Higher rates of suicide
Lower grades
Higher rates of medication
Lower post secondary enrolement
All items previously identified by other posters.
I still fail to see how any of these issues, with the exception of medication, are anything but an example of individual choice or by actions of the individual? Isn't that what people like Peterson want?
Quote:
It's odd that you think failure to enroll is on the MALE student only. Why do you believe that we are handing both the Male and Felamle student with the same level of encouragement and preparedness. You are making a false equality of opportunity argument without accounting for underlying factors that limit or enhance the opportunity. It is just as foolish to believe that the differing post secondary enrolement between men and women is a choice as it is to believe that the lost employment opportunities driven by child rearing bring disproportionately born by women is a choice.
It is not just a male thing. Females fail to enroll as well. But when it comes to enrolling and following through to go to classes, women tend to do it more, or at least that's what enrollment statistics say.
Are you seriously suggesting that people failing to apply to school is the same as a woman getting pregnant?
Quote:
Structural factors in our society which create these differences in opportunity need to be reviewed and addressed.
What structural factors? Isn't this exactly what Peterson is arguing against?
Quote:
As for the nurse add it's the exception that proves the rule and the reaction to it is entertaining. Compare it to the encouraging enrolement in engineering programs that have done on for about 40 years at least in Canada. These programs being led by the professional associations and universities.
So trying to attract individuals from one group to one faculty is wrong, but to another is okay? Nursing has been trying to attract men into the faculty for years, and has had some degrees of success, but there has been a stigma associated with it being a "woman's job," kind of like IT and engineering jobs being a "guy's job." That is why schools attempt to recruit in different populations, to diversify the representation in particular jobs, and develop a more heterogeneous workforce. It happens in most faculties, but it is more noticeable in certain programs because of the dominance of one sex over another. Some of you weren't alive to see it, but it wasn't that long ago that women didn't go to college, and if they did, they were accused of being their only to get their MRS degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
But this only applies to males, right? Because the lack of women in STEM industries is clearly because the system is structured in such a way that we discourage women from actually TRYING to enroll into STEM classes, and therefore the system needs to be changed. But when it comes to males, the system is fine.
Tell me just how many male students have lost their positions or opportunity to go to college or university as a result of a position in a STEM class being held for women only? Putting together recruiting programs to try and appeal to specific populations of customers happens all the time. This is not new, or news. And it happens to both sexes.
Quote:
Do you even read your own hypocritical comments?
They aren't hypocritical. You guys are getting all worked up over recruiting programs, instead of looking at the enrollment statistics versus the population of individuals who could go to school. If boys do not want to go to school, that's on them! If a girl is more motivated to enroll in college and try to better herself, that is on her. Just like if a boy decides to enroll, that's on him. But when the statistics show that boys are not enrolling to the same degree as girls, how is that anything but on the male students?
Quote:
Some of the comments you have posted in the last few pages, especially those talking about forcing Peterson to 'shut up' are pretty much fascist. You are trying to use his being part of a faculty to limit his freedom of speech.
Yeah, I reviewed those and saw the error in my comments and stated as such. Get over it. People make mistakes, and I admitted my mistake in the position I had taken. Peterson has the right to say what he wants, no matter the outcome to his institution.
BTW, he can thank tenure for that (where are all the RWers now complaining about the protections afforded by tenure?). A delicious bit of irony there.
Quote:
Scary world you live in.
Yes, it is. When the majority and purveyors of power can sit and whine and cry about being oppressed by the minority, or those without power, and there is a large segment of the population that buys that, it is a scary world.
I still fail to see how any of these issues, with the exception of medication, are anything but an example of individual choice or by actions of the individual? Isn't that what people like Peterson want?
You can't argue it both ways. Structural factors can either affect choices or they can't. If you advocate that structural factors can affect opportunity then you should acknowledge that it applies to both man and women. You are correct that Pederson would likely be opposed to both. I am not Peterson though and believe that these structural affects can and do apply to both genders. Your position that when women are under represented its structural but when men are under represented it's choice is hypocritical.
Quote:
It is not just a male thing. Females fail to enroll as well. But when it comes to enrolling and following through to go to classes, women tend to do it more, or at least that's what enrollment statistics say.
I'd be interested in which enrolement statistics you would argue show this. Things like class attendance rates being gender specific are likely results of the different priority parents place on their sons and daughters education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Are you seriously suggesting that people failing to apply to school is the same as a woman getting pregnant?
Getting pregnant is not what reduces a women's employment potential. It's the societal expectation of women as caregiver which leads to (by choice or by structural influence) women to work less hours and pursue less career track roles. In the same way societal structures which do not encourage men in female dominate fields or any fields in general at the same rates of their female counterparts.
Essentially societal expectations of genders and the interventions society provides leads to unequal opportunities which lead to unequal outcomes
Quote:
So trying to attract individuals from one group to one faculty is wrong, but to another is okay? Nursing has been trying to attract men into the faculty for years, and has had some degrees of success, but there has been a stigma associated with it being a "woman's job," kind of like IT and engineering jobs being a "guy's job." That is why schools attempt to recruit in different populations, to diversify the representation in particular jobs, and develop a more heterogeneous workforce. It happens in most faculties, but it is more noticeable in certain programs because of the dominance of one sex over another. Some of you weren't alive to see it, but it wasn't that long ago that women didn't go to college, and if they did, they were accused of being their only to get their MRS degree.
Absolutely agree, I just think you are putting your head in the sand now as the demographics swing the other way.
Quote:
If boys do not want to go to school, that's on them!
Isn't this precisely the opposite of the previous paragraph. If society does not encourage boys to go to school at the same rates as girls that is on society. High School grades when looked at in aggravate in my opinion are function of how well society is doing at educating children rather than a choice of individuals.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I believe it’s fairly obvious that New Era was suggesting Peterson would be “shut up” through getting trounced intellectually by his peers, being that one would assume there are enough intellectuals at the UofT that could point out the errors (especially when he speaks far out of his wheelhouse).
That’s not fascism. The fact that you call it fascism is ridiculous.
Wanting to 'suppress' or shutup an opposing opinion, especially intellectually or in academia is fascist. It boggles my mind at the sheer ignorance of believing that it is in any way a GOOD thing to drown out or 'shut up' differing opinions to your supposed superior viewpoint.
That one would think Peterson would 'learn to shut up' because an intellectual superior would 'put him in his place' is crazy, and goes against the foundation of any free society, much less the fundamental idea of free speech. I do not agree with gender identity or the stupidity of thinking pronouns should be used to describe people, however I do not have a problem with the debate around it from BOTH sides. I do have a problem with forced speech, or with wanting to restrict speech. It is rather amusing how both those things are often part of the same thought pattern, and that thought pattern comes from the same small percentage of people who think that pushing their fascist viewpoint is even a bit constructive.
Quote:
And your hypocrite comment doesn’t land either. New Era’s point is that men are encouraged into these roles, but do not take them, and that is on the individual men. Women, up until recently, weren’t even encourage to take this roles. It’s not on them if they aren’t being encouraged, or worse, are being discouraged to take certain roles. But when there is an active push to entice a population into a certain career path or role, and it’s still not happening, then it’s fair to assume that’s more on the population than society.
Seems basic to me. Where did you lose that part of it?
Oh please. Like Cliff said, there is little evidence to suggest that women are being told 'hey you are not good enough to solve these math problems, so off to nursing school with you.' I would place that conclusion over there in the same corner with the gender wage gap one.
I would say there is more stigma involved with boys going to nursing school which is a female dominated industry, then there is with girls going into any kind of STEM related industry.
In North America, nursing is one of the fastest growing job sectors, and I certainly don't see any kind of effort being made to fill that worker gap by making a bigger effort to recruit boys. But I suppose if one were to suggest that, all the feminists would be up in arms over the gender discrimination.
They aren't hypocritical. You guys are getting all worked up over recruiting programs, instead of looking at the enrollment statistics versus the population of individuals who could go to school. If boys do not want to go to school, that's on them! If a girl is more motivated to enroll in college and try to better herself, that is on her. Just like if a boy decides to enroll, that's on him. But when the statistics show that boys are not enrolling to the same degree as girls, how is that anything but on the male students?
There is nothing wrong with saying that if either boys or girls don't want to enroll, that is on them. Personal responsibility aside I take serious issue with the idea that if boys don't enroll, that is their fault, but if we don't see an uptick in enrollment by girls in male dominated fields, then there is something wrong with the system.
Quote:
Yeah, I reviewed those and saw the error in my comments and stated as such. Get over it. People make mistakes, and I admitted my mistake in the position I had taken. Peterson has the right to say what he wants, no matter the outcome to his institution.
Good enough.
Quote:
BTW, he can thank tenure for that (where are all the RWers now complaining about the protections afforded by tenure?). A delicious bit of irony there.
I don't care about tenure. I care about the idea of free speech, and how hypocritical the gender pronoun proponents are with their stupid arguments.
Quote:
Yes, it is. When the majority and purveyors of power can sit and whine and cry about being oppressed by the minority, or those without power, and there is a large segment of the population that buys that, it is a scary world.
There is little evidence to suggest that Dr. Peterson refusing to refer to someone in the pronoun they prefer is in any way oppression or even abusive as many of the proponents of that fascist idea think it is.
But then again, we are not whining and crying. We are trying to protect the fundamental idea of free speech.
Wanting to 'suppress' or shutup an opposing opinion, especially intellectually or in academia is fascist. It boggles my mind at the sheer ignorance of believing that it is in any way a GOOD thing to drown out or 'shut up' differing opinions to your supposed superior viewpoint.
That one would think Peterson would 'learn to shut up' because an intellectual superior would 'put him in his place' is crazy, and goes against the foundation of any free society, much less the fundamental idea of free speech.
No, it isn’t, not in the context you’re talking about.
Shutting down an opinion by dismantling it and debating the holder into letting that opinion or viewpoint go, is not fascist. That’s literally the way you crush bad ideas, by using better ideas to beat them out of existence.
That’s what free speech is. If you can use intellect and good ideas to make someone think “my bad idea is bad, and I’m not going to continue to push it” then that’s progress. Whether or not that’s he kind of shut down New Era was referring to, I don’t know, but I certainly don’t see how it’s “crazy.”
Regarding the second half of your comment, are you just.... unaware... of the progress made over the last 100 years as far as a woman’s place among men goes? A lot of industries, and a lot of career paths, are still male dominated in part because of certain stigmas and “boys clubs.” You’d have to be wilfully ignorant to believe that isn’t true. A ton of progress has been made, which should be noted, but putting on the blinders and saying there are no barriers to female advancement in many different industries is completely wrong.
No, it isn’t, not in the context you’re talking about.
Regarding the second half of your comment, are you just.... unaware... of the progress made over the last 100 years as far as a woman’s place among men goes? A lot of industries, and a lot of career paths, are still male dominated in part because of certain stigmas and “boys clubs.” You’d have to be wilfully ignorant to believe that isn’t true. A ton of progress has been made, which should be noted, but putting on the blinders and saying there are no barriers to female advancement in many different industries is completely wrong.
Maybe still in the public sector, but in the private sector, I'd argue the economics of the hire plays more of a role than gender. Profits drive business, they aren't going to hire one sex over another if it cost them more money to do so, or their chosen sex has less profitability. And if there were really a gender pay gap, women would be the most employed and would be a preferred hire over males, would they not? Why pay more than you have to? I look at my own employer, they absolutely do not care whats between your legs, if you do the job and make the company money, you're in, you cost them money, don't show up for work, you're out. The marketplace and financials are the real decider.
Except we were not talking about debating his opinion and effectively getting him to retract or stop talking, which we all know he won't do nor should he. There is room for a differing opinion, isn't there? Oh right, not in this case. Here we need to muzzle those we disagree with because they are supposedly oppressing others with their 'hate speech.'
We were talking about shutting him up which is what the UoT tried to do, isn't it? In fact if you do a google search you see that a lot of the people who agree with the gender pronoun idea also want to censor Peterson. Crazy isn't it, that not only do they want to force speech, but then they want to restrict it as well when it serves their purpose. Restricting or forcing speech, ESPECIALLY in an academic setting is fascist. They are effectively trying to control or mandate their own viewpoint by telling people what they can say or do.
As for the second part, I never said that progress hasn't been made, or that effort shouldn't be put in to level the playing field. I am saying that the conclusions being jumped to by New Era make no sense. Just like the gender wage gap, there are a lot more 'facts' at play than just the ones that are easily interpreted.
I have zero problem with encouraging more girls to get into STEM fields. I also have no problem with trying to get more women into higher level positions being in the corporate world or in politics. I do have a problem with people who think those same efforts shouldn't be made for boys.
So the answer is be given and not earned? That number will slowly rise because things take time, and i am fine with letting it organically play out.
Most people have the ability to make a choice. The end result of being able to make a choice is inequality that is a scientific fact, don't care if it hurts your feeling.
Think most people on average are happy with the choices they have made in life, except the ones with an agenda
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
I have zero problem with encouraging more girls to get into STEM fields. I also have no problem with trying to get more women into higher level positions being in the corporate world or in politics. I do have a problem with people who think those same efforts shouldn't be made for boys.
I am in STEM and i always get asked by my female friends why there aren't more females. And my answer to them is..for the same reasons you aren't in STEM. I have never met anyone in my field who wasn't capable.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 05-21-2018 at 08:43 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to MelBridgeman For This Useful Post:
You can't argue it both ways. Structural factors can either affect choices or they can't. If you advocate that structural factors can affect opportunity then you should acknowledge that it applies to both man and women. You are correct that Pederson would likely be opposed to both. I am not Peterson though and believe that these structural affects can and do apply to both genders. Your position that when women are under represented its structural but when men are under represented it's choice is hypocritical.
That's funny, because at no time did I suggest that under representation was structural. I don't see recruiting under represented populations as anything other than trying to bolster enrollment and increase the diversity in programs.
Quote:
I'd be interested in which enrolement statistics you would argue show this. Things like class attendance rates being gender specific are likely results of the different priority parents place on their sons and daughters education.
Some of them? All of them? Good lord man, the statistical difference between male and female enrollment is 55/45 female.
It doesn't matter where you look, girls outpace boys in enrolling for school by 10 points or more. Girls have had an advantage since the 80's. Considering that girls have about a 1% advantage in population, that means boys are not enrolling to the levels consistent with the overall population.
Quote:
Isn't this precisely the opposite of the previous paragraph. If society does not encourage boys to go to school at the same rates as girls that is on society. High School grades when looked at in aggravate in my opinion are function of how well society is doing at educating children rather than a choice of individuals.
Or those grades are reflective of how well students apply themselves and prepare themselves for the next step in their lives. Society doesn't encourage girls to go to school any more than boys. If anything, it is the lack of maturity and motivation of male students.
There is nothing wrong with saying that if either boys or girls don't want to enroll, that is on them. Personal responsibility aside I take serious issue with the idea that if boys don't enroll, that is their fault, but if we don't see an uptick in enrollment by girls in male dominated fields, then there is something wrong with the system.
And who said otherwise? As I asked, how many men have been bumped from enrollments to make room for girls in STEM classes? There aren't any, because schools will go out of their way to offer extra sections of popular programs to meet the need. This is not an enrollment issue, this is a recruiting issue, and you're complaining about a program to develop more diversity in the industry, which is driven by industry itself. Schools care about full-time equivalent numbers, and don't care if it is a boy, a girl, or any other gender, so long as the seat is filled.
[/QUOTE]
I don't care about tenure. I care about the idea of free speech, and how hypocritical the gender pronoun proponents are with their stupid arguments. [/QUOTE]
But you should, because tenure is what affords the faculty member the right to free speech. You seem to forget that the faculty member is part of the academy and as a result, the institution. The faculty is a representative member of the institution, and must abide by the policies and values of the college/university.
What gives academics the right to bring controversial subject matter into their classroom is academic freedom - a right granted by the institution. Academic freedom is limited by the subject of study and the expertise of the faculty member. Basically, a Psychology faculty member may speak to controversial issues pertaining to the study of their (gender neutral pronoun) class, as defined by their syllabus document. Anything beyond that is fair game. So if that same Psychology faculty member decided to dip a toe into the pool of Sociology, and discuss a subject like female circumcision, to the point where it offends their class, they are likely in for a rough ride. The faculty member has no expertise in that field as per the constraints of academic freedom is not protected by the institution for those comments.
Tenure affords an extra level of protection, allowing that faculty member a mulligan or two should they dip that toe in the wrong pool. Tenure is granted by the institution, and can be revoked by the institution. Without that protection, faculty must mind their Ps & Qs and stick to their field of expertise and defend their work accordingly.
This is what I have been getting at all along, and as Pepsi has alluded to.
Quote:
There is little evidence to suggest that Dr. Peterson refusing to refer to someone in the pronoun they prefer is in any way oppression or even abusive as many of the proponents of that fascist idea think it is.
But then again, we are not whining and crying. We are trying to protect the fundamental idea of free speech.
Except when that free speech is critical of an individual who refuses to acknowledge someone by the identity they wish to be identified. Seems that if Peterson were really about free speech he wouldn't give a ####, see this is a trivial matter, and address his class in gender neutral language, to respect the individual and their freedom of expression. The fundamental right of free speech is not you exercising yours, but recognizing that others have that right and you respecting their wishes as they communicate with you. The hardest thing about free speech is not having your voice heard, it's hearing the voice of others with which we disagree.
Most people on boards are 55-70. It's an area where lag definitely plays a big part. The quotas or targets in some countries have led to a select group of women, the 'golden sisterhood', being on many boards each. Not sure that's an effective measure.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Update, 5/19/18, 12:30 p.m.: This story has been updated to reflect the following changes. Language clarifying Deborah Lipstadt’s unfamiliarity with Peterson’s work has been added, and mentions to Peterson’s neo-Nazi followers has been removed.
Behold the succor that feminism would grant men:
__________________
Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet.
Evolutionary psychology is junk science pedaled by Nazis.
- signed, an assistant professor of creative writing
Pretty much sums up the quasi-religious, anti-science fervour of today's dogmatic left, where the political values of a creative writing instructor carry more weight than the bodies of the research into human nature from actual scientists.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Salon has been a steaming pile of trash for the better part of a decade now. It's pretty much Breitbart.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
...The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels.
First, it’s unconvincing to everyone who’s not some sort of true believer or faithful follower (or, more cynically, a journalist looking to please an editor demanding yet another Peterson hit piece). No doubt, I’m not the only person who’s wondered what all the fuss is about, decided to take the time to listen to one of Peterson’s YouTube lectures, and come away feeling that the Left’s commentariat is trying to sell me a fake bill of goods. The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many of us to ignore...
...We desperately need a revitalized Left that’s capable of speaking to today’s pressing issues of socio-economic inequality, environmental devastation, and spiritual malaise in informed, intelligent, and inspiring ways. Instead, we’re inundated by shallow ideological crusades dedicated to demonizing thoughtful conservatives like Peterson, who actually have some important ideas to offer—just not on the issues that properly concern the Left...
...I find it even more aggravating that such distortion is typically coupled with a predictable string of gratuitous insults (Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, a transphobe, and so on). Then there’s the self-righteous hand-waving towards some grandiose, yet utterly vague political project (“abolish patriarchy” etc.). If I didn’t have a longstanding commitment to equalitarian politics, I’d be so turned off by these dynamics that I’d want nothing more to do with the Left whatsoever.
If I’m feeling this alienated and fed up, I suspect there are many others who feel the same way. What worries me is that the likely response of many—if not most—of these people will not be to fret about the need for a more deeply thoughtful Left. Instead, they’re going to jump on the anti-PC bandwagon, and either vote for right-of-center candidates or not vote at all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-23-2018 at 09:03 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
So a bit of whats happening in "Feminist Iceland"....
Jordan Peterson is coming here in June, now a bunch of hit pieces have appeared on news sites, and the usual suspects are out with their pitchforks. One of the leading voices of the feminist movement in a closed feminist group posted strategy to attack and discredit him, stating clearly she had never heard of him before but that they needed to find things to say to turn people against him and compile of list of men and women who show support for him or are attending the event.
I had just watched the Red Pill for the first time last week, which opened my eyes to my deep misunderstanding of the MRA movement, like most on the left I assumed nothing but women hating idiots, now I realize there is a seriously large number of them that are reasonable people looking for people to address sincere issues and concerns for men and fathers (daddytoo).
There is a free screening tonight for the Red Pill and we know the feminists are taking screenshots of all those who say "interested" "going" to the event, heard as well they are sending undercover women to see who shows up.
This is all so messed up, the daddytoo movement in Iceland is simply about fathers rights in custody courts, laws. Its a legitimate problem that is systemic and I think many of us know how ugly it can get during custody battles where Fathers are most often the ones who suffer the most.
The liberal left has really made me sick to my stomach, this is my philosophy, liberalism but these people have become the opposite of what this philosophy is all about, trying to shut down speech, stifle any dissent.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post: