April 22, 2024

Jordan Peterson Confronts Australian Politician on Gender Politics and Quotas | Q&A



Published June 11, 2023, 10:20 p.m. by Naomi Charles


Dr. Jordan Peterson and prominent Australian Labor Party politician Terri Butler, clash over quotas in parliament on Q&A's Monday night panel.

For more from Q&A, click here: http://www.abc.net.au/qanda

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/qanda

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/

Subscribe to us on YouTube: https://ab.co/2E3pCZ9

Q&A is a television discussion program that focuses mostly on politics but ranges across all of the big issues that set Australians thinking, talking and debating.

It is driven by interaction: Q&A provides a rare opportunity for Australian citizens to directly question and hold to account politicians and key opinion leaders in a national public forum and Q&A is broadcast live so that not only the studio audience but also the wider audience can get involved.

We aim to create a discussion that is constructive, that reflects a diverse range of views and that provides a safe environment where people can respectfully discuss their differences.

It’s impossible to represent every view on a single panel or in one audience but we’re committed to giving participants a fair go.

In order to be as inclusive and diverse as possible, the program is presented from a range of locations around the country and all Australians are encouraged to get involved through social media as well as by joining the audience.

This is an official Australian Broadcasting Corporation YouTube channel.

You may also like to read about:



uh martin luther king's dream was that

there would come a time

when um

people would not be judged by the colour

of their skin but by the content of

their character

how is today's identity politics

consistent with that vision

jordan peterson

right

well i don't think it's consistent with

that vision at all i mean

the the problem i have with identity

politics as a as a mode of philosophical

apprehension is that it's predicated on

the idea that the appropriate way to

classify people is by their group

identity in whatever fragmentary

formulation that might take in the

multiplicity of ways that people can be

divided into groups and the

classical postmodern and i would also

say marxist way of viewing the world

even though those two things shouldn't

be allowed together they tend to be

is that group identity takes priority

over individual identity and i think

that's precisely the opposite of what

martin luther king was hoping for and

working for and i i think it's

unbelievably dangerous because partly

because when you when you assume that

people

should primarily be

identified by their group then you can

also attribute group

guilt to them by their group and then

things go downhill very very rapidly and

we've had no shortage of of evidence of

that sort of thing happening say

throughout the 20th century are there

particular groups that you are more

concerned about than others for example

the liberal party as terry butler said

earlier is a group uh are there groups

that you think are more dangerous

there isn't a problem with groups

the problem is with assuming that the

fundamental way that you should

categorize people is with their group

identity obviously we all belong to

groups the issue is whether or not the

individual identity is primary and the

group identity is secondary or the group

identity is primary and the individual

identity is secondary if you're a

proponent for example of equality of

outcome of quotas then you de-facto

accept the proposition that it's the

group identity that is primary and

there's all sorts of dangers that are

associated with that that far outweigh

whatever good you're likely to do

or maybe you just think that

representative democracy should be

representative

maybe you just think that women should

be equally represented in the

decision-making flora of our nation

maybe that's really just about having

proper equality in a body that's meant

to be representative

well i do believe that women should have

i don't understand your question i guess

i guess you don't that's pretty good yes

unfortunately well how about if you

phrase it more clearly instead of just

insulting me

look look look look at it this way let's

talk about quotas for a minute so

there's a a very wide array of jobs that

are fundamentally uh done by men so for

example a member of parliament 99

99.9 percent of the bricklayers

i'm happy to give my minute to jordan

[Laughter]

99.9 of bricklayers are men

should we have quotas for women

is bricklaying representative democracy

that has nothing to do with the question

the question is if if if there's

evidence of structural inequality and

oppression because women aren't

precisely represented at 50 percent in

all professions at all levels then why

don't we have a conversation about

having women represented

in all professions at all levels why do

we talk about the c-suite for example

why do we talk about politics and

positions of power why don't we talk

about it across the board okay sorry

let's just pause and uh yeah but that's

because it's empowered you pose a

question to terry butler uh go ahead and

answer it then we'll hear from the other

palace

his question to me well yeah about

bricklayer if you'd like to answer the

question about bricklayer there's

nothing wrong with british

[Applause]

Resources:

Similar videos

2CUTURL

Created in 2013, 2CUTURL has been on the forefront of entertainment and breaking news. Our editorial staff delivers high quality articles, video, documentary and live along with multi-platform content.

© 2CUTURL. All Rights Reserved.