Man reports detecting no misogyny
A few days ago the Guardian reported the abuse Cathy Newman of Channel 4 was getting in the wake of her interview with Jordan Peterson. A couple of days later it reported that Peterson had “expressed his dismay at the fallout from the encounter.” It then went on to quote what he actually said (i.e. tweeted) and that was well short of “dismay,” in my view, and he went on to say but it wasn’t misogyny.
A controversial clinical psychologist whose interview with a Channel 4 news presenter resulted in her being subjected to a barrage of online abuse has expressed his dismay at the fallout from the encounter.
Cathy Newman’s interview with University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who was promoting his new book 12 Rules for Life: an Antidote to Chaos, went viral after Channel 4 posted the full 30-minute footage online last Tuesday. It has been watched almost two million times on YouTube and attracted nearly 50,000 comments. Many are highly critical of Newman, who declared on Twitter that she had “thoroughly enjoyed” the “bout” with Peterson, considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals. A large number of the comments criticised Newman’s approach to the interview, accusing her of being a “social justice warrior” with a preconceived and misplaced grasp of Peterson’s views.
Jordan Peterson is “considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals”? Really? Wasn’t he just a not particularly famous academic until the pronouns war?
Ben de Pear, editor of Channel 4 News, told his Twitter followers that Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse” after the interview and that the broadcaster had drafted in security specialists to carry out a risk analysis as part of their duty of care to her.
Mike Deri Smith, deputy head of digital at Channel 4 News, tweeted that a quick search had revealed more than 500 comments calling Newman a “bitch”. Peterson, who is interviewed in today’s Observer magazine, said that when he became aware of the abuse allegations he “immediately tweeted ‘if you’re one of those people doing that, back off’, there’s no excuse for that, no utility’.”
That’s what I’m saying is well short of “dismay.” It’s not dismay, it’s just saying stop doing that, it’s not useful, there’s no excuse for it. It’s good that he said it but let’s don’t exaggerate how impassioned he was about it.
He said the experience had left him trying to put himself in Newman’s position. “There is no doubt that Cathy has been subjected to a withering barrage of criticism online. One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to try to imagine what I’d do if I found myself in her situation and how I would react to it and understand how it was happening. But they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats. There are some nasty cracks online but the idea that this is somehow reflective of a fundamental misogyny and that’s what’s driving this is ridiculous.”
So he failed in his attempt to put himself in Newman’s position, because he left out the part about being a woman as opposed to a man. It makes a difference.
He’s such a dishonest jerk on this question.
This is such a fundamental response. When I talk to men, even liberal men, many of them fail to see sexism or misogyny, even in things that are blatant because it wouldn’t offend them to be called that, or have that said to them, or see that or feel that.
I’ve had similar experiences with white liberals (usually male, but that may be mostly because of the circle I hang out in) that think Black Lives Matter has “some good points” but “are way over the top”. This identical comment is reference to #MeToo, which some claim is causing the women’s movement to lose credibility because some of the things they are complaining about are so “trivial”. If these things only happened once, in an isolated incident in a woman’s life, and happened in equally isolated incidents in men’s lives, I could accept that. But dancing backward and in high heels your whole life gets to be more challenging all the time. Once? Sure, no biggy. Every damn day for your entire adult (and sometimes adolescent) existence? Every time you go to work? Every time you go to the grocery store? Every time you step outside your door? Even if not literally every time, still, if it happens with enough frequency, it becomes a singular challenge that is leveled only at women (or minorities, in the case of racism). It can become paralyzing. I know that from experience.
iknklast,
Yeah, it’s an example of where the Golden Rule fails. It’s easy for men to think, “well, I would be flattered if a strange woman on the bus complimented my ass, so I don’t really see the big deal.”
Also, harassing women is ok if it’s for charity, right?
Jordan Peterson is “considered one of Canada’s leading intellectuals”?
For obvious reasons, that brought me up short too ;-). I’d never heard of him until he got all petulant about pronouns (though I since realized he was part of a Christian-vs-Humanist panel I saw on Steve Paikin’s show a few years back). How “leading”, exactly? Like, Charles Taylor league? Margaret Atwood? Because I think he’s a self-promoting crank who’s had his 15 minutes of fame and should now fade back into obscurity.
Screechy, your link requires a subscription.
Hmm. That’s odd. It didn’t for me.
To summarize: the FT sent a reporter undercover to an exclusive all-male (except for the hired young women in slinky outfits) charity auction in London. Big names in finance and other fields were present, bidding on “prizes” such as lunch with Boris Johnson, an exclusive tour of the Bank of England, plastic surgery for their wives (seriously, that’s how it was billed — rich dudes don’t need plastic surgery, only their possessions do). And despite the event’s official policy that the women were not to be harassed, you can probably guess what happened once these entitled rich pricks had a few drinks.
Steve Watson,
I’m assuming that Peterson ranked just behind Don Cherry on that list of Canadian intellectuals, no doubt for similar reasons.
I searched for the FT article via Google News and was able to read it that way, after not being able to via Screechy’s link.
What men dont understand in addition to the awful cummulative effect of harassment is that we are talking about unwanted attention. They say they would be flattered, but it’s not even true. What they are imagining when they say this is far from the reality of unwanted, aggressive attention. I have seen men flip out over a single incidence of so-called flattery. They are completely unprepared, having only ever imagined a complimentary remark from a hot, scantily clad babe. One overweight 60 year old woman gropes their ass and they are traumatised for life. That meme needs to be called out for the b.s. that it is.
And Nan, if a man flirts with a woman, no one, absolutely no one, assumes he is asking to be groped, manhandled, or forced to have sex. A man can flirt with a woman without “asking for it” or being assumed “he wants it”. He can walk away. Any woman who followed him around and harassed him would (rightly) be considered to be stalking him.
Definitely need to follow the Rock test.
Nan, not to mention that if a bit of flirting was really all fine and nothing to see here, there would never have been such a thing as the Gay Panic defence. See, when a man receives flirtation they find emotionally threatening, they’re allowed to kill…
#3
That’s usually because the man saying that is imagining women whose advances he would accept, i.e. a hotties. The concept of unwanted advances never seems to sink in.
Bleh, pipped as usual by earlier comments.
“Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson” Oh my fucking god.