A Psychologist and a Former Channel 4 Producer Discuss Cathy Newman

This is an interview by journalist David Fuller who also used to be a producer at Channel 4 News.

In the wake of the clash between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman going viral, he talks with psychologist Louise Mazanti about what was really going on in the interview - how feminism can go wrong - and how men and women can move on from the ongoing war between the genders.

---
---
My channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. The topics cover the problems of leftist ideology and the consequences for society.

If you like the content, subscribe to the channel!

[chrishudson]

It was not Peterson's job to fix Cathy Newman's problem. That interview played out exactly how it needed to, and I see no other way that Peterson could have handled it. He said what he needed to, and made no misstep that I can see.

[Boneamps]

Jordan Peterson: “I’m an analyst and therapist.”

Cathy Newman: “so what you’re saying is you’re an Analrapist?”

[siegfriedbraun]

Louis, as pretty and appealing as your suggestion that Peterson 'stop' the interview and 'be in the moment', Newman wasn't a client. It was an interview in which she set herself up as an adversary, to which Peterson responded with incredible grace and restraint. If he'd gone 'professional' on her, can you just IMAGINE the backlash and firestorm about doing a mindf*ck without permission? I'd think there'd be an ethics case to be made too.

[gtm]

If Peterson had said: "I want time out from the debate to explore what is going on because I can feel you're coming with a lot of anger".
That would have been labeled "mansplaining", would it not?

[crownmode]

I WISH THIS WOMAN INTERVIEWED DR PETERSON THAN CATHY. WE COULD’VE LEARN SOMETHING

[abass]

I’m so glad Jordan Peterson didn’t do any of the things she was recommending. Imagine him try to tell Cathy during the interview “He understood her rage and where it’s coming from”🤡. It like admitting to a crime he didn’t commit. She woulda had field day with the agendas

[Trazynn]

She maxed out on her agreeableness stats.

[Kinabus]

Oh my goodness, stick a pencil in my eye. Peterson's approach was on point. I'm glad he didn't take a "pause" and do as she suggested.
🤢

[Isaactan]

Had Peterson called for a time-out, and try to find out where the rage is coming from, Newman would probably accuse him of mansplaining.

[yvonnecharsley]

The interview went viral because Newman had not done any research on Peterson, had no clue about what he teaches asked all the wrong questions and tried to force her own biased understanding back on him. She had decided before the interview what Peterson was all about from probably listening to his detractors over the C16 Bill but there is much more to him than that.
I have listened to hours of his lectures and being just an average person It was amazing to behold that an obviously intelligent interviewer could fail at her job so badly.
.
The female in the above interview is an air-head without a clue as well.

[Galt]

This is a psychologist? Collective rage?

[yamabushi]

I will NEVER get tired of watching Jordan's interview with Cathy "I know everything lalalala I can't hear you" Newman.

[noz_redna]

"This is the underbelly of feminism. This is when feminism goes wrong." Great job Cathy Newman!

[OhChrissake]

"We need to have intelligent conversation that is aligned with the evolutionary stream." That's a great line. I'm stealing that one.

[jackthebasenji]

This woman's argument is flawed, she groups women into a group. A collective.

[chalise]

I'm sorry but I don't buy this collective rage.  I don't feel any rage towards men at all.  I may feel rage in a specific instance towards a specific individual who is treating me poorly but the idea that women have any reason at all to be 'enraged' to me is part of the lie.

[TechToWatch]

This is silly. Peterson was not treating Newman as a patient, he was taking part in an interview with an established reporter on a national tv channel. To have stopped the interview and asked for a time out to analyse Newman’s issues would have led to him being criticised, correctly, as not respecting her professional role. Her questioning was an attempt to deliberately misrepresent his views, as seen by her constantly restating his replies as “So, you’re saying...” followed by an increasingly bizarre assertion. Newman started the interview with an agenda quite different from her supposed journalistic role on behalf of the viewers: of eliciting from Peterson a elaboration of his views and how he came to them, as represented by his new book which he was in the uk to promote. It’s doubtful that Newman had even read the book. Professional journalism this was not. The psychologist in this clip, referring to Peterson and Newman as everyman/everywoman is denying the agency of both. This whole clip is rather odd response to the c4 interview. Could it be some overthought attempt at damage limitation by c4 with help of a sympathetic former c4 producer?

[Bikewithlove]

Saying, “When feminism goes wrong” is the same thing as saying, “When a dumpster fire goes wrong.”

[VegetoStevieD]

I wonder if she tried to sell him 'essential oils' after the interview....

[globalnomad]

women have collectively chosen victimhood and vindictiveness, the game is up