Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Why Did Cathy Newman Lose to Jordan Peterson？

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 18, 2018 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:01:57

Why Did Cathy Newman Lose to Jordan Peterson？

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We're saying that we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters.
	Jordan Peterson recently came to the UK and as part of his visit he appeared on a debate with Kathy Newman, a TV presenter with Channel 4.
	For anyone wondering, Channel 4 is so named because when we had terrestrial analog television, we only had four channels, with Channel 4 being the newest one, and they simply called it Channel 4.
	The debate itself was a real pleasure to watch, and I'll leave a link in the description for anyone who wants to watch it.
	And I suggest you do watch it in advance of this video because I'm not going to be addressing absolutely every single little thing in the debate, but I'm going to be pulling out things that I think are important to address in a way that Peterson couldn't address during the live setting.
	Before we start, I just want to say I don't know what Kathy's personal political philosophy is.
	I don't know how she sees herself on the political spectrum and I don't know how she votes.
	And I would like to be charitable and suggest that perhaps she is just rather good at playing devil's advocate, but I honestly suspect that Kathy doesn't really understand her own political philosophy and the underlying principles by which it operates and the goal to which the political philosophy she follows would be heading.
	And I'm honestly not trying to sound belittling or condescending when I say that, because frankly, most people don't.
	And so it's very easy for them to get led astray by convincing rhetoric and end up advocating for things that if they had really taken the time to break these things down into their component points and principles, they wouldn't actually advocate for because they would realize that what they're advocating for is either impossible or immoral.
	I believe that Kathy does identify herself as a feminist, and I've found interviews where she certainly has identified her husband as a feminist.
	So I assume that she adopts that label as well.
	And I assume this because it seems self-evident from her own rhetoric, in the way that she has dichotomized men and women into the neo-Marxist class struggle.
	And it's mostly, you admit, it's mostly men listening.
	I mean, 90% of your audience is a male.
	Well, it's about 80% on YouTube.
	Does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male?
	Does that, isn't, isn't that a bit divisive?
	Straight out of the gate, Kathy is asking things that really don't make any sense.
	Peterson doesn't choose his audience, his audience chooses him.
	He doesn't get to decide whether someone listens to him or not, and he can't control the kind of people who listen to him.
	The audience has divided itself.
	People who are interested in Jordan Peterson may well be overwhelmingly male, and that may be a consequence of them using YouTube.
	But let's assume for now it's the consequence of his message.
	But it really could only be considered divisive if having an audience that is majority male is considered to be a problem.
	And the only group of people that I can think of that have a problem with something that is male-dominated are feminists.
	So when she accuses him of having an audience that is mostly male, and that in and of itself is a divisive thing, what she's saying is that feminists wouldn't approve of him having a mostly male audience because feminists don't approve of anything being mostly male.
	As Peterson is probably the single best activist against neo-Marxist versions of modern feminism, it doesn't surprise me that feminists would take issue with how he is operating.
	No, I don't think so.
	I mean, it's no more divisive than the fact that YouTube is primarily male and Tumblr is primarily female.
	Isn't that Tumblr is primarily female?
	She's only speaking off the cuff, so I don't want to go at her too hard on this, but I find that when people are speaking off the cuff, they say the first thing that springs into their mind, which is generally the logical conclusion of their own train of thought up until that point.
	So when she says men using YouTube and women using Tumblr is divisive, she must be looking at this through a lens of intent, as if this has been organized in order to divide men and women.
	Whereas in reality, it's the consequence of personal preferences.
	There has been no one overseeing who goes to YouTube and who goes to Tumblr.
	The worldview that would construct a question or accusation like that must be fundamentally inaccurate, because to be divisive ascribes intent.
	No one intended for the systems we have to end up as they are.
	They are the consequences of free choice.
	It is not that there has been an attempt to divide men and women.
	It is that men and women are different, and this results in divisions of interest.
	And so men and women may well find themselves with different interests on average and follow those inclinations, leading them to spaces that are not 50% male or female.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	Especially if men are currently experiencing a crisis of masculinity, which is what Jordan Peterson then addresses, to which Kathy Newman replies, Peterson obviously handles that question admirably, but the fact that that question is asked is deeply disturbing to me.
	What happened to the fabled empathy of women, Kathy?
	For you to say, well, men are having problems.
	Well, why should women help?
	What's in it for the women to help men?
	As if men are the enemy of women and women are a discrete faction that are at war with men, Kathy.
	That's such an absurd question.
	What's in it for women to help men?
	That's an amazing thing to ask.
	A, half of the human race is made up of men, Kathy.
	Women want to, on average, have husbands and boyfriends and partners who happen to be male.
	Maybe, as Jordan Peterson rightly points out, it would be good for the women if the men were also happy and decent and had their own prospects in life.
	But if you see men as a monolith to be defeated, it may well lead you to ask the question, well, what's in it for women to help men?
	And by that logic, on what grounds do you have the temerity to say, well, men need to help women?
	Feminists like Kathy Newman are lucky that men do not see life as a competition between men and women.
	Because if they did, imagine going to your competitor, your opponent, and asking them in the most haughty, entitled manner to simply roll over and give you what you want.
	Why would they ever say yes?
	And yet, feminism has come as far as it has come on the back of this assumption.
	But as I said, Peterson answers this in the most concise and appropriate way possible when dealing with a female feminist.
	He appeals directly to her self-interest.
	Well, what sort of partner do you want?
	You want an overgrown child?
	Or do you want someone to contend with that's going to help you?
	This is not only a fantastic and empathetic answer, but it also puts Kathy on the horns of a dilemma.
	Either she says, no, I don't want to help men and I do want to be overbearing to them, making her look like a bully, or it puts her in a position where she is forced to concede that yes, women also have obligations and responsibilities to men in the same way that men have obligations and responsibilities to women.
	Because the human race is broadly made up of two genders and they need one another.
	So you're saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity.
	Yes, Kathy, because the crisis of masculinity has been generated by women.
	This is the consequence of relentless feminist activism for the last 50 years.
	This is the purpose of it all, to destroy gender roles.
	Men weren't begging to have gender roles destroyed because men have got used to their gender roles.
	They have accepted that women want them to be men.
	And not only that, it is women raising the men.
	If you look at the single-parent household statistics and the dearth of single-parent families that are headed by the father, the crisis of masculinity is a problem that the male half of your country is experiencing, primarily because of the female half.
	So if you want to view men as something other than your enemy, then you might have to sit there and think, well, maybe, just maybe, there is something women can do to help men.
	Because believe it or not, as much as we have fictionalized men into being these unstoppable titans against the unbelievable fragility of women, the reality is that it's not true.
	Men can be fragile too.
	Men have feelings too, which incidentally, Kathy, if you'll remember, is what feminists have been saying for years.
	The problem that feminists have is that men's feelings are not the same as women's feelings.
	Men's needs and drives and goals are not the same as women's goals.
	And feminists are completely unempathetic to that.
	If you are not like a woman, then you are defective.
	That is the feminist position on men and masculinity.
	It's not very empathetic.
	Power is competence.
	And why in the world would you not want a competent partner?
	Well, I know why, actually.
	You can't dominate a competent partner.
	So if you want domination...
	You're saying women want to dominate?
	Is that what you're saying?
	No, I don't.
	I do wish she wouldn't use the term women because Jordan Peterson interprets the term women to mean women.
	Whereas Kathy Newman means it to mean women, to mean the feminist ideological construction of women, which means that it is driven entirely by feminist philosophy.
	So yes, you can say feminists wish to dominate men because they absolutely do.
	Women at large probably don't.
	But what gives you the right to say that?
	I mean, maybe that's how women want their relationships, those women.
	I mean, you're making these vast generalizations.
	I'm a clinical psychologist.
	Right, so you're saying you've done your research and women are unhappy dominating men.
	Did you buy a copy of 50 Shades of Grey, Kathy?
	I didn't say they were unhappy dominating men.
	I said it was a bad long-term solution.
	Okay, you said it was making them miserable.
	Yes, it is.
	And it depends on the timeframe.
	I mean, there can be, there's intense pleasure in momentary domination.
	That's why people do it all the time.
	But it's no formula for a long-term, successful, long-term relationship.
	That's reciprocal, right?
	And I'm sure outside of the context of this debate, Kathy would completely concede that a functional, healthy, long-term relationship does indeed have to be reciprocal.
	But during this debate, she demonstrated a fundamental mindset of men against women and women against men.
	And that's not how the world works.
	But it is how the feminist lens works.
	If Kathy took off this lens and asked herself, should women help men?
	She would probably say yes.
	In the same way that she thinks men should help women.
	Let me put a quote to you from the book.
	Where you say there are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men.
	These are the areas of study dominated by the postmodern stroke neo-Marxist claim that Western culture in particular is an oppressive structure created by white men to dominate and exclude women.
	That statement is completely accurate.
	These courses are called either gender studies, women's studies, or intersectionality.
	These disciplines are opposed to straight white men on the grounds that they are straight white men, because these disciplines are focused around the Marxist lens applied to gender, race, sexuality, and various other non-economic and yet arbitrary characteristics.
	To suggest that a majority of men means that women must be being oppressed.
	To suggest that a majority of white people means non-white people must be being oppressed.
	This is not necessarily true, and yet, with the neo-Marxist lens using post-modernist interpretation, there is no other conclusion.
	But then I want to put minorities too dominating.
	Okay, sure.
	But I want to put to you that here in the UK, for example, let's take that as an example.
	The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%.
	You've got women at the BBC recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job.
	You've got only seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies.
	So it seems to a lot of women that they're still being dominated and excluded, to quote your words back to you.
	There are many men who are also being quote dominated and excluded by the fact that these are highly competitive meritocratic structures.
	Fewer women than men in the overall population are prepared, as Peterson points out, to spend 70 to 80 hours of their week competing for the top jobs and aiming for the highest positions in whatever company you want to talk about.
	It is a tiny fraction of the population that ends up at the top of one of these companies.
	And it turns out that of this fraction, there are more men than women who are prepared to make the personal sacrifices.
	But you're saying basically it doesn't matter if women aren't getting to the top because that's what's skewing that gender pay gap, isn't it?
	You're saying, well, that's just a fact of the fact that women aren't necessarily going to get to the top.
	No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter either.
	You're saying there are multiple reasons for it.
	Yeah, but there is reasons why should women put up with those reasons.
	Why should women put up with those reasons?
	Why should women accept that people get what they deserve?
	Why should women accept that when someone has earned their position at the top of a company through countless hours of personal sacrifice, why should women put up with that?
	It seems to me to be a product of phenomenal entitlement to suggest that women shouldn't have to put up with earning their own success.
	Kathy seems to think that women are entitled to success on the grounds that they are women.
	Why should women be content to be aware of that?
	I'm not saying that they shouldn't put up with it.
	I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong.
	And it is wrong.
	There's no doubt about that.
	The multivariate analysis have been done.
	I'm saying that 9% pay gap exists.
	That's a gap between men and women.
	I'm not saying why it exists, but it exists.
	But why do you care if it exists if there are good reasons for it existing, which is what Jordan Peterson explains to you in the debate?
	It doesn't matter that there is a gap.
	What matters is whether the gap is due to sexism.
	And you can't demonstrate that it is.
	But the multivariant analysis can demonstrate that it's due to a whole host of factors that are mostly due to women's decisions.
	The fact that women lead, on average, different lifestyles to men is why there is a pay gap.
	That's it, Kathy.
	There is not a problem here unless your highest value is not people to be treated fairly under a free system in which they can pursue their own life dreams and goals, but instead for the system to give you a certain number at the end of it.
	For you to say, right, men have this and therefore women also have the same, even though breaking it down into the categories of male and female is arbitrary to begin with, even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that a free system should produce an equal outcome in any way, shape, or form.
	What I'm saying, Kathy, is that you are not demonstrating the mindset of a liberal.
	You are demonstrating the mindset of a communist.
	As a liberal, I understand that every single individual is different and should be treated fairly by the system.
	And that because they are all different, they will all end up with different outcomes in their lives.
	And that is desirable because that is what the individuals who are pursuing their own life goals want.
	A communist looks at the system and says, no, everyone must be the same, which is a philosophy I would find deeply oppressive because I'm not some sort of conformist.
	Put simply, I do not want to be the same as you.
	Even if you are a massively high-achieving individual, I don't want to be like you.
	I want to be like me.
	And the way to treat me fairly is to not tell me that I have to be like you.
	Now, if you're a woman, that seems pretty unfair.
	No.
	If you are a neo-Marxist, that seems pretty unfair because you are a Marxist.
	A woman is not synonymous with a Marxist.
	And therefore, women don't just look at the fact that men and women are different and say, well, that's not fair.
	They say, that's how they want to be, and I am how I want to be.
	And the system is not mistreating me.
	So this is actually completely fair.
	You have to say why it exists.
	But do you agree that it's unfair?
	If you're a woman.
	Not necessarily.
	And on average, you're getting paid 9% less than a man.
	That's not fair, is it?
	Kathy, that doesn't make any sense.
	A woman is not the average.
	A woman is being paid a wage based on what she earned.
	This has nothing to do with the averages.
	You can't just take the situation of any random woman that you've plucked out of the air and then say, well, look, that's not the same as something else.
	Therefore, this is unfair.
	It depends on why it's happening.
	I can give you an example.
	Okay.
	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.
	Again, a vast generalization.
	Some women are not more agreeable than men.
	That's true, but that's right.
	And some women get paid more than men.
	And Peterson hammers the point home here.
	You can't just take an individual and think that it directly applies to a trend because these things are composites of individuals.
	You might be picking an individual who is outside of the general trend.
	So you're saying that by and large, women are too agreeable to get the pay rises they deserve.
	No, I'm saying that that's one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary.
	So the pay gap exists, you accept that.
	But you're saying, I mean, the pay gap between men and women exists.
	You're saying it's not because of gender.
	It's because women are too agreeable to ask for pay rises.
	That's one of the reasons.
	Okay, one of the reasons.
	So why not get them to ask for a pay risk?
	But that's not fair in my presence.
	Many, many times in my career.
	And they just don't.
	John Peterson is talking about dealing with individuals.
	He is talking about dealing with people.
	An actual person he can name sat in front of him and they can explain to him their lives, their motivations, their feelings, how they interpret and interact with the world.
	Kathy is not approaching this like that.
	She is approaching this from a top-down perspective, where she is looking at the overview and saying, right, what do we need to do?
	And I suppose in Kathy's mind, she needs to just propagandize women indiscriminately.
	And this is the difference between Jordan Peterson, an individualist classical liberal, and Kathy, a latent communist and social planner.
	If she were given the power to restructure society so men and women had no choice but to be paid the same, she may well be able through a tyrannical process to institute absolute equality.
	But the one thing she couldn't institute in this manner is freedom.
	Because people are different, to resolve an equality of outcome, you must necessarily restrict people's liberty.
	And Kathy has to ask herself, why is she on the side of oppression?
	Because it really does come down to a choice, Kathy.
	You can either have freedom or you can have equality of outcome.
	I've had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we put together strategies for their career development that involve continual pushing, competing for higher wages, and often triple their wages within a five-year period.
	And you celebrate.
	Of course.
	So.
	Just listen to the tone of her voice when she says that.
	She can't believe that Jordan Peterson celebrates the success of women.
	Because in her mind, it's women as a class.
	And any success of men is at the detriment of women as a class.
	And she thinks that Jordan Peterson celebrating the success of individual women comes at the expense of men as a class, which is not true.
	Do you agree that you would be happy if that pay gap was eliminated completely?
	Because that's all the radical feminists are saying.
	It would depend on how it was eradicated and how the disappearance of it was measured.
	I can tell why he's laughing here.
	I'm absolutely certain.
	It's because she just doesn't understand the things that she's saying.
	The eradication of the gender pay gap is irrelevant to Jordan Peterson.
	Because as far as he's concerned, it's not the product of unfair discrimination.
	It's the product of people's own agency.
	And so it's not wrong for a gender pay gap to exist.
	What's wrong is to try and oppress people so that there is no gender pay gap.
	But she is more focused on the concept of equality as the highest value than the actual satisfaction and freedom of the people working within the system.
	And you're saying if it's at the cost of men, that's a problem.
	Why aren't you, Kathy?
	Why would you not think it wrong to actively discriminate against men?
	I mean, we have laws against flagrant gender discrimination in that way, A, because of feminists, and B, because it's wrong to discriminate against someone on the grounds that they were born a certain way.
	To say you were born male means that you're not allowed a job is unjust.
	This is what you would have to do necessarily in your proposed system, Kathy.
	This is why you find yourself in opposition to people who are not women haters, who are not racists, but are instead liberals.
	People who are interested in freedom.
	People who are interested in the state not tyrannizing its own subjects because they happen to be born in the wrong way.
	But you don't seem to see it.
	It's actually kind of disgusting, to be honest with you.
	Oh, there's all sorts of things that it could be at the cost of.
	It could even be at the cost of women's own interests.
	So.
	Because they might not be happy if they get equal pay.
	No, because it might interfere with other things that are causing the pay gap that women are choosing to do.
	Like having children.
	Well, or choosing careers that actually happen to be paid less, which women do a lot of.
	Isn't it amazing that the biggest obstacle to the goals of feminism isn't men, but women?
	But why shouldn't women have the right to choose not to have children or the right to choose those demanding careers?
	They do.
	They can.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	But you're saying that makes them unhappy, by and large.
	I'm saying that that, no, I'm not saying that.
	And I actually haven't said that so far.
	You're saying it makes them miserable.
	No, I said that what was making them miserable was having weak partners.
	And once again, Kathy, Jordan Peterson is correct.
	Women's happiness is going down.
	Women are not happy with the feminist utopia that you and your feminist cohorts are so desperately trying to enforce upon them.
	It seems, if you would forgive me for saying this, that they're going to find it somewhat more oppressive than being left to their own devices.
	Being the same as men is not what makes women happy, because biologically they are different.
	And as Jordan Peterson explains to you in this interview, they have a different set of pressures on them because of their biological clock.
	They don't have the time and the freedom to pursue a career that a man does if they also want to pursue a family because they have to bear the children.
	The only people in the entire world who object to this natural state of affairs are feminist activists because they want to deny the biological imperatives of women, which are, unfortunately for feminists, different to the biological imperatives of men.
	And that won't change.
	So because for the typical woman, she has to have her career and family in order pretty much by the time she's 35.
	Because otherwise the options start to run out.
	And so that puts a tremendous amount of stress on women, especially at the end of their 20s.
	I think I take issue with the idea of the typical woman, because, you know, all women are different.
	Kathy, that's a reversal of your own position.
	That's what I and Jordan Peterson are arguing for.
	Do you remember yourself arguing for the gender pay gap in which you were arguing that women on average are being paid less than men and now suddenly women are all different?
	And that's what I want to just put another quote to you from the book.
	Well, they're different in some ways and the same in others.
	Okay, you say women become more vulnerable when they have children.
	And you talked in one of your YouTube interviews about crazy harpy sisters.
	So simple question.
	Is gender equality a myth in your view?
	Is that something that's just never going to happen?
	It depends on what you mean by equality.
	Nobody getting the same opportunities.
	Fairly.
	We could get to a point where people were treated fairly or more fairly.
	I mean, people are treated pretty fairly in Western culture already, but we can't.
	But they're really not, though, are they?
	I mean, otherwise, why would there only be seven women running FTSE 100 companies in the UK?
	That, as we have already been over numerous times now, is not necessarily the result of unfair treatment.
	It's because women are not the same as men.
	A smaller percentage of women try to become the leaders of FTSE 100 companies than the percentage of men that try to be the leaders of these companies.
	And that's it.
	That doesn't mean that women are being treated unfairly.
	It's incredible to me how you can have such phenomenally powerful advocate groups such as feminism and intersectionalism and various other far-left neo-Marxist organizations that have taken root in almost every institution in this country and suggest that women are being treated unfairly.
	There are no men's rights activist advocacy groups embedded in all of our structures to counterbalance this.
	It is entirely one-sided.
	And you have the gall to say that women are being mistreated.
	Honestly, it blows my mind, Kathy.
	Why would there still be a pay gap, which we've discussed at length?
	Why are women at the BBC saying that they're getting paid illegally less than men to do the same job?
	That's not fair.
	Let's go to the first question.
	Those are complicated questions.
	And she's working on the presupposition that they're correct.
	They're not.
	For example, at the BBC, Claudia Winkelmann was the highest earning woman earning around half a million pounds a year compared to someone like Chris Evans, who is earning almost £2 million a year.
	Well, why is he being paid more?
	The answer is the market.
	Chris Evans has the most successful show on their channel.
	He has proven himself to be more of a public draw than Claudia Winkelmann.
	Therefore, it is just that he is paid more because he is more successful than her.
	She would not deserve to be paid the same as him.
	When she has the highest rated show, then she will be paid more than him.
	And you know what my response to that would be?
	Good.
	She's earned it.
	Seven women, repeat that one.
	Seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies in the UK.
	Well, the first question might be, why would you want to do that?
	Why would a man want to do it?
	I mean, there's a lot of money at interesting.
	There's a certain number of men, although not that many, who are perfectly willing to sacrifice virtually all of their life to the pursuit of a high-end career.
	So they'll work.
	These are men that are very intelligent.
	They're usually very, very conscientious.
	They're very driven.
	They're very high-energy.
	They're very healthy.
	And they're willing to work 70 or 80 hours a week, non-stop, specialized at one thing to get to the top.
	So you're saying women are just more sensible.
	They don't want that because it's not an Icelandic.
	I'm saying that's part of it, definitely.
	As one of those men who had no interest in rising to the top of a FTSE 100 company, I am saying that women are being sensible.
	I'm saying that.
	I don't think it's very sensible to try and spend your entire life in this kind of hyper-competitive environment.
	Personally, that wouldn't make me happy.
	And I imagine that many, many other people, both men and women, feel the same.
	And you know what?
	More power to them.
	But if that would make you happy, then more power to you as well.
	So you don't think there are barriers in their way that prevent them getting to the top?
	Well, there are some barriers, yeah, like other, like men, for example.
	I mean, to get to the top of any organization is an incredibly competitive enterprise.
	And the men that you're competing with are simply not going to roll over and say, please take the position.
	So let me come back to my question.
	Is gender equality a myth?
	I don't know what you mean by the question.
	Men and women aren't the same and they won't be the same.
	That doesn't mean they can't be treated fairly.
	Is gender equality desirable?
	If it means equality of outcome, then almost certainly it's undesirable.
	That's already been demonstrated in Scandinavia.
	What do you mean by that?
	Equality of outcome is undesirable.
	If some people are naturally more high achievers than other people, and if there is a general trend for these people to mostly be male than female, to not to say that there are no high achieving females, because there are, if that's the case, and you want to equalize what the outcome is, you are necessarily going to have to oppress the high achievers that are unbalancing your equation.
	That's why it's not desirable if you want to live in a free society.
	Well, men and women won't sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them alone to do it of their own accord.
	We've already seen that in Scandinavia.
	It's 20 to 15 female nurses to male, something like that.
	It might not be quite that extreme.
	And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers.
	And that's a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law.
	Peterson is once again completely correct here.
	And I'll leave a link in the description to a documentary called The Gender Equality Paradox, which will explain exactly what Peterson is talking about.
	Those are ineradicable differences.
	You can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices, you will not get equal outcomes.
	Right.
	So you're saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists, call them whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain't going to happen.
	Peterson might not be saying that, but I am saying that.
	It is a fool's errand to try and make women to be like men or men to be like women.
	And as Jordan Peterson pointed out, it will be necessarily tyrannical to do so.
	Your highest value is misaligned with the happiness of the individual.
	You are not interested in people being free.
	You are interested in people being controlled.
	And your justifications and rationalizations for doing so are as thin as paper.
	Only if they're aiming at equality of outcome.
	So you're saying give people equality of opportunity, that's fine.
	It's not only fine, it's eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals and for society.
	But still women aren't going to make it.
	That's what you're really saying.
	Individual women, as you pointed out by saying that 7% of the FTSE 100 are made up of female CEOs or whatever it was, are making it.
	But it's only a certain kind of person that makes it.
	And that kind of person with that kind of motivation and drive is mostly found in the male of the species.
	The female of the species is less likely to be that kind of person.
	And the kind of person we're talking about is the hyper-competitive, highly driven and intelligent and conscientious kind of person that Jordan Peterson has already described.
	Yes, you are on a fool's errand.
	Let me put something else to you from the book.
	You say the introduction of the equal pay for equal work argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality for one simple reason.
	Who decides what work is equal?
	It's not possible.
	So the simple question is, do you believe in equal pay?
	He's already explained to you that your question is malformed.
	He's saying that people should not be arbitrarily and prejudicially discriminated against because of their gender, their race, or any other upright factors.
	But to suggest that individuals do the same work, which they don't, is something that you have to take into account.
	No two people are the same.
	You can't just sit there and treat them like they're robots on a manufacturing line, suggesting that you can predict how many components or units per hour that they will pump out based on their race or gender.
	And honestly, this is my entire problem with social planners.
	They forget that they're dealing with people.
	They think that they're dealing with statistics.
	When you're not, really, you're dealing with the individuals themselves.
	And everything about their designs on society are not for the service of the people in society, but the service of the numbers on their balance sheets.
	Well, I made the argument there.
	It's like it depends on what you're saying.
	So you don't believe in equal pay.
	No, I'm not saying that at all.
	Because a lot of people listening to you will just say, I mean, are we going back to the top of the city?
	That's because you're actually not listening.
	I don't know, Kathy, if the like to dislike ratio on your video and the comments in your Twitter feed and on this video are the barometer of public opinion, and I think that they are, it would seem that everyone is on Jordan Peterson's side and you hold a very unpopular and fundamentally indefensible position.
	I'm listening very carefully, and I'm hearing you basically saying women need to just accept they're never going to make it on equal terms, equal outcomes is how you defined it.
	No, I think it's not.
	If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well just go and play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying at school because I'm not going to get the top job I want.
	Because there's someone sitting there saying it's not possible.
	It's not desirable.
	It's going to make you miserable.
	It's not desirable.
	That's what I said.
	It's a bad social moral.
	I didn't say that women shouldn't be striving for the top or anything like that because I don't believe that for a second.
	Striving for the top, but you're going to put all those hurdles in their way as has been in their way for centuries.
	And that's fine.
	You're saying that's fine.
	Those hurdles are also in the way of men, Kathy.
	That's what a competitive society is.
	Everyone has to overcome the obstacles in front of them.
	He's not arguing for structural discrimination against women, which is what you seem to think women being free is.
	That's just what happens.
	It's okay for women to have to overcome difficulties.
	And if they choose not to overcome those difficulties, that's okay, too.
	No, no, I think I really think that's...
	The page vehicle system is just fine.
	I really think that's silly.
	I do.
	I think that's silly.
	The patriarchy.
	Is it, Kathy?
	Really?
	How did you get anywhere in a patriarchy?
	How did Theresa May become our second female prime minister if we live in a patriarchy?
	It's not that there are insurmountable obstacles.
	It's that most women choose not to surmount them.
	I really do.
	I mean, look at your situation.
	You're hardly unsuccessful.
	Yeah, and I have quite hard to get good.
	But that's okay.
	Battling is good.
	This is all about the money.
	But you talk about men fighting.
	Let me just put another thing to you from the point.
	You have to battle for a high-quality position.
	And Peterson's laughing because that's such a ridiculous thing that he has to ask.
	But so far, her argument has been, I am a woman, therefore I'm entitled to not have to work for what I earn.
	And that's the underlying philosophy behind all of feminism.
	Women deserve it because they are women.
	But men do not get anything because they are men.
	They have to constantly fight.
	And yes, Kathy, character comes from adversity.
	Nothing good was ever produced without someone having to struggle to achieve it.
	As Jordan Peterson says, it's inevitable.
	Well, I notice in your book, you talk about real conversations between men containing, quote, an underlying threat of physicality.
	Oh, there's no doubt about that.
	What about real conversations between women?
	Is that something all are we sort of too amenable and reasonable?
	No, it's just that the domain of physical conflict is sort of off limits for you.
	Well, you just said that I thought to get where I've got.
	Yeah, but what does that make me properly man or something?
	I don't imagine that you've, yeah, to some degree.
	I suspect you're not very agreeable.
	So that's the thing.
	Successful women, I'm not very agreeable.
	Right.
	I've noticed that actually in this conversation.
	And I'm sure it served your career well.
	And there she proves his entire point.
	Agreeable people are not competitive people.
	Competitive people are not agreeable people.
	Competitive people achieve their goals.
	Agreeable people do not.
	That's it.
	This is the entire conversation in a nutshell.
	And Kathy has just assented to everything Jordan Peterson has said.
	Successful women, though, basically have to wear the trousers in your view.
	have to sort of become men to succeed is what you're saying well if they're going to fight succeed Men, certainly, masculine traits are going to be helpful.
	I mean, one of the things I do in my counseling practice, for example, when I'm consulting with women who are trying to advance their careers, is to teach them how to negotiate and to be able to say no and to not be easily pushed around and to be formidable.
	And you need to, if you're going to be successful, you need to be smart, conscientious, and tough.
	Notice how these are three characteristics that you would not instinctively apply to a feminist.
	You might say that they were stupid, selfish, and weak, but you certainly wouldn't call them smart, conscientious, and tough.
	Well, here's a radical idea.
	Why don't the bosses adopt some, the male bosses, shall we say, adopt some female trait so that women don't have to fight and get their sharp elbows out for the pay rises.
	It's just accepted if they're doing the same job, they get the same pay.
	Because you don't deserve to be at the top just because you're a woman, Kathy.
	You have to prove yourself.
	You have to earn it.
	You can't just say, well, I'm a woman, therefore everyone else should change to accommodate me so I don't have to compete with other people.
	That's so entitled, Kathy.
	You don't deserve to be anywhere.
	That's why you had to work and struggle and fight for what you have right now.
	Well, I would say partly because it's not so easy to determine what constitutes the same job.
	But that's because, arguably, there are still men dominating our industries, our society, and therefore they've dictated the terms for so long that women have to battle to be like the men.
	That's not true.
	Kathy, you must be familiar with female group dynamics.
	I mean, I, as a man, just watching them from the outside, I'm familiar with them.
	And they also compete, but they compete in different ways for different things.
	The market sets the damn game.
	And the market is dominated by men.
	No, it's not.
	It's not.
	The market is dominated by women.
	They make 80% of the consumer decisions.
	That's not the case at all.
	If you're talking about people who stay at home looking after children, by and large, they are still women.
	So they're going out doing the shopping.
	But that is changing.
	Once again, Jordan Peterson is right and you are wrong, Kathy.
	And no, it's not going to change.
	The number of men who are stay-at-home fathers is not changing significantly.
	And it will always be a minority.
	Because if you think about what this means, it's that women shape society by their demands.
	Women want strong, competent men to be breadwinners, and women spend that money in a way that drives the economy.
	As Forbes says right here, if the consumer economy had a sex, it would be female.
	Our entire societies are driven by women's desires, and feminists are taking advantage of that by misapplying statistics and claiming oppression where it does not even exist.
	You are proof of that, Kathy!
	That's why, in modern western societies, women live in the lap of luxury and feminists can still claim they are being oppressed.
	And instead of roundly laughing at feminists, society roundly laughs at men's rights activists, despite the fact there are actually demonstrable injustices that happen to men and fathers in favor of women.
	This is the problem that we are having with feminism.
	People want to cater to it.
	But when men are falling behind, statistically in almost every category they are, whether it comes to education, whether it comes to employment prospects or life expectancy, nobody gives a damn, Kathy.
	And you are sat here acting like men should roll over for women despite the lie that you want to be treated the same as men.
	This is not something that can continue.
	This is not just.
	You do not even understand your own ideology as Jordan Peterson has publicly demonstrated.
	That's been proven that men for the you buy a blue bicycle helmet is going to cost less than a pink one.
	Anyway, we'll come on to that.
	Part because men are less agreeable.
	Right, so they won't put up with it.
	That's the problem, is it, Kathy?
	You know that men are the overwhelming number of deaths in the workplace.
	But for you, someone in a nice air-conditioned office who has a well-paid position that she can sit there and pontificate about her own gender interests for, being charged more for a pink bicycle helmet is the main point of contention.
	Is it Kathy?
	Here's an idea for you.
	Why don't you start living to your feminist ideals and reject the gender binary and just buy the blue one?
	I want to ask you, is it not desirable to have some of those female traits you're talking about?
	I'd say that's a generalization, but you've used the words female traits.
	Is it not desirable to have some of them at the top of business?
	I mean, maybe there wouldn't have been a lot of people who are banking crisis.
	They don't predict success in the workplace.
	The things that predict success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness.
	Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace.
	So you're saying high negative emotions.
	You're saying that women aren't intelligent enough to run these top companies.
	And this is where we get to the point where Kathy just has lost the entire thread of the conversation.
	None of her premises were correct.
	Peterson dismantled each and every one of them.
	And so she is reduced to saying absurdities.
	Like Peterson is saying that women are not smart enough to run companies.
	Even though she herself has demonstrated that there are women who are smart enough to run companies.
	He's not saying anything of the sort.
	But this is what she is being reduced to accusing him of.
	I didn't say that at all.
	You said that female traits don't predict success.
	But I didn't say that intelligence wasn't successful.
	I didn't say that intelligence and conscientiousness.
	Well, you were saying that female traits and conscientiousness, by implication, are not female traits.
	No, no.
	I mean, that's very dangerous, not saying that at all.
	Are women less intelligent than men?
	No.
	No, they're not.
	I don't know what to do and just laugh at this point along with Dr. Peterson because he has all of the facts.
	He's absolutely correct here.
	She's absolutely wrong here.
	Nothing she's saying is actually correct, but it is politically correct.
	And that is the root of the problem.
	Feminist orthodoxy is mainstream politics at this point and informs everything about the political decisions that the political, media, and educated classes in this country make.
	And it doesn't resemble reality.
	Feminine traits.
	Why are they not desirable?
	It's hard to say.
	I'm just laying out the empirical evidence.
	Like, we know the traits that predict success.
	But we also know, because companies by and large have not been dominated by women over the centuries, we have nothing to compare it to.
	It's an experiment.
	True, and it could be the case that if companies modified their behavior and became more feminine, they would be successful.
	But there's no evidence for it.
	I'm not neither doubtful nor non-doubtful.
	There's no evidence for it.
	So why not give it a go as the radicals?
	Because the evidence suggests, well, it's fine.
	Like if someone wants to start a company and make it more feminine and compassionate, let's say, and caring in its overall orientation towards its workers and towards the marketplace, then that's a perfectly reasonable experiment to run.
	And I suppose Jordan Peterson or Kathy Newman weren't aware of who Samantha Brick is, who in 2009 wrote an article for the Daily Mail explaining how her all-female company collapsed into bitch fights, backbiting, and the sort of typical playground dynamics of female groups.
	It just didn't work because of the egocentrism of the women involved.
	And again, I'll leave all of these links in the description.
	You can go and read them all for yourself.
	And I recommend you do, because it's not a panacea to just have women running everything.
	Like it's not a panacea to have men running everything.
	But it is a very good solution to let competent people who prove themselves to run things regardless of their gender.
	You got in trouble for refusing to call trans men and women by their preferred personal pronouns.
	No, that's not actually true.
	I got in trouble because I said I would not follow the compelled speech dictates of the federal and provincial government.
	I actually never got in trouble for not calling anyone anything.
	That didn't happen.
	You wouldn't follow the change of law, which was designed to be a lot of people discrimination.
	No.
	Wow, well, that's what they said it was designed to do.
	Okay, you cited freedom of speech in that.
	Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?
	This is possibly the most patently ridiculous question I have ever heard asked in my entire life, because there is no such thing and can be no such thing as the right not to be offended, as Jordan Peterson explains in his rebuttal.
	Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.
	I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now.
	You know, like you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth.
	Why should you have the right to do that?
	It's been rather uncomfortable.
	Well, I'm very glad I put you on the spot.
	Well, I'm very glad that I have that.
	But you get my point.
	You get my point.
	It's like, you're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell's going on.
	And that is what you should do.
	But you're exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me.
	And that's fine.
	I think more power to you, as far as I'm concerned.
	So you haven't sat there and I'm just trying.
	I'll just try to work that out.
	I mean.
	Ha, gotcha.
	You have got me.
	You have got me.
	I'm trying to work that through my head.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It took a while.
	It took a while.
	It did, it did, yeah.
	It took a while.
	I do genuinely wonder if Kathy sat down afterwards and wondered why she thought the right not to be offended was something anyone was entitled to.
	I mean, imagine how much privilege you would have to enjoy in society for society at large, people who don't even know you, to be careful and conscientious as to whether they offend you or not.
	I mean, she sat here arguing for some form of gender communism where women should be given things despite the fact they haven't earned them at the expense of the men that have.
	And she's not wondering why there might be many men in the country who are deeply offended by that.
	If people have a right not to be offended, Kathy, I think you have some apologies to be doling out.
	What I said at the beginning was that I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists, regardless of whether or not it was put in law.
	That's what I said.
	And then the people who came after me said, well, you must be transphobic and you'd mistreat a student in your class.
	It's like, I never mistreated a student in my class.
	I'm not transphobic.
	And that isn't what I said.
	Well, except you've also called trans campaigners authoritarian, haven't you?
	I mean, isn't that clear?
	Well, only in the broader context of my claims that radical leftist ideologues are authoritarian, which they are.
	I'd give you a citation, but just flick through my previous videos and pick one.
	Just pick one.
	Preferably one about Lindsay Shepard.
	I think she will be able to give you a very personal account of her experiences with radical authoritarian ideologues.
	Saying someone who's trying to work out their gender identity, who may well have struggled with that, had quite a tough time struggle.
	comparing them with you know chairman Mao who know just for the deaths of millions of people just even if the activists so why not What prevents the neo-Marxist, radical left-wing communist activists from being anything like Chairman Mao and his philosophy?
	Have you seen the number of them that defend him?
	I mean, Diane Abbott is a defender of Mao.
	You know, they're trans people too.
	They have a right to say these things.
	Yeah, but they don't have a right to their whole community.
	Compare them to Chairman Mao or, you know, I could Pinochet, Augusto Pinochet.
	I mean, you know, this is grossly insensitive.
	I didn't compare them to Pinochet.
	That's true.
	Pinochet dealt with his communist problem.
	Mao was the communist problem.
	Well, I did compare.
	He's a right-winger, though.
	I was comparing them to the left-wing totalitarians.
	And I do believe they are left-wing totalitarians.
	Under Mao, millions of people died.
	Yes, exactly, Kathy.
	And if these radical left-wing activists, I mean, you have cited radical feminists twice in this interview, and they share distinct similarities in their philosophy with Mao.
	The difference is they don't apply to economics, but gender.
	Either way, we still know that the end result is bad.
	Why would we do anything they wanted?
	Why would we take any of their advice, especially when everything they say can be refuted in a half-hour interview?
	You have been co-opted by these people.
	You have been subverted by them.
	You don't even live by their principles.
	You struggle hard for what you achieve and you are a successful woman and yet you still parrot their talking points.
	You need to think about the root of what you're saying.
	There's no comparison between Mao and a trans activist, is there?
	Why not?
	Because trans activists aren't killing millions of people.
	The philosophy that's guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.
	And so she makes an appeal to context.
	Well, if the trans activists aren't killing anyone, then they will never do anything bad, despite the fact they're following the same philosophy that, as Jordan Peterson is about to explain, will end up necessarily with injustices.
	The question is just the scope of those injustices.
	And I'll tell you what, if that's her argument, then I agree with her.
	We shouldn't be putting them in charge of anything.
	The consequences are yet.
	You're saying that trans activists could lead to the deaths of millions of people.
	No, I'm saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of people.
	Kathy, in the UK, almost half of trans people have attempted suicide.
	And that's despite the fact instances of LGBT bullying have gone down.
	People are more tolerant of trans people than ever before, and yet half of them have still attempted to commit suicide.
	I don't think that this is a favorable situation for trans people.
	I think there may be other ways of helping them.
	And I'm not saying trying to stop them from being trans.
	But what I am saying is we probably shouldn't be encouraging them to be trans, because frankly, I don't think that's a good thing.
	I think that's what needs to be done when someone is in an unfortunate situation, when they are born into the wrong body.
	And I'm happy to believe that there are people like that.
	But we shouldn't be fostering it and pushing it, which is exactly what the trans activists are doing.
	They're doing it for the service of their ideology, not the service of the people it's going to affect.
	And I say that as someone who universally uses the preferred pronouns of trans people.
	Okay, tell us how that philosophy is in any way comparable.
	Sure, that's no problem.
	The first thing is that the philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount.
	That's the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China.
	And it's the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists.
	It's identity politics.
	It doesn't matter who you are as an individual.
	It matters who you are in terms of your group identity.
	That is an absolute slam dunk for Jordan Peterson there.
	He is absolutely correct.
	These societies, these philosophies did not value the individual in the same way that neo-Marxists now do not value the individual because they are collectivists and not individualists.
	And Kathy just responds with this.
	You're just saying though, to provoke, aren't you?
	I mean, you are a provocative.
	I never said that.
	You're like the alt-right that you hate to be compared to.
	Kathy, that was so phenomenally inappropriate.
	I don't even know where to begin.
	You didn't listen to a word he said there.
	He is correct.
	These philosophies place the collective above the individual.
	And that leads to piles of bodies because the individuals no longer matter.
	If you think that's provocative, then maybe you should really think about why you hold the ideology you do.
	You are defending a murderous ideology, Kathy, and he is trying to tell you that.
	And you're just saying, well, you're just being provocative.
	It'll all be okay if you just agree with me, which is exactly the reason that collectivism never works.
	Because not everyone agrees with you.
	Oh my God.
	You want to stir things up.
	I'm only a provocateur insofar as when I say what I believe to be true, it's provocative.
	I don't provoke.
	She doesn't understand that to a liberal, that is not a provocative statement at all.
	But to a collectivist totalitarian, it's entirely provocative because it directly implies and implicates the collectivists themselves in what will end up being a series of injustices, each worse than the last.
	And she doesn't want to accept that she will be complicit in this.
	Whether by design or unintentionally, it will not matter.
	She will bear some measure of responsibility.
	So you're saying like the lobsters, we're hardwired as men and women to do certain things to sort of run along tram lines and there's nothing we can do about it.
	No, I'm not saying there's nothing we can do about it because it's like in a chess game, right?
	There's lots of things that you can do, although you can't break the rules of the chess game and continue to play chess.
	and biological, your biological nature is somewhat like that, is it sets the rules of the game, but within those rules you have a lot of leeway.
	But the idea that, but one thing we can't do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.
	It's like that's patently absurd.
	It's wrong.
	It's not a matter of opinion.
	It's seriously wrong.
	Hierarchy is inevitable for social animals because the social animals are not all the same.
	And while differences remain between them and some are more adept at some things than others, you will inevitably find yourself with a hierarchy.
	As Jordan Peterson is saying, this predates the concept of civilization by millions of years.
	And so instead of addressing this, Kathy makes another character attack.
	Aren't you just whipping people up into a state of anger?
	Not at all.
	Divisions between men and women.
	You're stirring people up.
	You know, you have any critics of you online get absolutely lambasted by your followers.
	Who is stirring up more division between men and women than feminists?
	Kathy.
	I honestly want to know who you think is more divisive than feminism.
	And if you think it's literally anyone else, then what you're saying is that feminism is already hegemonic and has control and now just seeks to make everyone settled under its rubric.
	And by means of generally, sorry, your critics get lambasted by you.
	I mean, isn't that irresponsible?
	Not at all.
	If an academic is going to come after me and tell me that I'm not qualified and that I'm not, I don't know what I'm talking about.
	Quit the abuse, quit the anger.
	Well, we'd need some substantial examples of the abuse and the anger before I could detail that question.
	There's a lot of it out there.
	Holy shit, Kathy.
	Why do you think there might be a lot of it out there?
	Do you think it might be because of powerful feminists who view this as a gender war against men and so treat all men as if they're Fortune 500 CEOs?
	Whereas in fact, many of them, in fact, the overwhelming majority of them, are just regular guys who are going about their jobs and earning their modest wage and making the world in which you exist run for your convenience.
	And you have the temerity to tell them that they're bad fucking people.
	That they are the fucking problem.
	That somehow them just being men is the problem.
	And that is something that you have no right to try and take away from them, which is why you have ended up at the end of this publicly humiliated and whining like a child that there are people who you have offended on Twitter and you just don't want to hear from them.
	You just consider them trolls.
	They're not worth dealing with.
	They're not people with legitimate problems and criticisms of you and the way you are approaching life and using and exploiting your position of power.
	And I tell you what, I don't blame Jordan Peterson for just laughing at you at the end of this debate because you are so out of touch with what's going on in the world.
	You do not have a command of the facts.
	You don't understand your own ideology.
	You don't even understand why people are angry at you because you are in a bubble and it's time that bubble was popped.
	Jordan Peterson, thank you.
	My pleasure.

▲