Gender Equality Action Plan

Remove this Banner Ad

JeanLucGoddard said:
She's not attacking his work in his field, she making the very clear point that he's become a media tart. The second he did that, he stepped into her field of excellence.

GQ interviews, lol.
Click to expand...

Media tart?

Her type were falling over themselves to get to him and carve him up , and now that he's completely neutralised their bullshit and become a one man juggernaut, they piss and moan about him being a media whore and want to shut him down. THEY CREATED HIM!

It's genuinely hilarious.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

JeanLucGoddard said:
I'm gunna channel Freud here - you dudes LIKE him.

Like, have a crush on him.
Click to expand...
If you're the past poster I think you are than your field is journalism. Bit of bias there.

You're comparing levels of education between someone with a degree at Oxford (English is it? Lol). Vs. a former Harvard lecturer that went on to become a professor at a university ranked inside the top 5 in his field.

There literally is no comparison. Peterson is now in the media because he is good at it. Most of the media want to one up him and get their sound bite so they make a name off of him - that hasn't worked out well for a few.

It's called knowledge translation and people often criticise researchers for not transferring their work out into the real world - well here we are.

Comparing a journalist to a highly cited university professor. Like comparing a VFL reserve player to a Brownlow medalist
 
Groin guru said:
Peterson is now in the media because he is good at it.
Click to expand...

He's actually in the media because the people that now want to shut him down actually put him there.

If they had left him alone he would be that obscure bloke that once got up at a Canadian campus to have a crack at policy.............and otherwise be a virtual unknown.

Comparing a journalist to a highly cited university professor. Like comparing a VFL reserve player to a Brownlow medalist
Click to expand...

Good journalism has its place, but dismissing a clinical psychologist with a tabloid commentary from an English major?

I get that an English degree can facilitate comprehensive writing and an ability to argue a point, but without some credible psychopharmacological input, I fail to see how she can credibly engage someone from Peterson's field.

Ultimately, the logical fallacy that most of Peterson's critics make, is that they think they understand him.

They don't.
 
Last edited:
Snake_Baker said:
He's actually in the media because the people that now want to shut him down actually put him there.

If they had left him alone he would be that obscure bloke that once got up at a Canadian campus to have a crack at policy.............and be virtually an unknown.
Click to expand...
Exactly and you can say the same with others too. And it is the same mistake they keep making...the more they draw attention to him or particular people....the more censoring they do, or try to the more exposure they get and the bigger they become. The internet has opened a lot of doors that they are finding hard to close....hence why Silicon Valley an the EU are trying to control the information. And of course close down competition to business of news/information.

On a separate note.....I think Jordan was making around $36k a month on Patreon in about early 2017. I am sure it is a hell of a lot more now. He's certainly becoming wealthy from it (or rather making money from ot), that is for sure.
 
Snake_Baker said:
He's actually in the media because the people that now want to shut him down actually put him there.

If they had left him alone he would be that obscure bloke that once got up at a Canadian campus to have a crack at policy.............and otherwise be a virtual unknown.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Snake_Baker said:
Good journalism has its place, but dismissing a clinical psychologist with a tabloid commentary from an English major?

I get that an English degree can facilitate comprehensive writing and an ability to argue a point, but without some credible psychopharmacological input, I fail to see how she can credibly engage someone from Peterson's field.

Ultimately, the logical fallacy that most of Peterson's critics make, is that they think they understand him.

They don't.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to come by. But playing it as a 1.1 in terms of education is very comical. She has a strong education but they are worlds apart. Of course the age gap plays a role in that.

They reality is most of these interviews are just a chess match. Journalists play games but it's hard to play games with someone that has been listening to and reading people for decades.
 
Groin guru said:
Of course it does. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to come by. But playing it as a 1.1 in terms of education is very comical. She has a strong education but they are worlds apart. Of course the age gap plays a role in that.

They reality is most of these interviews are just a chess match. Journalists play games but it's hard to play games with someone that has been listening to and reading people for decades.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing that puzzles me, has ANY publication in the massive resource that is the western media, actually attempted to critique him by utilizing someone from his field?

I can't find a decent example, and I reckon there's a good reason why, THEY CAN'T!

The tabloid arguments against him are impotent until they can do that.
 
I look forward to the day that Flunky Carls is replaced by a Female CEO that makes 11 Home Games in Melbourne for the Mighty NMFC happen. :stern look
 
Groin guru said:
Exactly.


Of course it does. It's a shame that it's getting harder and harder to come by. But playing it as a 1.1 in terms of education is very comical. She has a strong education but they are worlds apart. Of course the age gap plays a role in that.

They reality is most of these interviews are just a chess match. Journalists play games but it's hard to play games with someone that has been listening to and reading people for decades.
Click to expand...
I like James O'Keefe (Project Veritas) investigative journalism especially :)

Supposedly it is not _real_ journalism...even though it's one of the oldest types of.
 
Snake_Baker said:
Here's the thing that puzzles me, has ANY publication in the massive resource that is the western media, actually attempted to critique him by utilizing someone from his field?

I can't find a decent example, and I reckon there's a good reason why, THEY CAN'T!

The tabloid arguments against him are impotent until they can do that.
Click to expand...
True, but it's not always about that. Some probably agree with him deep down but doesn't suit their narrative. Don't have any logical arguments against so they spit out the same junk 'Nazi!!', or 'transphobe!' etc to get people not to listen to him.

He's a threat to the big players. Can't take him down with science or logic so they play other games.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kangaroos4eva said:
Have you seen the state of the fourth estate, you don't exactly need qualifications nowadays, the internet has seen to that.

He doesn't play that card though, his main sthick is against 'left-leaning variants' in universities. He's anti-third-wave-feminism, pro-free speech and anti-totalitarian, he calls those out he intellectually disagrees with, whether they are in the media or another field. He's more than happy to go down media street to discredit any intellectual opponents or because he feels compelled to for whatever reason. If he gets more money or book sales, then good for him for taking the initiative. I keep reading this flash in the pan stuff, but the amount of attention he has received means that JP will be written about in academia for decades to come, good or bad.

I feel rather dirty for defending him as much as I have in this thread and I'm sure most people from this thread have me on ignore now, but if you are going to criticize someone, people need to get it right and back their claims up.
Click to expand...

FWIW I never ignore people whose opinion I disagree with unless its an obvious insult to my intelligence.

That vid I criticised was full of crap. As in pointless words that were either wrong or unnecessary. It was a strawman almost by definition ...

Marxism doesn't lead to totalitarianism. It led to the modern world. It was a specific analysis of the way power was structured 150 years ago and its effects have been good (Unions formed 100 years ago that made workers lives reasonable) and bad (Love Happy for example.)

He's trying to frame the modern world with an argument from early last century.

Whatever else he has to say about whatever else, putting out s**t like that is just virtue signalling to his own sides SJWs.
 
Caracas said:
Out of interest, I wonder how many women have posted in this thread?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
I made some similar observation about 2/3 of the thread ago. Since then only Sopwiths North has to my knowledge.

Its pretty appropriate tho. Thread on gender equality populated exclusively by blokes pontificating on what some other bloke said about how tough blokes have it.
 
True and there is a study posted in it that shows a systemic bias by both male and female hirers against one group of people getting jobs based solely on their genitalia, one that still applies even when those inappropriately genitalled people are clearly the best qualified candidate.

Probably why people are getting jobs at our club based on a combination of their genitalia and them being as good a candidate for the position as anyone else.
 
Kangaroos4eva said:
Try twitter or buzzfeed, plenty of females there that just love to talk ‘equality’. We only have 5-10 female posters that post on this board, proportionately H2H and SW posting here makes it a high percentage. The second paragraph is a tad disrespectful to those that have discussed sensitive topics and the fallacies with the original gender equality plan with a modicum of respect.
Click to expand...

Its a tad disrespectful or I'm laughing at myself as well and as much as at anyone else. Maybe more.

That's a wholesome and healthy level of disrespect imo. There should be more of it.

About that video you've posted:

Kangaroos4eva said:
Just for further clarification...

Controlled aggression and discipline.

I don't agree with a few of his political points and definitely not a fan boy, but he raises interesting points about the need for controlled aggression and discipline.

Click to expand...



Its late and i'm watching this but might not see it all. And its the reason i bumped this discussion. So far apart from a few political points I spose, I agree with most of it. Some things tho... anyway.

I've got to 15 minutes - the end of the first kid speaking - and there's very little he's said I have a problem with. Most of that stuff is pretty obvious. To me at least. And that's not the sort of thing i have a problem with.

I dunno if that kid is right at 10.50ish about firefighters being role models tho.
 
Groin guru said:
Wasn't the original issue that North stated they wanted a 50/50 split working at North? If so that isn't the best person for the job
Click to expand...

Wut?

The goal is 40%. (We're currently at about 35%.) And to reiterate, it's merely a goal, not any kind of enforceable edict or decree. It's absolutely not about gifting to jobs to lesser or unworthy candidates based on gender, but instead making women aware that there are career opportunities open to them in an industry niche that has traditionally been quite male-dominated. (And vice-versa, as it may also apply to a role within the club that is traditionally filled by a female.) Pretty run-of-the-mill stuff in this day and age.

Either way - and this is the important part - applicants are still to be selected on merit.

Of course, to some people the above is irrefutable evidence that the club has been hijacked by a bunch of leftist SJW types whose rampant 'cultural Marxism' will surely plunge the club - and then eventually the rest of Western civilization - into a state of chaos and decline. However, I'd humbly suggest that those people have been supping a little too heavily from the fountain of Jordan Peterson.

Which coincidentally, is what this thread is really about.....
 
Groin guru said:
Wasn't the original issue that North stated they wanted a 50/50 split working at North? If so that isn't the best person for the job
Click to expand...

I thought it was a 40% quota of women, which was about a 5 or 6 % increase on what it was at the time.
 
Beat me to it ToD.
 
Groin guru said:
Wasn't the original issue that North stated they wanted a 50/50 split working at North? If so that isn't the best person for the job
Click to expand...


Any percentage based upon gender is a political corruption of our club.
 
I am all for encouraging women to show greater interest in fields which they have traditionally been under-represented, for industries that matter. I'd like to see more women involved in STEM. That I think is important for society going forward. Do I care what proportion of the workforce for a footy club is male or female? Not so much.

However, I do appreciate there is a section of the community that does and feels like it is something of significance, for whatever reason. I generally think people will go work in fields and at employers where people will feel that it is a good career path and traditionally speaking, working at football clubs was a dud root and most people in the past that worked at clubs hamstrung their career for the love of the game or club itself. I think with the professionalism if football and the vast wads of broadcasting revenue coming in it now appeals to people outside of diehard fans and when you look at the paid roles we have at the club now, it is massively greater than what it was even 10 years ago.

My initial reservation was that I thought we had already taken great strides to become more equitable, the environment has been changing and we have changed with the times. I didn't feel that we needed to do anything other than just continue doing what we had already been doing. When you look at our footy club, outside of coaching, we have representation of women at every level and I am sure everyone is there on merit alone.

I am not against what we have been doing, just don't know why we went public about this particular policy. Who knows, perhaps there is a stigma around still and the club feels not enough women are applying for roles.

That being said, I do feel having our own female AFL team will do wonders for making more women feel that the club is part of them and they could possibly be a part of it if they wanted as they have more inspirational women who represent the club at the ultimate level, on field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gasometer
Toast I’m on the Plane! - Real time travel
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
koshari
koshari

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top