PDA

View Full Version : TV Interviewer Silenced (for once)


pulse1
19th Jan 2018, 18:26
I know that many followers of JB share my annoyance at the way most interviewers on TV appear to be more interested in scoring points than finding the truth.

This interview shows one of these, Cathy Newman on Channel 4, being stunned into silence by Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist. I think it is worth watching the whole interview but, for those who have a life, the fun bit starts after about 20 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Mostly Harmless
19th Jan 2018, 19:52
Wow... this interviewer just won't accept the answer that life and society is complicated and there are no simple answers to complex issues.

EGLD
19th Jan 2018, 20:21
This interview was superb

Hopefully it signals the end of the regressive left's spouting of soundbites to support their narrative

Jordan Peterson's facts don't care about her feelings

G0ULI
19th Jan 2018, 21:40
That interview demonstrates the reason for the gender pay gap.

broadreach
19th Jan 2018, 23:17
Lost count of how many times Cathy Newman said ".... so you're saying that...." en route to twisting his words. You see this so often on BBC and many of the American stations, and it only serves to illustrate how shallow the intellect of the interviewers is. As if the main purpose of the interview is not to impart, to a greater audience, whatever knowledge the interviewee might have but to, via the worst cross-examining techniques, to get the interviewee to contradict him/herself up. It seems almost personal, gladiatorial, as if the interviewee were put in there precisely to be sacrificed.

bbrio1
20th Jan 2018, 00:43
He came across as calm and reasonable. I got the impression that she has some kind of a chip on her shoulder.

flash8
20th Jan 2018, 03:55
that guy is amazing... reminds me of 'data' in SNG!

She is well out of her league.

Krystal n chips
20th Jan 2018, 06:24
This interview was superb

Hopefully it signals the end of the regressive left's spouting of soundbites to support their narrative

Jordan Peterson's facts don't care about her feelings

Was it now ?

Here on JB there has always been an undercurrent of misogyny and it's no surprise to read the "accolades " that have emerged regarding this interview.

Cathy Newman has never been one for scoring points in her interviews concentrating instead on trying to establish the truth, and succeeding more often than not, and asking questions many interviewees clearly wish she wouldn't.

She's also a passionate advocate and supporter of the status of women in society and, by way of a generalisation, lets call them women's rights.

Being female, a very competent journalist ( along with the rest of the C4 News team ) and interviewer, she's unlikely to endear herself to those who prefer women to be subservient to their precious over inflated male ego's.


Hence many of you will doubtless be "overjoyed " to read the reaction in the wider world to her interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/channel-4-calls-in-security-experts-after-cathy-newman-suffers-online-abuse

When it gets to the stage that, and given she's reported from umpteen of the worlds conflicts, security measures have to be taken to protect her, that's a savage and damning indictment as to how warped, underdeveloped and malignant the male ego can be when confronted with erudite women.

Ogre
20th Jan 2018, 06:44
I can see how this will be taken as a "shouty snooty male picking on a poor female" interview by some, but to be honest the guy just was very clear about his point of view while the interviewer either didn't get what he was saying or deliberately twisted his words to make him look like the patriarchal bully he was portrayed to be. The leap from left wing marxism and Mao to millions of deaths was a classic example of some facts are leapt on by certain sides of the political scale (you decide which!) and made out to be the end of civilisation as we know it.

Nice differentiation between "female traits" and women in the workplace, if we all truly have a male and a female side and each side has traits then I understand what he was saying.

Not that it would happen, but I would love to see Peterson and Paxman go head to head....

Oh and the quiet "hah, gotcha" line was a classic :ok:

And KnC,

...as to how warped, underdeveloped and malignant the male ego can be when confronted with erudite women

I saw nothing of the sort in that interview. He was calm, composed, and while he may have been a little short to correct misleading statements, he appeared to me to be someone who knew exactly what he was talking about and was not afraid to set the record straight. But then being one of those 50-ish white heterosexual males I must automatically be spouting rubbish.....

Krystal n chips
20th Jan 2018, 07:09
I can see how this will be taken as a "shouty snooty male picking on a poor female" interview by some, but to be honest the guy just was very clear about his point of view while the interviewer either didn't get what he was saying or deliberately twisted his words to make him look like the patriarchal bully he was portrayed to be. The leap from left wing marxism and Mao to millions of deaths was a classic example of some facts are leapt on by certain sides of the political scale (you decide which!) and made out to be the end of civilisation as we know it.

Nice differentiation between "female traits" and women in the workplace, if we all truly have a male and a female side and each side has traits then I understand what he was saying.

Not that it would happen, but I would love to see Peterson and Paxman go head to head....

Oh and the quiet "hah, gotcha" line was a classic :ok:

And KnC,



I saw nothing of the sort in that interview. He was calm, composed, and while he may have been a little short to correct misleading statements, he appeared to me to be someone who knew exactly what he was talking about and was not afraid to set the record straight. But then being one of those 50-ish white heterosexual males I must automatically be spouting rubbish.....

I never said, or suggested, the terms I used to define those males who clearly are misanthropes were applicable to the interviewee.

My views are based on personal experiences of listening, far too often in the 21st century, to such people hence they are still prevalent in society and in environments that tacitly encourage such views.

When, by way of but one example, you hear, repeatedly, the repugnant expression "that's asking to be smashed " concerning any attractive woman, that more than substantiates why women feel threatened and are subjected to abuse really.

Wingswinger
20th Jan 2018, 08:58
I'm sorry Komrad, but your general accusations of an 'undercurrent of misogyny' are simply laughable and far from being a 'very competent journalist' Cathy Newman merely conforms to certain stereotypes of the unthinking feminist which I concede she may have been doing deliberately in order to provoke Jordan Peterson. In doing so brings to one's mind certain lines from "If":

"If you can bear to hear the words you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools".

I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos for a long time. He is one of those voices of sanity in an insane world who are to be found on You Tube such as Sir Roger Scuton, Niall Ferguson, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hitchens and Karen Straughan to name but a few.

felixflyer
20th Jan 2018, 10:22
The job of most interviewers these days is to create content that ends up on YouTube going viral in order to advertise the program and spread it to a wider audience. It's the best advertising there is for a news or chat show type program. The interviewers try to provoke people into getting wound up and saying something that will end up on other media from newspapers to forums such as this.

Unfortunately for the interviewer in this case she was on the losing side and I would expect we will be seeing more of that guy as he presented his arguments well.

I would like to see more debate amongst people who can present their case well without resorting to extreme examples, too often we get unbalanced debate from both sides.

EGLD
20th Jan 2018, 10:24
Was it now ?

Here on JB there has always been an undercurrent of misogyny

:D:D:D:D:D

Hilarious!

A terrible interviewer who was just throwing in strawman insults via "so what you're saying is", and everyone else is a misogynist

Never change leftys


Hence many of you will doubtless be "overjoyed " to read the reaction in the wider world to her interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/channel-4-calls-in-security-experts-after-cathy-newman-suffers-online-abuse


As always with these claims, take them with a massive pinch of salt

felixflyer
20th Jan 2018, 10:42
Hence many of you will doubtless be "overjoyed " to read the reaction in the wider world to her interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...s-online-abuse

When it gets to the stage that, and given she's reported from umpteen of the worlds conflicts, security measures have to be taken to protect her, that's a savage and damning indictment as to how warped, underdeveloped and malignant the male ego can be when confronted with erudite women.

Well reporting from a warzone is likely to get you recognition and journalistic praise. Being attacked by misogynistic males will also get you much sympathy and attention from the predominantly left wing media. Highlighting it in other media is all just profile highlighting and audience building.

I would guess that he has received a fair amount of criticism himself after this interview but doesn't let it bother him, perhaps further proving his initial points.

redsnail
20th Jan 2018, 11:50
I watched the interview and quite enjoyed it. His message did resonate and I enjoyed his debate and how he argued his points. I was listening with my experience as a female in a so-called male dominated industry (I prefer "target rich environment") and my BSc in Psychology. Fascinating interview. I feel Cathy was getting mildly irritated because she heard him put women down versus what he was actually saying and meaning.

To those who think there is no misogyny in this forum (not thread)? You are wrong.

VP959
20th Jan 2018, 12:20
I feel Cathy was getting mildly irritated because she heard him put women down versus what he was actually saying and meaning.


I think this observation is spot on. Either the intended meaning of what he was saying was going over her head, or she was deliberately choosing to ignore it and focus on particular words out of context.

I found what he was saying a pretty accurate assessment of some key gender differences, and would have found the interview more enlightening if he had been allowed to explain these more clearly.

There seems to be a generic problem whenever gender differences are discussed in the media, often with an assumption being made that difference = inequality. My experience of having worked in an environment for a time where female senior staff outnumbered male senior staff, and having had a female boss for three years, is there are very definitely differences in the way men and women approach lots of tasks. It does not mean one is better or worse than the other, it just means that are different.

90% of the disagreements I encountered in this working environment were because of a failing, on both sides, to recognise these inherent differences. It seemed to me that Jordan Peterson has a good understanding of these differences, and the impact they have on both men and women in the workplace, but that Cathy Newman either didn't wan't to understand what he was saying, or deliberately chose to ignore his meaning. That, in itself, may well be one of the key points that Jordan Peterson was trying to make, which is a bit ironic.

Perhaps if she'd had more time to prepare, and read up on some of Jordan Peterson's work and findings, she may well have been better equipped to interview him in more depth. I suspect she was handed a prťcis of his background by her researchers, and that may have led to her underestimating him, a lot.

Krystal n chips
20th Jan 2018, 12:47
I'm sorry Komrad, but your general accusations of an 'undercurrent of misogyny' are simply laughable and far from being a 'very competent journalist' Cathy Newman merely conforms to certain stereotypes of the unthinking feminist which I concede she may have been doing deliberately in order to provoke Jordan Peterson. In doing so brings to one's mind certain lines from "If":

"If you can bear to hear the words you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools".

I have been watching Jordan Peterson videos for a long time. He is one of those voices of sanity in an insane world who are to be found on You Tube such as Sir Roger Scuton, Niall Ferguson, Aayan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hitchens and Karen Straughan to name but a few.

Wingers,

Did you actually read your first paragraph old boy ?.......you see, whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say it was misogynistic, it's hardly a glowing compliment to the lady involved.....now is it ?

And an interesting selection of authors as well.....I wonder what they could all possibly have ideologically in common with yourself ?.....this question ever so slightly tongue in cheek as I'm sure you are aware.

For those who may have missed the classical example on here, the reference to Diane Abbott as a "slattern" during the GE campaign, lets also remember another close contender about "bringing a couple of dogs home " ...and this having nothing to do with our canine friends, then it's possible I may have entirely misconstrued the meaning of.....misogyny.

Cathy Newman is always worth watching and listening to. She also works for C4 News of course, and C4 News is generally open to condemnation here on JB, along with the presenters, so it's unlikely many will have watched her on a regular basis.

Which is a shame really, because, as well as having your minds opened, you are missing a consummate professional in conjunction with the rest of the team.

Still, it must be edifying for some to see others rallying round with a show of mutual support against her.......that's the spirit.....chaps !.

clareprop
20th Jan 2018, 12:50
I thought the interview was a rigorous and fair discussion on both sides. The issue I have is with the mindless morons who treat it as an excuse for abuse and mindless threats because they take a different view.

B Fraser
20th Jan 2018, 13:11
Thanks, I thoroughly enjoyed that video but it was an uneven competition. Only one of them would have been wearing an earpiece and receiving help from the gallery.

Bergerie1
20th Jan 2018, 13:18
I certainly detect a misogynistic bias on Jet Blast and some of the other sections of PPRuNe.

However, whatever the views you may have of the opinions expressed by Jordan Peterson or Cathy Newman, what appalls me ls that she has now been subjected to a deluge of hate mail. It is disgusting that so many people feel free to hide behind the anonymity of the social media to express their hate.

jindabyne
20th Jan 2018, 13:58
I agree clarepop, and don't see what all the fuss is about. An interesting and fair interview, if a tad long; but then my own intellect is somewhat stretched in the matters discussed! :O

EGLD
20th Jan 2018, 14:13
Wingers,

Did you actually read your first paragraph old boy ?.......you see, whilst I wouldn't go so far as to say it was misogynistic, it's hardly a glowing compliment to the lady involved.....now is it ?

And an interesting selection of authors as well.....I wonder what they could all possibly have ideologically in common with yourself ?.....this question ever so slightly tongue in cheek as I'm sure you are aware.

For those who may have missed the classical example on here, the reference to Diane Abbott as a "slattern" during the GE campaign, lets also remember another close contender about "bringing a couple of dogs home " ...and this having nothing to do with our canine friends, then it's possible I may have entirely misconstrued the meaning of.....misogyny.

Cathy Newman is always worth watching and listening to. She also works for C4 News of course, and C4 News is generally open to condemnation here on JB, along with the presenters, so it's unlikely many will have watched her on a regular basis.

Which is a shame really, because, as well as having your minds opened, you are missing a consummate professional in conjunction with the rest of the team.

Still, it must be edifying for some to see others rallying round with a show of mutual support against her.......that's the spirit.....chaps !.

Any chance you can comment on the interview, which is what this thread is about?

KelvinD
20th Jan 2018, 14:15
I heard this bloke being interviewed in a short item on BBC radio recently and it didn't take me long to begin thinking "who is this misogynist clot?". My view of this TV interview pretty much confirmed my original feelings.
Regardless of which TV/Radio organisation you may listen to, it is always worth bearing in mind that people such as this Professor only do these interviews for one reason; to promote their latest book/movie whatever.
I would disagree with the OP regarding the interviewer being "silenced". She took some time to reflect on how the argument was going, what exactly the interviewee was saying etc before coming back with her response. Rather that than have an interviewer shoot from the hip, without pausing for thought.

EGLD
20th Jan 2018, 14:40
I heard this bloke being interviewed in a short item on BBC radio recently and it didn't take me long to begin thinking "who is this misogynist clot?". My view of this TV interview pretty much confirmed my original feelings.

Ok, thanks for sharing your feelings

Can we now talk about the facts and how you would like to justify calling someone a misogynist based on this interview?

Because I've not heard a single person on Newman's side in this interview come up with a single fact against what Peterson said

All I've heard is claims of bigotry and security being hired to protect Newman, it's almost as though they're trying to change the subject by throwing around meaningless labels and insults to shut down the debate as usual

It's like you're learning nothing at all from this

yellowtriumph
20th Jan 2018, 14:42
Was it now ?

Here on JB there has always been an undercurrent of misogyny and it's no surprise to read the "accolades " that have emerged regarding this interview.

Cathy Newman has never been one for scoring points in her interviews concentrating instead on trying to establish the truth, and succeeding more often than not, and asking questions many interviewees clearly wish she wouldn't.

She's also a passionate advocate and supporter of the status of women in society and, by way of a generalisation, lets call them women's rights.

Being female, a very competent journalist ( along with the rest of the C4 News team ) and interviewer, she's unlikely to endear herself to those who prefer women to be subservient to their precious over inflated male ego's.


Hence many of you will doubtless be "overjoyed " to read the reaction in the wider world to her interview.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/channel-4-calls-in-security-experts-after-cathy-newman-suffers-online-abuse

When it gets to the stage that, and given she's reported from umpteen of the worlds conflicts, security measures have to be taken to protect her, that's a savage and damning indictment as to how warped, underdeveloped and malignant the male ego can be when confronted with erudite women.

What world conflicts has she reported from?

KelvinD
20th Jan 2018, 14:55
EGLD: You need to brush up on the reading skills. Read again what I said about when I formed that view.

pulse1
20th Jan 2018, 15:12
I would disagree with the OP regarding the interviewer being "silenced". She took some time to reflect on how the argument was going,

However you want to put it, for the first and only time in this interview she stopped as she realised what he was saying and appeared to concede the well made point. She was guilty of exactly what she was accusing him. For me, it is to her credit that she did concede. Personally, I have never heard any media interviewer on Channel 4 or anywhere else do it. As far as her "reflecting on how the interview was going", Presumably this is supposition on your part or are you claiming mind reading skills?

I also despise those who have threatened or abused Cathy Newman for this or any other interview.

I am also sad that those who are critical of Peterson have not given a single reason for their criticism, just claiming that he is a "mysoginist clot". Can you not see that it is this sort of attitude which he is challenging?

bentbanana
20th Jan 2018, 15:14
What world conflicts has she reported from?

It appears that she travelled to the Democratic Reublic of the Congo in 2013 with William Hague and Angelina Jolie to report on the effect of warzone rape.
- according to WIKI-

yellowtriumph
20th Jan 2018, 15:26
It appears that she travelled to the Democratic Reublic of the Congo in 2013 with William Hague and Angelina Jolie to report on the effect of warzone rape.
- according to WIKI-

Yes, I had seen that. Travelling as part of a press pack to a staged managed visit to the DRC is not reporting on a world conflict though (is it?). It’s just a pretty routine foreign report from a place of safety even if it is in a war ravaged country.

I should quickly add to avoid any doubt that I too roundly condemn these reported threats against Ms Newman.

slickcity
20th Jan 2018, 15:58
Google the Mike Tyson interview with a reporter from Toronto. I think Mike won that bout. Sorry, I donít know how to post or I would.

EGLD
20th Jan 2018, 17:05
Still, it must be edifying for some to see others rallying round with a show of mutual support against her.......that's the spirit.....chaps !.

When the regressive left lose the debate they play the victim

obgraham
20th Jan 2018, 17:27
I thought the interview was a rigorous and fair discussion on both sides. The issue I have is with the mindless morons who treat it as an excuse for abuse and mindless threats because they take a different view.
What he said.

This was an exchange that in this instance most of us will agree went the way of the interviewee rather than the interviewer.

Well, good. Both got to make their points of view. Isn't that what discussion is supposed to be about? But the rest of us, whether here or in media commentary, use it as a club to verify our own side of the debate.

Eddie Dean
20th Jan 2018, 21:02
Listening to the discussion I thought that the two are probably intellectually equivalent, and highlighted precisely the points that Pederson was making.
They would make each other an excellent life partner, the male and female traits that compliment this crazy journey to the clearing are evident here.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
21st Jan 2018, 12:17
Both got to make their points of view
Not in the interview I watched. One had his point of view continually attacked, and rebutted every argument/accusation made to him in a factual and scientific manner. The other had sound bites, social media and outrage as her sole ammunition.

EGLD
21st Jan 2018, 13:21
Just reading some more articles on this interview this morning.

The regressive left have managed to completely avoid talking about the points raised by Peterson in the interview and instead have focused solely on Cathy Newman being a victim.

Mission accomplished :D

Bob Viking
21st Jan 2018, 13:37
I think he made a good point.

Youíre such a misogynist.

But I think he made his points very clearly.

Youíre such a misogynist.

I thought she was a bit off side by not letting him speak.

Youíre such a misogynist.

And so on...

One of the biggest problems I see in modern society is our increasing inability to be allowed to have open and frank debates.

We are allowed to have opposing viewpoints. We donít have to resort to name calling when things donít go our way.

I thought only snowflakes were supposed to get uppity about these things. It seems there are a few middle aged snowflake wannabes in this forum.

BV

EGLD
21st Jan 2018, 19:46
Looks like the feminists had a nice day out today

https://i.imgur.com/mZtvOka.jpg

Mostly Harmless
22nd Jan 2018, 00:52
When someone makes and carries a sign like the one above (No Country for Old WHITE MEN), it just disheartens me terribly. How will that resolve anything? The only effect is for all sides to entrench and reinforce their beliefs. No one talks. Nothing ever gets resolved.

On second viewing, the amount of irony contained in that one photo is amazing. A sign (carried with a huge smile) calling for the banishment of one age group, one skin colour and one gender nestled next to a No To Racism sign.

jolihokistix
22nd Jan 2018, 03:53
Seeing other signs at the rally concerning usage of vaginas, I thought she was being Shakespearean, calling on Melania and all women to refuse sex to Donald Trump.

Mostly Harmless
22nd Jan 2018, 04:09
I've seen other signs on Twitter that were nothing short of brilliant Signs that got a message across, some with great humour...

Without the hatred and bigotry of that one above.

Krystal n chips
22nd Jan 2018, 06:22
I've seen other signs on Twitter that were nothing short of brilliant Signs that got a message across, some with great humour...

Without the hatred and bigotry of that one above.

No need to recourse to Twitter....

Here ( Caution ! contains images and language some ( po faced white middle aged starched pyjama wearing males for example ) may find distressing ) are some provided by JB's much revered media source....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2018/jan/21/best-signs-from-womens-march-london-pictures-donald-trump

Wingswinger
22nd Jan 2018, 07:11
There, in a few images and whether you think the signs are witty or not, you have the reason for the growth of the MGTOW movement. Far from 'winning' a future for 'daughters' these women are most likely to be creating for themselves a barren future. I noted one sign said 'Me too said the burqa'. Held up by a little white girl who probably hasn't a clue about the significance of it . The maker of that sign identifies herself with covered and veiled muslim women. The poor, poor deluded fool.

Radical feminism is one of the societal cancers that we have to treat because it is having an adverse effect on the mental health of young men. Fortunately there are enough real men who don't want such women and who will look elsewhere. Fortunately too the majority of sensible women who love their menfolk and sons will have nothing to do with radical feminism.

Times up? It may be for men who can't keep it in their pants but in general I don't think so. What these women are overlooking is that the world they see around them was made by men, mostly white men. The freedom they enjoy to have their little protest was made for them by men, mostly white men. They are not just going to roll over so the most likely outcome is that men will win as usual because men are simply bigger, stronger and nastier when they have to be.

Nemrytter
22nd Jan 2018, 08:29
Looks like the feminists had a nice day out todayMust be hard when you live in the 21st century but your mind is still in medieval times. Do you do anything apart from spout Daily Mail-esque nonsense? Halfwittery.

Eddie Dean
22nd Jan 2018, 08:44
Wingswinger makes a very salient point, whether you like it or not, it is a world built by white men. Okay the labourers may be of other colours and genders as well.

Krystal n chips
22nd Jan 2018, 09:35
There, in a few images and whether you think the sign are witty or not, you have the reason for the growth of the MGTOW movement. Far from 'winning' a future for 'daughters' these women are most likely to be creating for themselves a barren future. I noted one sign said 'Me too said the burqa'. Held up by a little white girl who probably hasn't a clue about the significance of it . The maker of that sign identifies herself with covered and veiled muslim women. The poor, poor deluded fool.

Radical feminism is one of the societal cancers that we have to treat because it is having an adverse effect on the mental health of young men. Fortunately there are enough real men who don't want such women and who will look elsewhere. Fortunately too the majority of sensible women who love their menfolk and sons will have nothing to do with radical feminism.

Times up? It may be for men who can't keep it in their pants but in general I don't think so. What these women are overlooking is that the world they see around them was made by men, mostly white men. The freedom they enjoy to have their little protest was made for them by men, mostly white men. They are not just going to roll over so the most likely outcome is that men will win as usual because men are simply bigger, stronger and nastier when they have to be.

Wingers !

You have surpassed yourself old boy !....in the words of the US Mayreens "outstanding ! "

Now, I'm not a member of m'learned friends profession as we know, but, I would suggest if you are ever in the unfortunate position of being asked to take the witness box in your own defence, you decline.

You see, on the basis of the last paragraph alone, any defence counsel would be reduced to tears as their efforts would have been to no avail.

We can only ponder as to what constitutes a "real man"...lantern jawed, steely eyed, refers to women as "good gel / girl perhaps ?...who knoweth !

Just for you......and, well quite a few others being charitable and generous of spirit as you know....

The Famous Men Jokes Collection (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/humour/menjokes.html)

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
22nd Jan 2018, 09:37
No need to recourse to Twitter....

Here ( Caution ! contains images and language some ( po faced white middle aged starched pyjama wearing males for example ) may find distressing ) are some provided by JB's much revered media source....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2018/jan/21/best-signs-from-womens-march-london-pictures-donald-trump
As has been demonstrated time and time again, whenever said sign holder is pressed to explain what they are trying to say with it, they fail dismally. At the end of the day, the signs all end up in the gutter and the bearer moves on to their next outrage.

Krystal n chips
22nd Jan 2018, 09:43
As has been demonstrated time and time again, whenever said sign holder is pressed to explain what they are trying to say with it, they fail dismally. At the end of the day, the signs all end up in the gutter and the bearer moves on to their next outrage.

Really ?...I would have thought, that, unless you are (a) illiterate or ( b ) a male of a certain disposition towards women, the sentiments expressed need no clarification.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
22nd Jan 2018, 10:43
Really ?...I would have thought, that, unless you are (a) illiterate or ( b ) a male of a certain disposition towards women, the sentiments expressed need no clarification.

Well since I am neither, explain "neverthless she persisted"

Krystal n chips
22nd Jan 2018, 10:54
Well since I am neither, explain "neverthless she persisted"

Certainly....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/08/nevertheless-she-persisted-becomes-new-battle-cry-after-mcconnell-silences-elizabeth-warren/?utm_term=.d43f6b8a0029

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
22nd Jan 2018, 11:07
And this has to do with women's rights how? It seems to me to be more about political point scoring than gender issues. But then, some are easily offended it seems, and quick to grab anything that suits their biased point of view. if Warren had been male, had been censured by the Senate, and then continued to read the letters, I doubt that there would have been people marching in the streets carrying a sign that said "Nevertheless, he persisted".

Wingswinger
22nd Jan 2018, 11:09
There, in a few images and whether you think the sign are witty or not, you have the reason for the growth of the MGTOW movement. Far from 'winning' a future for 'daughters' these women are most likely to be creating for themselves a barren future. I noted one sign said 'Me too said the burqa'. Held up by a little white girl who probably hasn't a clue about the significance of it . The maker of that sign identifies herself with covered and veiled muslim women. The poor, poor deluded fool.

Radical feminism is one of the societal cancers that we have to treat because it is having an adverse effect on the mental health of young men. Fortunately there are enough real men who don't want such women and who will look elsewhere. Fortunately too the majority of sensible women who love their menfolk and sons will have nothing to do with radical feminism.

Times up? It may be for men who can't keep it in their pants but in general I don't think so. What these women are overlooking is that the world they see around them was made by men, mostly white men. The freedom they enjoy to have their little protest was made for them by men, mostly white men. They are not just going to roll over so the most likely outcome is that men will win as usual because men are simply bigger, stronger and nastier when they have to be.

Wingers !

You have surpassed yourself old boy !....in the words of the US Mayreens "outstanding ! "

Now, I'm not a member of m'learned friends profession as we know, but, I would suggest if you are ever in the unfortunate position of being asked to take the witness box in your own defence, you decline.

You see, on the basis of the last paragraph alone, any defence counsel would be reduced to tears as their efforts would have been to no avail.

We can only ponder as to what constitutes a "real man"...lantern jawed, steely eyed, refers to women as "good gel / girl perhaps ?...who knoweth !

Just for you......and, well quite a few others being charitable and generous of spirit as you know....

The Famous Men Jokes Collection (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~peter/humour/menjokes.html)

Like a trout to a fly. Splash.

johngreen
22nd Jan 2018, 11:34
The point that seems to be almost always missed by those whose view is so tightly focussed upon the excuse of gender, is that while it is surely a valid observation that our present human society has been created by white men and designed to be very much in their own favour, the effects of this psychopathic, narcissistic, power driven and emotionally inadequate structure very effectively dominates almost all other human beings to their detriment quite regardless of their gender or any other qualification.

If a fairer society is the desire, it would be a far more useful and effective approach to understand how the application of toxic masculinity that is psychologically part of the female gender, that can be and often is used by females, results in just the same negative effects as when utilised by males.
Secondly, that while the traits of masculinity can - and often do - present some hideously destructive outcomes, there are many qualities of maleness that are extremely valuable, very positive forces and of course, very much desired by females looking for a suitable partner in their lives.
In the very same vein, it would be no less a positive thing for men and women to learn of and appreciate the effect of the values, both good and not so good, that are presented by the more feminine psychological qualities of us humans.

While I totally support women seeking equality, the predominant arguments seem to be driven by the women wanting to emulate and become a part of the very power structures that they observe to be so damaging and negative.
If there is to be any real change for the better in our circumstances, a choice of direction that might lead to the collective of humanity learning to value their extraordinary potential beyond simply functioning as economic robots at the behest of an utterly selfish minority, this will surely only come from far more focus upon developing the psychologically feminine aspects of ourselves.

And the chances of that happening ever, let alone soon? Well, probably about as likely as the members of this forum being able to come to a mutually agreeable consensus without hurling abuse and damnation upon others in regard to even the simplest subject!

pulse1
22nd Jan 2018, 11:50
johngreen, You aren't Jordan Peterson by any chance? You have succinctly expressed the same sentiments that he was in the interview. And we still haven't heard any constructive reasoning from those on this thread who condemn him as misogynist.

G0ULI
22nd Jan 2018, 11:54
Despite whatever feminists or society demand, the fact is that nature and evolution have ensured that the majority of men are physically larger and more powerful than the majority of women. Men collectively are more than capable of physically forcing women into submission. That will not change any time soon and that is what has the feminists so riled, they are physically weak and have a limited time in which to find a mate to procreate. Western society has done more than any other to try and achieve a balance between the genders it is pointless trying to eliminate gender differences.

What the interview served to highlight is that people generally should recognise and embrace their strengths and weaknesses and ideally choose partners who compliment their abilities and compensate for their weaknesses. This applies in all areas of life and especially education, business and marriage. Not necessarily in that order and nothing to do with gender if you think deeply enough about the matter.

Krystal n chips
22nd Jan 2018, 12:50
[quote=Krystal n chips;10027450]

Like a trout to a fly. Splash.

A valiant, but, sadly failed effort at exoneration there Wingers ....

You see, you do have what I believe the legal world calls precedents in respect of your sentiments and, commendable though this trait can be in certain circumstances, you also have a tendency to wear your heart on your sleeve when it comes to those, lets call them, deep inner thoughts and emotions.

Trossie
22nd Jan 2018, 12:52
I haven't watched this interview until now. I have just watched the entire interview.

It is very, very clearly a carefully thought out, intelligent and logical reference to carefully collected facts against a point-scoring attempt at a narrow agenda that has become the 'political fad' of the moment. The interviewer was very clearly out of their depth (note the carefully selected non-gender pronoun) in attempting to steer the interview along the lines of that agenda. Facts are facts and that interviewer clearly didn't like them because they contradicted the prevailing political diktats. Well done to a coherent, steadfast and honest interviewee.

There has been the predictable amount of twaddle posted here by the predictable regular posters. I could not find one ounce of evidence in that interview that the interviewee is a 'misogynist'. But then those who want to see things into a situation because of their political/religious beliefs (no real difference between the two very often) and can never be convinced by facts. Facts are too irritatingly factual for believers.


.

Blacksheep
22nd Jan 2018, 13:28
...often with an assumption being made that difference = inequality.I was brought up in a house occupied by my mother, her mother and her younger brother. It was and remains pretty clear to me that men and women are different and have different outlooks on life's little dramas. Although Uncle Lewis brought home the money and my Dad sent most of his Navy pay directly to my mother, it was abundantly clear as to who was running the show - and it wasn't Uncle Lewis or Dad. Inequality is such a nebulous concept.

yellowtriumph
22nd Jan 2018, 15:25
KnC,

Still waiting for you to supply that list of umpteen world conflicts the interviewer has reported from.

EGLD
22nd Jan 2018, 18:33
I've seen other signs on Twitter that were nothing short of brilliant Signs that got a message across

What message?

Must be hard when you live in the 21st century but your mind is still in medieval times. Do you do anything apart from spout Daily Mail-esque nonsense? Halfwittery.

That's an interesting thing to take away from someone posting a picture of someone holding a sexist and racist sign

Another case of "losing the argument, so change the subject with an ad hominem attack?"

Still not a single post explaining why anyone posting in here, or in the interview, should be classed as a mysogynist - beyond the usual name calling in place of a argument

Cat got your tongue chaps?

Wingswinger
22nd Jan 2018, 19:08
[quote=Wingswinger;10027551]

A valiant, but, sadly failed effort at exoneration there Wingers ....

You see, you do have what I believe the legal world calls precedents in respect of your sentiments and, commendable though this trait can be in certain circumstances, you also have a tendency to wear your heart on your sleeve when it comes to those, lets call them, deep inner thoughts and emotions.

Exoneration? I feel no burden.

johngreen
22nd Jan 2018, 19:13
johngreen, You aren't Jordan Peterson by any chance?

Pulse, I'll take that as a compliment though no, I am certainly not he nor anything like as erudite on this - or any other subject for that matter...

Peterson is one of the few really accessible present day presenters of just such understandings and I do greatly enjoy, appreciate and support what and how he is doing.

The substantial bulk of what he presents however, (and I am quite certain that he would not hesitate to agree), is not new but has been learnt by and passed through numerous past generations of humanity.

I know that I'm not alone in finding it intensely frustrating - yet also extraordinarily fascinating - that humans are in general, so hugely reluctant to take an interest in all this readily available knowledge or invest the necessary energy required to understand themselves, this being an absolute prerequisite for understanding at least some part of why both they and others behave as they do.

In far, far fewer words than are needed to really justify the suggestions, this can be explained by such consideration as the individual aversion to exposing the fears and discomforts that are guaranteed to be exposed by any such enquiry or alternatively by the general absence of quantifiable and concrete evidence that so easily offends the overly developed (psychologically) masculine requirement of 'scientific proof'.

With regard to the former, the narcissistic nature of 'us' is presented; One would rather continue in the belief that they bear no responsibility for the potential suffering of others - often those who are supposedly most precious! - than to face the naked truth and possibly discover one is not quite as perfect as one might wish!

In respect of the later, there has never been any 'scientific proof' of Love - and yet with the gay abandon of extreme hypocrisy, few humans, even the most masculine of males, would deny having a substantial knowledge of what Love is, even though it is quite likely, they have never had any experience of it.

Kenneth Galbraith (who was actually an economist, not a psychologist) sums up the pattern of human behaviour very well with his quote, '
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.'

Heigh Ho!

Jack D
22nd Jan 2018, 19:24
After all this discussion I also
watched the entire interview . I found it to be a rather one sided affair, facts and reason verses almost hysterical ď so what you are saying isĒ... a poor effort to confuse and seek contradiction in the interviewee,s present or previous statements . Didnít spot any misogyny, in fact I was pleasantly surprised at how calmly facts and above all data were presented, and felt the gender of the interviewer was irrelevant . Oh yes after K & C, s gushing defense of ladies anywhere I too am waiting to hear about the numerous war zones this particular interviewer has reported from ... Manchester perhaps ?

finfly1
22nd Jan 2018, 19:26
The use of the term misogynist here is, imo, similar to the almost unfettered use of "homophobe" and to a lesser extent 'racist' as a sort of flash-bang grenade to signal the appearance of a belief which is at variance with ones own.

For those who have made the accusation in this thread, the dictionary definition I found was the one basically in use since I was young: "a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women."

IMO, a person (either gender) who was raised to believe that nature, God, society or some combination thereof has more or less assigned roles for both genders at which they excel or at least were more comfortable, but who genuinely loved and held women in high esteem was NOT a misogynist, and calling one such is merely evidence of lack of reasoning skills or adequate debating technique.

Mostly Harmless
22nd Jan 2018, 20:30
No need to recourse to Twitter....

Here ( Caution ! contains images and language some ( po faced white middle aged starched pyjama wearing males for example ) may find distressing ) are some provided by JB's much revered media source....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2018/jan/21/best-signs-from-womens-march-london-pictures-donald-trump

Hi Krystal n chips,

I saw nothing offensive in the link you sent. There was a moment of "Aw.." as someone made a dog wear a sign stating a need for less dogs. I like dogs.

I did see a proclamation that has me intellectually curious. Stop Rape Culture. Rape Culture? Now, I am willing to admit I may be out of the loop a bit but perhaps you could (and I do mean this in earnest) tell me where this rape culture is, or what it is?

For background purposes, I have many male friends. I have a male father and a male brother. I have not met one of them that has ever raped anyone, promoted rape of anyone, lobbied for rape, nor presented rape in any positive way whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't know your personal history or location so you may have had a very different experience than I have had in my life. I know that there are some pretty mean places in the world to live. Ones that are filled with armed conflict and terrible living conditions... so I fully accept that in those places, I am sure rape and all sorts of bad things happen. But, in the more stable nation states I really don't know where I could find, protest and eliminate an entire culture of rape.

Also, could you please tell me how age (and/or), skin colour and/or gender are connected to criminal behaviour, and likelihood to be offended? I'm a little lost on the use of such a large generalization against a group and I was wondering what it is based on other than raw feelings.

Please don't feel like I'm picking on you or such, I am just trying to understand a position you seem to have a fuller understanding of than I do.

fox niner
23rd Jan 2018, 01:58
And here it is. Jordan Peterson reacts elaborately to the first interview via this dutch blog:
https://www.geenstijl.nl/5140379/jordan-peterson-kwam-kletsen/
Peterson is currently in Amsterdam, and this website is our local “breitbard” weblog.

Enjoy

sitigeltfel
23rd Jan 2018, 06:42
If you don't have time to watch the entire interview, here are the salient bits..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYvjt5lGX0

;)

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2018, 07:49
Hi Krystal n chips,

I saw nothing offensive in the link you sent. There was a moment of "Aw.." as someone made a dog wear a sign stating a need for less dogs. I like dogs.

I did see a proclamation that has me intellectually curious. Stop Rape Culture. Rape Culture? Now, I am willing to admit I may be out of the loop a bit but perhaps you could (and I do mean this in earnest) tell me where this rape culture is, or what it is?

For background purposes, I have many male friends. I have a male father and a male brother. I have not met one of them that has ever raped anyone, promoted rape of anyone, lobbied for rape, nor presented rape in any positive way whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't know your personal history or location so you may have had a very different experience than I have had in my life. I know that there are some pretty mean places in the world to live. Ones that are filled with armed conflict and terrible living conditions... so I fully accept that in those places, I am sure rape and all sorts of bad things happen. But, in the more stable nation states I really don't know where I could find, protest and eliminate an entire culture of rape.

Also, could you please tell me how age (and/or), skin colour and/or gender are connected to criminal behaviour, and likelihood to be offended? I'm a little lost on the use of such a large generalization against a group and I was wondering what it is based on other than raw feelings.

Please don't feel like I'm picking on you or such, I am just trying to understand a position you seem to have a fuller understanding of than I do.

Very good, at least if you consider the content and context to be innocuous, which, strangely I don't.

However, if you use a search engine, you will find the answers to your questions.

" Oh yes after K & C, s gushing defense of ladies anywhere I too am waiting to hear about the numerous war zones this particular interviewer has reported from ... Manchester perhaps

No gushing defence involved. I'm sure by now even you would have realised I not one of the conformist chaps on here, or in the real world, thus I take exception to women being sneered at, vilified and generally regarded as being inferior to the male of the species. I wasn't aware Manchester was a "war zone "....Utd v City supporters encounters excepted that is.

And a special thanks to.....Siti,

For providing a suitably edited ( presumably for all the chums on here ) version of the interview, thus negating at a stroke both sides of the interview whilst continuing to ridicule the interviewer.

ChrisVJ
23rd Jan 2018, 07:53
I watched the interview and was astonished at the patience of the interviewee. I saw the interviewer as unnecessarily adverserial, constantly extrapolating his comments either out of context or in a clearly contrary way. I think the interview would have been far more interesting if she had, perhaps asked him to expand on the views she saw as interesting rather than obviously trying to make herself the more important part of the program.

At times she seemed to be quite out of her depth when trying to grasp and counter what to most people should be very clear statements. Peterson is clearly a pragmatist and not prepared to distort the facts to suit the current climate of PC rubbish but I didn't hear anything resembling misogyny. It is so typical of people these days to shout 'bigot' when they disagree with the facts or a perfectly reasonable argument.

EGLD
23rd Jan 2018, 07:59
I not one of the conformist chaps on here, or in the real world, thus I take exception to women being sneered at, vilified and generally regarded as being inferior to the male of the species.

Any comments on the content of the interview, or are you just going to keep congratulating yourself?

obgraham
23rd Jan 2018, 08:17
Any comments on the content of the interview

Well, I do. I have three professional daughters (architect, attorney, and physician) and his discussion was entirely relevant to what each of them has faced in their workplace, not to mention in their years of training.

And then I watched The Crown, and Victoria. Sure, it's fictional, but it seems there's similarity going back 70 or 170 years.

I didn't hear anything from the interviewer that might be positive for change.

Wingswinger
23rd Jan 2018, 09:21
No gushing defence involved. I'm sure by now even you would have realised I not one of the conformist chaps on here, or in the real world, thus I take exception to women being sneered at, vilified and generally regarded as being inferior to the male of the species. I wasn't aware Manchester was a "war zone "....Utd v City supporters encounters excepted that is.

That's classic cultural Marxist flection, Komrad, along exactly the same lines as displayed by Cathy Newman. It's a straw man, a knee-jerk response to something which runs counter to the accepted PC dogma. I don't think anyone here sneers at or vilifies women in general or regards them as inferior beings. However they are different in many ways to men who are, as I have already said, on the whole bigger, stronger and nastier when forced to be. After all, we all have dearly-loved mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, daughters and nieces don't we? And the overwhelming majority of men will use that extra size, strength and nastiness to defend or save their women folk when called upon to do so. Many millions have done exactly that. Men are, after all, expendable. It's nature's way.

sitigeltfel
23rd Jan 2018, 09:22
I saw the interviewer as unnecessarily adverserial, constantly extrapolating his comments either out of context or in a clearly contrary way.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DULO9tOWsAI1-mu?format=jpg

CargoMatatu
23rd Jan 2018, 09:47
@sitigeltfel: :D:D:D:D:D:D

Though I do feel that could equally apply to most of the "discussion" in the Brexit Hampsterwheel thread! :*

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2018, 09:58
That's classic cultural Marxist flection, Komrad, along exactly the same lines as displayed by Cathy Newman. It's a straw man, a knee-jerk response to something which runs counter to the accepted PC dogma. I don't think anyone here sneers at or vilifies women in general or regards them as inferior beings. However they are different in many ways to men who are, as I have already said, on the whole bigger, stronger and nastier when forced to be. After all, we all have dearly-loved mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends, daughters and nieces don't we? And the overwhelming majority of men will use that extra size, strength and nastiness to defend or save their women folk when called upon to do so. Many millions have done exactly that. Men are, after all, expendable. It's nature's way.

Wingers....that's a nicely flawed analysis of my responses old boy....given I am not a Marxist ( although here on JB any "ist" will do for the chaps when confronted with somebody who can't be conveniently pigeonholed and thinks for himself as we know ) .

You do though seem to be "somewhat selective " as to the many posts on here over time which have denigrated women.

True, men can be and are protective towards women.

What you failed to say, was, being "bigger stronger and nastier" they are also more than willing to resort to abuse, violence and attempting to subjugate women who don't agree with or conform to, their base arrogance and ego's.

yellowtriumph
23rd Jan 2018, 10:10
No need to be shy KnC - how about that list of umpteen world conflicts? A list of one will do.

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2018, 10:23
No need to be shy KnC - how about that list of umpteen world conflicts? A list of one will do.

Oh how super ! K n C made a small error and I spotted it....big cheer for me please.... chaps !

This should massage your ego therefore, at least in respect of my error, but probably not with regard to her professional competence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/channel-4-newsreader-cathy-newman-doesnt-just-read-the-news-she-makes-it-9386816.html

Alternatively, you could watch C4 News every night, as I do and have done for many years, and view her reports for yourself.

Wingswinger
23rd Jan 2018, 10:37
Wingers....that's a nicely flawed analysis of my responses old boy....given I am not a Marxist ( although here on JB any "ist" will do for the chaps when confronted with somebody who can't be conveniently pigeonholed and thinks for himself as we know ) .

You do though seem to be "somewhat selective " as to the many posts on here over time which have denigrated women.

What about citing some of them then? We're talking about women in general rather than specific individuals such as Diane Abbott who would still be pitiable if she were a man.


True, men can be and are protective towards women.

What you failed to say, was, being "bigger stronger and nastier" they are also more than willing to resort to abuse, violence and attempting to subjugate women who don't agree with or conform to, their base arrogance and ego's.

I didn't think it needed to be said. There are rotten apples in every barrel.

Regarding Channel 4 news I apply the same guideline to it as I apply to the Guardian and the BBC. Useful to watch in bites to gauge what one's opponents are up to but don't expect even-handedness. The C4 News agenda was blown open by Jordan Peterson for all to see. BTW, I am on nodding acquaintance with Jon Snow as he lives quite close by and uses the same shops as we do. I haven't yet had a "barney in the baker's" with him but it may be coming if I'm in there when he has one of his "chats" with our baker.

B Fraser
23rd Jan 2018, 11:20
Thank you Mr Chips. It appears she earned her war zone stripes by going to the Congo and doing an interview Angelina Jolie. Box ticked.


"So what you're saying is that interviewing one celebrity in a comfy hotel does not count as front line reporting."


"Yup, got it in one."

yellowtriumph
23rd Jan 2018, 12:18
Oh how super ! K n C made a small error and I spotted it....big cheer for me please.... chaps !

This should massage your ego therefore, at least in respect of my error, but probably not with regard to her professional competence.

Channel 4 newsreader Cathy Newman doesn't just read the news - she makes it | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/channel-4-newsreader-cathy-newman-doesnt-just-read-the-news-she-makes-it-9386816.html)

Alternatively, you could watch C4 News every night, as I do and have done for many years, and view her reports for yourself.

You were given a couple of opportunities to correct your error, but you chose not to hoping it would go away. It didn't.

VP959
23rd Jan 2018, 13:32
Isn't the key here that, whether we wish it to be so or not, men and women just ARE inherently different?

I'm absolutely certain that in male-dominated environments there are a small percentage of men who behave wholly inappropriately towards women. Equally in female-dominated environments there are a small percentage of women that behave wholly inappropriately towards men.

The latter may not often make the headlines, but it does happen, as I know, from personal experience in my very first job. I am sure we've also read news stories where females in positions of responsibility have behaved inappropriately, perhaps even committed crimes, against males.

The point that this interviewee was trying to make, quite rationally and calmly, was exactly this, males and females are inherently different. Not unequal, just different.

The extremists on both sides just don't seem to understand that the real debate here should be about equal opportunity, choice and equal reward for a given task. The real challenge for society is understanding what equal means, and how to compare two different contributions to decide whether or not they are equal or not.

The classic in the past has been comparing the contribution of a person who chooses to stay at home and look after children and the home with the contribution of a person that chooses to go out to work to pay the mortgage and bills. It's a tough one, as I observed when a friend of mine was made redundant from a well-paid job, in an industry that was very rapidly contracting. Their first child was on the way and as his wife had a well-paid and secure job they chose to just swap roles, with him staying home and looking after the house and children and she continuing her career.

The flip side is my own marriage. My wife simply has no interest at all in pursuing a career, she took the opportunity to stop working with glee, as she chose to be a home maker. Some might say that was unfair, as I had no say in the matter at all, she had made up her mind and there was no changing it, so I had no choice but to pursue a career in order to pay for all we both wished for.

I wonder just what percentage of males, or females, behave inappropriately towards those of the opposite sex? Sure it happens, but I have a feeling that we're only seeing it highlighted at the moment because it happens more often with people working in some sections of the media, perhaps.

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2018, 13:34
You were given a couple of opportunities to correct your error, but you chose not to hoping it would go away. It didn't.

Aaaaw, how sweet.

There's nothing quite like a bit of smug, sanctimonious, virtuous condescension here on JB really, even more so when it involves me making a very small error as to her career.

And, you will have made a lot of the chaps very happy....bonus !

The question though, is this. Should I now go and beg repentance for my sin ?...scourge myself and fast for 90 days, or basically wonder why you chose to point out one error, whilst being somewhat mute on the topic of misogyny.

Toodle pip !

INeedTheFull90
23rd Jan 2018, 13:43
Aaaaw, how sweet.

There's nothing quite like a bit of smug, sanctimonious, virtuous condescension here on JB really, even more so when it involves me making a very small error as to her career.

And, you will have made a lot of the chaps very happy....bonus !

The question though, is this. Should I now go and beg repentance for my sin ?...scourge myself and fast for 90 days, or basically wonder why you chose to point out one error, whilst being somewhat mute on the topic of misogyny.

Toodle pip !

You can give it but you can't take it. My bold. It appears you don't have the best sense of self awareness. Unless you were describing yourself?

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2018, 13:57
You can give it but you can't take it. My bold. It appears you don't have the best sense of self awareness. Unless you were describing yourself?

Actually, I'm probably one of the most frequent recipients of "less than complimentary " comments on here and, unlike many, I've never lodged a complaint or used ( unlike several who proudly boast to the other chaps about doing so....such is the fragility of their egos ) the "ignore" button.

Trossie
23rd Jan 2018, 14:09
So let us sum this up: The interviewee knew what he was talking about and the interviewer was trying to push a current 'trendy' point of view and doing so extremely clumsily. The genders of the two had nowt to do with those facts.

Those attempting to back up the interviewer are doing so based on beliefs rather than facts.

INeedTheFull90
23rd Jan 2018, 14:16
Actually, I'm probably one of the most frequent recipients of "less than complimentary " comments on here and, unlike many, I've never lodged a complaint or used ( unlike several who proudly boast to the other chaps about doing so....such is the fragility of their egos ) the "ignore" button.

You reap what you sow my friend. If you want the respect of others then show them respect.

Your persistent arrogant, condescending and insulting tone toward anyone who has a different opinion is tiresome in the extreme and the less than complimentary commitments directed toward you are entirely unsurprising.

People have a right to their own opinion. If you don't agree then disagree respectfully and challenge them. Try telling them why you have your opinion and why you don't agree with theirs. Learn something. Educate others. Don't silence them or get personal with them just because they dare have a different opinion to you.

A person with a different opinion to yours is no better and no worse than you are. Having opinion A doesn't make you more intelligent or 'better' than a person who has opinion B.

Ancient Observer
23rd Jan 2018, 17:04
You are, of course, both wrong. The right opinion is "C".

Krystal n chips
23rd Jan 2018, 17:58
You reap what you sow my friend. If you want the respect of others then show them respect.

Your persistent arrogant, condescending and insulting tone toward anyone who has a different opinion is tiresome in the extreme and the less than complimentary commitments directed toward you are entirely unsurprising.

People have a right to their own opinion. If you don't agree then disagree respectfully and challenge them. Try telling them why you have your opinion and why you don't agree with theirs. Learn something. Educate others. Don't silence them or get personal with them just because they dare have a different opinion to you.

A person with a different opinion to yours is no better and no worse than you are. Having opinion A doesn't make you more intelligent or 'better' than a person who has opinion B.

First, thank you for becoming my self appointed moral guardian.

I see from your previous posts you don't like Labour...always a good start when you venture into the unknown away from your usual haunts...and that you don't approve of the BBC's distribution of broadcasting to Wales and Scotland. You will thus be warmly received here on JB, but, alas, not everybody is in perfect harmony with each other...thankfully... because it's not actually mandatory to all think and act the same.

Respect ?....well there are several for whom I have not one iota in particular those with a faux sense of superiority. It's the story of my life in the real world you may be amazed to learn.

But, since you are here, what are your views on the interview, the interviewer in question and those males who prefer to abuse women and their rights / status in our society ?

pulse1
23rd Jan 2018, 18:08
But, since you are here, what are your views on the interview, the interviewer in question

Here is a follow up interview with Jordan Peterson and his perception of the chat with Newman and, for KnC's benefit, including some criticism of the Guardian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK2-xYyNpYk

Ancient Observer
23rd Jan 2018, 18:10
KnC has a point. Whilst many of the Trots and Pinkoes are, of course, completely daft, the point about blokes being crude/etc towards women can be an issue in the workplace.
One "professional" group - over 90% male - where I once worked were awful. When it goes so far beyond banter that even twits like me can see/hear it, then it has to stop. Fortunately, I was in a modest position of authority, and was able to prevail upon their manager to read the riot act. The individuals concerned appeared to work in their own world, and had not spotted that society had moved on.

having said all that, the interviewer above was a complete plonker.

KelvinD
23rd Jan 2018, 18:33
All the above just bears out the problem police and the courts have; 1,000 people can see the same scene and come up with 1,000 views on what they saw!
I saw it somewhat differently to the majority here and it has nothing to do with my politics. I picked up on a few salient points such when the interviewer raised the difference between the female China editor at the BBC and the ridiculous waste of money paid to John Humphreys (in excess of £600K!) and the shrink immediately responded with something along the lines of "that doesn't mean there is inequality".
I must admit though, I was probably biassed as I had heard him on Radio 4 about a week earlier and took a dislike to him.
Finally, how does bashing K&C contribute anything to this debate (other than a glimpse into some personalities)?

ZeBedie
23rd Jan 2018, 19:41
Looks like the feminists had a nice day out today

https://i.imgur.com/mZtvOka.jpg

I like the way the feminist complaining about white males is sitting on the shoulders of a white male. I guess blokes like that bite their tongues and pretend to go along with it - no sex otherwise.

Trossie
23rd Jan 2018, 19:47
... ...
Finally, how does bashing K&C contribute anything to this debate (other than a glimpse into some personalities)?

Maybe quite early onHere on JB there has always been an undercurrent of misogyny and it's no surprise to read the "accolades " that have emerged regarding this interview. started a trend ('bashing' others and their opinions, that is) which resulted in natural defensive retaliation.

INeedTheFull90, with your comments thatPeople have a right to their own opinion.there is one huge caveat: the 'left' do not agree that anyone who doesn't have their opinion has a right to an opinion. Newspeak is all that they will allow.

But back to that interview: it was facts being questioned by dogma; facts won.

I wonder what the response would have been if that placard in the post above had read:
"No Country for Young Black Women"!!

Dutystude
23rd Jan 2018, 20:38
All the above just bears out the problem police and the courts have; 1,000 people can see the same scene and come up with 1,000 views on what they saw!
I saw it somewhat differently to the majority here and it has nothing to do with my politics. I picked up on a few salient points such when the interviewer raised the difference between the female China editor at the BBC and the ridiculous waste of money paid to John Humphreys (in excess of £600K!) and the shrink immediately responded with something along the lines of "that doesn't mean there is inequality".
I must admit though, I was probably biassed as I had heard him on Radio 4 about a week earlier and took a dislike to him.
Finally, how does bashing K&C contribute anything to this debate (other than a glimpse into some personalities)?

When distilled I donít see a thousand different views.

yellowtriumph
23rd Jan 2018, 20:58
Aaaaw, how sweet.

There's nothing quite like a bit of smug, sanctimonious, virtuous condescension here on JB really, even more so when it involves me making a very small error as to her career.

And, you will have made a lot of the chaps very happy....bonus !

The question though, is this. Should I now go and beg repentance for my sin ?...scourge myself and fast for 90 days, or basically wonder why you chose to point out one error, whilst being somewhat mute on the topic of misogyny.

Toodle pip !

You can repent or wonder as you like, I am not concerned either way as you are of no consequence to me.

Ogre
23rd Jan 2018, 21:01
Back in the days when I was at school, there was a policy whereby if an indiscretion was discovered by the teacher and the culprit could not be found, then the whole class suffered. Those of us who were innocent felt aggrieved, and would protest our innocence.

That feeling of "but I'm not guilty" is coming to the fore again, when I see these marches and tv broadcasts accusing me of being part of a rape culture, or of threatening or abusing women.

And that's what gets my goat. Why should I share the blame because others do things I don't? Yet on here and other forums I get accused of being part of the problem just because I am what I am?

So KnC, and the others who are currently screaming loudest because Hollywood is doing it, if you want to be treated as equals try not shoving false accusations down our throats. All that does is get us to dig our heels in and defend ourselves.

Trossie
23rd Jan 2018, 21:33
HEAR, HEAR!!!

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2018, 05:26
You can repent or wonder as you like, I am not concerned either way as you are of no consequence to me.

Funny that, me being of no consequence to you, yet being of enough consequence to outline my mistake and demand a response...twice

Which leads to this ....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/24/women-groped-and-sexually-harassed-at-london-charity-gala

Obviously, just the chaps having some real men red blooded fun what !.....

Anybody care to condemn this behaviour towards women as reported above or will you all still prefer to resort to the strength in numbers and remain resolute by lacking any form of moral conscience despite the glaringly obvious reported events.

And still many cannot understand why Cathy Newman takes the stance she does when it comes to women in society....

Bob Viking
24th Jan 2018, 06:04
I think, perhaps, part of the problem here is people on both sides of the argument donít actually listen to or read and digest the statements of individuals on the opposing side.

The interview we are discussing was a case in point.

I doubt anyone here will defend the actions of the gropey idiots in your article and neither should they.

As far as I can tell we would all be far happier if we listened more and talked/typed less.

We will never change the minds of people who oppose our viewpoints but we can learn to get along by accepting we are all wired differently.

Inappropriate behaviour (be it physical, verbal or with placards) is never acceptable. From either end of the spectrum.

Here endeth the lesson.

BV

obgraham
24th Jan 2018, 06:40
Inappropriate behaviour (be it physical, verbal or with placards) is never acceptable.The problem, of course, is that the people doing the inappropriate behaviour don't think it is inappropriate. And that some are quick to label accepted appropriate behaviour as inappropriate.

i.e. -- little progress is made.

Grayfly
24th Jan 2018, 09:10
I'm beginning to see a pattern here:

Hold a Brexit referendum - what could possibly go wrong.

PM, hold another election - what could possibly go wrong.

Let's include a reality TV star in the Presidential elections - what could possibly go wrong.

Let's make the Labour party more democratic - what could possibly go wrong.

Let's hold a high profile all male charity event with undercover hostesses from the newspapers - what could possibly go wrong.

It's student rag week and spring break running all year round. Stage managed stunts and establishment backlashes may keep some of us outraged/amused/in power/in employment but it is diverting us from the serious problems we face in our economy, health service and education sector.

B Fraser
24th Jan 2018, 09:19
Mr Chips,


If you think that a women only event with lots of alcohol and young male waiters would be the equivalent of a nun's tea party then you have led a very sheltered life.

yellowtriumph
24th Jan 2018, 09:23
Funny that, me being of no consequence to you, yet being of enough consequence to outline my mistake and demand a response...twice

Which leads to this ....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/24/women-groped-and-sexually-harassed-at-london-charity-gala

Obviously, just the chaps having some real men red blooded fun what !.....

Anybody care to condemn this behaviour towards women as reported above or will you all still prefer to resort to the strength in numbers and remain resolute by lacking any form of moral conscience despite the glaringly obvious reported events.

And still many cannot understand why Cathy Newman takes the stance she does when it comes to women in society....

If the report is true, then 'yes' I would condemn the behaviour.

Pinky the pilot
24th Jan 2018, 09:37
If you think that a women only event with lots of alcohol and young male waiters would be the equivalent of a nun's tea party then you have led a very sheltered life.

Most interesting comment there B Fraser.:ok:

A friend of mine was once in such a position, ie A Male waiter at an all Women's function. And yes, lots of alcohol was available.

He was groped, propositioned, scraps of paper with phone numbers pushed into his clothing etc etc etc.:ooh:

Oh btw, this occurred in the early 1970's.:eek:

Have things changed since then? NFI!

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2018, 09:43
Mr Chips,


If you think that a women only event with lots of alcohol and young male waiters would be the equivalent of a nun's tea party then you have led a very sheltered life.

Your right, I have led a very sheltered life and have always been in bed with a cup of Horlicks for 22.00 at the latest.

However, what seems to have eluded you is the behavioural standards of men with regard to women and why they felt they could behave as they allegedly did.....have a think about this, and the posts on here relating to inappropriate male behaviour towards women and let us know your erudite assessment thereafter.

VP959
24th Jan 2018, 09:55
Most interesting comment there B Fraser.:ok:

A friend of mine was once in such a position, ie A Male waiter at an all Women's function. And yes, lots of alcohol was available.

He was groped, propositioned, scraps of paper with phone numbers pushed into his clothing etc etc etc.:ooh:

Oh btw, this occurred in the early 1970's.:eek:

Have things changed since then? NFI!

In my first job, working in an all-female environment, I was strapped to a lab stool with tape, partially stripped, groped and had my (rather long) hair tied into plaits. All the time I was subjected to what we'd now call sexual abuse, including having my private parts exposed by the ring leader, a female in her 50's.


So, to answer the unasked question, then yes, a group of women can behave as badly as a group of men, although I suspect that when they do it is not reported in the same way.

Anyone happened to see what goes on at a "ladies night", where they have male strippers? A colleague who worked in one of the pubs in Helston that hosted one, during the Falklands War, reckoned that the level of abuse and assault levelled at the men in the room was significantly worse than anything he'd seen at the rugby club "Gentlemen's evenings".

I think we can conclude that there are a proportion of both sexes who, when they get into a particular environment, behave inappropriately. I think we can also conclude that the media don't report fairly on these sort of incidents.

CargoMatatu
24th Jan 2018, 10:00
Like VP said :D:D:D:D:D

yellowtriumph
24th Jan 2018, 10:24
... In my first job, working in an all-female environment, I was strapped to a lab stool with tape, partially stripped, groped and had my (rather long) hair tied into plaits. All the time I was subjected to what we'd now call sexual abuse, including having my private parts exposed by the ring leader, a female in her 50's. ..



You'd have to pay good money for that kind of treatment these days.

B Fraser
24th Jan 2018, 10:40
let us know your erudite assessment thereafter.


Mr VP595 summed it up rather well in his final sentence. Elsewhere, I made a joke about Diane Abbott thinking that Carillion was a number between a billion and a trillion. I was called racist, sexist and worse. Comments from others about Theresa May were deemed acceptable and no accusations of sexism were made. It appears that some sections of society assume the moral high ground as a defensive position when they run out of talent and counter argument.


Just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone inappropriate behaviour however I am far from whiter than white. The point is it happens both ways but only incidents where men are at fault make the headlines. An example is that a friend of mine played ladies rugby for England and tales of nights out were never made public. Had the men's team done the same, it would have been front page news. If you have a friend who is in the police, ask them about drunken women roaming around in packs.

Grayfly
24th Jan 2018, 11:06
why they felt they could behave as they allegedly did....

Complicated question about human behaviours. I suspect one of the many issues could be and it applies to both sexes that despite receiving an education, even to degree level, they are educationally and spiritually challenged. Learned lots about things and other people but very little or nothing about themselves. A wasted opportunity to develop themselves.

Lazy thinking and no sense of history so no role models beyond the current crop of vacuous talentless individuals who inhabit the world of politics, entertainment, media and sport.

Now add alcohol to the mix which can increase aggression, self-disclosure and sexual adventuresomeness.

It was bit of a rhetorical question if you've witnessed weekend nights out in any town or city since we started recording such events.

Trossie
24th Jan 2018, 12:01
Funny old thing, but I don't seem to remember the interviewee dealing with any situations of alcohol fueled abuse by either gender. But it does appear that the interviewer would have enjoyed the opportunity to have steered the interview that way.

Regarding the balance of comments about Theresa May and Dianne Abbot. Yes, both may have shortcomings that people want to highlight, but Dianne Abbot as a person has made such outrageously stupid comments ("I had a different hairstyle...", etc.) that whatever gender of ethnicity she is is totally irrelevant. Criticism of Theresa May, however, must be misogynist. (Light touch-paper, stand well clear...!!)

Krystal n chips
24th Jan 2018, 12:24
Mr VP595 summed it up rather well in his final sentence. Elsewhere, I made a joke about Diane Abbott thinking that Carillion was a number between a billion and a trillion. I was called racist, sexist and worse. Comments from others about Theresa May were deemed acceptable and no accusations of sexism were made. It appears that some sections of society assume the moral high ground as a defensive position when they run out of talent and counter argument.


Just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone inappropriate behaviour however I am far from whiter than white. The point is it happens both ways but only incidents where men are at fault make the headlines. An example is that a friend of mine played ladies rugby for England and tales of nights out were never made public. Had the men's team done the same, it would have been front page news. If you have a friend who is in the police, ask them about drunken women roaming around in packs.

Only on JB could the same subject be viewed on.....two separate threads.

Given my sheltered life, you may be surprised to learn I have seen ladies indulging themselves " more than once " and certainly in the wee small hours.

They can be far from paragons of sobriety and probity and I've never suggested otherwise.

However, whilst this event has clearly attracted a lot of attention, for all the wrong reasons as far as the male guests are concerned and it's nice to see such a positive reaction towards their behaviour ( if anybody is interested, you can contact the Guardian to share your own experiences of such behaviour ) and the damage limitation is going to prove costly for them, the fact they felt they were able to behave in this way supports the view as to male behaviour towards women if they get the opportunity and lets remember this was just one event....there's also the working environments and domestic cultures to consider as well.

Mind you, no thread would be complete without those "personal involvement memories " and, lo and behold, they have duly appeared ( not you Mr Fraser in case you were wondering )

LookingForAJob
24th Jan 2018, 19:15
Returning to the origin of this thread, I have to say that I found the interview interesting at a number of levels. To me it supported what I have seen in life - there are people who are good at their jobs and those that are not, and gender, colour of skin, colour of hair or much else besides are very reliable indicators of where someone will fall in the scale between the two extremes. However, when one has valid data to aggregate and analyse, one may find that certain physical, genetic or whatever traits can be related to certain performance measures.

In the interview I felt that often neither party allowed the other to finish making their point, which if completed may have raised the level of debate. I would dearly like to have been able to see the data which the interviewee claimed as evidence to see if it stacks up, or whether there are indeed biases within it. I found little value in the interviewing style which appeared often to seek to do little more than paraphrase the last response and follow with a proposed generalisation which commonly followed little logical argument. It's a valid interviewing technique but if nothing else I think I learned from this example that it should be used sparingly. Sadly - for fear that I will be labelled a misogynist - I would agree with the views of a good few others expressed here that the performance of the interviewer fell significantly shorter than that of the interviewee when considering what each was there for.

As with all things in life, I try to keep an open mind and weigh up all sides of an argument before forming an opinion - and I'll willing change my view if further information, like, you know, facts or evidence, become available to me that support a different position. As I said when I started, every one of us sits somewhere on a scale of good to bad or whatever you want to call it - in my view people who consider the available information, analyse it and draw a logical conclusion that they can justify and argue (in the professional sense), irrespective of whether I happen to have reached the same conclusion, invariably fall way toward the 'good' ens if the scale than those that simply preach the same old positions regardless of the circumstances.

Ogre
24th Jan 2018, 20:51
However, what seems to have eluded you is the behavioural standards of men with regard to women and why they felt they could behave as they allegedly did.....have a think about this, and the posts on here relating to inappropriate male behaviour towards women and let us know your erudite assessment thereafter.

And I suggest what has eluded you is the fact that some women, when faced with young males in a social environment, will behave with similar inappropriate behaviors. You spend your time haranging the male population as a whole for the actions of a few, yet you fail to acknowledge that the whole of the female population contains a few bad apples that are just as bad.

Grayfly
24th Jan 2018, 21:14
Be careful of introducing facts into these discussions., you'll end up closing the thread or being asked to validate those assumptions with facts.