Equality and STEM

[KimGordon67]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

How deep are you intending to go with this hole exactly?

Woof!

I'm actually laughing out loud. Try reading what I wrote again - maybe the second time around you'll get the actual point.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I have utterly no interest in looking up whether Peterson's been claiming that his right to free speech has been attenuated or not. If you or Bot or anyone else wants to make that argument, then provide some actual evidence yourself. Peterson's drivel seems to be pretty readily available on the interweb, packaged into readily digested 'inspirational memes'.

Ummmm you already have.....

I actually read up on him extensively a while back.

remember?

Woof!

 

[KimGordon67]

Ummmm you already have.....



remember?

Woof!

I said I read up on him - that doesn't necessarily include everything he wrote nor what he had for breakfast. ('Extensively' may have actually been over-stating it a little - it was enough to know I'd read enough.)

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I'm actually laughing out loud. Try reading what I wrote again - maybe the second time around you'll get the actual point.

<sigh>

It's the standard way of accessing the validity of academic work so what point you're trying to make alludes me.

Woof!

 

[KimGordon67]

<sigh>

It's the standard way of accessing the validity of academic work so what point you're trying to make alludes me.

Woof!

If you say so.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I said I read up on him - that doesn't necessarily include everything he wrote nor what he had for breakfast. ('Extensively' may have actually been over-stating it a little - it was enough to know I'd read enough.)

Extensively, over stated, yeah just a little or even knowing anything at all if you don't know what actually brought him to the fore in the popular domain, his name or just about anything, apart from what you "guess".

Woof!

 

[Wrong Element]

We have? I hadn't heard that. Are there studies showing that men are actively being discouraged from entering STEM fields?

Good lord, that would be stupid.

I caught that too and was curious where that comment came from. Then I saw who posted it and realized the answer was "his ass."

 

[KimGordon67]

Extensively, over stated, yeah just a little or even knowing anything at all if you don't know what actually brought him to the fore in the popular domain, his name or just about anything, apart from what you "guess".

Woof!

Oh my fucking god ... which bit of 'I read enough to know I'd read enough' do you not get. I'm not 'guessing' anything - it took me five minutes to join the name up to some stuff I read months ago, but apparently that means I'm operating at a Jon Snow level of knowledge? Seriously, you are really THAT desperate for a reason to discredit my perspective?
If you don't want to give what I say any credit, go for it ... but try to engage with the actual argument, rather than my credibility. It's about on par with Que suggesting that I shouldn't be taken seriously because everything I've ever done has been the result of female privilege or whatever the ridiculous narrative is that he's trying to construct out of thin air.

 

[BotanyBoy]

. However, you, Que, et al love tossing around terms like 'toxic masculinity' or 'hegemonic masculinity', yet I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read any of the people who actually developed the concepts ... or could even readily name them without resort to Wikipedia or Google. If you did, you'd get that 'masculinity' =/= 'toxic masculinity'.

You're right, don't know and don't care.

That's because "hegemonic masculinity" is self explanatory and is not a concept that needs explaining if you know what the word hegemonic means which is why I was laughing at you for associating it with harassing women.

And the very notion that masculinity is toxic is absurd.

 

[bellisarius]

Hmm, we've gone from 'reading him extensively" to "reading up on him." Two very different things. I'm gong to jump to the conclusion that you've read what the critics have said about him without ever having read or listened to a damn thing he's had to say. His critics always turn out to be Cathy Newman's and those that have had the nerve to meet him face to face have been utterly destroyed.

 

[KimGordon67]

You're right, don't know and don't care.

That's because "hegemonic masculinity" is self explanatory and is not a concept that needs explaining if you know what the word hegemonic means which is why I was laughing at you for associating it with harassing women.

And the very notion that masculinity is toxic is absurd.

About as absurd as you understanding the actual argument, even when illustrated using burgers.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hmm, we've gone from 'reading him extensively" to "reading up on him." Two very different things. I'm gong to jump to the conclusion that you've read what the critics have said about him without ever having read or listened to a damn thing he's had to say. His critics always turn out to be Cathy Newman's and those that have had the nerve to meet him face to face have been utterly destroyed.

I never much doubt I ever said I've read HIM extensively - if I did, it was a typo.

I've read enough reviews of his work to get the fundamental messages, including those around gender. When I have the time to read a book, it isn't going to be a self help book written by someone who clearly doesn't have anything to say that'll help me. Unless he happens to have a foolproof method of ridding my section of noxious weeds buried in there somewhere, which seems unlikely.

 

[Hal9000_]

About as absurd as you understanding the actual argument, even when illustrated using berders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-PRJuUDoc

 

[BotanyBoy]

About as absurd as you understanding the actual argument, even when illustrated using burgers.

Understanding =/= acceptance as an objective truth or reality.

I understand the argument.

I just think it's a bunch of bigoted man-hater bullshit.....far left wing feminist garbage right up there with "white privilege", another bullshit boogeyman put up by another group who refuse to accept ANY responsibility for their own behavior or life circumstances.

 

[KimGordon67]

Hmm, we've gone from 'reading him extensively" to "reading up on him." Two very different things. I'm gong to jump to the conclusion that you've read what the critics have said about him without ever having read or listened to a damn thing he's had to say. His critics always turn out to be Cathy Newman's and those that have had the nerve to meet him face to face have been utterly destroyed.

I'd bet actual money that neither you nor SC nor Bot nor that dog guy nor Que et al have ready anything by Raewyn Connell or Kimberle Crenshaw or Judith Butler or West & Zimmerman or Susan Stryker or Stuart Hall or Gramsci ... but you seem to happily argue against concepts that they developed ad nauseum. (I may well lose that bet, but I'd be prepared to take the risk.) I've NEVER suggested any of you had to go back to the sources to understand the concepts ... even though you often clearly DON'T understand the concepts ('hegemonic masculinity' would be a case in point). But apparently I need to read everything Peterson ever wrote, even though his 'biggest seller' is pretty much a self help book, and he doesn't seem to be really adding any value to anything at all, just so I can have an opinion in a GB debate? Really?

 

[KimGordon67]

Understanding =/= acceptance as an objective truth or reality.

I understand the argument.

I just think it's a bunch of bigoted man-hater bullshit.

If you say so.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Oh my fucking god ... which bit of 'I read enough to know I'd read enough' do you not get. I'm not 'guessing' anything

You’re not? You seem to think so……..

I going to take a punt and say that Peterson is suggesting that young men should be conforming to relatively traditional models of hegemonic masculinity, and little else - that seems to be a common death rattle these days. He didn't write that dumb-arse '10 Rules to Live By' or whatever it was called, did he?

Um ... where was I trying to 'sound erudite' about Peterson? I took at a stab at what he was probably writing about, based on pretty much nothing more than what you've said, a historical knowledge of the type of 'intellectuals' you're likely to be attracted to, and and reasonable understanding of the 'men need to be men' backlash rhetoric that's circulating at the moment.

Trust me, if I wanted to sound erudite, I could do a much better job at it than that.

See here: "I going to take a punt and say that Peterson is suggesting that young men should be conforming to relatively traditional models of hegemonic masculinity, and little else - that seems to be a common death rattle these days. He didn't write that dumb-arse '10 Rules to Live By' or whatever it was called, did he?" ... where quite clearly I actually do know who he is.

I'm guessing it's the same for Peterson, and it's all utterly and freely available.

- it took me five minutes to join the name up to some stuff I read months ago, but apparently that means I'm operating at a Jon Snow level of knowledge? Seriously, you are really THAT desperate for a reason to discredit my perspective?

You’re discrediting yourself, not me, all I’m doing it re-posting what you’re writing and you just can't let go of it.

- If you don't want to give what I say any credit, go for it ... but try to engage with the actual argument, rather than my credibility. It's about on par with Que suggesting that I shouldn't be taken seriously because everything I've ever done has been the result of female privilege or whatever the ridiculous narrative is that he's trying to construct out of thin air .

Well that’s kinda the point really you haven’t engaged with any point Peterson’s ever made and instead seek to discredit him based on an assumption of what you think he would say.

Yeah you still stung about your female privilege, bites huh.

Woof!

 

[KimGordon67]

You’re not? You seem to think so……..











You’re discrediting yourself, not me, all I’m doing it re-posting what you’re writing and you just can't let go of it.



Well that’s kinda the point really you haven’t engaged with any point Peterson’s ever made and instead seek to discredit him based on an assumption of what you think he would say.

Yeah you still stung about your female privilege, bites huh.

Woof!

I'm not going to bother explaining the chronological development of those comments again. You clearly struggle with linear thought, so I won't distress you any more.

And if either you or Que think that my position in life is the result of 'female privilege', based on utterly nothing other the fact that I'm female, then feel free to continue thinking that. Clearly white men are the only people in the world who ever work for anything - the rest of us just get places by complaining.

 

[bellisarius]

You’re not? You seem to think so……..











You’re discrediting yourself, not me, all I’m doing it re-posting what you’re writing and you just can't let go of it.



Well that’s kinda the point really you haven’t engaged with any point Peterson’s ever made and instead seek to discredit him based on an assumption of what you think he would say.

Yeah you still stung about your female privilege, bites huh.

Woof!

Yep, Cathy Newman.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Yep, Cathy Newman.

Who's that?

 

[KimGordon67]

You’re not? You seem to think so……..











You’re discrediting yourself, not me, all I’m doing it re-posting what you’re writing and you just can't let go of it.



Well that’s kinda the point really you haven’t engaged with any point Peterson’s ever made and instead seek to discredit him based on an assumption of what you think he would say.

Yeah you still stung about your female privilege, bites huh.

Woof!

Also, how the fuck am I 'discrediting' him? You get this is a sad little discussion board on a porn site? Nothing I say in here will have one iota of impact on his credibility or his reputation. If I wanted to 'discredit' him, I'd actually bother engaging in a sustained critique of his discursive output in a public context, with proper citations and about 5,000 words of argumentation.

I'm just saying that I've read enough to establish that his arguments are at best self help (a genre I've always loathed) and at worst a dressed up version of MRA rhetoric.

 

[KimGordon67]

Who's that?

I don't actually know either. Can you be arsed Googling her? Because I can't summon enough caring to bother myself.

 

[bellisarius]

Who's that?

Cathy Newman

 

[schism666]

Someone's Google-foo returned predictable results. What do you expect of someone who has only prospered in life from the privileges afforded her as a white woman? Can't very well expect her to work for it, can you?

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

when you're too much of a pussy to say what you really mean

 

[KimGordon67]

Cathy Newman

So his fundamental argument here is that, yes, there's a gap between the median pay of women and men, and that's not because of gender? Really? And it's there because of 'personal preference'? Really? 'Women are more agreeable than men.' - we REALLY think that's somehow biological and not something that's PART OF GENDER ... and we're just going to totally ignore the fact that apparently you have to be 'disagreeable' to earn what you're worth, and somehow imply that that's a GOOD thing? This argument is just specious. And that's basically his level of argumentation on any gender issue - the specifics vary, but it's just as equally fundamentally flawed. Which is why there's no point engaging with it.