Jordan Peterson

[metalhead]

People arguing for equality between the sexes are the real Nazis.

And people who view mere existence of differences as proof of sexism are yet another kind of problem.

Except it's not a problem at all, because the extent to which biological differences between men and women account for gender inequities in certain segments of society is essentially unknowable. What we do know is that a nontrivial portion of the cause of inequities are due to shortcomings in society that reinforces inequitable gender roles. If it makes you feel better I can point out males who want to enter nursing as a case where men suffer as a result of these inequities.

As determining the relevant portion contributed by "nature" is quite impossible until society sorts out its own shortcomings, attempts to claim "nature" as the driving force are inherently suspicious and either the product of ignorance, or of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If it makes you feel better I can point out males who want to enter nursing as a case where men suffer as a result of these inequities.

Or teaching and daycare for that matter. Parents will often assume that men who work around children are actually pedophiles. It's a real thing and it sucks.

 

[Yeekim]

Hows that? What harm arises?

Suppose a engineering company has 80% male and 20% female workers.
Suppose this is not because the company discriminates against women, but because fewer women are actually interested in working there.
Suppose this is actually supported by the fact that female applicants are more likely to be employed than male applicants.

Now suppose the 80/20 split is interpreted as proof that rampant sexism exists in the company and a number of "diversity initiatives" are adopted to combat this.
These initiatives will likely be a waste of time and money, because they have failed to correctly identify the cause of the problem, and thus won't address this.
At worst, they'll be actively discriminating towards non-female employees who, as an added bonus, get blame heaped on them for being gross misogynists.

 

[Senethro]

Suppose a engineering company has 80% male and 20% female workers.
Suppose this is not because the company discriminates against women, but because fewer women are actually interested in working there.
Suppose this is actually supported by the fact that female applicants are more likely to be employed than male applicants.

Now suppose the 80/20 split is interpreted as proof that rampant sexism exists in the company and a number of "diversity initiatives" are adopted to combat this.
These initiatives will likely be a waste of time and money, because they have failed to correctly identify the cause of the problem, and thus won't address this.
At worst, they'll be actively discriminating towards non-female employees who, as an added bonus, get blame heaped on them for being gross misogynists.

I know you said suppose a whole bunch but lol

 

[Yeekim]

Except it's not a problem at all, because the extent to which biological differences between men and women account for gender inequities in certain segments of society is essentially unknowable.

At least you acknowledge that these differences exist. Now let's hope you won't get labelled to be a gross sexist.

What we do know is that a nontrivial portion of the cause of inequities are due to shortcomings in society that reinforces inequitable gender roles.

If those inequities are a sum of A (biological differences) and B (shortcomings in society) and A is "unknowable", then B is accordingly unknowable.
In other words, we don't really know how important B is either.
What we do know is that this inequity actually gets larger as society "sorts out its own shortcomings". In other words, the less actual discrimination and sexism there actually is, the more of it you think you see. And anyone who attempts to claim otherwise is treated with "inherent suspicion" as either ignoramus or a misogynist.

I know you said suppose a whole bunch but lol

Which of those four things are you incapable of imagining, exactly?
I'm not saying this necessarily applies to any company today. That's a claim I can't make.
I'm saying that as long as you view existence of inequity as irrefutable proof of discrimination, you will inevitably arrive at a similar scenario at one point.

 

[metalhead]

If those inequities are a sum of A (biological differences) and B (shortcomings in society) and A is "unknowable", then B is accordingly unknowable.
In other words, we don't really know how important B is either.

But we can take steps to eliminate "B" from the equation. We can't do that with A. You don't need to know the amount of B in order to get rid of it, while A is both unknowable and impossible to get rid of. So it makes sense in terms of properly ordering society to eliminate "B" and thus have a society that better understands the actual biological differences between genders and can thus provide appropriate accommodation for it.

Needless to say, it is possible to actually figure out what A is, so while you might be tempted to argue, "how do you know the difference between the two?" the answer is that we can figure that out. That's what we have social scientists and psychologists for. We might not be able to ascribe amounts each contributes to social inequity, but we can still discern between the two.

 

[Yeekim]

But we can take steps to eliminate "B" from the equation. We can't do that with A. You don't need to know the amount of B in order to get rid of it, while A is both unknowable and impossible to get rid of. So it makes sense in terms of properly ordering society to eliminate "B" and thus have a society that better understands the actual biological differences between genders and can thus provide appropriate accommodation for it.

Needless to say, it is possible to actually figure out what A is, so while you might be tempted to argue, "how do you know the difference between the two?" the answer is that we can figure that out. That's what we have social scientists and psychologists for. We might not be able to ascribe amounts each contributes to social inequity, but we can still discern between the two.

I don't disagree with any of it, but none of it contradicts my point: existence of a inequity is not proof of discrimination per se.

 

[metalhead]

OK, but that's kind of irrelevant to the larger point as so much other proof of discrimination exists.

 

[Senethro]

Ah, but it is unknowable the extent to which any given situation arises through discrimination or merit. Therefore, we must cease all diversity encouraging activity lest we harm A Man.

 

[inthesomeday]

Based on what evidence?

What

 

[Lexicus]

What

Well, we read several texts on gender roles in China during the Tang and Sung dynasties (also among the nomadic Khitans and the short-lived Liao dynasty) when I took Imperial Chinese history classes in college, and what I read there indicates that, at least, Chinese gender roles do not appear to differ greatly from Western gender roles in terms of the exclusion of women from public life, the robbery of their reproductive labor, and so on. I can't really speak to India except to note that it appears to suffer from a worse "rape culture" than anything we have in the West and that it apparently has its own feminist movement, but I'm just not sure where this "gender roles are different outside the West" idea comes from (need it be said, "Western gender roles" are also hardly uniform).

 

[Ryika]

Ah, but it is unknowable the extent to which any given situation arises through discrimination or merit. Therefore, we must cease all diversity encouraging activity lest we harm A Man.

I think the point is more that such programs should focus on all factors involved, not just assume that discrimination is the main/only reason.

Setting equal outcome as the end goal might be a fundamental mistake purely based on the assumption that, given free choice, men and women will have the exact same preferences.

 

[metalhead]

Setting equal outcome as the end goal might be a fundamental mistake purely based on the assumption that, given free choice, men and women will have the exact same preferences.

Sure, it might be. It probably depends on the context. You might always have more female nurses and you might always have more male computer scientists no matter how much you manage to destigmatize "wrong-gendered" participation in those fields. But you'll never get to find out as long as the barriers to finding out honestly are in place.

That some might argue for sub-optimal or even counter-productive ends is frequently used to discredit the whole notion of "feminism." It's a familiar tactic of reactionaries. Where you reasonably critique certain problematic things, others shout them in order to delegitimize.

 

[Chose]

If it makes you feel better I can point out males who want to enter nursing as a case where men suffer as a result of these inequities.

Seriously? The male nurses I know viewed being surrounded by women in their classes and future jobs as not just a positive but one of the main reasons to become a nurse, aside from helping people of course.

But we can take steps to eliminate "B" from the equation. We can't do that with A. You don't need to know the amount of B in order to get rid of it, while A is both unknowable and impossible to get rid of. So it makes sense in terms of properly ordering society to eliminate "B" and thus have a society that better understands the actual biological differences between genders and can thus provide appropriate accommodation for it.

Needless to say, it is possible to actually figure out what A is, so while you might be tempted to argue, "how do you know the difference between the two?" the answer is that we can figure that out. That's what we have social scientists and psychologists for. We might not be able to ascribe amounts each contributes to social inequity, but we can still discern between the two.

This is a more difficult question that you seem to be letting on. And what it means to "eliminate B" is exactly what is in question here. Many people seem to think the elimination of B necessarily results in 50/50 representation. In fact, the main evidence used by many people to show that B hasn't been eliminated is the unequal representation that exists. That is what is being rejected as flawed reasoning.

 

[Farm Boy]

The male nurses I know viewed being surrounded by women in their classes and future jobs as not just a positive but one of the main reasons to become a nurse

Some people truly do enjoy the stereotypical company of one gender to another, but most of the time on this? Give it time. Coworkers are coworkers, bosses are bosses.

Ah, but it is unknowable the extent to which any given situation arises through discrimination or merit. Therefore, we must cease all diversity encouraging activity lest we harm A Man.

The first sentence could very well be true. The second sentence is stupid, which is what you meant, probably. Though, pretty sure most of the people in this thread also agree that it is a stupid sentence. Which is why if you ascribe it as a position to anyone, they're going to seem frustrated. Though, if the first sentence stands a good chance of being true, and the second sentence is stupid, that probably means we need to focus on big things. Like - why do pay discrepancies exist for same position, same seniority, same work? Like my exchange with metalhead, we seem to have unions in place and these are old issues. Maybe we need to apply them more broadly, which shouldn't be a huge "gendered" stretch, because unions have applied these principles heavily both in heavy mechanical labor and teaching, so I don't think either vaginas or penises or anything inbetween, outbetween, or sideways of, are going to break the theory. What are other big things? Educational attainment? Control over money/household spending? Control over family structure? Carry on, by all means, and we can identify things we think are deserving of focused diversity initiatives if we think there is an underrepresentation of power somewhere, particularly if it is in a position to broadcast enduringly across generations.

 

[metalhead]

Seriously? The male nurses I know viewed being surrounded by women in their classes and future jobs as not just a positive but one of the main reasons to become a nurse, aside from helping people of course.

You're talking about male nurses who weren't even nurses yet. Give it time. I know male nurses who feel looked down upon by friends, family, co-workers, and patients on account of being a man in the nursing field.

If these guys really believe that it's gonna all be rainbows and sunshine when they get out there in the field - sheesh. They've really got another thing coming.

This is a more difficult question that you seem to be letting on. And what it means to "eliminate B" is exactly what is in question here. Many people seem to think the elimination of B necessarily results in 50/50 representation. In fact, the main evidence used by many people to show that B hasn't been eliminated is the unequal representation that exists. That is what is being rejected as flawed reasoning.

It's not the main evidence. It's part of the evidence, typically, but then of course it is, because if there wasn't under-representation, there wouldn't be a diagnosable problem in the first place.

I doubt you could produce a serious piece of academic literature that uses only the fact of female under-representation in certain fields as the evidence of gender bias. Very, very much do I doubt that. There might be dimwits on the Internet who haven't maybe thought it through much beyond that, but who cares? You can ignore idiots, you know, you don't have to attach weight to what they say.

 

[Lexicus]

You're talking about male nurses who weren't even nurses yet. Give it time. I know male nurses who feel looked down upon by friends, family, co-workers, and patients on account of being a man in the nursing field.

If these guys really believe that it's gonna all be rainbows and sunshine when they get out there in the field - sheesh. They've really got another thing coming.

I for one am curious as to why these men want to be "surrounded by women".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Setting equal outcome as the end goal might be a fundamental mistake

Setting equal outcome as an end goal is a mistake in general. Even within a subset population you don't get equal motivations and inputs.

I'm reminded of the comical discussion a few years back that de-identified resumes are somehow unfair.

 

[inthesomeday]

Well, we read several texts on gender roles in China during the Tang and Sung dynasties (also among the nomadic Khitans and the short-lived Liao dynasty) when I took Imperial Chinese history classes in college, and what I read there indicates that, at least, Chinese gender roles do not appear to differ greatly from Western gender roles in terms of the exclusion of women from public life, the robbery of their reproductive labor, and so on. I can't really speak to India except to note that it appears to suffer from a worse "rape culture" than anything we have in the West and that it apparently has its own feminist movement, but I'm just not sure where this "gender roles are different outside the West" idea comes from (need it be said, "Western gender roles" are also hardly uniform).

These aren’t really the gender roles I’m talking about, I mean more expectations of women’s professions. As I understand women are expected moreso to go into farming or industrial work when not housemaking in these countries, while in the West those are generally thought of as man’s work, with women being expected to go into fields like nursing and teaching.

 

[Lexicus]

Today's unequal outcomes become tomorrow's unequal opportunities. There is no real separation between "outcome" and "opportunity," that is a false distinction invented by people who are against equality so they can be against equality while still claiming they are for equality.

As I understand women are expected moreso to go into farming or industrial work when not housemaking in these countries, while in the West those are generally thought of as man’s work, with women being expected to go into fields like nursing and teaching.

This is not my impression at all. Part of the point I'm making is that outside the West we are seeing a transition from traditional agrarian lifeways to modern industrial drudgery. The kinds of gender roles you see in an Indian farming village are quite different from those you might see among the urban professional class. Just as the gendered division of labor might be different in the Trump family than it is for a two-parent family where both parents work multiple low-wage jobs.