Perhaps she has used that tactic to good effect elsewhere. (And the online attacks to which shes been subjected are abhorrent assaults on decency by people who are perpetrating misbehavior orders of magnitude worse than hers.)

But in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newmans exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.

* * *

Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isnt talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.

Whats in it for the women, though? Newman asks.

Well, what sort of partner do you want? Peterson says. Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?

So youre saying, Newman retorts, that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity. But thats not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.

Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful, Peterson goes on to assert. And I dont mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. Thats not power. Thats just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you cant dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination

The interviewer interrupts, So youre saying women want to dominate, is that what youre saying?

The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:

Newman: that 9 percent pay gap, thats a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

Peterson: Yes. But theres multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but thats not the only reason. If youre a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Newman: But youre saying, basically, it doesnt matter if women arent getting to the top, because thats what is skewing that gender pay gap, isnt it? Youre saying thats just a fact of life, women arent necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, Im not saying it doesnt matter, either. Im saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: Im not saying that they should put up with it! Im saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. Theres no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example

The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a fact of life that women should just put up with, though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.

Read this article:

Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Actually ...