Jordan Peterson and Investment Banking
Hi guys,
many of you probably have heard of Jordan Peterson. He has frequently stated that Law Firms have trouble keeping their female employees once they are 30 since they´d rather have a family than having to work 70-100 hours a week. Furthermore, he states that women are often dating within or above their socio-economic class, which wouldn´t make it necessary for them to work these long hours. Can the same phenomenon be seen with women in Investment Banking?
I watched a video of him speaking about this and thought it was a very interesting perspective as well and of course would be curious to get some perspective from women in the industry. Unfortunately, this site is mostly dudes, interns and prospects who won't be able to lend much perspective beyond their own conjecture.
I wouldn’t take Jordan Peterson too seriously if I were you
And why is that?
The guy aims to tackle the masculinity crisis with overly simplistic views of the world (and of women), which he got from the incel playbook. His authoritative figure makes him sound serious and wise and all that, but if you listen to what he's actually saying, the guy is full of it
His ENTIRE argument is that these issues are multi-faceted and not binary. Go watch one of his lectures and stop reading headlines, that should help give you some perspective. That man is the most mis-characterized public figure out there because people like you can’t bother to actually listen to what he says.
False.
Jordan Peterson is a well trained and well educated clinical psychologist who probably read more academic publications than your entire team reading pitchbooks.
What he says are not a simplifications but general statistical conclusions you can draw from all those readings.
Never heard of him but he sounds like an incel lmfao
He's married with a hot daughter. Not sure I understand your point.
what does his hot daughter have to do with this LOL
He is King of the Incels, and Mr "WAP is a medical condition" Ben Shapiro is his right hand man. Alt-right wing politics would dry up instantly if these guys could get a woman to talk to them.
At least Jordan Peterson debates more than high schoolers
If you wanna see a true group of "men" who have never been with a women, look at the losers in ANTIFA and other far left groups
Yikes, looks like the incels came out in force on this thread
You usually have good takes but this is a shit one IMO...
Peterson isn't some alt right figure who's friends with Shapiro or whomever.
He's a clinical psychologist who's been fighting off dangers of post-modernism (batshit idea that is centered around the idea of rejecting EVERYTHING including basic science, social institutions, history, etc... aka that idea that brought the age of "white privilege", "white patriarchy", non binary gender, and "diligence is whiteness" BS) in his own field. And then he went on to defend the freedom of speech when Canada decided to "ban hate speech or whatever".
He's a liberal who believes in actual liberal values much like Sam Harris.
Two points of topic.
1. Being that my firm in my group seems to have a decent amount of females spanning all age groups and levels. So, I do not know what the full truth of his statement is/if my sample size of one is big enough to prove or disprove anything. But, its clear that women are very capable and still willing to have families and a career.
2. His argument about women wanting to be with their children makes sense. However, I don't think that one should downplay a fathers role in raising a child either. Meaning, I partially disagree with him in a sense and that I believe parenting and partnerships should be a take and give allowing for both individuals in the couple to pursue their personal and combined goals. Thus, Parenting should not solely fall on one parent to where they cannot also pursue a career if they so choose.
While I agree to an extent, there are specific natural traits that women possess that men do not, and vice versa. Childcare is more inherent and important coming from a mother, at least for a certain number of months.
Yes in the during the first year of the child's life, I believe that the women will carry most of the burden. There are certain things Men cannot do (ex. Breast feed) that have to fall on women. However I don't think that after the first 12 -24 months all child care should solely fall on one adult and this is the point I was getting at. I have not listened specifically Jordan Peterson on this topic, but the post made it sound like he was stating kids are the reason women leave and never return to the work force.
I wouldn’t take advice from a guy who markets his service around sexually frustrated virgins
DOMINANCE HIERARCHY
There is a pretty well known study out there showing that women of high socioeconomic status were the most discriminated against candidates at big law firms for this exact reason. Second most discriminated candidates were men from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Men from high socioeconomic backgrounds were the most likely to get an offer.
I could see this being true for women in banking at the post-mba level but not analyst level. Both post-mba associates and law associates are expected to stay for at least the medium term.
Also for people saying “Peterson is wrong because he is a misogynist” note that the firm doing the hiring controls who joins them. It’s not always self selection.
https://hbr.org/2016/12/research-how-subtle-class-cues-can-backfire-on-…
Just read through all the comments. It seems like everyone is basing their responses off some political view on Peterson and ignoring the question, to which I think the answer is invariably yes. Regardless of what political view you have, women bear children and men do not. That will always have a level of impact on their careers on the margin and on average.
Men and women are different are have different priorities, on average. To ignore this is to ignore reality.
Can we please leave 2018 in the past?
This thread is a dumpster fire, and JBP is a boss. Many of you would benefit from his teachings, I know I have.
Laboriosam asperiores mollitia maxime quo non laudantium. Corporis quaerat dolorum omnis quo. Quasi accusantium odit nostrum officia totam.
Ipsam consequuntur adipisci officia reiciendis est vel. Ut debitis deserunt repellat hic. Quaerat facilis dolore et itaque et veritatis tenetur. Et et ut ut qui sunt. Voluptatum eos suscipit et asperiores eum.
Ut dolorum dolore aut accusantium blanditiis iusto voluptatum adipisci. Recusandae harum voluptatem numquam odit cumque debitis doloremque provident. Provident eos ad et. Id aliquid officiis nulla incidunt a. Ipsa voluptas quaerat ex veritatis vel cumque.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Modi quo explicabo aperiam voluptas odio consequatur. Eveniet eos omnis quis est non. Velit nihil quae rerum doloribus nisi dolorem. Voluptatibus ea possimus sed hic. Et libero temporibus corporis vero repudiandae autem.
Nihil mollitia aut sunt voluptas excepturi iste sunt. Eos voluptatibus inventore qui animi dolor fugit sit. Omnis voluptas est et assumenda. Quo cumque et atque voluptas possimus laudantium quo. Voluptate ut corporis cum dignissimos sit. Omnis harum labore voluptatibus.
Inventore laboriosam magni aut enim officiis nobis. In pariatur eos qui eaque non. Mollitia voluptate sed eum assumenda iste temporibus. Quam veritatis non consequatur rerum commodi earum non. Quas aut voluptas ut.
Qui exercitationem omnis doloremque hic ea doloremque iste. Non rerum accusantium debitis velit enim voluptatibus. Fuga nam numquam id autem in maxime. Aut et eum dignissimos autem iusto voluptas nesciunt rerum.