Professor and clinical psychologist Jordan B. Peterson recently appeared on Channel 4 for an interview with journalist Cathy Newman. Asked by Newman about the asinine leftist narrative that the so-called "gender pay gap" is due to sexism, a position she clearly holds, Peterson methodically and calmly debunked the myth, highlighting the differences in traits between the sexes that preclude equal outcomes and breaking down other variables often obfuscated by leftists clinging to their sexism narrative.
Newman begins by stating statistics which indicate male dominance in some fields and overall earnings as a way to allegedly show how women are being "dominated and excluded." Of course, simply stating statistics favorable to your narrative without any analysis as to why the discrepancy might exist is irresponsible and misleading, a point Peterson addressed in full.
"Multivariate analyses of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist," he stated.
"That's just not true, is it?" replied Newman. "That 9% pay gap, that's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists."
"Yeah, but they're multiple reasons for that; one of them is gender, but it's not the only reason," replied the professor. "If you're a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say, well, women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay, then we break that down by age, we break it down by occupation, we break it down by interest, we break it down by personality."
Peterson continued: "I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is due to sex is wrong, and it is wrong. There's no doubt about that. The multivariate analyses have been done."
The clinical psychologist then broke down certain personality traits more prevalent in women, such as agreeableness, which translate into greater acceptance of lower pay on average.
"There's a personality trait known as agreeableness," explained Peterson. "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."
"That's one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary," he said, "it accounts for maybe 5% of the variance."
A bit later in the interview, Newman, clearly unsatisfied, circled back to her pay gap narrative.
"Seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies in the U.K.," she said, "that's just not fair."
"There's a certain 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. 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, nonstop, specialized, at one thing, to get to the top."
"You don't think there are barriers in [women's] way to prevent them getting to the top of those companies?" asked Newman.
"There are some barriers," he said, "like men, for example. To get to the top of any organization is an incredibly competitive enterprise. And the men you are competing with are simply not going to roll over and say, 'please take my position.' It's absolute all-out warfare."
That faint sound you just heard was feminists' heads exploding.
Peterson then mentioned Scandinavia to highlight general differences in female and male interests which translate into different career choices. Such choices help account for the overall discrepancy between average pay.
"Equality of outcome is undesirable," he argued. "Men and women won't insert themselves into the same categories if you leave them alone to do it on their own accord."
"That's a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone further than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law," he said. "Those are ineradicable differences. You can eradicate them by tremendous social pressure and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices, you will not get equal outcome."
WATCH (relevant comments begin at the 5:20-mark):
To watch Peterson address freedom of speech, click here.