[In this British Channel 4 interview, cum debate/debacle, between a less than typical cucky  Canadian academic, Jordan Peterson, and the feminist host Cathy Newman on the female wage gap with men, we witness the total, cringe inducing, defeat of her position, as she shows continuously an inability to grasp simple points made by Peterson. In fact, she herself demonstrates a good example of a woman being put into a highly paid position, way above her ability, purely because of her gender.
Which is indicative that actually the wage gap is in females’ favour, as many of them are in positions much higher than they should be, purely for what they don’t have between their legs, in order to fulfill affirmative action quotas — KATANA.]
On the Gender Pay Gap
Click here for the video:
Published on Jan 16, 2018
Newman: Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, “grow the hell up!” Tell me why.
Peterson: Well, because there’s nothing uglier than an old infant. There’s nothing good about it. People who don’t grow up, don’t find the sort of meaning in their life that sustains them through difficult times. And they are certain to encounter difficult times. And they’re left bitter and resentful, and without purpose, and adrift, and hostile, and resentful, and vengeful, and arrogant, and deceitful, and of no use to themselves, and of no use to anyone else, and no partner for a woman, and there’s nothing in it that’s good!
Newman: So you’re saying,  I mean, that sounds pretty bad.
Peterson: Yes it is.
Newman: You’re saying there’s a crisis of masculinity. I mean, what do you do about it?
Peterson: You tell, you help people understand why it’s necessary and important for them to grow up and adopt responsibilities. Why that isn’t a “shake your finger and get your act together” sort of thing. Why it’s more like, but why it’s more like a, delineation of the kind of destiny that makes life worth living. I’ve been telling young men, but it’s not, I wasn’t specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with, it just kind of turned out that way.
Newman: And it’s mostly, you admit, it’s mostly men listening. I mean,
Peterson: It is!
Newman: And about 90 percent your audience is men, right?
Peterson: Well it’s about 80 percent on YouTube. Which is a, … YouTube is a male domain, primarily. So it’s hard to tell how much of it is, because YouTube is male, and how much of it is, because of what I’m saying. But, what I’ve been telling young men is that there’s an actual reason why they need to grow up. Which is that they have something to offer, you know, that people have within them, this capacity to set the world straight! And that’s necessary to manifest in the world. And that also, doing so, is where you find the meaning that sustains you in life.
Newman: So what’s gone wrong, then?
Peterson: Oh god! All sorts of things have gone wrong! I think that, I don’t think that young men hear words of encouragement. Some of them never in their entire lives, as far as I can tell, that’s what they tell me. And the fact that the words that I’ve been speaking, the YouTube lectures that I’ve done and put online, for example, have had such a dramatic impact, is an indication that young men are starving for this sort of message. Because like, why in the world would they have to derive it from a lecture on YouTube? Now they’re not being taught that it’s important to develop yourself.
Newman: But does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Does that, isn’t that a bit divisive?
Peterson: No, I don’t think so. I mean, it’s no more divisive than the fact that YouTube is primarily male and Tumblr is primarily female.
Newman: Well, that is pretty divisive. Isn’t it?
Peterson: Tumblr is primarily female.
Newman: Right, you’re just saying that’s the way it is?
Peterson: Well, it’s, I’m not saying anything. It’s just an observation, that, that’s the way it is. There’s plenty of women that are watching my lectures and coming to my talks and buying my books. It’s just that the majority of them happen to be men.
Newman: What’s in it for the women, though?
Peterson: Well what sort of partner do you want? You want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with, that’s going to help you?
Newman: So you’re saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?
Peterson: It depends on what they want. No, I mean, it’s exactly how I laid it out. Like, women want, deeply, want men who are competent and powerful! And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power! That’s just corruption.
Power is competence! And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why actually. You can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination, …
Newman: So you are saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?
Peterson: No. I’d say women who have had their relationships with men impaired and who are afraid of such relationships, will settle for a weak partner, because they can dominate them. But it’s a sub-optimal solution.
Newman: Do you think that’s what a lot of women are doing?
Peterson: I think there’s a substantial minority of women who do that. And I think it’s very bad for them. They’re very unhappy. It’s very bad for their partners. Although the partners get the advantage of not having to take any responsibility.
Newman: What gives you the right to say that? I mean, maybe that’s how women want their relationships, those women. I mean, you’re making these vast generalizations.
Peterson: I’m a clinical psychologist!
Newman: Right. So you’re saying you’ve done your research and women are unhappy dominating men?
Peterson: I didn’t say they were unhappy dominating them. I said it was a bad long-term solution. It’s not the same thing.
Newman: Okay, you said it was making them miserable.
Peterson: Yes, it is. And it depends on the time frame. I mean, there can be, there’s intense pleasure in momentary domination. That’s why people do it all the time, but it’s no formula for a long-term, successful, long-term relationship. That’s reciprocal, right? Any long-term relationship is reciprocal, virtually by definition. So, …
Newman: Let me put a quote to you, from the book, where you say:
“There are whole disciplines in universities, forthrightly hostile towards men. These are the areas of study dominated by the postmodern stroke neo-Marxist claim that Western culture in particular, is an oppressive structure, created by White men to dominate and exclude women.”
But then, I want to put to you, ….
Peterson: Minorities too! Dominate, …
Newman: Okay. Sure. But I want to put to you that here in the UK, for example, let’s take that as an example. The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%. You’ve got women at the BBC recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job. You’ve got only seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies!
Newman: So it seems to a lot of women, that they are still being “dominated and excluded”, to quote your words back to you.
Peterson: It does seem that way, but multivariate analysis  of the pay gap indicate that it doesn’t exist.
Newman: But that is not true, is it? I mean, that nine percent pay gap! That’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women!
Peterson: Yeah, but there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but it’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. Like you say, well women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay, well then we break it down by age, we break it down by occupation, we break it down by interest, we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what’s skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying well that’s just a fact of life, so they are not going to hardly get to the top.
Peterson: No I’m saying it doesn’t matter, either.
Newman: You’re saying it’s a fact of life.
Peterson: I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it, and they’re not being taken into account.
Newman: But why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content, not to, …?
Peterson: I’m not saying they should put up with it. I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex, is wrong! And it is wrong! There’s no doubt about that! The multivariate analysis have been done. I can give you examples. Wait a second. Let me give you an example!
Newman: I’m saying that nine percent pay gap exists! That’s a gap between men and women. I’m not saying why it exists, but it exists! Now, if you’re a woman, that seems pretty unfair!
Peterson: You have to say why it exists.
Newman: But do you agree that it’s unfair? If you’re a woman, ….
Peterson: Not necessary, ….
Newman: And on average you’re getting paid nine percent less than a man, that’s not fair, is it?
Peterson: It depends on why it’s happening! I can give you an example. Okay. There’s a personality trait known as “agreeableness”. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than less agreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.
Newman: Again, a vast generalization.
Peterson: It’s not a generalization..
Newman: Some women are not more agreeable than men.
Peterson: That’s true, that’s right. And some women get paid more than men!
Newman: So you were saying that, by and large, women are too agreeable to get the pay raises they deserve?
Peterson: No. I’m saying that, that’s one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe five percent of the variance, something like that.
Newman: Surely, the answer, ….
Peterson: There are another eighteen factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that, but it accounts for a much smaller proportion of the variance in the pay gap then the radical feminists claim.
Newman: Okay, so rather than denying the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay rise, go and ask for a pay raise!
Newman: Make yourself disagreeable with your boss!
Peterson: Oh definitely! There’s that. But I also didn’t deny it existed. I denied it existed, because of gender!
Peterson: Because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.
Newman: So the pay gap exists, you accept that, but you’re saying, … I mean, the pay gap between men and women exists, you’re saying it’s not, because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay rises, ….
Peterson: One of the reasons.
Newman: Okay. One of the reasons. So why not get them to ask for a pay rise? Wouldn’t that be a fairer way of proceeding?
Peterson: I’ve done that many, many times in my career.
Newman: And they just don’t.
Peterson: Oh, they do it all the time! So, one of the things that you do as a clinical psychologist is “assertiveness training”. So, you might say, often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training.
And so, I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice. And we put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period!
Newman: And you celebrate that?
Peterson: Of course! Of course!
Newman: So, do you agree that you would be happy if that pay gap was eliminated completely? Because that’s all the radical feminists are saying.
Peterson: [amused by her trying to put words into his mouth] It would depend on how it was eradicated and how the disappearance of it was measured.
Newman: And you’re saying if it’s at the cost of men, that’s a problem?
Peterson: Oh, there’s all sorts of things that it could be at the cost of. It could even be at the cost of women’s own interests. So, …
Newman: Because they might not be happy if they could equal pay?
Peterson: No, because it might interfere with other things that are causing the pay gap that women are choosing to do, …
Newman: Like having children?
Peterson: Well, or choosing careers that actually happen to be paid less. Which women do a lot of.
Newman: But why shouldn’t women have the right to choose not to have children, or the right to choose those demanding careers?
Peterson: They do! They can! Yeah, that’s fine.
Newman: But you’re saying that makes them unhappy. By and large.
Peterson: I’m saying that, … No, I’m not saying that. And I actually haven’t said that, so far in the program.
Newman: You’re saying it makes them miserable.
Peterson: No. I said, what was making them miserable was having weak partners. That makes them miserable!
Peterson: I would say that many women around the age of, I would say, between 28 and 32, have a career-family crisis that they have to deal with. And I think that’s partly, because of the foreshortened time-frame that women have to contend with. Like, women have to get the major pieces of their life put together faster than men. Which is also partly why men aren’t under so much pressure to grow up! So, because for the typical woman, she has to have her career and family in order pretty much by the time she’s 35.
Because otherwise the options start to run out. And so that puts a tremendous amount of stress on women, especially at the end of their 20s.
Newman: I’m going to take issue with the idea of the “typical woman”. Because, you know, all women are different! And I want to just put another quote to you from the book, …
Peterson: Oh, they’re different in some ways and the same in others.
Newman: Okay. You say women become more vulnerable when they have children.
Peterson: Oh, yes.
Newman: And you talked to one of your YouTube interviews about, “crazy harpy sisters”. So, a simple question. Is gender equality a myth in your view? Is that something that’s just never gonna happen?
Peterson: It depends on what you mean by equality.
Newman: Treated fairly, getting the same opportunities.
Peterson: Fairly? We could get to a point where people were treated fairly, or more fairly. I mean, people are treated pretty fairly in Western culture already. But we can look, …
Newman: But they’re really not though, are they? I mean, otherwise why would there only be seven women running FTSE 100 companies in the UK? Why would there still be a pay gap which we’ve discussed of late?
Peterson: Oh that’s easy, …
Newman: Why are women at the BBC saying that they’re getting paid illegally, less the men, to do the same job? That’s not fair, is it!
Peterson: [highly amused at her repetitive insistence] Well, let’s go to the first question. Those both are complicated questions. Seven women, … Repeat that one.
Newman: Seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies in the UK.
Peterson: Well, the first question might be, why would you want to do that?
Newman: Why would a man want to do it? They earn a lot of money. It’s an interesting job.
Peterson: There are any number of men, although not that many, who are perfectly willing to sacrifice virtually all of their life to the pursuit of a high-end career. So they’ll work, … These are men that are very intelligent, they’re usually very, very conscientious. They’re very driven. They’re very high-energy. They’re very healthy. And they’re willing to work 70, or 80 hours a week, non-stop, specialised at one thing, to get to the top!
Newman: So you think women are just more sensible? They don’t want that, because it’s not a nice life?
Peterson: I’m saying that’s part of it, definitely! And so I work, …
Newman: So, you don’t think there are barriers in their way that prevent them getting to the top?
Peterson: Oh, there’s some barriers. Yeah, like other men, for example. I mean, to get to the top of any organisation is an incredibly competitive enterprise. And the men that you’re competing with are simply not going to roll over and say, “Please take the position“! It’s absolutely all-out warfare!
Newman: Let me come back to my question. Is gender equality a myth?
Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same! And they won’t be the same! That doesn’t mean they can’t be treated fairly.
Newman: Is gender equality desirable?
Peterson: If it means equality of outcome, then almost certainly it’s undesirable! That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Because in Scandinavia, …
Newman: What do you mean by that? Equality of outcome is undesirable?
Peterson: Well, men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories, if you leave them alone to do it off their own accord. We’ve already seen that in Scandinavia. It’s twenty to one female nurses to male, something like that. It might not be quite that extreme. And approximately the same, male engineers to female engineers. And that’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law!
Those are in ineradicable differences! You can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure and tyranny! But if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcome!
Newman: Right, so you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists, call them whatever you want to call them, should basically give up, because it ain’t gonna happen!
Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.
Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine?
Peterson: Not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals and for society.
Newman: But still women aren’t gonna make it! That’s what you’re really saying.
Peterson: It depends on your measurement techniques. They’re doing just fine in medicine! In fact, there are far more female physicians, than there are male physicians. There are lots of disciplines that are absolutely dominated by women! Many, many disciplines! And they’re doing great! So, …
Newman: Let me put something else to you from the book. You say:
“The introduction of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ argument immediately complicates even salary comparison beyond practicality, for one simple reason. Who decides what work is equal? it’s not possible.“
So the simple question is, do you believe in equal pay?
Peterson: Well, I made the argument there. It depends on, …
Newman: So you don’t believe in equal pay?
Peterson: [bursting out laughing] No, I’m not saying that at all!
Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you, will just say, I mean, are we going back to the Dark Ages?
Peterson: That is because you’re actually not listening! You’re just projecting what you’re, …
Newman: I’m listening very carefully, and I’m hearing you basically saying, women need to just accept that they’re never gonna make it on equal terms, equal outcomes, is how you define it, …
Peterson: No I didn’t to that! [highly amused at her]
Newman: If I was a young women watching that, I would go:
“Well, I might as well just go and play with my Cindy dolls! Give up trying at school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying it’s not possible, and that it’s not desirable, and it will make you miserable!”
Peterson: I said equal outcomes are not desirable. That is what I said. It’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, [still amused by her] or anything like that, because I don’t believe that for a second!
Newman: Striving for the top? But you’re gonna put all those hurdles in their way, as has been in their way for centuries! And that’s fine! You’re saying that’s fine!
Peterson: No! No! I think, I really think that, …
Newman: The patriarchal system is just fine!
Peterson: That is silly! [smiling with amusement] I do! I think that’s silly! I really do! I mean, look at your situation. You’re hardly unsuccessful.
Newman: Yeah. And I’ve worked quite hard to get where I’ve got to.
Peterson: Exactly! Good for you!
Newman: That’s okay! Battling is good! This is all about the fight!
Peterson: This is inevitable! Why, …
Newman: But you talk about men, and fighting. Let me just put another thing to you from the book. You say, …
Peterson: Why wouldn’t you have to battle for a high-quality position? [smiling in anticipation of her response]
Newman: Well, I noticed in your book, you talk about real conversations between men containing, quote, “an underlying threat of physicality”.
Peterson: Oh, there’s no doubt about that.
Newman: What about real conversations between women? Is that something, or are we, sort of, too amenable and reasonable?
Peterson: No. It’s just that the domain of physical conflict is sort of off-limits for you.
Newman: Well, you just said that I fought to get where I’ve got.
Newman: What does that make me? A proxy man or something?
Peterson: [raising his arms and fists in a boxing position] I don’t imagine that you, … Yeah to some degree. I suspect you’re not very agreeable!
Newman: So that’s the thing! [letting out a short laugh] Successful women, … I’m not very agreeable.
Peterson:Right! I’ve noticed that actually, in this conversation! [making animated gestures, while nearly bursting out laughing] And I’m sure it served your career well!
Newman: Successful women though, basically have to wear the trousers, in your view? They have to sort of become men to succeed, is what you’re saying?
Peterson: Well if they are, …
Newman: “I had to fight to succeed” therefore, I’m an honorary man?
Peterson: If they are going to compete against men, certainly. Masculine traits are going to be helpful. I mean, one of the things I do in my counseling practice, for example, when I’m consulting with women who are trying to advance their careers, is to teach them how to negotiate. And to be able to say no! And to not be easily pushed around. And to be formidable! And you need to, … If you’re going to be successful, you need to be smart, conscientious, and tough!
Newman: Well, here’s a radical idea! Why don’t the bosses adopt some, the male bosses shall we say, adopt some female traits, so that women don’t have to fight and get their sharp elbows out for the pay rises? It’s just accepted if they’re doing the same job, they get the same pay!
Peterson: Well, I would say partly, because it’s not so easy to determine what constitutes the same job!
Newman: That is because, arguably, there are still men dominating our industries, our society, and therefore they’ve dictated the terms for so long, that women have to battle to be like the men!
Peterson: No, it’s not true. It’s not true.
Newman: Where’s the evidence?
Peterson: Well I can give you an example very quickly. So, I worked with women who worked in high-powered law firms in Canada for about 15 years. And they were as competent and put together as anybody you would ever meet. And we were trying to figure out how to further their careers. And there was a huge debate in Canadian society at that point, that basically, ran along the same lines as your argument. That if the law firms didn’t use these masculine criteria then perhaps women would do better. But the market sets the damn game! It’s like, …
Newman: And the market is dominated by men!
Peterson: No it’s not! It’s not! The market is dominated by women! They make 80 percent of the consumer decisions. That’s not the case at all. Eighty percent!
Newman: If you’re talking about people who stay at home, looking after children, by and large, they are still women. So they’re going out doing the shopping. But that is changing, …
Peterson: They make all the consumer decisions.
Newman: Okay so, …
Peterson: The market is driven by women, not men!
Peterson: Okay, and if you’re a lawyer in Canada, …
Newman: You still pay more for the same sort of goods. That’s been proven. That men, … You buy a blue bicycle helmet, it’s gonna cost less than a pink one. Anyway, we’ll come on to that.
Peterson: It’s partly because men are less agreeable. Right? So they won’t put up with it.
Newman: I want to ask you, is it not desirable to have some of those female traits you’re talking about, I’d say that’s a generalization, but you’ve used the words “female traits”. Is it not desirable to have some of them at the top of business? I mean, maybe they wouldn’t have been, … Have been a banking crisis, if that had happened?
Peterson: They don’t predict success! They don’t predict success in the workplace. The things that predict success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness. Agreeableness, negatively predicts success in the workplace. And so does high negative emotion.
Newman: You’re saying that women aren’t intelligent enough to run these top companies?
Peterson: No! I didn’t say that at all!
Newman: You said that female traits don’t predict success.
Peterson: But I didn’t say that intelligence wasn’t, … I didn’t say that intelligence and conscientiousness, weren’t female traits.
Newman: But you were saying that intelligence and conscientiousness, by implication, are not female traits.
Peterson: [hardly able to contain himself from bursting out laughing at her apparent inability to understand what he is saying] No! No! I’m not saying that at all!
Newman: I mean, that’s really dangerous territory!
Peterson: I’m not saying that at all!
Newman: Are women less intelligent than men, by and large?
Peterson:No! No they’re not. No the data on that’s pretty clear. The average IQ for a woman and the average IQ for a man is identical. There is some debate about the flatness of the distribution, which is something that James Damore  pointed out, for example, in his memo. But there’s no difference at all in general cognitive ability. There’s no difference to speak of in conscientiousness. Women are a bit more orderly than men, and men are a little bit more industrious than women. The difference isn’t big! But that averages into conscientiousness.
Newman: There are plenty of men who aren’t necessarily as industrious.
Peterson: Well, of course!
Newman: But female traits, …
Peterson: Feminine traits!
Newman: Why are they not desirable at the top of, … Feminine traits, why are they not desirable at the top?
Peterson: It’s hard to say. I’m just laying out the empirical evidence. Like we know the traits that predict success.
Newman: But we also know, because companies, by and large, have not been dominated by women, over the centuries, we have nothing to compare it to! It’s an experiment!
Peterson: True! And it could be the case that if companies modified their behavior and became more feminine, then they would be successful.
Newman: You seem doubtful about that.
Peterson: But there’s no evidence for it! I’m not neither doubtful, nor non doubtful! There’s no evidence for it.
Newman: Why not give it a go, as the radical feminist would say?
Peterson: Well it’s fine! Like if someone wants to start a company and make it more feminine and compassionate, let’s say, and caring in it’s overall orientation towards it’s workers and towards the marketplace, then that’s a perfectly reasonable experiment to run. My point is, that there is no evidence that those traits predict success in the workplace!
Newman: Because it’s never been tried!
Peterson: Well that’s not, that’s not really the case. Women have been in the workplace for at least, ever since I’ve been around. The representation of women in the workplace has been about 50 percent. So we’ve run the experiment for a fairly reasonable period of time. But not, you know, certainly not for centuries.
Newman: Let me move on to another debate that’s been very controversial for you. And this is, you got in trouble for refusing to call “trans-men” and “women” by their preferred personal pronouns.
Peterson: No. That is not actually true. I got in trouble, because I said I would not follow the compelled speech dictates of the Federal and Provincial governments. I actually never got in trouble for not calling anyone anything.
Peterson: That didn’t happen.
Newman: You wouldn’t follow the change of law which was designed to outlaw discrimination?
Peterson: Not once it was law. NO! No! That’s what they said it was designed to do.
Newman: Okay. You cited “freedom of speech” in that. Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans-person’s right, not to be offended?
Peterson: Because, in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive! I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You know, like you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable!
Newman: Well, I’m very glad I’ve put you on the spot!
Peterson: [laughing loudly] But you get my point! You get my point. Like, you’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me! And that’s fine! I think more power to you, as far as I’m concerned!
Newman: You haven’t sat there and, I’m just, … [she’s lost for words] ... Sorry, I’m just trying to work that out. I mean, ... [long pause, about 4 seconds]
Peterson: Ha! Gotcha! [Peterson kindly put her out of her misery]
Newman: You have got me! You have got me! I’m trying to work that through my head. Yeah, … It took a while, it took a while, …
Peterson: It did! It did! Yeah.
Newman: You have voluntary, … You have voluntarily come into the studio and agreed to be questioned. A trans-person in your class, has come to your class and said they want to be called “she”.
Peterson: That’s never happened. And I would call them “she”.
Newman: So you would? So you’ve kind of changed your tune a little bit, …
Peterson: No. No. I said that right from the beginning. What I said at the beginning, was that I was not going to cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists. Regardless of whether, or not, it was put in law. That’s what I said. Then the people who came after me said:
“Oh, you must be transphobic! And you’d mistreat a student in your class.”
It’s like, I never mistreated a student in my class. I’m not transphobic, and that isn’t what I said.
Newman: Well, you’ve also called trans-campaigners “authoritarian“, haven’t you? I mean, isn’t that, …
Peterson: Only in the broader context of my claims that radical leftist ideologues are “authoritarian“. Which they are!
Newman: You’re saying someone who’s trying to work out their gender identity, who may well have struggled with that. Had quite a tough time over the years.
Peterson: No doubt they struggled with it, yeah.
Newman: You’re comparing them with, you know, Chairman Mao, who, …
Peterson: No. Just the activists.
Newman: Who caused the deaths of millions of people. Well, even if the activists, you know, they’re trans-people too. They have a right to say these things.
Peterson: Yeah, but they don’t have a right to speak for their whole community.
Newman: Isn’t it grossly insensitive to compare them to Chairman Mao! You know, Pinochet, Augusta Pinochet, you know, this is grossly insensitive.
Peterson: I didn’t compare them to Pinochet.
Newman: Well, he was an authoritarian.
Peterson: I did compare them to Mao, … He’s a right-winger though. I was comparing them to the left-wing totalitarians. And I do believe they are left-wing totalitarians.
Newman: Mao! Mao! Under Mao, millions of people died!
Newman: I mean, there’s no comparison! Between Mao and a trans-activist, is there?
Peterson: Why not?
Newman: Because trans-activists aren’t killing millions of people!?
Peterson: The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances is the same philosophy.
Newman: The consequences are, …
Peterson: Not yet!
Newman: You’re saying that trans-activists, …
Newman: Could lead to the deaths of millions of people?
Peterson: No, I’m saying that the philosophy that drives their utterances is the same philosophy that already has driven us to the deaths of millions of people.
Newman: Okay. Tell us how that philosophy, is in any way comparable.
Peterson: Sure. That’s no problem. The first thing is that their philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That’s the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Maoist China. And it’s the fundamental philosophy of the left-wing activists. It’s identity politics. It doesn’t matter who you are as an individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity.
Newman: You just saying things to provoke, aren’t you? I mean, you are a provocateur, …
Peterson: I never said anything, …
Newman: You’re like the Alt-Right, that you hate to be compared to! You want to stir things up!
Peterson: I’m only a provocateur, insofar as, when I say what I believe to be true, it’s provocative. I don’t provoke. Maybe for humor, now and then.
Newman: You don’t set out, …
Peterson: I’m not interested in provoking.
Newman: What about the thing about, you know, fighting, and the “lobster“. Tell us about the lobster!
Peterson: Ha! Well that’s quite a segue!
Well, the first chapter I have in my book is called, “Stand up Straight with Your Shoulders Back”. And it’s an injunction to be combative! Not least to further your career, let’s say. But also to adopt a stance of ready engagement with the world, and to reflect that in your posture.
And the reason that I write about lobsters is, because there’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a “sociological construct of the Western patriarchy”. And that is so untrue! That it’s almost unbelievable! And I use the lobster as an example. Because the lobster, we devolved from lobsters in evolutionary history, about 350 million years ago. Common ancestor. And lobsters exist in hierarchies, and have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin, just like our nervous systems do. And the nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar, that antidepressants work on lobsters!
And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of “hierarchy” has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural constructions, which it doesn’t!
Newman: Let me just get it straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies, along the lines of the lobsters? [now reaching new levels of stupid with Newman!]
Peterson: I’m saying that it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable! And there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that! Right? That’s so long, that a third of the billion years ago, there weren’t even trees! It’s a long time!
You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin. That’s similar to the lobster mechanism, that tracks your status. And the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase, you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
Newman: So you’re saying, like the lobsters, we’re hardwired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it?
Peterson: No, I’m not saying there’s nothing we can do about it, because it’s like, … In a chess game, all right, there’s lots of things that you can do. Although you can’t break the rules of the chess game and continue to play chess.
And your biological nature is somewhat like that, as it sets the rules of the game, but within those rules you have a lot of leeway. But the idea that, … But one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the “capitalist patriarchy”. It’s like that’s patently absurd! It’s wrong! It’s not a matter of opinion! It’s seriously wrong!
Newman: Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger, and, …
Peterson: Not of all!
Newman: … Divisions between men and women. You’re stirring people up! You know, any critics of you, online, get absolutely lambasted by your followers!
Peterson:And by me! Generally.
Newman: Sorry, your critics get lambasted by you?
Peterson: If there are academics.
Newman: Isn’t that irresponsible?
Peterson: Not at all. If an academic is going to come after me and tell me that I’m not qualified, and that I don’t know what I’m talking about? Seriously?
Newman: So you are not going to say to your followers now, “Quit the abuse! Quit the anger!“?
Peterson: Well, we’d need some substantial examples of the abuse and the anger before I could detail that question.
Newman: There’s a lot of it out there!
Peterson: Well, let’s take a more general perspective on that. So I have had 25,000 letters since June, something like that, from people who told me that I’ve brought them back from the brink of destruction! And so I’m perfectly willing to put that up against the rather vague accusations, that my followers are making the lives of people that I’ve targeted, miserable.
Newman: Jordan Peterson, thank you!
Peterson: [amused] My pleasure! Nice talking with you.
 Peterson is called a “cuck” because he doesn’t address the JQ/JP, i.e., the Jewish Question/Jewish Problem, and all that it then unravels. His adherence to the conventional world view on WWII, race, etc., shows that he is not Alt-Right. “Clean your room!“, type of advice simply doesn’t cut it.
Just saying, but “you’re saying” and variations is used 34 times by Newman, mostly to dishonestly put words into Peterson mouth!
 See: The gender wage gap myth
 Google engineer James Damore was fired last August after he wrote a controversial memo arguing that Google had gone overboard in its efforts to promote diversity. He generated widespread outrage by suggesting that the under-representation of women at Google was a result of women’s lesser interest in software engineering—rather than discrimination within the technology sector.
*** UPDATE – Mar 2, 2019 — Please see the Comment sections for a Hungarian translation of this interview.
* Total words = 6,871
* Total images = 9
* Total A4 pages = 45
Click to download a PDF of this post (1.2 MB):
Version 9: Oct 24, 2019 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version..
Version 8: Mar 1, 2019 — Please see the Comment sections for a Hungarian translation of this interview.
Version 7: Mar 16, 2018 — Improved the accuracy of the transcript. Fixed typos. Improved formatting. Added PDF Ver 2 for download.
Version 6: Mar 15, 2018 — Updated Cover to reflect the nature of the “debate“.
Version 5: Feb 20, 2018 — Added PDF of post.
Version 4: Jan 25, 2018 — Added Cindy doll image.
Version 3: Jan 24, 2018 — Added 1 footnote on wage gap. Added lobster image.
Version 2: Jan 23, 2018 — Corrected typos. Added 3 footnotes. Added some images.
Version 1: Jan 22, 2018 — Published post.