 47% women 53% men, she actually teared up and discussed going through the same thing as what you went through, although for her it was in the 80s. It's wild how things can change in one area and still stay exactly the same in other places. Really sorry you went through that, glad you were able to support yourself.
@@maluse227 it’s fake. There is no issue with men in engineering school other than them being antisocial. Same with art and psychology classes that are 90% female. Men in psychology are not being oppressed and excluded. Plenty of obnoxious women there though. Just avoid the moron men and moron women and you will be fine.
@@firstlast9916 hmm who should I believe, you a random stranger on the internet telling me that every fact I have ever learned about the number of women in engineering is wrong, or my mother, my father, my friends, and all of the data I have seen over the years that show there's a problem with the how few women get into engineering and how the women who are there are treated. Miss me with that kind of sexism I'm not here for it.
@@maluse227 my graduating engineering class was 97% male. Half of them were either boring or aggressively obnoxious with the other male engineering students. They equally mistreat both male and female students. There is no discrimination against females.
THIS VIDEO IS 100% PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! THIS VIDEO IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS CREATING A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT JORDAN PETERSON NEVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!! FEMINISTS CLAIM THAT THE "SEX PAY GAP" EXISTS """"BECAUSE"""" OF DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON STATED THAT THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" DOES """"NOT"""" EXIST """"BECAUSE"""" OF """"SEX DISCRIMINATION""""!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS NOT THE "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE" OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP""!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS THE """"REASON(S)"""" FOR THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH """"SEX DISCRIMINATION"""" IN AND OF ITSELF; AND IS ENTIRELY, 100%, DUE TO DIFFERENT CAUSAL FACTORS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HAS """"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"""" TO DO WITH """"DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX""""!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
In 2022 we should be asking "What does Jordan Peterson actually understand?". It is clear that he knows less than the average philosophy freshman who read the first two pages of Beyond Good and Evil
@@heartache5742 From what I can gather (so take what I say with an amount of salt on par with the Dead Sea), he doesn't understand Niezsche, either. In spite of him invoking him.
In the decade or so since I escaped the alt-right pipeline, the arguments Peterson made that were showcased in this video we're the only thing I couldn't fully dislodge as potentially legitimate (some of the arguments not all). I haven't expressed these views and certainly haven't defended them, but in conversations about the pay gap, I've felt deeply ignorant. The bad arguments, and the narrative that held them together was for years now stuck in my intuition. They twisted my instinctual responses to important questions. I was at least lucky enough to understand my own ignorance. That feeling of knowing my intuition is flawed, while feeling powerless to properly challenge myself is gone. And even beyond that, the fallacies (not sure if that's the right word) you talked about in Peterson's statistical and sociological analysis will also prove very useful as I move forward as a regular person doing their part in challenging the dangerous and irrational narratives of the modern right. Basically... this is fucking amazing. It's something I hope you're proud of, and you have my thanks.
You need to give yourself a ton of credit. You had enough of an open mind and you listened to new information and are trying to grow as a person. That's more than most people.
As a girl from Eastern ukraine working full-time as a developer it was quite interesting to hear the last partXD Thanks for the great video by the way^^
It's a well known phenomenon tbh, the more you know the more you can see the gaps in your own knowledge. However if you never get beyond the surface of a concept, you think you know everything about it.
It's the basic mindset of an anti-intellectual. Intellectualism is founded upon critical analysis and a refusal to trust anything ever. Doubt is inherent to it.
If you listen to the words, he's telling people to doubt everything. People who believe in the Pay Gap lack self doubt too. Always ironic how those who accuse others of a certain trait are themselves the ones that embody that trait. This means you lack humility and self awareness.
20:30 "It's not a consequence of capitalism, it's just not something you can monetise!"... He really doesn't hear himself, huh? Like even if you want to posit that monetisation is not inherently capitalist, that's a whole discussion in of itself. I find it fascinating how he frames certain viewpoints as universal truths and builds out *more* subjective viewpoints from that. It's not exactly begging the question; it's like begging a different question to back up the first question- anyone know if there's a name for that? Whatever its name, Jordan Peterson is the king of it. (edit: spelling and punctuation)
If you want to claim that it is a consequence of capitalism, then you need to demonstrate how non-capitalist societies did differently. A and B can both be true, without them necessarily being dependent on each other. For this example, if both the affirmations that "we live in a capitalist society" and "our society doesn't compensate domestic work" are true, you still can't infer that society doesn't compensate domestic work "because" it is capitalist. It could do so "despite" or "independantly" from being capitalist. Did feudal societies pay women for their domestic work? Did any non-collectivistic society ever compensate women for their domestic work? In the end, domestic work is work for one's self. Other can benefit, such as your spouse and your children, but such is also true of other non-paid self-services, such as leisure. If a man teaches his son to hunt, should society pay him for this educational service? If a man grows a garden for his family, should society pay him for this labor? If a man mows the lawn, should society pay him? Men also do a ton of unpaid labor, and nobody's arguing that men should be compensated for it. Why should female domestic labor be compensated? The issue, in my opinion, is not that it's not paid, as it would be immensily difficult to have a state efficient enough to make this work, but rather that the distribution tends to be very lopsided. But how can the state regulate how spouses share their choires? Should it even try? Does the government have any business regulating how we manage our homes? Cultural changes are necessary, and in large part have already been done. But how much should be done to force men to do more domestic work? Women already have the most leverage when choosing partners. More could be done to help increase the number of men doing domestic work, such as mandatory cooking classes for all teens, but the idea that capitalism is to blame for domestic chores not being compensated is unfounded. Capitalism has a ton of problems, but it's not the root cause of this one.
@@bobseven310 I would agree that saying capitalism is the cause would be a little inaccurate, because it’s bigger than just capitalism. Any money based system that doesn’t have centralized government welfare for domestic work would have the same problem; so the issue isn’t capitalism, it’s capital itself. But saying capitalism is the issue is technically true then, because capitalism is a system that doesn’t reward activities that can’t be monetized. Even if that activity is beneficial for the whole of society (which I would argue raising children well is beneficial to the whole of society, as those children will go on to be a part of that society).
@@bobseven310the change isn’t that domestic labor used to have wages and now doesn’t; the change is that non-domestic labor used to not have wages and now does. before that everyone (in europe at least) worked on farms for a lord, or for themselves. so the issue is that capitalism rewards “men’s” labor through wages, but “women’s” labor is still unpaid. i don’t think capitalism necessarily caused the difference, but capitalism only gives wages when you have a boss, and domestic labor often doesn’t have a boss. the journalist isn’t implying that capitalism did something, just saying that things are the way they are as a result of capitalism doing its thing.
As a guy the first time I saw a gender pay gap, was my housemate who was a nightclub photographer, she'd been there a year and was payed alright and they needed another photographer and she had to train them, this guy would turn up late go home early, duplicate pictures so it looked like he did more and had a much worse camera. A few months later at the employees own Christmas meal, she found out that he got payed, even though he was employed for a lot shorter time and trained by my friend 1/3rd more. So she was earning 1/3rd less pay even though, she'd been there longer does more work than him and trained him, and she was a pretty scary person who speaks her mind, but even then the owner thought that made sense. Eventually she got her pay raised to the same as him, not more, just the same.
The worst example I encountered is when I worked in a restaurant with a psychotic boss. He was never in the restaurant, instead managing other businesses (he is one of those, used to be poor, now rich and flaunts it everywhere types). He would hire his own teenage son that no one in the restaurant liked, worked slow, was arrogant, sexist and homophobic constantly. But he was secured that job because his father owned the place. Meanwhile the hardest working waitress got fired after working there 4 years. She took less breaks than the other and always gave it her all, yet she was fired out of the blue. The boss prefered to hire high school graduates who took a gap year, keep them for a year ish, then hire new people to keep wages down. Of course the restaurant never did as well as it could if he kept the skilled workers instead. The only thing that made job place decent was his wife who was the waiter manager and a waitress herself. She was super sweet and encouraging to everyone, but you never know you did bad in the eyes of the psychopath until 2 months later when 3rd of your salary is illegally missing.
Thats extremely uncommon. The real gap is mostly down to women not getting promoted. Being paid less for the same job is extremely rare in the west at least.
@@ryankmdkt she was more qualified, more skilled and more productive. By meritocracy logic she should be earning more, not him. There are more variables than those and gender, but there is clearly a bias present. It's an anecdote on an individual level, but if there was no gender inequality this would never happen
And I got another story, an old man in his sixties was a pillar in his manufacturing plant for 35 years was to teaching a recently graduated young woman how to do her job. The young woman was paid three times more than him. Nice, mild manner guy as he was, he was still upset at the fact that 30 years of service and an entry level graduate got paid three time more. Pay systems are not uniform across the world. Everywhere I work in, the paymaster never seem to know how much anyone is worth. Your story is not of descrimination, it is of ignorance. She would not get hired in the first place if it is the former.
Thank you for all your effort! I find it admiring how everything was so well explained and displayed, it reminded me of my professors of statistics in the uni. You definitely pointed out how easy it can be to "proof" any argument by selecting your studies wisely while ignoring their quality and/or access to resources. I think you truly contributed to more reflexive analysis and evaluation of such. And additionally, you introduced me to Ground News. Thanks for that.
Thank you for making this video. Many years ago I used to be on the right, but moved towards the left over time. The Idea, that the Gender pay gap doesn't exist was one of the few things I still held true, because every left-wing argument against it felt weak or unintelectual. So thank you for challenging that Idea and allowing me to leave that way of thinking behind.
It's literally illegal to pay a woman less than a man. If you could get away with paying women less, wouldn't "muh evil greedy capitalists" just hire only women in droves because they're cheaper labour? The "pay gap" is a result of overarching statistics. No shit women tend to make less than men when they have to take (unpaid) maternity leave or just hold lower paying positions on average. The pay gap is such a ridiculous myth and a textbook example of "abusing statistics" the way people like you incessantly accuse "The Right™" of doing. Anyone with 2 braincells can tell you it's stupid and that the mean pay disparity is a result of stats, not unfair wages. (Also, women should get paid maternity leave.)
Thank you for this. Your videos are hilarious and I’m always relieved to know that people still give a shit about women’s issues (especially from an Econ view) and calling out illogical talking points.
I work about 8-16 hours a day, 7 days a week, working for myself. This also includes the work I do at home, the cooking, cleaning, etc, on top of making stuff, listing them, selling them, packing and shipping them, etc.I also earn about 600 USD a month. I love what I do, and would not exchange it for anything, as I am a disabled mess and this work is very relaxing and nice. But at the same time, I am a prime example of "working long hours does not mean you make lots of money." It often just means you work long hours. And while I love doing this, I also understand that this is something that would be extremely unhealthy for most other people, especially neurotypical people and those with a social life. Nobody should strive to work as much as I do, and I highly recommend that everyone finds a good work-life balance! I am just lucky as my work is also something that is varied, relaxing, and fascinating to me! Nobody should feel forced to work themselves to death to survive. Working 80+ hours a week is not a goal.
@@flacornmallrat I mentioned cooking and cleaning because I personally include it in the number of hours I work. Because cooking and cleaning is a form of labor, and is no less a form of work than when I work at my business. Didn't mention hobbies though, so idk where that came from, but I will gladly throw that phrase in the garbage where it belongs. Now, in the real world, labor, or work, is something that is exchanged for income. This income, or money, is used to pay for things like food, shelter, and clothing to protect from the elements. If you do not, or cannot, earn enough income to survive, you are expected to die. Meaning that you have the choice to either trade labor for an ever-decreasing amount of "wages", or die in a generally slow and brutal way. Being made to do anything under penalty of death is not a real choice, it is forced upon you. So working for a profit in inherently forced. But none of this claims that I am "forced to cook and clean" because nobody ever said that. So I am just assuming you have the reading comprehension of a newt.
@@Blaze72sH it is very bad, but there isn't much I can do about it as someone with physical and mental disabilities. My only alternatives seem to be fast food or service industry, where my monthly pay may rise from ~600 to maybe 900 on the high end, but then I would most be in pain or mentally exhausted during my "free time". That said, my income seems to be rising the more I work for myself, so I am happy overall. ^_^
I absolutely appreciate and love your thorough work, and making these easy to understand. Reminds me that I need to get a better hold and review more statistics before becoming a social scientist
As a math and physics student, I have to say the idea that women are not excluded/discouraged from certain fields is absurd. In math the quote of women is almost 50%. In physics is more like 20-30%. In anything computer science related it gets even worse. This has NOTHING to do with women not being good in these fields. Anyone who can study math could study physics (the other way around is not always true). I do some computer science related stuff and it is ridiculous how the quote of women drops once programming is part of the course, even if it is a math course. This isn't Biology, this is culture.
I've had interests and career paths that aligned with male dominated or all-male spaces my entire life and I can tell you it is an overtly hostile and terrible place to be so it goes beyond what you've been brainwashed with your entire life about what womz be good at and what womz be bad at. Even decent guys, it's inbuilt in them that they're more important. It's just that ingrained and they don't even consciously mean it and it's just little needles all the time (that's without the SH, constant overt denigration etc). Many of them who are awake enough stay silent on the bullying or denigration because it's human nature I guess. We learn all this by the time we're in primary school. We know. Sometimes you just lose the will to live and can't fight anymore. We know what it's going to be like on a dev team. Or on a building site. Fucking horrible. It's been like that our whole lives. I'm Gen X/nearly Millennial, maybe it's gotten better but...I dunno.
There are less women that are good mathematicians. You have to be smart to be a mathematician and smart woman barely exist. The reson why so many girls study math is probably because math is increadibly simple in school and physics is more complicated. It is the opposite in university hoewer, but most girls do not know it. Hence there are many definitions of smart I clarify: (smartness for which IQ is an indicator)
Like look at the internet. Holy shit programmers are some of the worst misogynists out there. Even if we're not consciously thinking about it...it's what we've seen over and over again. It embeds.
This all reminds me of... ok, so, I was at high school during the height of New Atheism, and it was a weird time. Tim Minchin was writing funny but purely entertaining songs bashing a bit of religious quackery and people were pitching his shows as educational. The Simpsons was airing episodes riffing on "science vs religion". The smartest kid in my class who got skipped ahead two years in maths was also a hardcore Christian, and loads of us thought that was weird, even though while I'm no lover of Christianity, it's not a contradiction at all. There was this idea in the popular sphere that being "rational" or "scientific" was less to do with actually doing rigorous intellectual work and more to do with rejecting religion, and from there corollary that establishing the truth of the universe was easy if you just broke free from the dogma. And that idea was pushed by folks like Richard Dawkins, who got a huge amount of fame and fortune from this - Dawkins, ostensibly a scientist, managed to become a household name without discovering anything of much importance, because what he and his ilk had done was cast science/rationality not as a process of discovery but of combat, against a nebulous societal force that was keeping everyone blind. It wasn't hard to be right, it's just that most people were misled by the irrationality of religion. And you too can be smarter than your peers, if you just realize that God doesn't exist! It was a great pitch to sell to young pseudo-intellectual edgelords. It worked on me - I never got great grades in science but I considered myself a bit of an amateur scientist because I laughed at creationists on the internet. And it's the exact same grift that Peterson, Shapiro, Rubin, all those fucks, are doing, they've just replaced "religion" with "postmodernism." Turns out you don't need to be clever or interesting to be an intellectual, you just need to pretend that everyone chooses to be either objective and rational, or subjective and irrational (and thus believe in religion or postmodernism), and since you made the "right" choice, you are objective and therefore always right. And I fully believe they're pulling the grift as much on themselves as on their audiences. But whereas new atheism was mostly just kinda annoying, this time, it's really dangerous. Listen to the way Stefan Molyneux talks about how he supports white nationalism as a corollary of him being "an empiricist", as though that's just a natural corollary, and everyone who isn't a white nationalist is just "not an empiricist." It's chilling.
Sounds like a fair bit of resentment and maybe you don't want to extrapolate too much from it... Obviously, Dawkins has a reasonable reputation within his field of biology, and you seem to feel like the New Atheism phenomenon parasitized some of your character flaws, and now view it with contempt. I think I understand your story, but I view it all quite differently. I went to a catholic school and religious platitudes and folklore were still all over the traditions, culture, daily life and even politics I was dealing with, even though the society and milieu in Europe I live in is fairly secular and has become more secular during my life time. Emancipating from that wasn't always easy, and I experienced a fair bit of idiocy and harmful religiosity in my life in other people, but retrospectively also in myself. The way I received Dawkins helped me on my way to think for myself and question established believes and practices, particularly those which people (and persons of authority) have no rationale for. For me, this was both educationally and personally liberating.
@@domsjuk as a catholic school alum myself I totally get that Dawkins's ideas can be helpful to people, and I'm definitely not begrudging that - I'm an atheist myself and I'm glad I ended up becoming so (and that was partially New Atheism's doing - I used to be able to recite Tim Minchin's "Storm" from memory). My point is that the pitch of a lot of these new atheist intellectuals was that the world is broadly divided into smart, rational atheists and dogmatic, unscientific religious people, which isn't true - yes, religion is responsible for a lot of bad science and dogma (young earth creationism, for example), but the attitude among the new atheists was that the definition of a rational person was less to do with what they actually accomplished and discovered and more to do with whether or not they believe in God. Whereas in practice plenty of very rational and objective researchers throughout history have believed in God (Isaac Newton, for example) and there are plenty of irrational and dogmatic people who don't.
@@leahliddle324 I see. I think that latter interpretation is more what some people and media made out of it than what was actually in the books of that wave or (and I have to say, at that time I was exposed to this stuff mainly through books and blogs etc. rather than youtube and social media, so maybe that saved me from worse) or how e.g. the four horsemen appeared in discussions etc. and I think all of them baldly admit your point. I think this is a good example of how wearing labels and clinging to certain identities helps your ego maintain a positive or superior self- and ingroup-image and simple explanations and categories of the world, which as you pointed out we are seeing for other phenomena or movements as well.
I switched majors from math to English because of the sexist bs I had to deal with. I was constantly being belittled and talked down to. That didn't happen in English because the majority of students in the English major were other afabs. Despite how much I loved math, you couldn't pay me to put up with that nonsense
This is such an amazing video, so succinct, nuanced and incredibly well-researched. I also love your kind and genuine approach when conveying information, I think that makes what you say much more easily digestible to a much wider audience who may otherwise love Jordan. Also thanks so much for including my voice!!
Just about to start a PhD in an area which combines physics, stats and cancer research. I am a confident assertive person who has always been encouraged in my pursuits in STEM by my family and school, but gender norms still affect me. Things like when I turn up to interviews for my PhD I'm encouraged to wear a suit and not a dress, I lower my voice instinctively, I use qualifying language more when I'm speaking to men than women. I actively try not to do these things because I don't believe I should have to follow these stereotypes to be taken seriously, and I think the culture is changing slowly as I'm about to start my PhD in a very competitive field of research. When you see me you wouldn't instinctively think my career path is scientific research and I like that Edit: just remembered something interesting which I think is relevant also. My ex (male) expected me to prioritise them and chose a PhD in the city they lived, despite the fact they wanted to move to a new job and worked remotely 99% of the time. They instinctively expected me to prioritise them and their comfort over my career, despite the fact that they had more choice and could move
Seeing as a lot of their described experience was explicitly specific to them being a woman, no it's not. You're not being told not to wear a dress and to lower your voice in order to be taken seriously as a woman@@sebsebski2829
@@Emma-Maze Im being told to lower my voice and not look at women. I can't wear what I want (sloppy joggers and t shirt) in order to be taken seriously.
'Things like when I turn up to interviews for my PhD I'm encouraged to wear a suit and not a dress, I lower my voice instinctively, I use qualifying language more when I'm speaking to men than women.' How is this sexist lol? Men are also subjects to the exact same rules lol
Are you gonna cover how the Uber algorithm discriminates against women and pays them 7% less... despite not knowing whether a driver is male or female before assigning them a ride!!??
i wrote a paper on the wage gap once. you did a really solid analysis here (and far more in-depth than i did, it was just a short paper for a writing class when i was a freshman). something a lot of critics of the pay gap miss is that citing the pay gap is just one example of the ways in which women and men are overall treated differently in society. in one of the studies i cited, there was evidence that the pay gap was smaller in professions that had more flexible hours or alternatively, didn't require you to devote time outside of work to be able to get a promotion. that's an interesting thing to think of when put in context of women taking on most of the work of childcare of household chores. yeah, on a material level this can be explained away with multivariate analysis, but in the real world, we have to deal with the idea that women are possibly being held back in their careers if they can't make it to a business dinner because they have to put the kids to bed on a school night. and just because those women earning less than men in the same career can mostly be explained away by these other factors doesn't mean they aren't being held back in their careers. and this is just one possible explanation of one fact. when looking at all the factors you could write several dissertations about how accounting for these variables reduces the size of the pay gap actually demonstrates the various types of discrimination that women face.
I am from a formerly Soviet state, and the part of this video that mentions us finally explains to me why this entire topic never seemed to truly be the case here. I don't know about the pay situation, but when it comes to presence, our STEM fields are filled with women, from professors to industry professionals. I'm sure it also helps that we're one of the few countries in the world to have more women than men (though that is evening out as the statistic was more prevalent for older generations).
It isn't that simple and there's also a gap that we need to overcome. But it's true that historically somehow there were more women in science in CEE. Maria Skłodowska is a symbolic example. Protestant westeren countries were probably more patriarchal in some aspects. And we are higher in some statistics like women in STEM or women in managerial positions. And so that nobody got that wrong - we are GETTING higher. There are more and more women in STEM and in managerial positions. It absolutely isn't that as we get richer or higher in Gender Equality Index or whatever women become more "traditional". Absolutely not.
Investing in your child has nothing to do with capitalism. It is what most parents do for their children. I'm sorry if your parents didn't do that for you.
I cannot thank you enough this is so comprehensive and well stuctured. From now on I'll just show this video instead of engaging in occasionally exhausting discussions with men lol
I almost didn't watch this. I'm a little done with videos about this guy. But for some reason I did watch it, and it's really excellent work. It's actually one of your best videos, in my opinion.
Overall, this is a very well thought out and educational video, much respect. However, I do believe that you are at-risk of caricaturing Peterson's arguments at some points in the video and, as a result, your criticisms fall flat and don't tend to mean too much. For instance: - In your section of 'the gender pay gap is real', as the name of the section suggests your main criticism of JBP's argument is that the gender pay gap exists. However, JBP doesn't deny the existence of the pay gap per se; he doubts that it is largely explained by gender discrimination i.e., the gap exists, but it is caused by many variables and only one of them is top-down sex discrimination. These are not the same thing. Further, you use the example of 'bad controls' to outline the point that controlling for multiple variables may actually thwart our ability to research/understand the discriminatory elements of the pay gap, however the example you use doesn't make any sense! First, you outline that controlling for occupation when investigating an education-earnings link would be silly given that gaining a high-paid occupation is often the exact mechanism that the education-earnings link takes, this is correct. But then you conflate this example with the gender-occupation-earnings mechanism; you are correct that if you were to control for occupation when investigating the link between gender and earnings then this would be an example of a bad control, because one's gender may influence one's occupation which will then influence earnings, but this has nothing to do with gender discrimination, only gender. I.e., One's gender may influence occupational choice and by extension their earnings whilst having absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. This is exactly the point made by JBP et al; men and women may have different wages due to differences in the choices they make e.g., career choices, as opposed to a result of direct, top-down sex discrimination. Indeed, if you look at JBP's writing on this, he states many times that sex discrimination exists but the gender pay gap is not a good indicator of this at all, despite the claims of feminists/progressive politicians. As a result of this misunderstanding, you seem to suggest that the 10% pay gap figure actually hides much of the discrimination experienced by women but I would argue that this figure does not go far enough to control for the variables that may, very fairly, account for and explain the differences in earnings between men and women; as has been suggested, I don't think that the gender pay gap is completely useless when investigating discrimination but you do need to, at least, do the proper controls (multiple hierarchical regression) before you can have anything even approaching a figure that may represent the variance that is directly explained by top-down sex discrimination. Similarly, your Mad Men example doesn't really outline your point either given that the context of Mad Men is very clearly discriminatory when it comes to occupational roles and earnings in relation to gender, but this does not adequately translate to the modern west where there aren't clear and immovable molds within an organisation in relation to gender. - In your sections on the gender equality paradox you seem to suggest that the research design is questionable on a few different domains: small sample size, correlational etc. However, there are some phenomena that cannot be explored experimentally and in these situations we have to resort to methods of analysis that have less scientific clout, which includes cross-country correlations. Given that we cannot take two equal societies and directly manipulate their level of gender equality whilst keeping every other variable constant between them to determine the effect of equality on gender-relevant variables, we have to rely on lesser means to investigate this phenomenon. Let's remember that the gender equality paradox is relevant to one main question which is 'Why do men and women differ in XYZ? Is it nature or nurture?'. When investigating this question (whilst taking into account the previously-mentioned constraints) one needs to ask oneself 'If my theory is correct, what should I expect to see in the world that would confirm this theory? Or (more crucially) what would I need to see in the world that would disprove my theory?' to which the next step is to go out and look for whatever it is that you would have expected to either see or not see. The reason that the gender equality paradox holds weight, is that it directly contradicts one of the main, central claims that social constructionists make when theorising about the nature/nurture debate in relation to gender. Namely, that gender differences in interest, temperament, personality, and outcomes are solely due to upbringing and learning hence making these differences purely socially constructed. As a result of this claim, social constructionist researchers repeatedly made the prediction that gender egalitarianism on a social policy level would negatively correlate with the size of differences between men and women i.e., as countries become more egalitarian the differences will reduce, but this is exactly the opposite of what was found. Again, I'm sure you are aware of this however your focus on the critique of the rigour of these studies lend justice to the fact that you can only investigate this phenomenon via correlation, and it also fails to mention the importance of this finding given its direct refutation of social constructionist claims. Don't get me wrong, the story does not end there, after all this is just a univariate analysis and it would be best to follow this up by including other relevant variables to get a sense of the ultimate strength of this association, but it certainly carries weight in the nature/nurture debate in relation to gender, and by extension the debate on what is and is not an index of discrimination. Anyhow, it was a good video/analysis, just think it falls short at a few points. I have other critiques but I'll leave it there.
For me the real problem here is that women/parents aren't compensated / don't get their return on investment for creating and raising a human being. Human beings are economically net positive - they work and create value, spend their money and thus help fund other people's jobs, pay taxes etc. They are a huge plus to the economy as well as to the government through all kinds of taxation from VTA to personal income tax, but the ones who actually created that value ie. the parents get nothing in return. Imagine working first full time and later part-time and also putting huge amounts of money into a company only to not get payed a single dime for your work nor any shares or dividends of those shares even after investing so much money in it. That's discrimination, and also the reason why couples aren't having almost any childred these days. The salaries and job opportunities have improved so much compared to what they were in the past that they FAR outweigh having kids as a priority even with the social/spiritual benefits/reasons to have children.
This video begins with a faulty premise. The video states " Peterson claims that controling for things like occupation and personality eliminates the earnings differences between men and women." What Jordan Peterson actually claimed was: "The claim that the wage gap is *only* due to sex is wrong. There's a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite; and agreeable people get paid less than less-agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men. *I'm saying that is one component of a multi-varied equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5% of the variance; so you need about another 18 factors; one of which is gender.* *And there is prejudice, there is no doubt about that.* But it accounts for a much smaller proportion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim." In summation: Peterson did not claim that controling for things like occupation and personality *eliminates* the earnings differences between men and women. Peterson claimed that the earnings differences between men and women occur for many reasons which include factors such as personality and occupation, but also include factors such as gender and associated prejudice.
@@keithjackewicz8423 Pop feminism has often stated that women earn 70c for every male dollar and that this is definitely because of discrimination. Peterson destabilised the certainty of this assertion and said that it could be for an opposite reason. Unlearning Econ comes in and says 'no Jordan, its actually not certain that its NOT because of discrimination. So JP is saying its not certain it IS because of discrimination. UE says that its not certain it ISNT discrimination. So essentially, they both agree with each other. It isn't certain. But UE says it in a way that is more likely to attract him a girlfriend, whereas JP says it in a way that is actually aware of what the mainstream conversation has been saying which is that women definitely earn less because of discrimination.
@@keithjackewicz8423 That's true in terms of their bias/interpretation but neither of them can say for certain what the truth is and they admit that the evidence isn't completely conclusive. Here's my issue. If attracting young women (or men) is your goal, you don't want to be laying it down heavy with the facts of life. You want to reveal your genuine observations but then heavily favour your interpretation of the areas of uncertainty in the evidence to be more flattering to her/his healthy youthful narcissism. However, if your goal is to help people to adjust to adult life, you need to actually give the most likely explanation for the evidence. Both of these are acceptable goals within reason but my issue is that a lot of the creators criticising JP seem to do so essentially as a 2 hour long pick up line. It might be fine in a more private setting but in this public setting it just gets in the way of the important work of helping people adjust to adult life and to become okay with reality. What's more important? A whole generation left behind, or one guy getting laid? Not to say JP can't be criticised at all - that definitely needs to happen. I'm just making an observation about some of his critics.
And yet, Jordan also says exactly what the video says he does between roughly 5:57 to 6:13. Jordan: "It does seem that way but... multi varied analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist." Cathy: "But that's not true, is it?" Jordan: "Oh, it's absolutely true." etc Just because a person utters two statements that have mutually exclusive meanings doesn't mean that they aren't saying the one you wish they hadn't.
Great video!!! It’s an important insight that people like Peterson are not simply misinterpreting studies, because many of the studies cited when making claims about individuals, don’t conclude anything about individuals
Huh? Feminists claim women are discriminated against *at the population level* . When Peterson argues against that claim using population-level statistics, he is not making a claim about individuals.
As a guy who has problems with stressful lifestyle I wish I could get into those low status jobs, I don't want to be noticed. But then when I seek help trying to get those jobs I get told off by the social worker for trying to get "women jobs" and sent me to be an insurance agent. Half a year later I almost ended up in a mental institution :)
Really good video. I work in Local Government in the UK (what’s left of it) and it’s noticeable that jobs which 30 or 40 years ago were largely done by women were always paid less than those jobs which were largely done by men. Over the years the workforce has become more mixed, jobs have become more complex with changes in legislation and more responsibility as middle management is reduced and as a result Equal Pay Reviews have sorted out some of the historic inequalities but they are still there in some cases.
As someone that works in this field (within economics), but is way too busy these days with research (8 active working papers) and reviewer revisions for some forthcomings , thank you for taking the time UE to make information on the topic accessible to laymen. I wish I could be doing what you are doing, whilst probably engaging a little more with models of discrimination and stereotyping. :)
See every side of every news story with Ground News ground.news/unlearningeconomics
Every time i think I've seen the worst companies to sponsor YT videos...
@@Lepacaable Centrism, a balanced voice from both sides of the argument? That is EXACTLY what we need to have in 2022! The other side needs to be heard you know. Liberals and even the extreeeme Social Democrats need to have just as much time to say their opinions as the Nazis and White Nationalists!! There needs to be just as much talk about policies that hurt low income people as there are that dont want them dead! Cant have too much of one thing now can weeeee?😘
@@Lepacaable I feel like Ground news is pretty good though
Please make a long form video essay exposing all those anti feminist,anti sjw GRIFTERS those guys are annoying and cringy as hell!
I thought I'd jump to the paradox debunking just to challenge an assumption and was hit with this. It's way too late to learn a new fallacy right now, but I appreciate how straight to the point and fact based it is. This is not what I've found before when I looked.
"Women are more agreable than men" Says a guy who when meeting a non agreable woman, treat's her like she's a witch and calls her 'posessed'.
I love how after years all you fools can do is come up with faulty logic and then collect in tiny cults to act like your misunderstandings are real.
You literally framed your comment, which is edited, he considers her possessed precisely because she is a woman. He said people like you and her are possessed by ideology, because that's what it is, these ideologies possess you. That's why even college graduates will straw man him, like the evolutionary biologist who claimed that Jordan Peterson claim that he was an evolutionary biologist was false, when he knew better than anyone the distinction between the biologist who focuses on evolution and the intellectual who believes in evolutionary biology. Over and over again you idiots point to that example and others that just prove how complelty inept you are when it comes to actual debates and care more about unproven ideas and clinging to them, possessed.
Jordan constantly claims that ultimately he doesnt know what to believe, but that requires getting in to details that are so far out of the field of anyone that tries to "debunk" him. At least he isnt so self absorbed as to claim he actually knows anything for certain, but clearly you dont even know that. Even Sam Harris comes at him with ideology, and the only response he gives is a steel man of historical beliefs, and if you think that your ideology is a better explanation for reality than the stories and metaphors he talks about, you are possessed and likely occultist, if not just waiting to die because you dont even know what you are, much less who you are.
Wasn't he talking about the median .. kind of missing his point here, he also admitted to her being an outlier of aforementioned
Because women are more agreeable than men. Look up the study, it's called "gender differences across the big ten personality spectrum" or something
Your comment has zero logical coherence. How does him being disagreeable negate the argument that women are more agreeable than men? If anything it strengthens it.
The existence of extreme individuals doesn't disprove medians.
That's like saying immigrants tend to be poorer, so there are no rich immigrants. Uh, no, the average immigrant can very well be poorer, all while the richest citizen can very well be an immigrant. Extreme outliers can influence the average, but not really the median or the distribution.
The thing Ben said infuriated me. Ever since I was a kid, I excelled at maths and science. I loved astronomy, physics and electronics. Guess what? I was actively and explicitly discouraged from my passions and talents by parents and teachers due to my sex. Eventually, I got depressed and dropped out of school. I am now pursuing a PhD in neuroscience, but my partner with similar intellectual abilities and interests is far ahead of me because they were seemingly never discouraged from their interests in chemistry and other STEM subjects. I envy them so much. I had to fight so hard for people to accept my natural talent in the sciences, and even for me, I am full of self-doubt and worries due to all the poison that was given to me as a kid.
It's also so stupid because he can't possibly speak on it since he hasn't grown up as a girl. He only sees it from the outside, and how much are we willing to bet that he hasn't actually talked to any women about their experiences? A single anecdote is enough to disprove him because "no one has ever" great job.
I'm actually a girl and I never faced this kind of discrimination. In fact my uncle was discouraged from taking sciences. I think this might not be a sexist problem and completely something else. Well I don't think women are weaker in STEM either, I study sociology and know that current education system is kinda easier for women than men because of the different average psycologies.
@@veenajoshua9461 I think it differs for an individual. Just because you have never faced discrimination doesn’t make her situation any less than what she experiences which is sexism. I admit even I myself was never discouraged from taking STEM but it’s because my family is supportive and where I’m at atm. For OP’s circumstances is completely different I suppose.
@@veenajoshua9461 both the original comment and yours present anecdotes. the difference is that the first anecdote was not presented as if it were evidence for systemic sexism, but you presented yours as if it were evidence against it.
@@skootties I just said it might not be sexism
The Ben Shapiro part of girls not possibly being told to not be interested in math is what I thought for a long time, until I looked back on my school years. When I was in highschool, the counselor gave a talk to the women (only the women) in the class about how worrying too much about being smart could turn you into a bad person. The more I think about that day the more unbelievable it gets. This was an institution that prepared kids for university, they actively wanted women to pursue higher education and still they came up with stuff like that.
Up this one
I’m afab and went to an all girls’ highschool, and the music teacher straight up told the class “Girls aren’t naturally good at spacial recognition so they should give up on math”….
Mumecat did a video criticizing all of manosphere and Peterson is also in it th-cam.com/video/BgO25FTwfRI/w-d-xo.html
I was actually told as a teenager to add more arts/languages subjects to my curriculum because it was too focused on science and not ‘balanced’ enough for a girl. In the Netherlands…. So I guess Ben Shapiro can suck it
We were told in elementary school that girls were better at language arts and boys were better at math.
"A 10% pay gap isn't that much." This is an absolutely hilarious statement in the context of inflation being about 9% over the past year and people are absolutely up in arms over it. That 10% is A LOT. That is the difference between retiring years earlier or not. Being able to save for your children's education or not. Your entire rainy day fund.
in that case is good that the wgap is imaginary, its a joke the dude from this video used 'mutivaried analysis' including 2 variables , lol
gosh, another pay gap ignorant has logged in
You know if it's a mean or a median measurement?
Is that why HR hire women and not men?
When does a ripple become a tidal wave;
When does a comit become a meteor;
When does inflation become hyperinflation?
The most impressive thing Peterson has ever done is the fact that he has to be debunked by so many different disaplines because he talks about so much stuff he doesn't understand. From Biologist, to the Bar association of Canada, economics, fellow psychologists, philosophers, even supermodels are making fun of him. I'd di e of embrassement if I said so even half the amount of things he said that were just so wrong and easily debunkable, just the line about staying awake for 27 days due to Apple Cider would be to much on it's own. Yet for Peterson he just goes on, it's fascinating how one man can have such an undeserved ego and prefers to be ignorant on every topic he talks about, his the defintion of Dunning Kruger.
Even by linguists too
@@kha30s22 I imagine the list is endless
I mean what do you expect he got famous for lying about bill c-16
it doesn't help that each debunking of his shit still circulates his viewpoints and elevates him to a place of visibility.
Like to an extent it's good for people to know that JP isn't the self-help Daddy we all needed, but at some point, any publicity is good publicity, you know?
really shows that being a 'public intellectual' is 95% about looking and sounding like an authority to dumb people
A word on those "bad labor jobs" dominated by men. I live in the south bronx, and for a time volunteered teaching math to women getting their GED so they could get into construction. (BRICK LAYING LITERALLY) the nonprofit I was working with was all about helping working class women with less education get the kind of better paid better benefits jobs mostly held by working class men. Many were single mothers and they just needed to make more per hour since they had fewer hours to works. And they were willing to work HARD (and even study hard with me!)
We found that if we placed fewer than 5 women at a job site they would end up stressed out and miserable. We had to send them in as "pods" because the guys at the jobs were such endless assholes. I'm talking harassment, groping, hazing, making them do all of the worst tasks and blaming them for everything that went wrong. But with a group of women they could have each other's backs.
All this was worth it because service industry jobs... the kind many of these women had are just so terribly paid. Cleaning and caregiving is even worse. It was worth it to go through ALL THAT for these women to get the "bad labor jobs" that men are suffering under.
Yea, I plant trees for a living, and it's VERY physically demanding work, the trees can weigh up to 100kg and we move them mostly by hand, and we're largely digging holes without power tools or mobile plant and in pretty sticky clay soil, which is difficult. Sometimes we literally have to dig through stone.
The majority of my company is women, and the best in my state? All women, hitting incredible productivity levels and taking the crew boss position more often than not (I've had one crew boss that wasn't a woman, and he is a transmasc nonbinary guy). Not all hard labour/undesirable jobs are male dominated, and it definitely varies when class, race and location are factored in, heck, even transgender status impacts this statistic. The men on the crew tend to do fairly average jobs, middling numbers with average quality, the women tend to smash higher numbers with higher quality results. We're all paid the same wage rate, but have the ability to make bonuses based on piece rate if our piece rate exceeds our hourly rate. It's minimum wage, but women tend to make small bonuses in my state while men don't, but once you go interstate the men are making massive bonuses.
All of this to say that Peterson is cherry picking his undesirable jobs in order to increase the statistics he has to support his point.
Like, I was scared to start work as a transgender woman in a new workplace, but because the crew is largely either cis women or trans people of various genders, not only am I safe within my company, but the presence of other women and trans people makes me safer on shared worksites. We often work with and around civil construction companies, and they tend to be pretty uncomfortable workplaces if it's just one or two of us, but when there's at least three of us we know that we have someone to speak up on our behalf and corroborate our stories if we have to report problems to HR. We had a sexual harassment incident recently and it was swiftly dealt with.
On a recent worksite we first had gender discrimination (the crew boss drove in sandals instead of her boots because it's safer, and changed to boots onsite but the civil construction crew were all making rude comments about it and ridiculing her for it.) and then racism (the crew boss has a very thick Vietnamese accent and there were a couple of workers mocking it very subtly) so it's not like we escape it entirely, but we can feel like we have a way to deal with it when it does occur.
It's ridiculous that people like Peterson and his fans think we a) don't want these jobs and b) aren't facing discrimination when we take them.
I enjoy my job, it's hard work for fairly minimal pay but it's rewarding to see a huge estate of plants that I planted. It's guilt free, because it's restorative work environmentally, and it's a way to be a contributing member of society. I wouldn't trade it for the world, but I would love if I could go to work and not have to deal with the bs the men outside of the company come with. (The men in the company are great, we have a very healthy workplace culture and a zero tolerance policy for any discrimination or harassment of any sort)
I've had men laughing at me for struggling with particularly hard soil after literally spending 7 hours planting trees in similar soil while their entire job is done with power tools and mobile plant. Which just made me feel like shit because, well, I was literally working harder than them and they were mocking me for it. And I say that I was working harder with confidence, because I've done half of their jobs and they're by no means soft work, but they're not as hard as some of those men like to make them out to be.
My only comment when guys whine about hard labor jobs or dangerous jobs is to turn around the same rhetoric about the pay gap they spew about gender pay gap stuff.
"Well why did you choose a high danger job? It's not our fault that men and their biology choose to take on higher danger careers and make choices that decrease their livelihood. Fight to make the workplace less dangerous? That's ridiculous! You cant fight nature and make steal mills less deadly. OSHA is liberal garbage pushed on us by the left."
Thanks, that was an interesting anecdote.
Awesome work you're doing!
@@Jane-oz7pp I think the barrier to entry creates a sort of survival bias, where only the overperforming women tend to stick around in these male-dominated environments, making it so that the average output of women who persists is higher than the average man's output, since the women who persists are the top of the top while the men are just a wide array of very fluctuating outputs.
I've worked with some of these women, who did both forestry and agriculture. Great workers, lots of fun, at least those I've come across. But they really aren't your "average" woman. If anything, though, in my parts at least this is yet another example of the opposite discrimination actually being true. I've never heard of an employer refuse to hire a woman, or even rant against women workers, but I have heard them do so for male workers. Because your average woman will never even apply to agriculture/forestry jobs, the % of dud female workers is pretty low in the industry. When you hire a female applicant, odds are you'll have a hard-working and trustworthy worker. For men, though, you get all kinds of applicants, and many of them are unreliable, lazy, don't show up, or actually rob their employers. I've had a few employers were literally every single other male colleague I've had was egregiously unfit to work due to terrible work ethics. Employers aren't dumb. Sure, maybe in the 1960s they were, but not in 2022, not everywhere anyways. When 75% of your male employees end up literally robbing you, while you never have any issues with any of your female employees, you will have a great bias when handling future applications. And it won't go according to the commonly held narrative of sexist discrimination.
The toxic cultures in some industries predominated by (usually low-education) men, such as construction, is an entirely different issue independant of the exagerated wage gap allegations often made. Yes, they certainly dissuade women from joining, and having more women in these jobs would lessen this dissuasive impacts. And legislative measures against harassment is totally justified, nobody deserves to be harassed. But even if you were to take extreme measures, taking men out of the equation completely by forming female-only crews, for example, there's still nothing to suggest that the traditional gender prefferences would erase themselves. And that we'd get 50% women rates in construction. Or that it'd be desirable to have the government force people into non-traditional industries just to attain parity. I look at traditionally female professions, and I balk at the idea of having to finish my career in one of them due to quotas squeezing me out of male or non-gendered industries. They already make a decent salary, most make more than I do. And it's not like I lack the education or competence for some of them, I've had a a job in an overwhelmingly female profession. I just don't like them. They pay well, for the most part, and you aren't on your knees in the blazing summer sun all day long, but almost always in ACed comfy buildings. But most of them are people-care, and I... don't like doing that. If you take teaching, for example, there aren't few male teachers because men are discriminated against, it's just that few men actually care for it. And the few that do mostly take specialist roles, such as physical education, music, or second language. Is anyone arguing that this is some sexist plot and that we need to have quotas for 50% of kindergarden teachers to be males? Nobody's saying that. Why the "wage gap feminists" aren't, I can't say, but as a man, I'd say we don't want those jobs. Not because of the pay, because it's fairly good (the world isn't limited to the US, lots of places pay their teachers good). Not because of the working conditions, because they are good, you get the summer off, regular schedules, weekends off, no evening shifts, you get AC in the summer and heating in the winter. But really only because the average man doesn't care to spend all day with a horde of brats, teaching them that biting other people is bad. I've got enough of that with my own kids, no thanks taking care of other peoples' kids. Now, I have no idea of those male teachers are any better than the female teachers, as the female laborers often are, but the fact that they exist and are a minority should in no way serve as pretext for the creation of quotas or to otherwise explain some form of discrimination. If higher than average wages and better than average working conditions isn't enough to lure more men into these traditionally female professions, then just perhaps one should be cautious about being overeager to associate gender imbalances in other industries as being solely the fruit of discrimination.
I'm a Statistician who's worked in the private industry for 10 years now.
The amount of politicians or public figures that misrepresent, misconstrue or obfuscate statistics to fit whatever narrative they're trying to present genuinely makes my blood boil.
Not only that, but trying to convey to others the weaknesses off certain statistical approaches feels like fighting an uphill battle at times
In my experience if a statistical analysis I do confirms something they already believe they run with it no questions asked yet if it doesn't reveal what they believe they question me relentlessly.
Not sure where I was going with this besides just airing my frustrations. 😅
In conclusion: I really struggle with how people who don't truly take the time to study a subject can somehow gain enough notoriety to present incorrect interpretations of studies from a subject they have little to no understanding of (or worse they do understand and choose to ignore it)
Really fascinating video though.
People only care about the statistics that tell them what they want to hear. As a professional in that field, you should know that. They don't want answers, they want to feel good about the decisions they were going to make regardless of the advice anybody else could givethem.
Thanks for you commentary Statistician Vergil! ☺️
Pff what a nerd.Statistics are for losers 80 percent of people agree with me
would be super interesting to know what the most common pitfalls of statistical analysis from laypeople are
@@rubyrootless7324 The most common pitfalls of statistical analysis from everybody, experts included, is using the data in irrational ways, reaching conclusions that the data does not actually support.
I fooled myself thinking "I was just bad at physics" seeing how my brothers are expected/pushed to be good at it, ultimately exploring it in college as well. All the way until high school I felt embarrassed at every physics class because I knew my place wasn't there so I tried to make myself as invisible as possible, just to not hinder the class or something (whatever I was thinking back then). I went into architecture because I loved drawing and maths, that was my comfort zone - it made sense. That's when I inevitably found out I had to take physics classes as well and guess what - I really enjoyed them. There was no more pressure from outside forces. There were enough female classmates taking the class and actively participating in it. The whole environment changed so I had loads more confidence in my own understanding capacity. I didn't just immediately think "I'm bad, I should shut up", instead I really listened and tried to figure things out without that anxiety clouding my judgement and giving me panic attacks whenever anyone asked me anything. It had gotten to the point when the teacher could've asked me something as simple as writing the same equation in a simplified way - which only needed basic maths to figure out - but because it was the physics class, I genuinely had a lump in my throat doing that at the blackboard and, as a result, it took me waaaay longer than if I were to do the same thing in the maths class. I didn't even know why I had this struggle for so long, I just thought I was weak or simply not that smart, although I was accepted among the first 20 people in the high school ranked first in my city and went on to the same in college. You start believing you're just doing what you're being told, but you're actually not smart, anyone could do it.
More power to you girl
Sounds more like general confidence issues than anything. I've seen this in a lot of women I've tutored, they understand the material but aren't confident in their comprehension. Honestly I've felt a similar way - I took a long break from school and my attitude coming back was very much, "anyone can do this, I'm just following instructions," but eventually I realized that I genuinely do have a talent for math and engineering - but I'm still skeptical about how far that goes. Either way, it sounds like you have talent and the world needs more people like you to solve tough problems.
Your experience is so familiar. I also struggled with physics at school although I was good at everything if I had a decent teacher.
It is a common belief that girls are bad at math. After grade 9 I joined a new school. At my old school I was always selected to represent my school in science or writing competitions. So when my new math teacher told that a competition is coming, I stayed after the class to speak about it. There was about 10 boys, a girl who was truly talented in math and went on to study it at uni and there was me. When teacher saw me, I sences her surprize and disappointment. "You? Are you sure you want to go?" Honestly, it was the first time in my life a teacher talked to me like that. For boys she gave enthusiastic "Yes, you're going!" And for me it was "Meh, are you sure?" The worst part is that this teacher was female, she didn't reflect on what she was doing, what messages she was giving to girls. Not taking math as a subject for final exams means student cannot go on to study economics, sociology, architecture, medicine, pharmacy, computer science and many more career paths are simply closed. Negative selection into these professions begins very early with sexist teachers.
Your failures are your own fault. Don't blame everyone else for them.
@@__loafy__ She didn't fail though. She had anxiety about her capabilities because of the sexism of her environment. Personal responsibility is well and good, but societal forces do in fact influence people's lives.
Outstanding work. The thing that’s always made me wince about JP’s ‘analysis’ of academic literature is his apparent complete misunderstanding of statistics, such as the tortured multivariate manipulation you started with. You’ve explained many of his mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, very well.
Cool to see you here, Rohin!
As someone with a physics background, I've always winced as well. He just goes on and on with inferences and deductive reasoning based on very weak statistical claims, and he's more sure about it than esteemed physicists would be even after having experimental results from CERN and 20 years of experiments and theory providing compelling evidence based on far fewer variables. His arrogance is a detriment to science and scientific thinking as a whole, and especially social sciences.
Do you think James Lindsey does not understand the litterature?
Hi doc!
Pretty sure TH-cam's algorithm just recommends me whatever you're watching, I see you everywhere (not complaining, you have excellent taste)
It is remarkable how you can fool hundreds of thousands of people into believing you are some great intellectual by spouting vague word salads with the occasional bit of common sense followed by non sequiturs.
It's amazing how much more interesting it is when our presenter doesn't just say "I know the literature and it says what I say it does" instead of actually describing what the literature says
i mean in fairness he didn't have the literature in front of him when he did the interview
@@nayelhuda6945 he could have said that, instead Peterson said "I know the literature and it says what I does." This is a lie. He obviously does not "know the literature," and it in fact says the opposite of what he says it does.
@@MKotnis idt u watched the video cuz he said exactly what the literature says, he just took a different interpretation from it.
@@MKotnis what literature are we talking about exactly? And what did he say regarding to that literature of X
@@MKotnis Even the author of this video gives JP the credit that he never misrepresents any study. The whole critique of the video is on interpretation
As a PhD statistician in epidemiology, thank you for mentioning causal inference and the ecological fallacy. It’s worth noting that a school of thought states that one cannot perform causal inference using the counterfactual framework on factors that cannot be “manipulated” (assigned sex at birth, race, etc). Just one of many reasons why disparities are so difficult to study!
Ooof cate to explain a little more? I believe you said something interesting, but I think understanding this would take me googling 3 days non-stop 😅
Gender is not assigned at birth.
@@Ignasimp yeah, he means the value that is written into your birth certificate. That is assigned at birth. That's why he writes "assigned gender at birth" and not simply "gender".
@@flobbie87 value? What are you talking about. Gender is a synonim for sex in this situations. What they write down is their sex. No one is assigning anything, it's an objective description of reality.
@@Ignasimp, yeah, right. And at birth a value is written into the gender or sex field of your birth certificate. I thought this was called "assigning gender at birth". Is that incorrect?
I work in Korea, not the US, but the point about the same behaviours (such as being disagreeable) being rewarded/punished differently for men and women really struck home.
I am a Swedish woman, and Sweden is a pretty gender equal country, all things considered. When I first got to Korea and met our agent, a middle aged woman with children who was self-employed as an agent for foreign companies interacting with the local economy, I was shocked. She got results, but the way she got them was by always flattering and apologizing and dressing femininely and speaking in a high-pitched voice.
I initially disliked her, because I felt this was simultaneously demeaning and manipulative behaviour, and that she was contributing to the problem. After working in Korea for a few years, I changed my opinion. She would have never gotten to where she was without adopting those behaviours, because those were the behaviours which worked for women. If she had been rewarded for being straight-forward and no-nonsense, the way that men in similar positions were, she would have adopted those behaviours instead. This was not HER personality, it was only the personality she had been forced to adopt by a system which treats men and women differently.
I wrote this comment before watching the whole thing and feel rather sheepish after scandinavian countries featured so heavily in the paradox portion. I would like to add that Sweden has worked hard on encouraging aforementioned parental leave to be taken by fathers in more equal parts in more recent times. I don't know enough about STEM graduations, but certainly I remember being aware as a child that maths was more for boys (but also being already armed with stats saying there was no difderence in ability).
@@eolill I don't know about you being sheepish in this instance. Maybe you should just be more confident in the idea that you put forward, that Sweden is a pretty gender equal country. With that, I assume, that you felt you had a choice.
Ideally, it would be beneficial in modern society for more women to have such a choice, since I feel a lot of women wanting children for example put them on hold for a career and with that their personal happiness.
Or maybe I'm running too far with your point.
What do you expect, it's the service industry
It's funny that you think there's such a thing as "HER personality". All personality is socioculturally constructed including men's behaviour. Toxic masculinity is a reflection of immature western culture
This is interesting. Although, I wonder if there could also be a selection effect? That the women who have those specific personality traits are the ones more likely to succeed. As opposed to, as you assert, "that [it] was not HER personality." Part of me always feels like some of this analysis is just a weird way of saying that "dressing femininely," or "speaking in a high-pitched voice" is inherently worse. Which seems sexist. It can sometimes feel like people just want to impose different gender norms, as opposed to eliminating them.
Also, if a man were to "dress femininely," or "speak in a high-pitched voice," would you say that was not HIS personality?
It's impressive that Peterson will keep insisting that we need a multivariate analysis to explain the pay gap, then dismisses every single variable that doesn't contribute to his conclusion.
Isn't that a better way to reach to conclusions? Having a multivariate analysis instead of one or two?
I don't think JP has ever denied "discrimination" as one of the variables.
@@Blaze72sH yes but this video does a great job of explaining why Peterson's idea or approach to multivariate analysis is disingenuous bullshit.
@@eliechallita I hope you watched this video critically and didn't take it as a gospel.
For the most part this video attacked JP's arguments for being reductive. I would also agree that he doesn't explain about it enough.
But I don't think anyone can say that the factors he brought up are wrong. Like I don't think anyone can say that career choice doesn't affect wage gap or pregnancy doesn't affect wage gap or the personally difference doesn't affect the pay gap at all. The discussion starts when we get into nuances.
@@Blaze72sH Keep in mind that most of these clips are from talk shows and interviews. The format doesn't really allow much indepth look into anything.
@@Blaze72sH oh look, this guy wants to piss out of his face
I’m a woman in a male-dominated field (software engineering), and my undergrad degree was even more male-dominated (electrical and computer engineering). The retention rate in ECE at my school was about 70% overall (meaning for 100 freshmen in ECE, only 70 graduated in that major), but the retention rate for women was closer to about 10%. It was significant. I’m lucky I survived studying a subject that I throughly enjoyed, and I’m very lucky I now have a good job using my degree to architect complex software systems, and I know I make more money than the average woman in America, which is a privilege I do not take lightly. But within my field, do we tend to get paid less? Yes!!!! I don’t know the exact number, but I do know 2 things: women tend to suffer from imposter syndrome to a much farther degree which precludes them from negotiating for higher salaries like their male peers, and hostility to women in terms of family planning pushes women out of the field entirely far more often than men.
The fact that I ended up where I did can largely just be attributed to the fact that I’m a bit of an asshole and I would totally get a degree purely to spite my 7th grade math teacher (fuck you ms odgers, algebra was never that hard, you’re just a shit teacher and shittier human being). Most people do not live on spite alone, and they shouldn’t need to. When dealing with all the stresses in the modern world, it’s an excessive and often insurmountable barrier for young women to overcome society’s constant nagging to choose a womanly field or even drop out of the workplace entirely to raise their husband’s children as opposed to pursuing higher paying (aka male-dominated) careers. Jokes about my assholery aside, I went into engineering for a genuine love of the field. I like to say that if color theory tells us how to understand the beauty of fine art, then mathematics tells us how to understand the beauty of the physics that construct the natural world and wider universe. As for the T in STEM in particular, in early computing, a lot of women actually had a significant contribution to the field. But around the 80s, there was suddenly a huge drop in the number of women in the field. There’s a lot debate about that root cause, but a large portion of this seems to be related to the fact that the 80s saw a rise in commercial sales of personal computers, and the advertising heavily pushed the belief that PCs were for boys. This significantly changed the culture in tech from the space age advance of science of the 40s-60s to the proto-tech-bros like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the 70s-80s. It’s wild, not only does misogyny drive women away from fields, but it even drives out women already in that field!
Also in regards to Ben Shapiro’s brain dead statement about girls reading poetry: growing up my favorite school subjects were always math and art. I thought about going to art school until halfway thru high school, and that decision was really reinforced by people treating my math ability as just a good little girl with good grades (lmao if only they saw how I almost failed English a few times), and art was my real talent that society found palatable. I owe my engineering degree to my HS comp sci teacher who was one of the only people in my life at that time that encouraged me to challenge myself and feel proud of my accomplishments, as opposed to nearly every single other adult in my life that kept telling me not to burn myself out on something “just too hard.” So yes, Ben, a lot people actually DO tell little girls who are good at math to go away and read some poetry. Dumbass 🙄
Lmao I started writing this comment before I finished watching the video, and then you started mentioning the phenomenon of women dropping out of tech in the 80s. Fun fact, the word computer existed long before electromechanical devices became common. In WWII, the word “computer” largely referred to women in agencies such as Bletchley Park who were employed in quickly and accurately computing mathematical solutions to aid code breaking and engineering development. The electromechanical devices that replaced their jobs then inherited the title of “computer”. For an interesting example of women’s role in this type work, I highly recommend Hidden Figures, a fantastic movie/novel that shows the affects of misogynoir on absolutely brilliant individuals in NASA in the 1960s
The company I work for celebrates women who excel in engineering and though it’s commendable it’s embarrassing for both sexes. It feels as if women were a rare specie or some special child that needs support. Your example and that of others shows that women are fully capable to do mans jobs. No issue. The problem is with our society constantly putting gender expectations on us. My friend recommended this video to me out of curiosity but I’m no where near as smart as him or you or the TH-camr so not sure how this comment will be received but there you go. My opinion stated. Have a good day!
Yep. All differences between men and women in the workplace can be attributed to sexism. Unidimensional backwards thinking on your part.
@m15 a lot of guys in tech aren't that great either, they just hide it better.
When I was in Compsci there would be one hostile male per class- most guys were fine but they'd never speak up against the one and I had to deal with one in every room I entered. Also, guys would help each other left and right, but if I reached out it proved I wasn't good enough. And when I didn't reach out I wasn't a team player. I don't know if that crap is still going on, but it made life a lot harder than it needed to be for me, and I was already screwed enough by ADHD. Which I got diagnosed with late, because I'm female, and consequently didn't learn to manage.
I loved reading this! I feel like we could have been twins if I didn't have massive social anxiety holding me back. I loved math and art too... and being a spiteful asshole. I had a science teacher that lightly encouraged me to go into some scientific field. I also think our 7th grade math teachers might have been twins too. Fuck them and good for you!
What you say at 30 minutes in is so true. In schools while doing lab work the women were explicitly told to take notes and jot down data while the men did the actual experiment. This was ironically presented as a "gender equal" solution instead of just picking someone at random to do the note taking without regards to their s3x
Hahaha this is such a farce. What country do you guys live in? Saudi Arabia? In most US schools, the guys sit in the back and huff glue and get scolded by everyone, are often mocked by and told by the teacher that they are a hopeless failure, while the women sit in the front, excel in class, are the teachers favorite, and get the most education and professional opportunity.
@@MannElite nice meme
@@kanal7523 Not just a meme, There are too many studies for me to list here but you can find on google that clearly show that women Graduate highschool at a higher rate then men, graduate college at a higher rate then men, and vastly outperform men in achieving valedictorian status I saw one study had it 4-1 women for valedictorian. The idea that men are the beneficiaries of our education system is a meme, men are neglected by our education system, as evidenced in multiple studies.
@@MannElite I'm aware of this, the relevant par is: Who to blame?
@@kanal7523 Must be the patriarchy, right? Its obviously the Progressive, Euro-American Globalist wing that's been unilaterally in control of education for the last 40 years. They are pushing an agenda that is not good for young people. They are attempting to produce a population of docile, controllable sheep, but humans aren't sheep, they are breeding mental illness. Its completely obvious they are suppressing individual choice and attempting to turn the human into a hive organism. If you're a 14-16 year old male who doesn't want to sit and listen to lectures, you don't need to be punished and medicated into sitting and shutting up in complacency, you need to be working and learning a skill, and joining the work hierarchy, the sooner a male starts participating with and competing professionally with peers in the community the sooner they will assimilate as a useful member of the society.
I personally left an 17 an hour factory job and chose to stay as an 10.25 per hour server over men coming up and touching/hitting on me when I was super tired at the end of my shift, too tired to even think right half the time.
I would still get harassed as a server in a retirement home, creepy old men, but it wasn't as bad as in the factory and it was MUCH easier to get help from all the women in my workplace
I'm sorry, that sounds really draining 💛😔
touching you is very diffefent than hitting on you. Also, do you get hit on less as a waiter? really?
Many times what people tell you about yourself has a huge effect on you. Till 9th grade I had a fabulous science teacher who told me I had a nack for digging deep into the scientific concept even though I didn't get them at first and I excelled at science. Later on for 3 years my different science teacher humiliated over the fact that I was not able to give on the spot answer to questions they explained a minute ago. I went from being one of the top 2 students in my class in science to last and even my parents were confused. It has just lately gotten batter for me as I started talking charge of my life again. So try believing in yourself, it isn't easy lord I wish it was, but some time you need to lie yourself how good you are so your actual become good.
Same here.
Fake it til you make it is my motto in life. God knows it’s what I needed to do to get over being so shy.
"Till 9th grade I had a fabulous science teacher who told me I had a nack for digging deep into the scientific concept even though I didn't get them at first"
Pandering to females. No male receives even a fraction of this attention
"I went from being one of the top 2 students in my class in science to last and even my parents were confused"
2nd teacher didn't inflate the grades of female students in science as much
@@GK-op4oc i really need you take a look at yourself in the mirror and read that comment to yourself and then think if that’s the kind of person you want to be. Let me clarify I AM A MAN. Also I was top of my class in every subject but Arts. Also this was in India. Teachers are not gonna inflate your grades, that’s just not something that happens here cause these grades don’t matter. Only the government test does, which are anonymous and checked by third party.
I've always been a "tomboy" and I remember vividly when I was young imagining going into school and work for what I was interested in but full stopping at the fact that I would have to put up with being the only girl most of the time. I'd be in the spotlight for nothing and I'd have to constantly prove myself and any failures would be because women don't belong there and so on. This was a little more than 20 years ago. I'm always very impressed by girls and women who push through that or seemingly don't let it get to them. I was too young to realize that there would also likely be sexual harassment.
F
Same. There have been two career paths I was interested in but decided not to pursue because they're extremely male dominated and after looking into womens experiences in those fields was discouraged beforehand. I'm not a person who's good at dealing with confrontation or sexism or stuff like that, so I knew I wouldn't stand a chance at sticking it out in those fields anyway.
@@williamd2989 thanks
@@thotslayer9914 no but your mom does
I get why you shied away from it - the sad counterpoint is, your decision to not enter into male-dominated fields perpetuates them being male-dominated. I get why you chose not to, and I don't mean to criticize you or anything, I'm more writing this in case someone reads this who's in a similar dilemma.
_Every_ profession has started out as a male-dominated field, with very few exceptions. The only thing that can end inequality is people stepping up against these odds.
So for the people struggling with "should I?". Try it. No choice you make is final, and if you tried and didn't cope well, you can always try something else / somewhere else. And then at least you know you've tried, and there's no regret of not at least having tried to go for something you're passionate about.
Also, gen z are very different from prev generations. I studied chemistry 20 years ago, worked for years as a physicist. Now I'm back at uni, getting a software engineering degree. 20% of us are identifying as women, and my first surprise was that they're all treating me and including me, as if I wasn't 20 years older than them. The second pleasant surprise was: we're equals - I haven't witnessed a single instance of exclusion or discrimination or anything like that, against any minority, in my 1 year in comp-sci so far.
This is a _very_ different experience compared to my experience in chemistry. Where we were 40% female, and I'd hear at least one stupid "joke" a week targeted at women.
The danger I'm seeing is .. people are more likely to share negative experiences than positive .. and I fear, all the reports of negative experiences might skew a reader's perception of a field. So in essence, what I'm trying to do is weigh in with positive experiences :)
As a Norwegian, my grandma lived in an era where she had access to the economic welfare, but still had to petition to formally divorce her husband. So the way people like Peterson and others talk about gender equality as the elimination of gender roles, or elimination of even the governments intervention in those gender roles, is just... off to me.
@@Layonbedge It's already changed, I'm just saying that these seemingly contradictory ideas have coexisted already. There is an underlying continuation of gender roles, though they're comparably loose next to merely decades ago.
What's sexist about needing to petition to formally divorce? Unless only the woman needs to do that, while the man doesn't, as I believe is the norm in sharia countries.
The old colonial civil code here layed out gender roles in marriage, but that was replaced with a modern civil code decades ago. Men and women are now equal in marriage, in rights and duties, but you still can't just divorce for no reason overnight.
@@bobseven310 wasn't that the case before colonial civil law as well? You do know that Gender roles and patriarchy existed in non western countries long before colonialism right?
Yeah... that reminds of my own country. There was a MP (Member of Parliament) who wanted to equalize things for men and women. Under Canadian law, she could become Prime Minister, however, she still needed her _husband's_ signature to sign a lease to a house/apartment she was going to be staying at in Ottawa for her time as an MP...
Double Standards much? ROFL. This was back in the 1970's I think... So, well within Mr. Peterson's Life Time.
@@aralornwolf3140 I do not understand. What's wrong about that? When married couple shares money, obligations, debts than it is obvious that some types of contract have to signed by both husband and wife. Mine friend wanted to fix canalization in his house, he needed his wife's signature on every form, on every contract.
My housemate works for Doosan Babcock as a nuclear engineering apprentice. The course started out with 30% women and 70% men. 100% of the women on his apprenticeship course have quit over the past 2 years, following multiple s*xual harassment accusations that have not gone to investigation. They still use photographs of the women who have left to promote the apprenticeship. The one woman who stayed the longest before quitting (a year later than the others) was the daughter of one of the managers on the site. She has had to leave recently, due to a steady decline in mental health over the two years she's been on the course, particularly in the past year. Only 3% of the men have left in the past 2 years. My male housemate has complained many times that he has to "waste his time" doing sensitivity training once a year for 2 hours. He says all the other men on the course feel similarly, and particularly towards the training about gender equality, since they don't have any women working there anymore.
In fairness to your housemate, the sensitivity training IS a waste of time. They are not getting sensitive people out of it!
I've bee to these "training" events. Wagging your finger doesn't change behavior. You need to locate the individual causing the problem and confront them. Lecturing normal people doesn't do anything but annoy them, and it won't do shit to the target who is just sitting there with his arms folded.
Faaaaaaarrrrrrkkkkkk
Good
I knew women on my engineering courses, non of them reported what you said. One of them went on to do her degree in nuclear engineering, the other 'bashed and dashed' a guy with severe depression on my course lol
It's really heartening to have someone who actually understands the economics side of this talk about it for once. It feels like so often all we hear about is the bad interpretations and laypeople having to counter it!
Its important to keep in mind that is an intentional strategy.
Expert analysis systematically is deprioritised to encourage politicisation of culture war topics.
Simplified issues allows establishment media to encourage reactionary engagement which in turn helps ratings
I know right? It's hard to argue off the bat with "fax and logic" types with bare bones stats like this without any of the sociological contexts, especially if you cant cite any studies that show them. Even if those biases are blatantly obvious to anyone who doesnt bury their head in the sand.
If you want to understand the economycs side of this read Thomas Sowell. And you'll see how Jordan is actually right most of the times.
@@marlenaanderson7594 sociology is the least scientific discipline to exist. Lol i've hardly ever seen a sociological study that was worth a dime. Read economists insead of sociologists.
@Leo Hagen economics don't asume people are rational. That's a myth. And sociology is the most ideologically influenced discipline. Saying that sociology isn't build upon assumptions is the most absurd claim I've ever read about this topic. I've studied some sociology and it was all bs and propaganda. Economics are far more empirical.
I think I just unlearned Jordan Peterson, he's a very compelling speaker. The part towards the end nailed it. Thank you
ayyy takes a strong mind to accept when we were misled and to reassess our views when presented with new evidence, good on ya.
Like all people he gets stuff wrong. We all do. He gets stuff right too. What's important is the conversation/discourse. Without JPs proclamations, this excellent video wouldn't have been made.
@@blumousey What does he get right?
@@evitanigaminU he's really good with vague, broad, common sense life advice like "clean your room", and of course, "wash your penis". That pretty much covers his authentically helpful contributions.
@@evitanigaminU his stuff on developing a good attitude, work ethic, focusing on yourself rather than criticising everything around you (this is usually a better attitude), being very careful when critiquing ancient wisdom and institutions, the failures of diversity, equity and inclusion, the destructiveness, contradiction and hypocrisy of making inclusion your only priority, his series on genesis was excellent and exhibits so much value to be found in scripture (even ignoring metaphysics and religious ceremony if you wish), his pearls of wisdom on the value of struggle, challenge, going out on a call to adventure, taking on as much responsibility as you can bear, how essential maintaining intimacy is in a relationship, how important it is to rough and tumble play with your kids, how important it is to challenge them, to allow them to explore the world without impediment, the importance of a two-parent family, how the west has become soft and ungrateful (after centuries of poverty, we now virtually all live to a high standard and still complain). His lectures on personality are very interesting, I love the takes he has on the density of archetypes in classic stories. I love his story about meeting a woman who is about as downtrodden as a person could ever be, turning up to a group for similarly downtrodden people with a dog to see if she could cheer up and help anyone else coming to the group. His takes on how to listen properly, his takes on the problem of perception, how even ostensibly objective scientific observations require an ethical choice - you must choose which observations to make over others and interpret the data ethically. Typing this made me realise how much I've learned and enjoyed listening.
Your channel is a god send. You've talked about gender inequality in the economics field before, but I'd assume biases and in group preferences also keep people out with certain political leanings. That's why it's so important we have your channel in leftist TH-cam.
The funny thing is, a guy can get up on stage and say "there's no discrimination against women, they are lying to you and it's all an attack on men" boom, easy. But to argue the opposite you need to sit through an hour video carefully going through the data and discrepencies to fully explain why that statement is wrong...
This is why the “marketplace of ideas” may sound nice, but it only works if everyone is arguing in good faith and according to the facts.
But if one is not really interested in discussion, but pushing their ideology they can just spout BS in such mass that it cannot be addressed all in one debate.
If these people get a platform, the rise of fascist ideas in the population is just the foreseeable result.
correct, Claudia Goldin the lasted nobel price just spent 40 years debunking the wgap...is unbelievable the bots still repeat it exists
correct, Claudia Goldin the latest nobel price just spent 40 years debunking the wgap, unbelievable this still needs to be explained
@@neoglacius She has not 'debunked' the wage gap - she RESEARCHED it and explained the causes of a good portion of it.
The gap still exists - we just know more about WHY.
@@dmob881 yes, she explained is not because of discrimination but because of her personal choices and lifestyle, so thats why is it doest exist for disc reason thus is legit
Even if men are categorically different than women in measurable ways that give men an advantage in the workforce… doesn’t that just mean that there is a bias towards traits perceived as masculine? A gender bias, if you will? What would make aggressive people more successful than people who cooperate, if there wasn’t a society-wide preference for one over the other?
Not only that but the same traits are perceived differently for men and women. Like assertiveness. Claiming that to be down to genetic is pretty wild and something I'd like JP to prove before making such assertions.
@@XMysticHerox I believe there was a social psych paper published back in 1990 that showed how different social groups in reference have different perceptional scales. Forgot the paper off the top of my head.
I think the implication is supposed to be that it isn’t a bias towards natural masculine traits per se, but towards traits that are beneficial in a realistic work scenario. These traits just happen to be perceived or manifested as masculine in society (I don’t think Peterson would think this is just a perception but something more fundamentally different between men and women).
@Christopher Grant He definitely accepts the conclusion too quickly that men are just better fit for some work. If only he'd have as much skepticism about statements on male fitness as he does about literally any claims of structural inequalities.
No. Women just fucked up their career by not fighting hard and competiting.
I am just reversing answers to comment pointing out that boys are far behind girls in school in OCED and western countries.
"the more egalitarian the society, the less likely they are to advocate for humanity to emulate crustacean social structures" maybe
But we should STRIVE to pee out of our faces! Lobsters are the true apex creature!
@@Jane-oz7pp false, all neo-marxist, sjw, femenists know that crabs are far superior than their long crustacious cousins
Thank you for this video! As a woman in STEM, I struggle a lot with internalised misogyny. I grew up in a conservative environment and struggled with self esteem and lack of female role models. Because of this, I was very close to falling into the pseudoscientific Jordan Peterson misogyny rabbit hole. Over the last 3 years I managed to somewhat unlearn that stuff and videos like yours really help a lot with that.
how did internalised misogony make you struggle in STEM exactly?
Oh. This one is deep in the cult. No rescue for you.
@@ataarono She didn't say she's struggling *in STEM*, just that being in STEM causes her to struggle with internalised misogyny which makes perfect sense. Being around guys a lot, especially if you're considered "one of the guys", you hear a lot of sexist ideas thrown around casually and it's super easy to internalise it and start rejecting everything feminine in yourself and others and deem it less than. I personally experienced this as a young teenager playing video games day in, day out. Guys would tokenise me as "one of the few good ones" then proceed to talk shit about "girly girls" with me and it took me a long time to stop accepting that and realise just how shitty it was.
@@emma_maze yea she didnt say that, fair point. What made you realise that feminity isn't something to be ashamed of?
@@ataarono maybe because people make fun of her everyday idk
I think the issue is that calling the issue the "pay gap" and constantly highlighting figures like 0.70 cents to the dollar makes it seem like the issue is solely that sexist male bosses are arbitrarily giving women lower salaries than men and we just need to pay them more and problem solved. The problem isn't really "pay" (at least not mostly), it's an employment and education problem.
It's not. Work as much as men and you will get the same pay. It's very, very simple.
@@sebsebski2829 didn’t you watch the video? 😅😅😅😅
Yeah, it should be called like the "earnings" gap or something like that.
@@sebsebski2829yes, we're absolutely living each in our own bubbles, with 0 external factors to contribute to type and amount of work each person in our society has access to. 🤡
Your argument doesn't even work if we omit gender from the discussion entirely.
Like you're gonna tell male coal miners in a dying industry in West Virginia, or Auto Workers in Detroit in the 80s losing their jobs "yOu'd eArN mOrE iF yOu wOrkEd mORe"
Seems you haven't thought this through for even one second.
What if woman just dont want to have a job in certain male dominated industries. I dont understand why there has to be equal representation in any field. If you want to go for it, go for it.
As someone with a STEM degree and a job in STEM, this video has encouraged me to look more critically at the types of data and studies provided to me (along with their inferred takeaways) and look more curiously and skeptically at what can truly be gleaned from them.
This video is immensely helpful at dispelling narratives that misrepresent data without context.
Great work!
The "Alt-right" Pipeline is conceptually self-defeating in his need to clasify Swatika socialist as far-right and the dediniton of all those that opposes the far-left anti-values of equality, abolition of freedom of asociation with anti-discrimination laws. And most important reliance in ths negation of economic and sociological laws to make ppssible that minimal intervention means tirany.
@@engelsteinberg593 Thinking Peterson is remotely alt-Right is your L. If anyone's actually listening to Peterson, they will never go down that extremist route.
@@networknomad5600 Thinking that there is something such an a evil "Alt-Lite" definitions vary, but all of them are about being disident of mainstream or being agai st the egalitarian far-left extremism. (There may be racists or white nationalists, because was ddfined as someone that shares ideas with the "alt-right movement" except that of white supremacists (is to note that a jump from "Alt-lite" to "Alt-right" is to go as non-whites are moral pacients and as such there are deserving of proper justice to nonwhites have no moral value whatsoever or lesser than whites. In any case a qualitative jump of great magnitude.) Letting aside that the miscaracterization that I gave to alt-right (From far-left source claim about alt right, the term is just such non sense that the term should never be ised and replaced by white supremacist of right wingner [This may vary by variant], and this is as long the far-left can be belivable in the claims that those who called themselfs alt-right were white supremacists). In any case those that are claimed to have "fallen in alt-right" are more precisely called to have "fallen in lite-right" and in any case being against the devil of the left and being racists makes you a "lite-right" from some sources and by other makes only the first is needed. In any case There is no evil, trought the virtue of the racism can be discusssd in what respects ethics is is no a evil, and the former anti leftism and disagreement with corrupted "mainstream right (specially in France)" is a correct position, that would include all that disagree with the neofacists ideals of the ortodox left.
@@networknomad5600 you don’t understand the concept. A “pipeline” in this context means people who follow Peterson are more likely to listen to fractionally more extreme views until they become alt-right. As gender essentialism is nonsense but yet a cornerstone of the alt-right, his place in the pipeline is pivotal.
I started looking at studies more carefully the moment I had to reproduce one as part of a project. You start seeing gaps in a lot of papers where the start has a lot of info, the end will have a lot of info, but only the good papers will get you from point A to B.
Brilliant breakdown. I’ve been linked to Peterson’s inaccurate “explanations” of gender inequality many times before so it’s nice to see a comprehensive critique of them.
I find the only people who buy into Peterson tend to be people not really worth my time dealing with. I legit have more important things to do like... changing my cat's litter. If they are already whole hog a follower of his they need to take the steps to deradicalize before anything we say does much good. Meanwhile, observers get exposed to more Peterson bullshit.
@Rachel Forshee and that, my friend, is the problem with fascism.
@@Otokogoroshi Peterson's message isn't radical. Neither is Shapiro radical. Ya'll are absolutely way off track to even remotely think such a thing. If you want to demonize them, you have a rude awakening coming for you in midterms when The People get a say in what's going down in our government again.
@@networknomad5600 Ben "even if global warming is real and sea levels increase people could just sell their houses and move lol" Shapiro isn't radical?
@Rachel Forshee Here's the issue. Ben Shapiro and JP are very intellectual people. However, that builds an ego to "Im invincible". Makes them think that everything they say is true, however, it's not. But, when they get disproven, it makes people, who were so desperate to disprove his point see as tho "They are always filled with bullshit".. which again is not true
as an afab albanian, i was discouraged into pursuing stem fields at school (in the UK), but i was pressured to pursue them by my parents, i thought it was just because they were immigrants but i had no idea how communism had affected the culture. despite the fact that albania is very misogynistic, particularly amongst the lower class, all the girls in my family were pressured to do well in school and pursue a high paying career by their parents. i was quite good at stem subjects, i obviously wasnt the best, but i was naturally inclined. the ONLY reason i didnt pursue them is because it was male dominated, and i felt that as a female i could never excel compared to my male classmates. like i felt inferior because of my sex. i dont know where i got that logic from, but it was an idea externally instilled in me. so i purposely flunked all my subjects and despite not studying and daydreaming in class i still got a decent grade. i feel shit knowing that if i tried harder i could have pursued stem and i really wanted to but i just kind of gave up :/
I wonder if other commenters will show up to say "so girls fucked up their economics prospects, they are to blame", like when they do blame boys when people point out in this comment section that boys are way behind girls in term of education in most OCED countries.
Not to take away from what you said but don't think of people as lower class. It s not helpful for you and not for them.
@@XXNNssTIMis im lower class you bloody twat. im allowed to say what i want because my family is part of the lowest class in albania. take a sociology class and wisen up. that was so disrespectful. you're taking away and ignoring the struggles of lower class people. how utterly shameful. i bet youre middle class too lmfao
@@XXNNssTIMis That's silly. We live in a class society.
@@mr.goldfish1530 yes. Working class and owning class. Not low ,high, middle
I'm a scandinavian woman in Stem. I taught myself programming at 8 yrars old, but thought I was bad at math until my early 20s. I'm in my mid 30s now, and I've been writing my own softwares for 10 years. But my father told me a month ago about a male relative who does "real programming", not "letting the computer do it", like me. He thought the graphics engine I was using was doing my job...
😳 what a supportive dad
Which is weird, because everyone knows the more you can get the computer to do for you the better a programmer that makes you.
stop crying
@@JohnathanMenezes-g6i The most ironic thing a Peterson fan could possibly say.
@@paulsmart4672 stop crying…Oprah did it so can you
I'm only to the end of part 2, but it's uncanny seeing all of these studies explain almost exactly my experience as a woman in a VERY hyper-masculinized field (physics/engineering).
Well... FORMERLY in that field, since I just left the industry after a decade in large part because I couldn't take the constant barrage of insidious sexism, psychological negging, and corporate gaslighting affecting my mental health.
I busted my ass to get a Master's of Science degree in this field, worked my way up to a six-figure USD salary (after starting out of grad school being paid WELL below the industry's standard for an entry-level bachelor's grad), and I still just couldn't stand it.
I've since taken up teaching at a small local college- adjunct, of course, so I'm both hourly and not allowed to be paid for much more than class time- which leaves me working ENTIRELY UNPAID preparing for class since I'm not willing to let my students' experiences suffer because of a structural inequity.
You can probably imagine the magnitude of the paycut I just experienced... and yet, it's worth it for the sanity alone.
How disappointing.
oh my god i had the same experience. I'm only a college sophomore, but I was captain of my robotics team in high school. Since the male programmers on our team were not good with managerial and secretarial stuff, I took on all of that responsibility to compensate. Our advisor ended up punishing me with more work for not spending enough time on the programming -- even though I was keeping up with what they were working on AND practically managing the whole team on top of it. I was very upset and suspected sexism from the start - but the idea that even the undervaluing of "caretaking" tasks in the first place is sexism kind of blew my mind
I took a teaching job once, non-unionized contract, a bit like yours. Even if I calculated that I spent as much time out of class as in class (first time giving it, had to prep everything), and thus halved my effective hourly wage, I was still making more than I was in my previous male-dominated job.
I disapprove of the increasing propensity of higher education to rely on non-tenure staff, but not because it's some kind of sexist plot, but just simply because it's anti-worker. That's just employers constantly chipping away at workers' rights, the fruits of neoliberalism. Women aren't being specifically targeted, if anything, they are mostly unscathed. Yes female-dominant industries had some setbacks, but did you see what happened to the factories? Where are the blue collar jobs young men could once aspire to? There are barely any left. Unionization rates for men basically halved since 1980, and it's now below womens' unionization rate, which itself kept stable since then. And that's both because the governments killed our male-dominated industries (with free trade) and transformed our male dominated public service into a mostly female one. Not many unions left outside of public service.
Teachers in primary and high school get good pay, even accounting for the prep time (which a lazy person can seriously cut to a minimum, and with even the non-lazy after a few years you just end up with a ton of pre-made material to re-use), and despite having two full months off per year. How many "male" jobs make that much money with those many hours? And no weekend/night shifts? None that I can think of.
@@priapulida "all studies i don't agree with are simply fake" is astounding logic there my friend
Anecdotally, I have a friend who did computer science and she said that her mostly male peers had very backwards, misogynistic attitudes sometimes directed at her.
Please don't leave stem. Stem needs women like you. Many of the greatest physicists and mathematicians ever who just happened to be women had to face the same problem of sexiesm. But they broke through it. One example that I can give you is of my favorite physicist/ mathematician. Her name is Emmy Noether. She gave what are literally the foundations of mathematical physics, called Noether's theorems. These theorems revolutionized physics and are still doing it as these theorems contained within them what is considered by most physicists as the most beautiful or profound idea ever in physics. That is that symmetries in laws of physics are what gives rise to conservation laws. These theorems and ideas are at the core of modern fundamental physics. She had one of the toughest lives, ofcourse sexiesm was the biggest but when some things did appear to go in her favour, the nazis took power and she had to move to usa. After that, she died shortly after at a young age of around 60 in 1935 due to some cancer surgery or something like that. She also revolutionized mathematics by founding the field of abstract algebra and some other contributions and thus became one of the few people in the entire history of humanity to have revolutionized both maths and physics. Einstein wrote in her obituary in New York times about how she was this creative mathematical genius who was held in highest regards by most competent mathematicians of the time. I highly encourage you to read about her life and work. I hope this inspires you. Please join the stem fields back. The world needs women like you. Stem needs women like you.
You know, I think my complete and utter inability to see the appeal of Peterson during the pay gap clips there is almost singlehandedly the reason I never fell into the alt-right as a teen - I saw a link in a reddit thread posted by a Peterson evangelist, watched the debate, tried hard to get why he was being described as so smart or whatever, and failed utterly. Hard to claim legitimacy through eloquent language when I can't parse what he's trying to say in the first place lol
When people would claim he destroyed an interviewer who was unfair to him, I would watch the same clip and come away with the opposite perception, utterly baffled.
Some people hear word salad and just assume it's intelligent.
People just like the idea of someone sounding intelligent, it doesn't matter if they can't follow it or if what they are saying makes sense. Look at Jacob Reese Mogg in the UK, Ben Shapiro talking fast to obscure the fact he is saying nothing and untrue statements.
@@waltonsmith7210 yes exactly! the only real knockout match he's ever had imo is with cathy newman, and even in that interview he said a bunch of dumb shit. but all that got overlooked cause cathy did a fairly terrible job otherwise.
and so when we had anyone remotely competent and knew how to ask the right follow up questions: jim jeffries, the vice reporter, matt dillahunty, zizek, etc. he came off as a complete nimrod
just goes to show how far someone can get memorizing a thesaurus
@@waltonsmith7210 he is confidently wrong, therefore he “wins” the -interview- debate. Literally “be wrong harder and you’re right.”
As a STEM girl, the drop in interest has just as much to do with Gate Keeping from the boys and men in that field.
What's the difference between you and the girls who continued STEM despite the "gate keeping".
That’s like saying Obama became president, so there’s no racism. Y’know Robert Smalls became a Congressman, what was stopping other former slaves from succeeding in life?
@@jglobetrotter2830 are you asking me this question?
like frat boys?
“gate keeping” 😂 these vague phrases u women use crack me up
One of the key things I’ve learned in university is how much we don’t *really* know. If you approach these kinds of topics with genuine curiosity of the different methodologies, I think that’s when shit gets good ie it spurs even more questions and a drive to partake in studies of your own. It’s priceless and *essential* for everyone to have a seat at the table if we want better quality and in-depth research.
THIS VIDEO IS 100% PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! THIS VIDEO IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS CREATING A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT JORDAN PETERSON NEVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!! FEMINISTS CLAIM THAT THE "SEX PAY GAP" EXISTS """"BECAUSE"""" OF DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON STATED THAT THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" DOES """"NOT"""" EXIST """"BECAUSE"""" OF """"SEX DISCRIMINATION""""!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS NOT THE "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE" OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP""!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS THE """"REASON(S)"""" FOR THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH """"SEX DISCRIMINATION"""" IN AND OF ITSELF; AND IS ENTIRELY, 100%, DUE TO DIFFERENT CAUSAL FACTORS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HAS """"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"""" TO DO WITH """"DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX""""!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
This is so true. Having finally lifted the veil covering mine eyes I can now clearly see the animal glint in yours. I see what makes you tick and the basic tragedy of it and I feel nothing but love.
There was study on Khasi (Indian matrilineal society) and they found that women score on assertiveness higher than men even in some patriarchal societies and ofc higher than Khasi men. So this traits might work the other way around - the more resources you have, the more assertive you can be.
That shouldn't surprising. When you have resources you can afford to take risks, including taking social risks by being assertive. For example, if I had a nest egg of 10 million dollars, I'd be more willing to speak openly about policies I find disagreeable at my work place.
Something I have never heard anyone mention in regards to the gender pay gap is the fact that 70-80% of job openings are never posted publicly and are instead filled through networking and word-of-mouth. We have no idea how many job opportunities people under the misogyny umbrella are missing out on. This includes not only women (cis and trans!) but also multiple categories of trans people that get misgendered as women. I went through this recently when a friend offered me a job at his company and even offered to pay me to train for the position. Soon after his girlfiend got jealous and he blocked me to appease her. The offer that had been mine went to a mutual guy friend instead. I lost that job offer explicitly because I am assigned female at birth. Sure, its anecdotal, but that's my point. We have no idea how often job offers are given to cis men, when others aren't even getting the chance to interview.
THIS VIDEO IS 100% PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! THIS VIDEO IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS CREATING A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT JORDAN PETERSON NEVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!! FEMINISTS CLAIM THAT THE "SEX PAY GAP" EXISTS """"BECAUSE"""" OF DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON STATED THAT THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" DPES """"NOT"""" EXIST """"BECAUSE"""" OF """"SEX DISCRIMINATION""""!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS NOT THE "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE" OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP""!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS THE """"REASON(S)"""" FOR THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH """"SEX DISCRIMINATION"""" IN AND OF ITSELF; AND IS ENTIRELY, 100%, DUE TO DIFFERENT CAUSAL FACTORS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HAS """"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"""" TO DO WITH """"DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX""""!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
That isnt discrimination thats just your friends girlfriend being a bitch
You can just say women and femmes. ''AFAB nonbinary'' is itself pointless to specify outside of medical scenarios. Or women and people that society views as women (which applies to some non-passing trans guys as well who may also be discriminated)
@@ataready8810 (Note, this comment and the comment I am responding to no longer make sense because of edits I made to my original comment. My original comment said "women and AFAB non-binary people" and I have since edited it as response to the conversation that follows.)
I am AFAB non-binary and I chose to use that language for a reason. Not all AFAB non-binary people are femme, so it doesn't make sense to use those terms as synonyms. I am not femme, but when I am misgendered I am misgendered as a woman. I therefore experience misogyny because I am AFAB. I wish me being AFAB was only relevant in medical contexts but that's just not true, it is very relevant in the context of misogyny.
You are right that I should have just said AFAB people though, since I did forget to include trans men that don't pass or who are in the closet. That was a mistake, I just remembered AFAB non-binary people because I am one. I will edit my comment accordingly.
Lastly I would like to politely suggest (I don't mean this to be rude or confrontational at all) that you not correct people on the language they use to describe their own identity. They usually will have a good reason if you ask. The conversation here was still productive though and I am still grateful for your comment, so maybe if you had phrased it as a question instead? Like, "Can I ask why you chose to say AFAB non-binary instead of....?" Etc. I think that wouldn't have rubbed me the wrong way as much. Thanks!
@@mvo9856 Your comment was very polite. I'm sorry for rubbing off the wrong way.
I should have phrased it as a question.
And you're right, in the sense that society views you as a woman but you're non-binary, 'femme' doesn't cover you.
It mostly just feels lonely seeing 'AFAB people' being used to refer to many things about being trans or discrimination as I'm a trans women. I don't mind it in relation to things determined by AGAB, genitals, early childhood experiences etc. But AMAB trans people get a lot of the same shit for being outside of the norm or being fem that AFAB trans people do.
Trans women and non-binary transfeminine people face as many troubles as other trans people in the workforce. Transfem people lose their 'male privilege' when they become visibly gender non-conforming. Trans women are paid 60 cents on average for every 1 dollar the average worker receives. That number is 70 cents for trans men and non-binary people.
I would appreciate it if you included AMAB trans people.
I believe that there's more to gender discrimination than AGAB - many times it's as much as people show about themselves or decide to visibly perform outside of their AGAB or normal gender roles.
I still really value your comment. The gender pay gap is rooted in misogyny and patriarchal society. Getting rid of the perception of people seen as women as being 'lesser' would do a whole lot of good. I don't want to lessen your experience.
loved the video, but there is one (insignificant) mistake I noticed. when you mentioned sweden having one of the highest rates of sexual harrassment, you neglected to recognise that the reason behind this is them having a more robust reporting system when it comes to sexual harrassment, making the statistic much less shocking than it may initially seem.
In Eastern Europe generally speaking the scientists get quite a low pay, so the reason why the percentage of women in STEM is significant might be because there are less men interested in it cuz of low salaries.
23:00 literally happened to me when I decided for math & IT as my hs majors and my parents were like "but arent those too hard for a girl?"
They are. They are also hard for men. You need a very high IQ to be good at them. And the amout of women that are smart(in a sence of having a high IQ) is just too low compared to men.
The correlation between IQ and not failing math is just too strong.
So you parents and hs majors were right. But if you sucseeded anyway good for you.
@@haobinlu my IQ is fine, thanks. Never got many problems with math, maybe it gets difficult if you study it as a single subject but if you need it as a tool, all you need is to put in the work. My biggest qualm studying CS were mediocre men with doctorates desperately trying to prove me wrong in my choices
@@pola5195 If the IQ is good than it is a good indicator for going into the STEM fields
Why exactly don't companies just hire women then? 25% cut in pay would save millions, of not billions.
There's a number of reasons. Many people have an internal model that Generally considers women less competent. There's also a bunch of other social factors at Work.
Short Version: even while supposedly optimizing Profit, companies and especially people have deficient information and Models of reality.
Your question is addressed in the video. I won't even provide a timestamp because it would waste my time looking for it, and I know you wouldn't even watch it. I know you wouldn't watch it, because you had the gonads to come down to leave this stupid comment and left without even watching the vid in the first place.
the only bit of proof we need for how exploited women are in the home economy is to look at the prices for having someone who isn't your wife do the labor. a personal chef, daycare, a full-time social worker, a laundry cleaner, a janitor, and perhaps most of all a fucking surrogate.
David Graeber was pretty close to the truth when he said in "Bullshit Jobs" that the more socially necessary your job is, the less you get paid. ffs pregnancy is the *most* socially necessary labor and pregnant people have to pay money to do that. giving birth is literally called "labor".
I wish we could develop something to pay stay-at-home parents esp moms for their labor
@@user-gf6xb1xl8g Not much development necesary, frankly. Just cut the parent a check every month for however long. We know when pretty much every kid is born already because of issuing birth certificates, so hardly any additional recordkeeping would be necessary.
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos how do you do that lol
@@waynewayne8419 wow gosh golly what a quandry. I suspect you'd have to, uh, write them and put them in the mail.
@@ms.aelanwyr.ilaicos where would you get the money for that is my question.
Wait, if women are earning less money than men in large part due to being more agreeable, isn't that gender discrimination?
If the economic system is set up in such a way that it punishes the way women are, and rewards the way men are, then that is a systemic issue.
e.g. The school system is often cited as favoring girl's method of learning over boys preferred method of learning. As a result, girls outperform boys. Peterson and his conservative troglodytes would be the first to call this discriminatory against boys. Why doesn't systemic discrimination suddenly apply when it's women who are put at a disadvantage?
Gotta love how Peterson describes gender discrimination while trying to produce an argument against the concept.
no, ruthless competition is not discrimination, in the same way u buy in shopA instead of shopB is not 'discriminating
@@neoglacius
Ruthless competition is discriminatory when it favors traits that have no relation to how well you do your job.
That's like basing promotions in an office job on physical strength, and then arguing that it's not discriminatory towards the physically weak. It's inefficient.
This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.
@@romanbarna1316 *discriminatory when it favors traits that have no relation to how well you do your job*
being competitive is related to how well you do your job, because willing to compete even withyourself to be better everyday is extremely important to create innovation and revenue , is an active for a company, in fact when most of fems select a partner they act exactly the same way dicarding people if not 'ambitious' or too 'comfy', regardless how kind and good loving person he is
@@neoglacius
That's probably one of the dumbest comments I've read this week. Bonus points for referring to women as 'fems' like a proper incel. Congratulations.
In regards to your argument: again, agreeableness is not linked to lower performance in most jobs. In fact, in most jobs requiring team effort, agreeableness *enhances* job performance. Agreeableness is not the same as competitiveness either.
You're arguing in favor of some random set of personality traits to determine paychecks rather than skill.
Stop pulling arguments from your ass.
stop being a feminist, u guys know nothing about economics or human nature
It is pretty obvious that there are a great number of things that Peterson does not understand. Having a cult following is not doing him any good in my opinion. The man has been close to a breakdown for some time.
I never thought I'd be excited for another Peterson take down video again
I made AI promp with Jordan Peterson has an angry tirade against Disney's Frozen. It made funny picture with him staring angrily at the Snowman
@@otto_jk taking down dosen't means disrespecting him
@@user-go9kw6wf4m oh come on, that sounds fking hilarious.
"They really believe that a man and a woman doing the same job are sitting there, and the woman's making $0.75 to the man's dollar?"
Well duh we do. I was a fully certified 12 volt electrician at Best Buy, and I found out my new male trainee was making $1.25 more than me. There's a reason your employer doesn't want you sharing what you make with your coworkers.
isnt that illegal wherever you live?
@@madaxwayne It's illegal pretty much everywhere in the west
@@bobbyz9052 if that was me I'd sue for extortionate amounts...I don't believe this is legit
@Ronald Nygma except no western establishment such as best buy would be dumb enough to open themselves up getting sued in the name of "oppressing women"...theirs literally no upside to doing so
Employers get away with all kinds of illegal shit on a massive scale, especially in service jobs. The restaurant industry runs on labor code violations and wage theft is rampant in hourly positions. Most employees don't know their rights or even if they do they can't afford to raise a stink. Lawsuits are expensive. Complaining might lose you the job and if you're living paycheck to paycheck you just can't take that risk.
As a person from those post-soviet and Muslim countries (I can speak for Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, but others are pretty similar too), I have to provide some additional info, so that people unaware of the region aren't misled. While women studying STEM is normal in these countries, sexism is still rampant in these countries and women's experience is much worse compared to European women. Yes, many women study STEM, but the goal of studying for most women is to find a better husband (the goal set up by their parents that is, but often internalised by women). Once they graduate, they are very unlikely to work in high-paying jobs, especially male dominated ones. And if they marry, they must takeover household duties in addition to their work (if they are allowed to work that is), which means they have to do easy or part-time jobs. Post-soviet countries have a problem of people not working in the area they studied for, and it's much worse for women.
Another thing is expectations around childrearing. It's seen as a female job, so after the maternal leave, women are often encouraged to stay home and take care of the kids, or again downgrade their career and take some easy, low-paid job.
Also, if a wife earns more than a husband, prepare for trouble. The sexist narratives see men as breadwinners and their income makes them real men and gives them control over women. So, when they can't earn more than their partners it makes them feel emasculated and that fact is often discussed in friend groups and is joked about. I've personally witnessed a family breakdown because of this.
So don't be fooled by simple numbers of STEM graduates, they don't mean what they look like. Soviets were usually good at making cosmetic changes and not really fundamental ones and this one is a proof of that.
It's not a sexist narrative that men are traditionally the bread winners. Thats just history as it existed untill some matter of decades ago. Cause for nearly all of human history people had to have something like 6 or 8 kids cause half them died before growing up and some simply wouldnt reproduce even once adults.
Also most people were either self sustaining farmers or running a small family business before a hundred years ago so both husband and wife did basically the same job for the same pay including looking after kids and the household.
Than everyone moved into the cities and got jobs at factories but since someone still had to watch the kids and do household things (there was no electric appliences), and one job could pay most bills and most the industrial jobs were immensily physically dangerous and intensive, men became the "bread winner."
Now that we have appliances, need only 2 (2½) kids to maintain population, work environments are far safer and immensely diverse in type, send our kids to daycares and schools, and need 2 incomes to pay the bills, we do need to adjust to a new era/lifestyle were both men and women are both breadwinners and homemakers alike.
Although obviously there's still going to be the 2 to 6 years a woman has to look after each child she has. (Or we can just give on the human race being a thing if women don't want to birth people anymore i guess) And yes we should start paying women to be mothers. Its totally work that contributes to society.
@@tigadirt while all you said is true and there are reasons why traditionally it was seen so and necessary, the narrative is still sexist.
@@sananguliyev4940 i guess, if you mean that narrative being expected to continue as the norm today. I just feel like a lot of people from the last few generations don't look behind them at where we came from and just assume every dissadvantage, difference or inequality only exists because men are evil bastards and purposely made all these differences when we all get together in our boys only club tree houses and discuss how we can hold women back.
@@sananguliyev4940if you're going to call the narrative of what he said specifically sexist then there must be a solution otherwise you're just calling it that for whatever reason. So what is the solution, or is reality just sexist because it is
@@OsirisMawn solutions are often subjective depending on your goals. If you want a more fair and egalitarian society, getting rid of sexist narratives is the solution. If you want population growth and stable families, some forms of sexism can be beneficial. Regardless of how your "ideal" society looks like, it will come with trade-offs. However, my argument was purely descriptive. If there are different rules for different genders, those rules are sexist, regardless of reasons why these rules are in place.
1:01:16 timestamp for when he does the Jordan Peterson impression. You're welcome, if you came back to find this part 😉
Spot on mate, spot on!! 😂
I can't believe he'd break his promise from the beginning of the video like this smh
@@aaaaa-mw4bi F o r e s h a d o w i n g
POST MODERN NEO MARXISTS
You know you're deep down the breadtube rabbit hole when you recognize every single guest quote reader voice lol
Also this was an excellent essay, one of the best ones I've seen in a while, thank you so much for all the work that you do man :3
Who was the woman with the sweet voice of an angel?
@@katthekiwi6596 I'm pretty sure you're referring to @Kathrin :3
@@tverdyznaqs Is that the one who seriously needs to fix their microphone settings?
When jp says perhaps eqiality should include more aggressive women and women in prison i literally face palmed. There are feminists who've spent literal decades critiquing male pattern violence and the failure of prisons to the broader society. But naturally jp wouldnt acknowledge that because he hasnt bothered to learn much aboit the groups he argues agaisnt.
Pretty sure that was just a hyperbole? Highlighting the fact that the conversation is only about high paying jobs.
@@Smulpaap123 regardless, that ignores that he's looking at the problem the wrong way. Why is it that when the topic comes up, it's about putting more women in prison? Why is that the standard? Why isn't the question framed as, "what is happening to send more men to prison, and what can we do to lower that?"
Not even to mention that women are less likely to be jailed because of discrimination. There's often an inherent view that violent women are less dangerous, or that men who are victims of violence at the hands of women are simply weak. It's just looking at the whole question with the wrong framing.
I do see your point that the question of the gender wage gap is mostly about higher paying jobs, but I think it also looks over the fact that a lot of the times once the conversation moves past whether or not the gap exists, it's starts to ask much more fundamental questions like, "why is one thing high paying when the other isn't?" Or even "what is labor?" "Why are some things considered with paying for compared to others?" "What do these things say about expectations of people?" Etc
@@helpme5785 No it's is not about "putting more women in prison", nobody wants that. It's not the standard, it's a hyperbole.
With regards to why the question isn't framed differently, that's because the conversation surrounding equality is always about getting more women in higher positions. So for the sake of equality you'd need women in "lower" positions as well.
It's honestly strange to get so caught up on the framing of the question. If you want to talk about getting fewer men in prison then go ahead, but it's an entirely different issue.
@@Smulpaap123 it's not strange to get caught up in the framing, if the framing isn't questioned then we will always miss the bigger picture. Eventually the conversation needs to move onto considering why certain positions are considered lower than others, and vise versa. In a sense, I'm agreeing that it's wrong that the conversation is only about higher paying jobs, I'm just pointing out that bringing up hyperbole like that is kinda useless because it's difficult to move the conversation along to things like that if we're always stuck on whether or not discrimination exists.
@@helpme5785 To me it seems that making a big deal out of a statement that shouldn't have been taken literally is what would cause one to miss the bigger picture.
But it's honestly pointless to continue talking about this. We more or less agree that the conversation shouldn't just be about the high paying jobs.
I find it funny that Peterson describes women as more orderly in that interview and then describes them as chaotic in his actual books. Like, can you have any consistency in your beliefs, please?
Good point, I can’t get over how flaky and inconsistent many of his arguments are. It’s almost as if he’s as inconsistent as a woman! 9heavy sarcasm)
I think it's supposed to be a "metaphysical chaos", but what theat means exactly and how or why it's associated with feminity in his Jungian simmered writings will get you lots of bloviated backtracking.
Inconsistency is the point of oppression.
It means that emotionally women have more highs and lows ('chaos') on average than men, but in terms of wanting structure in life and orderliness in their surroundings, women on average are higher than men.
@@decekfrokfr3mdx - That is the narrative being pushed. Empirical evidence for it is slim. Men throw absolute public tantrums without being labelled emotional, while some stoic woman give no outward sign of emotion and are slandered as hysterical anyway. Bias predominates.
“It’s not a problem of capitalism, it’s a problem of people being dependent for the first 18 years. How do we monetize that?”
Jesus Christ Jordan 🤦♂️ that’s got to be one of the most brain dead responses I’ve ever heard. Your concern is how to “monetize” people?! And you don’t see the connection to capitalism?!
The entire concept of “monetizing” people is the fundamental problem of capitalism. How do you best utilize the labor force of individuals to increase your capital stock. We put laws in place to prevent children from being monetized specifically because they were easy to monetize.
The issue is that you think about people in those terms in the first place. Why should we invest in children without knowing how that investment can be monetized in the future? The socialist answer is simple. You invest in them because they are human being deserving of that level of care from their society. It’s only the capitalist viewpoint that considers how that investment will result in a future monetary gain.
By his logic parents should be getting some kind of tax from their kids to pay for their retirement
A great response would have been "Oh, we can have child labor to monetize them". He then would try to change the subject so hard lol
The interviewer was implying that women should be paid to have and raise children, and Peterson explained how that isn't feasible because children have no/negative monetary value. What are you not getting?
@@flacornmallrat But children have monetary value, if you make them work. You can start as soon as at 5 yo, and they could be making profits by 12.
Of course you need to reduce costs, so be careful on your spending when making your child's business model.
@@flacornmallrat Jokes aside, it's true that a policy which consists in paying women to have and raise children has a lot of problems involved, it can't be the solution.
It still doesn't change the perceived problem of care work being less valued even though it is fundamental to a functioning human system.
Edit: major vocabulary mistake.
God I love your videos, I can see the economics training in how you formulate the full arguments of a video and it makes it really easy to follow point by point.
this was an absolutely wonderful piece. I always appreciate long form debunking videos of “facts and logic” types. really loved the analysis of how benefits for mothers can actually increase gender disparity unless those benefits specifically include state funded child care and elder care.
I went to an engineering school wanting to be an engineer. I was one of two women in my class. To no one's surprise I quit because the culture was super toxic. It's sad b/c I really liked my high school computer classes and my sister went into engineering. I sometimes wish I would have stuck it out but I knew for my mental health I had to get away from certain people, so I don't think I made the wrong choice by leaving.
Most male engineering students don’t discriminate with their lack of social skills. They are rude to everybody. Huge problem once you get into engineering. One student would literally insult everybody on his senior design team. High IQ with disagreeableness bring a lot of problems along with it.
When I first entered universtiy and was moving into the dorms my mom was with me and she was blown away at how the engineering department was almost completely split gender wise, 47% women 53% men, she actually teared up and discussed going through the same thing as what you went through, although for her it was in the 80s. It's wild how things can change in one area and still stay exactly the same in other places. Really sorry you went through that, glad you were able to support yourself.
@@maluse227 it’s fake. There is no issue with men in engineering school other than them being antisocial. Same with art and psychology classes that are 90% female. Men in psychology are not being oppressed and excluded. Plenty of obnoxious women there though. Just avoid the moron men and moron women and you will be fine.
@@firstlast9916 hmm who should I believe, you a random stranger on the internet telling me that every fact I have ever learned about the number of women in engineering is wrong, or my mother, my father, my friends, and all of the data I have seen over the years that show there's a problem with the how few women get into engineering and how the women who are there are treated. Miss me with that kind of sexism I'm not here for it.
@@maluse227 my graduating engineering class was 97% male. Half of them were either boring or aggressively obnoxious with the other male engineering students. They equally mistreat both male and female students. There is no discrimination against females.
This is probably one of, if not the, best videos that academically debunk Jordan B. Peterson
THIS VIDEO IS 100% PROPAGANDA!!!!!!! THIS VIDEO IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT WHICH IS CREATING A FALSE ARGUMENT THAT JORDAN PETERSON NEVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!! FEMINISTS CLAIM THAT THE "SEX PAY GAP" EXISTS """"BECAUSE"""" OF DESCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON STATED THAT THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" DOES """"NOT"""" EXIST """"BECAUSE"""" OF """"SEX DISCRIMINATION""""!!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS NOT THE "EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE" OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP""!!!!!!!!!!! THE PREMISE WAS THE """"REASON(S)"""" FOR THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!! JORDAN PETERSON PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ""SEX PAY GAP"" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH """"SEX DISCRIMINATION"""" IN AND OF ITSELF; AND IS ENTIRELY, 100%, DUE TO DIFFERENT CAUSAL FACTORS!!!!!!!!!!!! WHICH HAS """"ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"""" TO DO WITH """"DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX""""!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
In 2022 we should be asking "What does Jordan Peterson actually understand?". It is clear that he knows less than the average philosophy freshman who read the first two pages of Beyond Good and Evil
please don't slander nietzsche
@@heartache5742 From what I can gather (so take what I say with an amount of salt on par with the Dead Sea), he doesn't understand Niezsche, either. In spite of him invoking him.
@@ericb.4313 that is exactly what i meant
@@heartache5742 do even nietszche understand nietszche
That's Dunning-Kruger for you.
In the decade or so since I escaped the alt-right pipeline, the arguments Peterson made that were showcased in this video we're the only thing I couldn't fully dislodge as potentially legitimate (some of the arguments not all).
I haven't expressed these views and certainly haven't defended them, but in conversations about the pay gap, I've felt deeply ignorant. The bad arguments, and the narrative that held them together was for years now stuck in my intuition. They twisted my instinctual responses to important questions. I was at least lucky enough to understand my own ignorance.
That feeling of knowing my intuition is flawed, while feeling powerless to properly challenge myself is gone.
And even beyond that, the fallacies (not sure if that's the right word) you talked about in Peterson's statistical and sociological analysis will also prove very useful as I move forward as a regular person doing their part in challenging the dangerous and irrational narratives of the modern right.
Basically... this is fucking amazing. It's something I hope you're proud of, and you have my thanks.
You need to give yourself a ton of credit. You had enough of an open mind and you listened to new information and are trying to grow as a person. That's more than most people.
As a girl from Eastern ukraine working full-time as a developer it was quite interesting to hear the last partXD
Thanks for the great video by the way^^
stay safe! ❤🇺🇦
It baffles me how a person like JP, without a healthy amount of self doubt, can be so convinced to understand every aspect of the world.
It's a well known phenomenon tbh, the more you know the more you can see the gaps in your own knowledge. However if you never get beyond the surface of a concept, you think you know everything about it.
Jp says everything with utter confidence that everyone will believe it true be true
It's the basic mindset of an anti-intellectual. Intellectualism is founded upon critical analysis and a refusal to trust anything ever. Doubt is inherent to it.
If you listen to the words, he's telling people to doubt everything. People who believe in the Pay Gap lack self doubt too. Always ironic how those who accuse others of a certain trait are themselves the ones that embody that trait. This means you lack humility and self awareness.
@@TheAsianRepublican To doubt opinion and faith is natural. To doubt objective provable fact makes you delusional.
20:30 "It's not a consequence of capitalism, it's just not something you can monetise!"... He really doesn't hear himself, huh? Like even if you want to posit that monetisation is not inherently capitalist, that's a whole discussion in of itself. I find it fascinating how he frames certain viewpoints as universal truths and builds out *more* subjective viewpoints from that. It's not exactly begging the question; it's like begging a different question to back up the first question- anyone know if there's a name for that? Whatever its name, Jordan Peterson is the king of it.
(edit: spelling and punctuation)
If you want to claim that it is a consequence of capitalism, then you need to demonstrate how non-capitalist societies did differently.
A and B can both be true, without them necessarily being dependent on each other. For this example, if both the affirmations that "we live in a capitalist society" and "our society doesn't compensate domestic work" are true, you still can't infer that society doesn't compensate domestic work "because" it is capitalist. It could do so "despite" or "independantly" from being capitalist. Did feudal societies pay women for their domestic work? Did any non-collectivistic society ever compensate women for their domestic work?
In the end, domestic work is work for one's self. Other can benefit, such as your spouse and your children, but such is also true of other non-paid self-services, such as leisure. If a man teaches his son to hunt, should society pay him for this educational service? If a man grows a garden for his family, should society pay him for this labor? If a man mows the lawn, should society pay him? Men also do a ton of unpaid labor, and nobody's arguing that men should be compensated for it. Why should female domestic labor be compensated? The issue, in my opinion, is not that it's not paid, as it would be immensily difficult to have a state efficient enough to make this work, but rather that the distribution tends to be very lopsided. But how can the state regulate how spouses share their choires? Should it even try? Does the government have any business regulating how we manage our homes? Cultural changes are necessary, and in large part have already been done. But how much should be done to force men to do more domestic work? Women already have the most leverage when choosing partners. More could be done to help increase the number of men doing domestic work, such as mandatory cooking classes for all teens, but the idea that capitalism is to blame for domestic chores not being compensated is unfounded. Capitalism has a ton of problems, but it's not the root cause of this one.
@@bobseven310 I would agree that saying capitalism is the cause would be a little inaccurate, because it’s bigger than just capitalism. Any money based system that doesn’t have centralized government welfare for domestic work would have the same problem; so the issue isn’t capitalism, it’s capital itself. But saying capitalism is the issue is technically true then, because capitalism is a system that doesn’t reward activities that can’t be monetized. Even if that activity is beneficial for the whole of society (which I would argue raising children well is beneficial to the whole of society, as those children will go on to be a part of that society).
i think it’s called sealioning, but i’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to so i could be wrong
@@bobseven310the change isn’t that domestic labor used to have wages and now doesn’t; the change is that non-domestic labor used to not have wages and now does. before that everyone (in europe at least) worked on farms for a lord, or for themselves. so the issue is that capitalism rewards “men’s” labor through wages, but “women’s” labor is still unpaid. i don’t think capitalism necessarily caused the difference, but capitalism only gives wages when you have a boss, and domestic labor often doesn’t have a boss. the journalist isn’t implying that capitalism did something, just saying that things are the way they are as a result of capitalism doing its thing.
As a guy the first time I saw a gender pay gap, was my housemate who was a nightclub photographer, she'd been there a year and was payed alright and they needed another photographer and she had to train them, this guy would turn up late go home early, duplicate pictures so it looked like he did more and had a much worse camera. A few months later at the employees own Christmas meal, she found out that he got payed, even though he was employed for a lot shorter time and trained by my friend 1/3rd more. So she was earning 1/3rd less pay even though, she'd been there longer does more work than him and trained him, and she was a pretty scary person who speaks her mind, but even then the owner thought that made sense. Eventually she got her pay raised to the same as him, not more, just the same.
The worst example I encountered is when I worked in a restaurant with a psychotic boss. He was never in the restaurant, instead managing other businesses (he is one of those, used to be poor, now rich and flaunts it everywhere types). He would hire his own teenage son that no one in the restaurant liked, worked slow, was arrogant, sexist and homophobic constantly. But he was secured that job because his father owned the place. Meanwhile the hardest working waitress got fired after working there 4 years. She took less breaks than the other and always gave it her all, yet she was fired out of the blue. The boss prefered to hire high school graduates who took a gap year, keep them for a year ish, then hire new people to keep wages down. Of course the restaurant never did as well as it could if he kept the skilled workers instead.
The only thing that made job place decent was his wife who was the waiter manager and a waitress herself. She was super sweet and encouraging to everyone, but you never know you did bad in the eyes of the psychopath until 2 months later when 3rd of your salary is illegally missing.
That is actually a terrible example of gender pay gap and doesn't prove there is one.
Thats extremely uncommon. The real gap is mostly down to women not getting promoted. Being paid less for the same job is extremely rare in the west at least.
@@ryankmdkt she was more qualified, more skilled and more productive. By meritocracy logic she should be earning more, not him. There are more variables than those and gender, but there is clearly a bias present. It's an anecdote on an individual level, but if there was no gender inequality this would never happen
And I got another story, an old man in his sixties was a pillar in his manufacturing plant for 35 years was to teaching a recently graduated young woman how to do her job. The young woman was paid three times more than him. Nice, mild manner guy as he was, he was still upset at the fact that 30 years of service and an entry level graduate got paid three time more. Pay systems are not uniform across the world. Everywhere I work in, the paymaster never seem to know how much anyone is worth. Your story is not of descrimination, it is of ignorance. She would not get hired in the first place if it is the former.
Thank you for all your effort! I find it admiring how everything was so well explained and displayed, it reminded me of my professors of statistics in the uni. You definitely pointed out how easy it can be to "proof" any argument by selecting your studies wisely while ignoring their quality and/or access to resources. I think you truly contributed to more reflexive analysis and evaluation of such. And additionally, you introduced me to Ground News. Thanks for that.
Thank you for making this video. Many years ago I used to be on the right, but moved towards the left over time. The Idea, that the Gender pay gap doesn't exist was one of the few things I still held true, because every left-wing argument against it felt weak or unintelectual. So thank you for challenging that Idea and allowing me to leave that way of thinking behind.
The Left arguments are still weak, and this video did nothing to convince me in either direction.
@@networknomad5600 So, do you not have an opinion on the gender pay gap? Any data you find compelling?
@@networknomad5600 right arguments are also not strong enough
@@networknomad5600that says a lot about yourself
It's literally illegal to pay a woman less than a man. If you could get away with paying women less, wouldn't "muh evil greedy capitalists" just hire only women in droves because they're cheaper labour?
The "pay gap" is a result of overarching statistics. No shit women tend to make less than men when they have to take (unpaid) maternity leave or just hold lower paying positions on average. The pay gap is such a ridiculous myth and a textbook example of "abusing statistics" the way people like you incessantly accuse "The Right™" of doing. Anyone with 2 braincells can tell you it's stupid and that the mean pay disparity is a result of stats, not unfair wages. (Also, women should get paid maternity leave.)
Thank you for this. Your videos are hilarious and I’m always relieved to know that people still give a shit about women’s issues (especially from an Econ view) and calling out illogical talking points.
I work about 8-16 hours a day, 7 days a week, working for myself. This also includes the work I do at home, the cooking, cleaning, etc, on top of making stuff, listing them, selling them, packing and shipping them, etc.I also earn about 600 USD a month.
I love what I do, and would not exchange it for anything, as I am a disabled mess and this work is very relaxing and nice. But at the same time, I am a prime example of "working long hours does not mean you make lots of money." It often just means you work long hours.
And while I love doing this, I also understand that this is something that would be extremely unhealthy for most other people, especially neurotypical people and those with a social life. Nobody should strive to work as much as I do, and I highly recommend that everyone finds a good work-life balance! I am just lucky as my work is also something that is varied, relaxing, and fascinating to me!
Nobody should feel forced to work themselves to death to survive. Working 80+ hours a week is not a goal.
How are you being forced to cook, clean, and engage in hobbies?
@@flacornmallrat tf are you talking about?
@@flacornmallrat I mentioned cooking and cleaning because I personally include it in the number of hours I work. Because cooking and cleaning is a form of labor, and is no less a form of work than when I work at my business.
Didn't mention hobbies though, so idk where that came from, but I will gladly throw that phrase in the garbage where it belongs.
Now, in the real world, labor, or work, is something that is exchanged for income. This income, or money, is used to pay for things like food, shelter, and clothing to protect from the elements. If you do not, or cannot, earn enough income to survive, you are expected to die.
Meaning that you have the choice to either trade labor for an ever-decreasing amount of "wages", or die in a generally slow and brutal way.
Being made to do anything under penalty of death is not a real choice, it is forced upon you.
So working for a profit in inherently forced.
But none of this claims that I am "forced to cook and clean" because nobody ever said that. So I am just assuming you have the reading comprehension of a newt.
600 USD/per month sounds really bad and this is coming from someone who lives in a third world country.
@@Blaze72sH it is very bad, but there isn't much I can do about it as someone with physical and mental disabilities. My only alternatives seem to be fast food or service industry, where my monthly pay may rise from ~600 to maybe 900 on the high end, but then I would most be in pain or mentally exhausted during my "free time".
That said, my income seems to be rising the more I work for myself, so I am happy overall. ^_^
I absolutely appreciate and love your thorough work, and making these easy to understand. Reminds me that I need to get a better hold and review more statistics before becoming a social scientist
As a math and physics student, I have to say the idea that women are not excluded/discouraged from certain fields is absurd. In math the quote of women is almost 50%. In physics is more like 20-30%. In anything computer science related it gets even worse.
This has NOTHING to do with women not being good in these fields. Anyone who can study math could study physics (the other way around is not always true).
I do some computer science related stuff and it is ridiculous how the quote of women drops once programming is part of the course, even if it is a math course. This isn't Biology, this is culture.
And just think of all the advancements in those fields we are missing out on because half the population is discouraged from joining the fray.
I've had interests and career paths that aligned with male dominated or all-male spaces my entire life and I can tell you it is an overtly hostile and terrible place to be so it goes beyond what you've been brainwashed with your entire life about what womz be good at and what womz be bad at. Even decent guys, it's inbuilt in them that they're more important. It's just that ingrained and they don't even consciously mean it and it's just little needles all the time (that's without the SH, constant overt denigration etc). Many of them who are awake enough stay silent on the bullying or denigration because it's human nature I guess. We learn all this by the time we're in primary school. We know. Sometimes you just lose the will to live and can't fight anymore. We know what it's going to be like on a dev team. Or on a building site. Fucking horrible. It's been like that our whole lives. I'm Gen X/nearly Millennial, maybe it's gotten better but...I dunno.
Culture is build on top of biology. So it is culture with reasons in biology
There are less women that are good mathematicians. You have to be smart to be a mathematician and smart woman barely exist. The reson why so many girls study math is probably because math is increadibly simple in school and physics is more complicated. It is the opposite in university hoewer, but most girls do not know it. Hence there are many definitions of smart I clarify: (smartness for which IQ is an indicator)
Like look at the internet. Holy shit programmers are some of the worst misogynists out there. Even if we're not consciously thinking about it...it's what we've seen over and over again. It embeds.
This all reminds me of... ok, so, I was at high school during the height of New Atheism, and it was a weird time. Tim Minchin was writing funny but purely entertaining songs bashing a bit of religious quackery and people were pitching his shows as educational. The Simpsons was airing episodes riffing on "science vs religion". The smartest kid in my class who got skipped ahead two years in maths was also a hardcore Christian, and loads of us thought that was weird, even though while I'm no lover of Christianity, it's not a contradiction at all. There was this idea in the popular sphere that being "rational" or "scientific" was less to do with actually doing rigorous intellectual work and more to do with rejecting religion, and from there corollary that establishing the truth of the universe was easy if you just broke free from the dogma. And that idea was pushed by folks like Richard Dawkins, who got a huge amount of fame and fortune from this - Dawkins, ostensibly a scientist, managed to become a household name without discovering anything of much importance, because what he and his ilk had done was cast science/rationality not as a process of discovery but of combat, against a nebulous societal force that was keeping everyone blind. It wasn't hard to be right, it's just that most people were misled by the irrationality of religion. And you too can be smarter than your peers, if you just realize that God doesn't exist!
It was a great pitch to sell to young pseudo-intellectual edgelords. It worked on me - I never got great grades in science but I considered myself a bit of an amateur scientist because I laughed at creationists on the internet.
And it's the exact same grift that Peterson, Shapiro, Rubin, all those fucks, are doing, they've just replaced "religion" with "postmodernism." Turns out you don't need to be clever or interesting to be an intellectual, you just need to pretend that everyone chooses to be either objective and rational, or subjective and irrational (and thus believe in religion or postmodernism), and since you made the "right" choice, you are objective and therefore always right. And I fully believe they're pulling the grift as much on themselves as on their audiences.
But whereas new atheism was mostly just kinda annoying, this time, it's really dangerous. Listen to the way Stefan Molyneux talks about how he supports white nationalism as a corollary of him being "an empiricist", as though that's just a natural corollary, and everyone who isn't a white nationalist is just "not an empiricist." It's chilling.
Sounds like a fair bit of resentment and maybe you don't want to extrapolate too much from it... Obviously, Dawkins has a reasonable reputation within his field of biology, and you seem to feel like the New Atheism phenomenon parasitized some of your character flaws, and now view it with contempt. I think I understand your story, but I view it all quite differently. I went to a catholic school and religious platitudes and folklore were still all over the traditions, culture, daily life and even politics I was dealing with, even though the society and milieu in Europe I live in is fairly secular and has become more secular during my life time. Emancipating from that wasn't always easy, and I experienced a fair bit of idiocy and harmful religiosity in my life in other people, but retrospectively also in myself. The way I received Dawkins helped me on my way to think for myself and question established believes and practices, particularly those which people (and persons of authority) have no rationale for. For me, this was both educationally and personally liberating.
@@domsjuk as a catholic school alum myself I totally get that Dawkins's ideas can be helpful to people, and I'm definitely not begrudging that - I'm an atheist myself and I'm glad I ended up becoming so (and that was partially New Atheism's doing - I used to be able to recite Tim Minchin's "Storm" from memory). My point is that the pitch of a lot of these new atheist intellectuals was that the world is broadly divided into smart, rational atheists and dogmatic, unscientific religious people, which isn't true - yes, religion is responsible for a lot of bad science and dogma (young earth creationism, for example), but the attitude among the new atheists was that the definition of a rational person was less to do with what they actually accomplished and discovered and more to do with whether or not they believe in God. Whereas in practice plenty of very rational and objective researchers throughout history have believed in God (Isaac Newton, for example) and there are plenty of irrational and dogmatic people who don't.
@@leahliddle324 I see. I think that latter interpretation is more what some people and media made out of it than what was actually in the books of that wave or (and I have to say, at that time I was exposed to this stuff mainly through books and blogs etc. rather than youtube and social media, so maybe that saved me from worse) or how e.g. the four horsemen appeared in discussions etc. and I think all of them baldly admit your point.
I think this is a good example of how wearing labels and clinging to certain identities helps your ego maintain a positive or superior self- and ingroup-image and simple explanations and categories of the world, which as you pointed out we are seeing for other phenomena or movements as well.
@Mitthenstein man you seem like a charmer
@@leahliddle324 facts
I switched majors from math to English because of the sexist bs I had to deal with. I was constantly being belittled and talked down to. That didn't happen in English because the majority of students in the English major were other afabs. Despite how much I loved math, you couldn't pay me to put up with that nonsense
same, I went from CS to psychology for the same goddamn reason.
Your "accidental" jordan peterson impression was one of the best amongst all that I've seen, actually. You got his tone and cadence right
I thought he had superimposed a clip of Jordans actual voice 😭
1:16:51 "The answer is clear: We need an islamic communist revolution!" - best line in the video
The video needs a counter for how many heads have exploded with that line.
Isn't that term contradictory?
@@Blaze72sH for now.
> Gender discrimination implies the system is not perfect
> The system is perfect
therefore
> Gender discrimination does not exist
Right wing logic
This is such an amazing video, so succinct, nuanced and incredibly well-researched. I also love your kind and genuine approach when conveying information, I think that makes what you say much more easily digestible to a much wider audience who may otherwise love Jordan. Also thanks so much for including my voice!!
Just about to start a PhD in an area which combines physics, stats and cancer research. I am a confident assertive person who has always been encouraged in my pursuits in STEM by my family and school, but gender norms still affect me. Things like when I turn up to interviews for my PhD I'm encouraged to wear a suit and not a dress, I lower my voice instinctively, I use qualifying language more when I'm speaking to men than women. I actively try not to do these things because I don't believe I should have to follow these stereotypes to be taken seriously, and I think the culture is changing slowly as I'm about to start my PhD in a very competitive field of research. When you see me you wouldn't instinctively think my career path is scientific research and I like that
Edit: just remembered something interesting which I think is relevant also. My ex (male) expected me to prioritise them and chose a PhD in the city they lived, despite the fact they wanted to move to a new job and worked remotely 99% of the time. They instinctively expected me to prioritise them and their comfort over my career, despite the fact that they had more choice and could move
Fascinating. The same thing is happening to me and I am a man! Interesting.
Seeing as a lot of their described experience was explicitly specific to them being a woman, no it's not. You're not being told not to wear a dress and to lower your voice in order to be taken seriously as a woman@@sebsebski2829
@@Emma-Maze Im being told to lower my voice and not look at women. I can't wear what I want (sloppy joggers and t shirt) in order to be taken seriously.
'Things like when I turn up to interviews for my PhD I'm encouraged to wear a suit and not a dress, I lower my voice instinctively, I use qualifying language more when I'm speaking to men than women.' How is this sexist lol? Men are also subjects to the exact same rules lol
Your video was thorough and well put together. Time well spent - on both our parts!! Thank you!
Are you gonna cover how the Uber algorithm discriminates against women and pays them 7% less... despite not knowing whether a driver is male or female before assigning them a ride!!??
Damn! Even algorithms are sexist. Women can't catch a break.
i wrote a paper on the wage gap once. you did a really solid analysis here (and far more in-depth than i did, it was just a short paper for a writing class when i was a freshman). something a lot of critics of the pay gap miss is that citing the pay gap is just one example of the ways in which women and men are overall treated differently in society. in one of the studies i cited, there was evidence that the pay gap was smaller in professions that had more flexible hours or alternatively, didn't require you to devote time outside of work to be able to get a promotion. that's an interesting thing to think of when put in context of women taking on most of the work of childcare of household chores. yeah, on a material level this can be explained away with multivariate analysis, but in the real world, we have to deal with the idea that women are possibly being held back in their careers if they can't make it to a business dinner because they have to put the kids to bed on a school night. and just because those women earning less than men in the same career can mostly be explained away by these other factors doesn't mean they aren't being held back in their careers. and this is just one possible explanation of one fact. when looking at all the factors you could write several dissertations about how accounting for these variables reduces the size of the pay gap actually demonstrates the various types of discrimination that women face.
This is the video that deprogrammed me years ago. I still watch it sometimes. Thank you.
This channel has a Shaun/Three Arrows feels to it, I like it.
A much shorter list would be “things Jordan Peterson understands”. As best I can tell, he understands how to protect rich people and blame victims.
I am from a formerly Soviet state, and the part of this video that mentions us finally explains to me why this entire topic never seemed to truly be the case here. I don't know about the pay situation, but when it comes to presence, our STEM fields are filled with women, from professors to industry professionals. I'm sure it also helps that we're one of the few countries in the world to have more women than men (though that is evening out as the statistic was more prevalent for older generations).
It isn't that simple and there's also a gap that we need to overcome. But it's true that historically somehow there were more women in science in CEE. Maria Skłodowska is a symbolic example. Protestant westeren countries were probably more patriarchal in some aspects. And we are higher in some statistics like women in STEM or women in managerial positions. And so that nobody got that wrong - we are GETTING higher. There are more and more women in STEM and in managerial positions. It absolutely isn't that as we get richer or higher in Gender Equality Index or whatever women become more "traditional". Absolutely not.
"It's not capitalism!" immediately refers to children as an investment
Investing in your child has nothing to do with capitalism. It is what most parents do for their children. I'm sorry if your parents didn't do that for you.
@@vitulus_treating your supposedly loved ones as a business project is capitalism's most hilarious joke
@@vitulus_ You right, JP asking how can monetizing children means that this guys parents didn't love them
I cannot thank you enough this is so comprehensive and well stuctured. From now on I'll just show this video instead of engaging in occasionally exhausting discussions with men lol
Just waiting for the comments that claim you took him out of context
They’re already here lmao
Which is funny because if this video has shown us anything, it's that Peterson's ideas are based on data pulled out of context
Don’t forget the classic “You don’t get/understand what he is saying”.
Jordan Peterson doesn't understand most of the things he talks about.
Finally! Someone who understands statistics and can explain it in an easy but complete way. Subbed imediately
I almost didn't watch this. I'm a little done with videos about this guy. But for some reason I did watch it, and it's really excellent work. It's actually one of your best videos, in my opinion.
Overall, this is a very well thought out and educational video, much respect. However, I do believe that you are at-risk of caricaturing Peterson's arguments at some points in the video and, as a result, your criticisms fall flat and don't tend to mean too much. For instance:
- In your section of 'the gender pay gap is real', as the name of the section suggests your main criticism of JBP's argument is that the gender pay gap exists. However, JBP doesn't deny the existence of the pay gap per se; he doubts that it is largely explained by gender discrimination i.e., the gap exists, but it is caused by many variables and only one of them is top-down sex discrimination. These are not the same thing. Further, you use the example of 'bad controls' to outline the point that controlling for multiple variables may actually thwart our ability to research/understand the discriminatory elements of the pay gap, however the example you use doesn't make any sense! First, you outline that controlling for occupation when investigating an education-earnings link would be silly given that gaining a high-paid occupation is often the exact mechanism that the education-earnings link takes, this is correct. But then you conflate this example with the gender-occupation-earnings mechanism; you are correct that if you were to control for occupation when investigating the link between gender and earnings then this would be an example of a bad control, because one's gender may influence one's occupation which will then influence earnings, but this has nothing to do with gender discrimination, only gender. I.e., One's gender may influence occupational choice and by extension their earnings whilst having absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. This is exactly the point made by JBP et al; men and women may have different wages due to differences in the choices they make e.g., career choices, as opposed to a result of direct, top-down sex discrimination. Indeed, if you look at JBP's writing on this, he states many times that sex discrimination exists but the gender pay gap is not a good indicator of this at all, despite the claims of feminists/progressive politicians. As a result of this misunderstanding, you seem to suggest that the 10% pay gap figure actually hides much of the discrimination experienced by women but I would argue that this figure does not go far enough to control for the variables that may, very fairly, account for and explain the differences in earnings between men and women; as has been suggested, I don't think that the gender pay gap is completely useless when investigating discrimination but you do need to, at least, do the proper controls (multiple hierarchical regression) before you can have anything even approaching a figure that may represent the variance that is directly explained by top-down sex discrimination. Similarly, your Mad Men example doesn't really outline your point either given that the context of Mad Men is very clearly discriminatory when it comes to occupational roles and earnings in relation to gender, but this does not adequately translate to the modern west where there aren't clear and immovable molds within an organisation in relation to gender.
- In your sections on the gender equality paradox you seem to suggest that the research design is questionable on a few different domains: small sample size, correlational etc. However, there are some phenomena that cannot be explored experimentally and in these situations we have to resort to methods of analysis that have less scientific clout, which includes cross-country correlations. Given that we cannot take two equal societies and directly manipulate their level of gender equality whilst keeping every other variable constant between them to determine the effect of equality on gender-relevant variables, we have to rely on lesser means to investigate this phenomenon. Let's remember that the gender equality paradox is relevant to one main question which is 'Why do men and women differ in XYZ? Is it nature or nurture?'. When investigating this question (whilst taking into account the previously-mentioned constraints) one needs to ask oneself 'If my theory is correct, what should I expect to see in the world that would confirm this theory? Or (more crucially) what would I need to see in the world that would disprove my theory?' to which the next step is to go out and look for whatever it is that you would have expected to either see or not see. The reason that the gender equality paradox holds weight, is that it directly contradicts one of the main, central claims that social constructionists make when theorising about the nature/nurture debate in relation to gender. Namely, that gender differences in interest, temperament, personality, and outcomes are solely due to upbringing and learning hence making these differences purely socially constructed. As a result of this claim, social constructionist researchers repeatedly made the prediction that gender egalitarianism on a social policy level would negatively correlate with the size of differences between men and women i.e., as countries become more egalitarian the differences will reduce, but this is exactly the opposite of what was found. Again, I'm sure you are aware of this however your focus on the critique of the rigour of these studies lend justice to the fact that you can only investigate this phenomenon via correlation, and it also fails to mention the importance of this finding given its direct refutation of social constructionist claims. Don't get me wrong, the story does not end there, after all this is just a univariate analysis and it would be best to follow this up by including other relevant variables to get a sense of the ultimate strength of this association, but it certainly carries weight in the nature/nurture debate in relation to gender, and by extension the debate on what is and is not an index of discrimination.
Anyhow, it was a good video/analysis, just think it falls short at a few points. I have other critiques but I'll leave it there.
For me the real problem here is that women/parents aren't compensated / don't get their return on investment for creating and raising a human being. Human beings are economically net positive - they work and create value, spend their money and thus help fund other people's jobs, pay taxes etc. They are a huge plus to the economy as well as to the government through all kinds of taxation from VTA to personal income tax, but the ones who actually created that value ie. the parents get nothing in return.
Imagine working first full time and later part-time and also putting huge amounts of money into a company only to not get payed a single dime for your work nor any shares or dividends of those shares even after investing so much money in it.
That's discrimination, and also the reason why couples aren't having almost any childred these days. The salaries and job opportunities have improved so much compared to what they were in the past that they FAR outweigh having kids as a priority even with the social/spiritual benefits/reasons to have children.
capitalist patriarchy depends on unpaid domestic labour
This video begins with a faulty premise.
The video states " Peterson claims that controling for things like occupation and personality eliminates the earnings differences between men and women."
What Jordan Peterson actually claimed was: "The claim that the wage gap is *only* due to sex is wrong. There's a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite; and agreeable people get paid less than less-agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men. *I'm saying that is one component of a multi-varied equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5% of the variance; so you need about another 18 factors; one of which is gender.* *And there is prejudice, there is no doubt about that.* But it accounts for a much smaller proportion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim."
In summation: Peterson did not claim that controling for things like occupation and personality *eliminates* the earnings differences between men and women. Peterson claimed that the earnings differences between men and women occur for many reasons which include factors such as personality and occupation, but also include factors such as gender and associated prejudice.
@@keithjackewicz8423 Pop feminism has often stated that women earn 70c for every male dollar and that this is definitely because of discrimination.
Peterson destabilised the certainty of this assertion and said that it could be for an opposite reason.
Unlearning Econ comes in and says 'no Jordan, its actually not certain that its NOT because of discrimination.
So JP is saying its not certain it IS because of discrimination. UE says that its not certain it ISNT discrimination.
So essentially, they both agree with each other. It isn't certain.
But UE says it in a way that is more likely to attract him a girlfriend, whereas JP says it in a way that is actually aware of what the mainstream conversation has been saying which is that women definitely earn less because of discrimination.
@@keithjackewicz8423 That's true in terms of their bias/interpretation but neither of them can say for certain what the truth is and they admit that the evidence isn't completely conclusive.
Here's my issue. If attracting young women (or men) is your goal, you don't want to be laying it down heavy with the facts of life. You want to reveal your genuine observations but then heavily favour your interpretation of the areas of uncertainty in the evidence to be more flattering to her/his healthy youthful narcissism.
However, if your goal is to help people to adjust to adult life, you need to actually give the most likely explanation for the evidence.
Both of these are acceptable goals within reason but my issue is that a lot of the creators criticising JP seem to do so essentially as a 2 hour long pick up line. It might be fine in a more private setting but in this public setting it just gets in the way of the important work of helping people adjust to adult life and to become okay with reality. What's more important? A whole generation left behind, or one guy getting laid?
Not to say JP can't be criticised at all - that definitely needs to happen. I'm just making an observation about some of his critics.
And yet, Jordan also says exactly what the video says he does between roughly 5:57 to 6:13.
Jordan: "It does seem that way but... multi varied analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist."
Cathy: "But that's not true, is it?"
Jordan: "Oh, it's absolutely true."
etc
Just because a person utters two statements that have mutually exclusive meanings doesn't mean that they aren't saying the one you wish they hadn't.
Amazing video. Thank you for NOT shying away from a technical explanation. It really made it impactful.
Great video!!! It’s an important insight that people like Peterson are not simply misinterpreting studies, because many of the studies cited when making claims about individuals, don’t conclude anything about individuals
I heard your mom has cancer. Stay strong king
@@sit-insforsithis1568 what? the? fuck?
Huh? Feminists claim women are discriminated against *at the population level* . When Peterson argues against that claim using population-level statistics, he is not making a claim about individuals.
As a guy who has problems with stressful lifestyle I wish I could get into those low status jobs, I don't want to be noticed. But then when I seek help trying to get those jobs I get told off by the social worker for trying to get "women jobs" and sent me to be an insurance agent. Half a year later I almost ended up in a mental institution :)
Really good video. I work in Local Government in the UK (what’s left of it) and it’s noticeable that jobs which 30 or 40 years ago were largely done by women were always paid less than those jobs which were largely done by men. Over the years the workforce has become more mixed, jobs have become more complex with changes in legislation and more responsibility as middle management is reduced and as a result Equal Pay Reviews have sorted out some of the historic inequalities but they are still there in some cases.
One of the most complete and informative takedowns of a fool I've ever seen! Well done for another banger mate!
As someone that works in this field (within economics), but is way too busy these days with research (8 active working papers) and reviewer revisions for some forthcomings , thank you for taking the time UE to make information on the topic accessible to laymen. I wish I could be doing what you are doing, whilst probably engaging a little more with models of discrimination and stereotyping. :)
Actual Economist DESTROYS Jordan Peterson's BAD Arguments with FACTS and LOGIC