Rather, that the bias could be present earlier, but lost in the statistics because of the relatively small number of senior managers.

But it’s not present, or at least, it’s not evidenced by what men and women earn in the period up tot he age of 40 – women and men earn the same regardless of their roles in a period spanning at least 20 years – a period where you are still being promoted and therefore seeing your earnings potential increase.

You have to keep in mind that the gender pay gap ONLY exists when you compare the earnings of all men and all women in full time roles (when you compare part time roles, men earn less than women). Therefore, if there is a gap, it is ONLY explained by the fact that for some unknown reason (the reason we are debating here), by the fact that women tend to occupy less well paid jobs than men beyond the age of 40.

Keep in mind that the difference is still relatively small – 14% is significant, but not a massive gap. It could be explained by a small number of relatively very highly paid executives, which we know are predominantly ocupied by men and which could account for a lot of the gap (because these are averages we’re dealing with).

the question then becomes, what accounts for the fact that there are more men than women in these very small number of incredibly highly paid roles; I’ve offered the explanation above as being at least partly explained by choice. Bias is also very likely part of the explanation as well but it’s not all of it – why then would these companies promote women up to a point but then not any further?

too abstract a level

Not providing any facts and making false statements is not abstract it’s bullshit.

Anyhow, GT, how do you explain the absence of women at the highest levels of Madame’s profession when there are more women in the profession, the women are better qualified and the age of men at those highest levels means that their children have left home so child bearing is not an issue? It’s sexism simple as.

Edit and you persist in ignoring ther fact there is a difference below 40 but that it is smaller. 2.9% someone quoted above.

In the US women hold only 2.5% of the 1500 best paid corporate jobs in the country.

In France women hold only 11% of the best jobs in the teaching profession despite being more numerous. And that in a country with a disparity of only 10% between male and female average saleries (it’s 15% for the OCDE)

Malvern Rider

*Sorry jimjam, but your powers are again in question (and beyond my good-natured gif-teasing at this point) since I just read back you there accused me aforethought of the following mind-crime:

“wanting Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says’

Congratulations, you just used (even over-egged) a version of the same dishonest debate-crippling tactic that I’ve seen seen used by Kathy Newman and Fox News anchors, among many. Pretty sure I saw Peterson try it on Matt Dillahunty in their recent debate (where I also learned from The Self-Fulfilling Prophessor that I’m neither an ‘atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ otherwise I’d be out murdering, raping and building something called a ‘gulag’).

Mind-reading is one thing, but when it lapses into making baseless accusations to impute poor character upon our STW peers it might be time to have a word with self, preferably over the ironing. The fact that you are 180 degrees wrong might be something to take into account to help iron the bigger creases. Where did it even come from? Anyway, I’m agreeable enough to accept an honest apology, but I won’t accept shitty and utterly baseless accusations. Keep it civil eh? Or even lighthearted

Let me try to address all of your points and explain my confusion. It’s clear that you find Peterson’s comments on the attack to be ill informed, ill judged and seemingly baseless, or at best complete speculation. You’ve asked Geetee about this directly at least six times. Now I’m guessing you’re not going to participate in the upcoming Reddit ama with Peterson, but you could email him or use the [letter] function on his sub reddit and there’s a very real chance that he’ll reply. It appears to be something he does pretty regularly.

When I’ve tried to answer your query positing why I think Peterson might have said what he said you’ve dismissed it and mocked me for being psychic. Any answer Geetee gives can just be attributed to “psychic powers” too and thus easily dismissed as well so why insist on an answer from one specific individual and demand it multiple times?

With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides. If you genuinely want to know Peterson’s motivations ask Peterson. If you want to know Geetee’s so badly then be upfront as to why you specifically want his interpretation as opposed to anyone else and I’ll certainly apologise.

Anyhow, GT, how do you explain the absence of women at the highest levels of Madame’s profession when there are more women in the profession,

Well it’s either personal choice or it’s bias. You can’t say for sure which it is. From a data sufficiency perspective you don’t have enough data to draw a conclusion either way. I personally think it;s very unlikely to be discrimination in a profession that has as many qualified female candidates as you suggest, and a highly unionised work force, it’s very unlikely that discrimination accounts for anything other than a small percentage of the vairance. I agree it will be a factor, but I cannot believe it’s much of one.

Edit and you persist in ignoring ther fact there is a difference below 40 but that it is smaller. 2.9% someone quoted above.

I’m not ignoring it. I’ve presented an alternative data set also from the ONS that shoes something different. I’ve also said I’ve asked the ONS for an explanation but haven’t had one and offered by own suggestion that it might be to do with over time pay.

But let’s consider the possibility that it’s 2.9%.

On the average salary of £27,000 a year that is a difference of £783. Not really much to get worked up about when you consider that in like for like roles, there is no pay discrimination. This is the result of personal choice.

You’re ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women. The women in the same roles will tend to be better qualified but stuck in those roles due to the promotion of men over better female candidates.

Unions are part of the problem. They are male dominated.

geetee1972 wrote,

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

But it’s not present, or at least, it’s not evidenced by what men and women earn in the period up tot he age of 40

You were talking about representation in senior management, not earnings. Earnings aren’t a good measurement of representation in senior management.

Essentially what you seem to be saying is that the representation gap in senior managers is only to be found in the age groups where most senior managers are to be found, and when you look at younger age groups where there are few senior managers, it’s harder to find.

You’re ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women.

How do you even start to measure that assertion? I’m ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.

Earnings aren’t a good measurement of representation in senior management

Well they are to a degree; pay tends to rise with seniority so if you have fewer people from a particular group represented at seinor management and then you measure relative levels of pay, you’ll find that the under represented groups are likely earn less.

I’m ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.

I think you can say that about everything Peterson says. Or everything he’s said on the vids linked anyhow.

That’s just a vague correlation; you can’t use it to measure representation, since not all higher paid jobs are senior management.

In fact there is eveidence to support what I said:

http://www.terrafemina.com/emploi-a-carrieres/actu/articles/23161-les-femmes-sont-plus-efficaces-et-moins-distraites-que-les-hommes-au-travail.html

That’s just a vague correlation; you can’t use it to measure representation, since not all higher paid jobs are senior management.

I agree, but then I’m still not sure what it is we don’t agree on if anything?

There are slightly fewer women in high paid jobs than men and I’m all for creating a situation where the only factor that is responsible for this is personal choice. Multi-variate factor analysis shows us that only about 10% of the variance in pay between all men and all women is the result of bias so I would suggest we’re more or less there.

I think you can say that about everything Peterson says.

Possibly, though he does tend to cite a heck of a lot of data when making his arguments.

With all this lobster comparisons surely the best way to stop the attacks against women by inadequate males shouldn’t they just get a large number of elastic bands and put them over their hands?

Geetee wrote,

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

I agree, but then I’m still not sure what it is we don’t agree on if anything?

</div>
If in doubt, you could read the 2 posts where I explained it? You posted about how the difference in representation in senior management only becomes apparent after 40. I pointed out that most senior managers are over 40.

I personally think it;s very unlikely to be discrimination in a profession that has as many qualified female candidates as you suggest

This statement shows why you will never get it/

And yours shows why you also don’t get it.

Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?

I have refrained from commenting on your threads recently because I feel you might be fragile mentally but really dude =- go and get some counselling to open your mind.

You’re ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women.

How do you even start to measure that assertion? I’m ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.

Geetee – its well proven.  Open your eyes man!

when you consider that in like for like roles, there is no pay discrimination.

Again – well proven there is especially in the higher levels in commerce

Make an argument by all means.  don’t be blind to data

And yours shows why you also don’t get it.

yeah, of course it does.

Have a read of some data – good explanations and plenty of links here.

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

that’s a long and considered post and there’s not malice in whar you’re saying, you’re simply engaging in a debate. I just wanted to acknowledge that and say I respect it.

Thanks geetee.  Likewise.  Appreciated.  I did, at the outset, state my intent to you (as the OP) that I’d like to debate a question ‘one at a time’ to try and avoid confusion/pile-on/the descent into presuppositional and accusatory madness that plagues internet-forum debates, often rendering much of such discussions worse than worthless.  On this topic especially I’d go as far as to say dangerous (more later) We are talking about a killer.  Possibly radicalised by something/someone?  < To my mind this is an example of speculation. Anyway, back to our debate/difference of opinion:

geetee:  I’ll be honest and confess I’m really not sure what we’re now trying to resolve as a difference of opinion.

Let me see if I can help?

geetee: If JP genuinely thinks he can explain exactly why this chap Minassian did what he did, then I think he’s wrong to make that assertion. He can speculate at most and that’s it.

There is a biggie from my perspective and  I think that you nailed that one on the head.  We seem to fundamentally differ in our opinion/perception of his statement (in this instance about the about the killer) being ‘speculation.’

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy”

To my mind that is not at all an example of ‘speculation’.

geetee: But I think that’s what he was doing – I think he has developed an idea about the process of radicalisation that Minassian clearly underwent*

Firstly – what ‘process of radicalisation’?  Killing people is not, AFAIK, evidence in and of itself of ‘radicalisation’.  Broadly speaking one might argue that it is likely.  Yet surely we can agree that assumption =/= evidence?

geetee:  It looked like people were deriding him for doing this; as if the ideas he’s presenting are preposterous.

Clearly (sic) they aren’t preposterous because Minassian did what he did and there is innevitably some degree of explanation that runs the gamut of cause and effect.

Inevitably there is a cause and effect.  But at which point (and with what evidence) do we jump in and to declare those to be?  Any proper criminal investigation is assumedly in place so that we don’t fall into the trap of working backwards from a hasty  (or pet-theory) conclusion/assumption.

With respect, and please correct me if wrong, but it seems that you are doing here what I see Peterson doing.  And that is proposing a conclusion/solution and working backwards from that.  Missing piece of the jigsaw? Well, what about the killer’s background, timeline, and associations?

Asserting a solution  (to ‘enforce monogamy’) is not speculating upon (or even discovering any) ‘process of radicalisation’.

You argued that Peterson’s ideas ‘aren’t preposterous’ simply because the killer killed.

I argue that he hasn’t yet presented an ‘idea’ about the Toronto killer. Less still actual evidence.  Instead he is broadcasting polemical and socio-political statements presented (a priori) as factual.

To recap:

geetee: I’ll be honest and confess I’m really not sure what we’re now trying to resolve as a difference of opinion.

I think that the first fundamental difference might be neatly summarised in our earlier exchange where we seem to differ with concepts of clarity and objectivity:

Me: Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?

geetee: I don’t see what that has to do about anything? I didn’t really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so.

Can we resolve that first?

tj

Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade

Difference of opinion represented in entirely negative insulting and personal terms. Again.

completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?

?

To my mind that is not at all an example of ‘speculation’.

Context

since this is, essentially, written transcript of verbal conversation then It depends the way it was said surely – you miss the non-verbal communication (body language, intonation of tone, facial expression) that may well have indicated to someone actually present that it was a proposition (in the context of discussion) rather than a statement – indeed, if you watch a few of JP’s videos you’ll see him do this a lot,

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

From someone who apparently knows the guy.

From someone who apparently knows the guy.

Guess he wasn’t intelligent enough to understand him.

I have refrained from commenting on your threads recently because I feel you might be fragile mentally but really dude =- go and get some counselling to open your mind.

That’s a bit rich coming from someone who has previously been banned for being dogmatic, obnoxious, argumentative and just plain rude.

I’m no more a mysoginist than you are a Nazi TJ.

jimjam: Let me try to address all of your points and explain my confusion.

It’s clear that you find Peterson’s comments on the attack to be ill informed

Nope. I’ve no idea how informed he is regarding the Toronto killer. I tried to make that clear to geetee.

ill-judged

Yes certainly. At best. If it turns out that the killer was involved in some kind of ultra-misogynist online cult then ‘ill-judged’ wouldn’t begin to describe my thoughts on JPs comments.

and seemingly baseless, or at best complete speculation.

Baseless maybe.  As I said, my opinion is that JP offered no speculation or evidence upon which to base anything on.  Just asserted general stuff about men’s violence and monogamy.

You’ve asked Geetee about this directly at least six times.

Three times. He answered on the third.  One was a reminder because chaff.  You really need me to dig them out? £35 per hr?

jimjam: When I’ve tried to answer your query positing why I think Peterson might have said what he said you’ve dismissed it and mocked me for being psychic.

Teased. But sorry if it upset you, that was not my intent. It was more directed at Peterson’s legion of followers/apologists in general. ‘Petersonpretation’ is a fledgeling discipline and I’m only recently acquainted. I tease again!

jimjam: Any answer Geetee gives can just be attributed to “psychic powers” too and thus easily dismissed as well so why insist on an answer from one specific individual

So you say, but I haven’t dismissed geetee’s answer. And I didn’t dismiss yours. In fact I followed straight on with a counter-question/request for clarification of your answer. Numbered 1 and 2. In case you missed it:

jimjam: He’s saying that the killer was in such a malevolent nihilistic state that he wants to punish the world/society/god for hurting him.

Me: 1.  So why wouldnt he say that?  I note that his more motivated supporters do seem to act as self-appointed translators. Maybe he should speak more clearly and objectively?  AFAIK, he meant that the killer was angry at God.  Now God is another word for society?  AFAIK the killer was angry because no social/relationship success online + handily-accessed cult of nihilistic ultra-misogynist anti-social media-addicts.? But let’s wait for all the evidence to come in, no?

2. Do you have evidence that supports your translation/extrapolation?  Shall we make it easier and move the goalposts? Claim that JP (and now you) was not referring specifically to the Toronto killer that he was specifically referring to?

Teabreak.

jimjam: With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides.

Not by me they haven’t. And I might suggest you be more specific and address those commenters/quote them, otherwise it just explodes into useless generalising counter-strikes, forced bipartisan bollocks, cultic chaos and assumptive madness with no beginning or end. You might call that a business model these days. Youtube innit.

jimjam: If you genuinely want to know Peterson’s motivations ask Peterson. If you want to know Geetee’s so badly then be upfront as to why you specifically want his interpretation as opposed to anyone else’s

^ Two (wrong) assumptions delivered as a valid question

jimjam: and I’ll certainly apologise

Gifgate sucked.  You stepped up.  I tickled your foot, lost in translation, so you stabbed me in the eye with a fork and now won’t stop or apologise unless I first satisfy your conditions for debating with the OP?  Away with ye daftness. Anyway, the pay was terrible.

Malvern Rider

ill-judged

Yes certainly. At best. If it turns out that the killer was involved in some kind of ultra-misogynist online cult then ‘ill-judged’ wouldn’t begin to describe my thoughts on JPs comments.

To be honest MR I think that this incel thing probably merits it’s own thread, perhaps even another thread about Dr.JP’s relevance to them would be in order since I really struggle to believe he would or could mean that much to them.  Virtually everything I’ve heard from Peterson which would fall under “advice to men” in the broadest sense would be exactly the kind of thing you would say to someone to discourage an “incel” mentality. Take responsibility, sort your life out, start making changes, don’t blame other people, if all women are the problem then really, you’re the problem and so on and so forth.

With regards to “angry at god” I believe that Peterson (rightly or wrongly) views this incel attacker in similar terms to U.S school shooters. The Columbine killers made a lot of incel type complaints in their journals… there’s a video of Peterson talking about them (and other mass killers out there somewhere).

jimjam: With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides.

Not by me they haven’t.

You made allusions to hyper-masculinity, marital rape, no equality for women, slut shaming etc etc

And I might suggest you be more specific and address those commenters/quote them, otherwise it just explodes into useless generalising counter-strikes, forced bipartisan bollocks, cultic chaos and assumptive madness with no beginning or end.

This is exactly what it has been from page 1 and it’s all par for the course on STW where the mods and the culture in general emboldens people to insult and attack people with opinions which contradict the hive. Are you suggesting there hasn’t been constant bullying, insults and abuse?  Addressing specific commentators and quoting them would only lead to more acrimony and negativity and detract from the tiny minority of people interested in honest debate.

Hold up there Tonto.  I’m not having that.

Since when has the inability for some users to hold a civil conversation been the moderators’ fault?

Would you prefer more rigorous censorship?  You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is “attacking” someone else.

cougar

I’m not having that.

Since when has the inability for some users to hold a civil conversation been the moderators’ fault?

You’ve been contributing the thread, so presumably you’ve been reading it. If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.  I was under the impression it wasn’t. Mod innactivity while people are labeled misogynist, nazi, wife beater, racist etc is tacitly condoning this behavior.

I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot, in reply to them calling me an idiot. and yet we here we have people pouring on egregious, slanderous insults and blatant bullying.

Would you prefer more rigorous censorship?

I’d prefer consistency and impartiality. Too much to ask?

You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is “attacking” someone else.

So if you personally see pornographic or offensive material do you wait to until it’s reported? If you see direct personal attacks, bullying or abuse do you wait until it’s reported? Are you incapable of acting until someone reports the post?

 Mod innactivity while people are labeled misogynist, nazi, wife beater, racist etc is tacitly condoning this behavior.

You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is “attacking” someone else.

Just go back and report the posts then….

Just let me know so I can do that too.

No need.

Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap

Yours, a reactionary, fear mongering shit stirrer.

RustySpanner

Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap

Yours, a reactionary, fear mongering shit stirrer.

And where in that post do you see an ad hom comparable to “racist” or “Nazi” ?

You do realise those words have meaning?

Any chance you could reply? Happy to debate it with you.

And fearmongering shit stirrer doesn’t?

Good grief.

Take a look at yourself mate…..

Rusty

And fearmongering shit stirrer doesn’t?

Good grief.

Take a look at yourself mate…..

Say I email your employer tomorrow (assuming you have one). Rusty Spanner is a racist and here’s why….or Rusty Spanner is a shit stirrer, and here’s why. Do you think they carry equal meaning or importance or weight?

I can’t remember the famous Shit Stirrer trials and subsequent hangings.

Take a look at yourself indeed.

Is that the kind of thing you’re likely to do?

Is it possible for you to respond to one of my posts without insults?

And please, post an example of me calling someone a Nazi or racist.

Ta.

Rusty

Is that the kind of thing you’re likely to do?

Me? No. Of course not. I can’t say the same for some of the ideologically obsessed posters who seem compelled to destroy people on this forum because they disagree with them.

Do you think “shit stirrer” and “racist” or “nazi sympathiser” are equal in terms of seriousness? Happy to debate it with you.

And please, post the examp of me calling someone a Nazi or racist.

You’ve been careful not to use those terms but many who share your opinions have no qualms in doing so.

You’ve been careful not to use those terms but many who share your opinions have no qualms in doing so.

We have all been learning from jp there…