The Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson was one of the most monumental cultural turnarounds of a decade. Unquestioned feminism was questioned, and it changed discourse.

The Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson was one of the most monumental cultural turnarounds of a decade. Unquestioned feminism was questioned, and it changed discourse.

In 2015, Justin Trudeau selected 50% of his cabinet to be women, even though 25% of the legislature were women. It was seen as a huge triumph.

The Cathy Newman interview with Jordan Peterson was one of the most monumental cultural turnarounds of a decade. Unquestioned feminism was questioned, and it changed discourse.

In the 1990s there was a culture war going on between Evangelicals and liberals on the subject of homosexuality. A significant figure within the evangelical side was Jerry Falwell, who broadcasted his disdain for a children’s cartoon – the Purple Teletubby. The notion that the Purple Teletubby would burn in Hell became emblematic of everything that was wrong with the conservative side of the culture war and they wound up losing.
I’ve taught logic on multiple occasions, and hosted several philosophy symposiums. ‘If P implies Q, and it is not the case that P, therefore it is not the case that Q’ is an invalid argument, with an invalid conclusion – not a false conclusion, just an invalid one. ‘If P then Q, it is the case that P, therefore Q’, is a valid conclusion.
When I go over what constitutes an invalid conclusion, drawn from our own premises, with people for the first time, whether they’re men or women, pastors or atheists, liberals or conservatives, even feminists themselves, these individuals will 9/10 times tell me of an occasion when a feminist put words in their mouth, and drew an invalid conclusion from what they were trying to say.
eminists making deductions, drawing irrational conclusions from words their interlocutors are saying, putting words in their mouth, is a common phenomenon. It’s been frustrating for decades. They will not stop drawing false conclusions and saying we’re responsible for them.
Third wave feminism as a philosophy, and now political ideology in Canada, came into prominence in the 2010s. I recall the ideology being relentlessly mocked in the 1990s, it became more widely circulated in the 2000s, and became a force so powerful it was capable of censorship by 2015.
In 2015, Justin Trudeau selected 50% of his cabinet to be women, even though 25% of the legislature were women. It was seen as a huge triumph.
By late 2017, the #Metoo movement had come into full effect. So much as questioning an incoherent testimony of harassment became an act of misogyny, every search for truth was responded to with a metaphorical non-sequitor, “So what you’re really saying is you support rape culture?”.
Then in January 2018 Cathy Newman did an interview with Jordan Peterson. She would ask him questions on the gender pay gap and he would respond with a multivariable regression analysis stating there are many factors involved with this (overtime hours worked, aggression in salary negotiations, education, job choice, working hours flexibility, etc).
After Peterson would speak about these things he was met with something along the lines of, “So what you’re really saying is gender discrimination is fair, aren’t you?”.
It was false conclusion drawn after false conclusion. It was non-sequitur after non-sequitur. It was every frustration we’ve all had boiling over. When it became viral, it became hyper-viral, we all recognized the frustration of feminists putting words in our mouth.
The devastation of the movement happened during the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. It was over. The issue had been made plain. We know women can lie about things that disproportionately hurt women. Men can be victims. Not every accusation of assault needs to be believed. Enough with the insanity – let’s start being more rational with our appraisals and who we believe.
50/50 gender cabinet is ideal in theory to reflect the population but it doesn’t reflect the number of those who stepped up to serve as MPs nor their competency. People are starting to question the efficacy of a gender-based selection with failing metrics on the economy, the environment, and healthcare. When women are only 25% of the legislature this severely limits quality resumes a prime minister can choose from for competent performance.
That interview was the viral turnaround where enough was enough. We saw ridiculous sentiments exposed, we in turn didn’t want to tolerate idiocracy any further. Absurd, unchecked, and unquestioned feminism was questioned and people stopped being afraid to question the unquestionable.

(Photo credit: Cathy Newman/YouTube)

Join us and...FIGHT FOR CONSERVATISM

Sign up for our email updates and get the latest news, opinions and more delivered directly to your inbox.