We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
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!
Newman continually interrupts Peterson. From my experience, interrupting is a trait more found in females than in males. Had Newman interrupted me as much as she did Peterson, I would not have had his patience.
I hope that readers realize that Newman didn't actually make the rape comment- it's a joke.
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, …
I particularly loved that part of the exchange, where she suggests that we should just change the rules so that women can keep doing the same things they have been doing, but now it will magically result in their getting the same pay as the men. But that is completely inconsistent with the idea of "equal pay for equal work." Petersen keeps patiently explaining that men and women who are getting paid differently aren't doing the same work. They are behaving differently. What's more, he's had tremendous success in getting women to increase their pay, sometimes by a factor of three, simply by changing their behavior to match what men do, typically in how they bargain for themselves.
This poor creature, like many of her ilk, thinks there's some way to set up the world so that people can demand what they think their efforts deserve rather than what they either create on their own or they can convince other people to trade for it voluntarily. The only way to avoid those hard necessities is theft or extortion of charity.