"What Jordan Peterson Lacks"

The Horizon

" Dr. Peterson, you appeared in one of my Ayahuasca visions. "

It might account for why I’ve been rather fatigued lately. 

"Dr. Peterson, you appeared in one of my Ayahuasca visions, and I asked her, 

Who is Jordan Peterson? 

What is He Doing?" 

 ( Which is something I’d really like to know, as well. ) 

' And she responded with crystalline clarity: 

" He is here to Invoke and Initiate 

The Divine Masculine Principle 

on Earth at This Time."

 So, I’m up here to thank you deeply and profoundly on behalf of The Great Mother Herself, 
The Goddess, 
The Divine Feminine Principle, 
who has been eagerly awaiting 
The Awakening of The Masculine Principle 
into 
Divinity and Service. '

So…You don’t get a letter like that every day. 

Actually, I get a letter or two like that every day. 



"So, there is a scene in Pinocchio where 

Gepetto Wishes On a Star -

And what that means is, that 

He lifts up his eyes beyond The Horizon 

to see something Transcendent -

Something Ultimate, because that's What a Star is, 

it's part of The Eternity of The Night Sky.

And so he lifts his eyes up 

above his daily concerns, and he says :

"What I Want More Than Anything Else is that 
My Creation Will Become a Genuine Individual."

Right, it's a Heroic Gesture, 

because it's so unlikely.

And that catalyses The Puppet's 

transformation  into 

A Real Being.

And we start as puppets.

And so, The Trick is, to 

get rid of your 

goddamn strings.

Who Are You?

" I’m going to read you something. I get a lot of mail. I don’t know where I got this. I’ve been a lot of different places in the last week, and this showed up at one of them. I’m going to read it to you. I have no idea what to make of it.

It’s written in a female hand. That’s about all I can tell. There’s no address or name on it. 

" This isn’t a question but a comment—or, more accurately, perhaps, a message. I spent this past weekend in an Ayahuasca ceremony, which, for those of you who don’t know, is a South American visionary plant medicine. 

Some of you may roll your eyes at this, but Ayahuasca brings you into direct contact with the archetypal realm of being. 

Users of this medicine
—initiates, I should say—
refer to Ayahuasca as She, 
because the spirit of the plant is decidedly feminine, 
and an encounter with Ayahuasca is an encounter with 
The Great Mother Earth, 
Creation, 
The Goddess, 
The Void From Which All Things Come —

Ungoliant

The Feminine counterpart of 
The Logos. 

" Dr. Peterson, you appeared in one of my Ayahuasca visions. "

It might account for why I’ve been rather fatigued lately. 

"Dr. Peterson, you appeared in one of my Ayahuasca visions, and I asked her, 

Who is Jordan Peterson? 

What is He Doing?" 

 ( Which is something I’d really like to know, as well. ) 

' And she responded with crystalline clarity: 

" He is here to Invoke and Initiate 

The Divine Masculine Principle 

on Earth at This Time."

 So, I’m up here to thank you deeply and profoundly on behalf of The Great Mother Herself, 
The Goddess, 
The Divine Feminine Principle, 
who has been eagerly awaiting 
The Awakening of The Masculine Principle 
into 
Divinity and Service. '

So…You don’t get a letter like that every day. 

Actually, I get a letter or two like that every day. 

You Think Captain Phasma Knows How to Fix a Toilet Main..?

Between The Fall and Rise of Civilisations...


You Think Captain Phasma Knows How to Fix a Toilet Main..?

All's She Knows is Killin' and Chrome Armour....

[ Which is Fabulous, By The Way.... ]

 
"It made sense that there was a Division of Labor. 

It wasn’t sexism against women that there was a Division of Labor.

The men went off to hunt and did 
the dangerous things.

[ Excluding Childbirth. ]

What will happen is that it’s The Men will reconstruct civilization while the women cower in the houses and 
Have The Men Go Out 
and do 
All The Dirty Work. 

That’s what’s going to happen again. 

Only men will bring civilization back again.

You Have Never Seen This Before...?

Civilisation - Ancient and Wicked

Paglia: Well I’ve seen - I don’t know if this crosses into other countries - that there’s a certain kind of taunting and teasing that men, that boys do with each other that toughens them, where they don’t take things seriously. But a girl’s feelings become extremely hurt if she hears something that’s very tough, sarcastic against her. So I do feel that there are profound differences between the sexes in terms of emotions, in terms of communication patterns.


My father used to say that he could never follow women’s conversations. He said women don’t even finish sentences, that women understand immediately what the other woman is saying.


And women tend to be more interested in - or have been traditionally more interested in - soap operas. It’s not just that the women were home without jobs. It’s that honestly, I believe that soap opera does reflect, does mirror, the way women talk to each other.


These communication patterns have been built up through women - The World of Women, which. . . It made sense that there was a division of labor. 

It wasn’t sexism against women that there was a division of labor.

The men went off to hunt and did the dangerous things.

The women stayed around the hearth because you had pregnant women, nursing women, older women, that were cooking and so on.

So I feel that these communication patterns that we’re talking about have been built up over the centuries.


Men had to toughen each other to go out. The hunting parties of Native Americans. . . They could be gone for two weeks when the temperature was below zero. Many of them died. 


The idea that somehow. . . ‘Oh, any kind of separation of the sexes, or different spheres of the sexes, is inherently sexist’. . . 

That is wrong.

Peterson: And "inherently driven by a power dynamic"!


Paglia: The answer to all of this, everything that we’re talking about, is education into early history. 

Until people understand the Stone Age, the nomadic period, the agrarian era, and how culture, how civilization built up. . . 

In Mesopotamia - the great irrigation projects.

Or in Egypt where you had. . . Centralized government authority became necessary to master these. . . 

You had a situation, an environmentally difficult situation like the deserts Mesopotamia, or the peculiar character of Egyptian geography where you can only have a little tiny fertile line along the edges of the Nile. Otherwise, desert landscape.


So [understanding] civilization and authority as not necessarily about power grabbing but about organization to achieve something for the good of the people as a whole. 


Peterson: That’s exactly the great symbolism of The Great Father.

Paglia: By reducing all hierarchy to power, and selfish power, is utterly naive. It’s ignorant. 


I say education has to be totally reconstituted, including public education, to begin in the most distant past so our young people today, who know nothing about how the world was created that they inhabit, can understand what a marvelous technological paradise they live in. And it’s the product of capitalism, it’s the product of individual innovation. Most of it’s the product of a Western tradition that everyone wants to trash now. If you begin in the past and show. . . And also talk about war, because war is the one thing that wakes people up, as we see.


Peterson: And as we may see.


Paglia: Yes, War is The Reality Principle.

My father and five of my uncles went to World War II. My father was part of the force that landed in Japan. 

He was a paratrooper at the time of the Japanese surrender. And a couple of uncles got shot up and so on. 

When you have the reality of war, when people see the reality, the horrors of war - Berlin burned to a crisp and so on. Starvation and all. . . 

Then you understand this marvelous mechanism that brings water to the kitchen. 

And you flip on a light and the electricity turns on.


Peterson: I know, for me, and I suppose it’s because I have somewhat of a depressive temperament. . . 

I mean one thing that staggers me on a consistent basis is the fact that anything ever works. 

Because it’s so unlikely, you know, to be in a situation where our electronic communications work, where our electric grid works. 

And it works all the time, it works one hundred percent of the time.

And the reason for that is there are mostly men out there who are breaking themselves into pieces, repairing this thing which just falls apart all the time. 

Paglia: Absolutely. I said this in the Munk Debate in Toronto several years ago. All these elitists and professors sneering at men. It’s men who are maintaining everything around us.

This invisible army which feminists don’t notice. 

Nothing would work if it weren’t for the men. 


Peterson: A professor is someone who’s standing on a hill surrounded by a wall, which is surrounded by another wall, which is surrounded by another wall - it’s walls all the way down - who stands up there and says I’m brave and independent.

It’s like, you’ve got this protected area that’s so unlikely - it’s so absolutely unlikely - and the fact that people aren’t on their knees in gratitude all the time for the fact that we have central heating and air conditioning and pure water and reliable food. . . It’s absolutely unbelievable.

Paglia: Yes, I mean people used to die. . . The water supply was contaminated with cholera for heaven’s sake. 

People don’t understand. 


To have clean water, fresh milk, fresh orange juice. 

All of these things. These are marvels.


Peterson: And all of the time.


Paglia: All of the time. Western culture is heading - because we are so dependent on this invisible infrastructure - we’re heading for an absolute catastrophe when jihadists figure out how to paralyze the power grid. The entire culture will be chaotic. You’ll have mobs in the street within three days when suddenly the food supply is interrupted and there’s no way to communicate. That is the way Western culture is going to collapse. 

And it won’t take much.


Peterson: Single points of failure.


Paglia: Because we are so interconnected, and now we’re so dependent on communications and computers. . . I used to predict for years it’ll be an asteroid hitting the earth, and then we’ll have another ice age. 


Peterson: Do you know how the solar flares work? 

This happens about once every century. 

So back about 1880 - I don’t remember the exact year - there was a significant enough solar flare. . . 

So that produces an electromagnetic pulse like a hydrogen bomb because the sun is a hydrogen bomb. 

An electromagnetic pulse will emerge from the sun and wave across the earth, and it produces huge spikes in electrical current along anything that’s electronic, and it will burn them out.

It lit telegraph operators on fire in the 1800s. One of those things took out the Quebec power grid in 1985 and knocked out the whole Northeast Corridor. So they figure those things are about one in a century event.

My brother-in-law, who’s a very smart guy. . . He designed the chip in the iPhone. We were talking about political issues the last time I went and saw him in San Francisco, and his notion was that all that the government should be doing right now is stress- testing our infrastructure the same way they stress-test the banks.

Because we’re so full of these single points of failure. And I think you’re absolutely right.

Luckily we’ve been, what would you call, invaded by stupid terrorists instead of smart terrorists, because a smart terrorist could do an unbelievable amount of damage in a very short period of time. And it’s just God’s good graces that that hasn’t happened yet. 


Paglia: What will happen is that it’s The Men. . . The Men will reconstruct civilization while the women cower in the houses and have The Men go out and do all the dirty work. That’s what’s going to happen again. Only men will bring civilization back again.

The Next Lion

HARVEY: 

It's The Law of The Jungle now, mate, innit? 

LEN: 

Hmm. There are these two blokes, right? 

In a tent, in the jungle. 

HARVEY: 

You got another one for me, ain't you? Go on, then, go on. 

LEN: 

It's really dark, and they hear this terrible noise outside the tent. 

This terrible roaring noise. 

And one bloke turns to the other bloke and he says, 

' Do you hear that? '

HARVEY: 

What? 

LEN: 

I said, 'Did you hear that? '

HARVEY: 

Oh, right, yeah. 

LEN: 

' That was a lion. '

(The Doctor starts to pay attention to the anecdote.) 

LEN: 

And the other bloke, he doesn't say anything.

He just starts putting on his running shoes. 

And the other bloke turns to him and says, 

' What are you doing? 

You can't outrun a lion!! '

The bloke turns to him and says, 

' I don't have to outrun the lion. '

HARVEY: (feeble laugh) 

Don't get it. 

Time's Champion : 

He doesn't have to outrun the lion, only his friend. 

Then the lion catches up with his friend and eats him. 

The Strong survive, The Weak are killed. 

The Law of the Jungle. 

HARVEY: 

Oh yeah. Very clever. 

Time's Champion : 

Yes, very clever — if you don't mind losing your friend. 

But what happens when The Next Lion turns up...? 

(The cat is watching The Doctor.) 

LEN: 

What next lion? 

(The black cat burst out from behind the shelf of cat food and runs out of the shop.) 

Time's Champion : 

I think you'd better get your running shoes on, gentlemen.

Peterson: 

So I got a story to tell you that you might like because I’ve thought a lot about that Use of Language. 

Because language can be used as camouflage, 

and so here’s the story :

I think I got this from Robert Sapolsky. 

So he was talking about zebras, 

and zebras of course have stripes. 

And hypothetically that’s associated with camouflage. 

But it’s not a straightforward association because 

zebras are black and white, 

and  they’re on the veldt 

along with The Lions. 

The Lions are camouflaged because they’re grass colored, but the bloody zebras are black and white. 

You can see them like 15 miles away.

So biologists go out to study zebras, 

and they’re making notes on a zebra. 

And they watch it, then they look down 

at their notes, and then they look up. 

But they think, ‘Uh oh, I don’t know 

which zebra I was looking at.’ 

The camouflage is actually against the herd because 

a zebra is a herd animal, not an individual. 

So the black and white stripes break up 

the animal against the herd, 

so you can’t identify it.

So this was a quandary for the biologists, 

so they did one of two things. 

One was drive  a jeep up to the zebra herd, 

and use a dab of red paint 

and dab the haunch of the zebra, 

or tag it with an ear tag 

like you use for cattle. 

The Lions would kill it. 

So as soon as it became identifiable 

the predators could organize their hunt 

around that identifiable animal.

That’s why there’s the old idea that lions and predators take down the weak animals, but they don’t. 

They take down the identifiable animals. 

So that’s the thing: if you stick your damn head up, you get picked off by the predators. 

One of the things that academics seem to do is congregate together in herd-like entities, and then they share a language. And the language unites them.

As long as they share the same set of linguistic tools among themselves, they know that there isn’t anybody in the coterie that’s going to attack them or destabilize the entire herd. 

And that seems to me to account for that impenetrable use of language.

It’s group protection strategy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the search for. . . It’s the search for security within a system and not the desire to expand The System.

Paglia: So true. To me it’s blatantly careerist because it was about advancement, and it was also about the claim that somehow they have like special expertise. 

This is a special technical language. 

"No one else can understand it. Only we can."

These are Dark Musings.

"You know, I’ve thought for a while that 

We’re living in The Delusional Fantasy 

of a Naive Thirteen Year-old Girl. 

That basically sums up 

Our Culture."

Peterson : . . These are dark musings. 

And I would say, how much of the antipathy towards Men that’s being generated by, say, college-age women is deep repugnance for the role that they’ve been designed, and a disappointment with the men. . .

You know, you think of those. . . 

I can’t remember the culture —

The basic marital routine was to 

Ride into The Village 

and grab The Bride 

and run away with her 

on a horse. 

[ And then send represenatives to agree a price! ]

It’s like The Motorcycle Gang Member 

who rips the too-naive girl 

out of the bosom of Her Family.

Paglia: 

Yeah, there used to be Bride Stealing. 

[ Still Is. ]

It was quite widespread.

[ Still Is. ]

Peterson: Right, so I kind of wonder if part of the reason that modern university women aren’t so angry is because that fundamental feminine role is actually being denied to them. 

And they’re objecting to that at a really, really fundamental level. 

Like a level of primitive outrage.

Paglia: Well, what’s happened is the chaos that my generation of the 1960s bequeathed through the sexual revolution. 

When I arrived in college in 1964 the colleges were still acting in loco parentis, in place of a parent, so my dormitory, all women’s dormitory, we women had to sign in at eleven o’clock at night. 

The men could run free the entire night. 

So it was my generation of women that rose up and said, ‘Give us the same freedom as men have,’ and the colleges replied, 

‘No. The World is dangerous. You could be raped.

We have to protect you against rape.’ 

And what we said was,

 ‘Give us the freedom to risk rape.’

What today’s women don’t understand: it’s the freedom that you want. 

It’s the same freedom that gay men have when they go and they pick up a stranger some place. 

They know it’s dangerous, they know they could end up beaten up or killed, but they find it hot. 

If you want freedom, if you want equality, then you have to start behaving like a man.

[ Well, Yes and No... ]

So what we did is we gave freedom to these young women for several generations, but my generation had been raised in a far more resilient and robust culture. 

We had the strength to know what we wanted and to fight for what we wanted. 

These young women have been raised in this terribly protected way. So I think in some strange fashion that all these demands for intrusion from these Stalinist committees, investigating dates and so on - it’s a way to reinstitute The Rules that My Generation threw out the window.

So I think these young women are desperate. 

Not only that, but I have spoken very strongly in a piece I wrote for Time Magazine. 

It was in my recent book that raising the drinking age in this country from 18 to 21 has had a direct result in these disasters of binge drinking fraternity parties. 

Let college students, the way we could, go out as freshmen, have a beer, sit in a protected adult environment, learn how to discourse with the opposite sex in a safe environment.

And now today, because of this stupid rule that young people can’t even buy a drink in a bar until they’re 21, we have these fraternity parties that are like it’s The Caveman Era.

Well of course in this modern age this advantages men. 

Men want to hook up. 

Men want to have sex. 

Women don’t understand what men want. 

Women put out 

because they’re hoping 

the man will continue 

to be interested in them. 

The man just wants experience.

The hormones drive toward. . . To me, I theorize that the sex drive in men is intertwined with hunt and pursuit. This is what women don’t understand. And if women understood what I understand from my transgender perspective. . . 

These women on the streets. . . You know, I am, obviously, a Madonna admirer, and I support pornography and prostitution, so I don’t want what I’m about to say to seem conservative because it isn’t.

What I’m saying is, that women on the streets.

Young Women who are jogging 

with no bra on, short-shorts, 

and have earbuds in their ears, 

just jogging along. 

These women do not understand 

The Nature of The Human Mind. 

They do not understand 

The Nature of Psychosis.

[ Even The Psychotic Ones. ]

And this intertwining that I’m talking about of The Hunt and Pursuit thing. 

They’re triggering a hunt thing. . . Just what you have talked about in terms of the zebra herd.

They are triggering the hunt impulse in psychotic men. 

There goes a very appetizing and totally oblivious animal, bouncing along here.

And we’re in a period now where psychosis is not understood at all. 

Young women have had no exposure to movies like Psycho. 

You know, the kind of rapists, serial murderer thing and so on. 

The kind of strange dynamic which has to do with assault on the ‘mother imago’ in the mind of a psychotic. I think there’s an incredible naïveté.

These young women are emerging and going to college in this like incredible Dionysian environment of orgiastic sexual experience in fraternity houses. They’re completely unprepared for it. 

And so you’re getting all this outrage. 

So feminist rhetoric has gotten more and more extreme in its portrayal of men as evil. 

But in fact what we have is a chaos. 

It’s a chaos in the sexual realm. 

The girls have not been told anything real in terms of biological substratum to sexual activity.

Peterson: No, there’s full of lies about what constitutes consent, too. 

And it’s become something that’s essentially portrayed linguistically as a sequence of progressive contracts, which is. . . 

You know, I’ve thought for a while that we’re living in the delusional fantasy of a naive thirteen year old girl. 

That basically sums up our culture.

And I look at all these sexual rules that permeate the academia, and I think two things.

The first thing I think is, well. . . I know because I was an alcohol researcher for a long time, and you know that 50% of violent crimes are directly contributed to alcohol. 

So if you’re murdered, there’s about a 50% chance that you’re drunk and about a 50% chance that the person who kills you is drunk. And alcohol is the only drug that we know that actually amplifies aggression. 

It does that in laboratory situations. Plus it’s a great disinhibitor.

So what alcohol does is. . . It doesn’t make you oblivious to the future consequences of your actions, because if you ask someone who’s drunk about the consequences of something stupid, they can tell you what the consequences are. 

But it makes you not care. 

And it does that because it’s technically an anxiolytic like barbiturates or like benzodiazepines.

And it also has an activating property for many people who drink, so it’s a stimulant and an anxiolytic at the same time. And a very, very potent. . . It’s very potent for both of them. You know, we put young people together and douse them in alcohol at the binge drinking level - which also interferes with memory consolidation, which of course makes things much more complex - and then we’re surprised when there are sexual misadventures.

And then it’s also attributed almost purely to the predatory element that’s part and parcel of Masculinity, but a tremendous amount of that is also naivety and stupidity.

Because we expect. . . 18 year old guys, especially the ones that aren’t, that haven’t been successful with girls, which is like 85% of them because the successful men are a very small percentage of men.

The 85% who haven’t been successful with men or with women - they don’t know what the hell they’re doing at all. 

And part of the reason they’re getting drunk is to garner up enough courage to actually make an advance. 

Because another thing I think women don’t understand, especially with regards to young men, is just exactly how petrifying an attractive woman who’s of, say, somewhat higher status actually is to a young guy.

There’s lots of guys that write me constantly, and people that I’ve worked with, that are so terrified of women they can’t even talk to them. 

It’s very, very common.

Paglia: I take a very firm position, which is that I want college administrations to stay totally out of the social lives of the students. 

If a crime is committed, it should be reported to The Police. 

I’ve been writing that for twenty-five years now. But it’s not the business of any college administration to take any notice of what the students say to each other - say to each other - as well as do with each other. I want it totally stopped.

It is Fascism of the worst kind.

Peterson: I agree. And I think it’s fascism of the worst kind because it’s a new kind of Fascism. 

It’s partly generated by legislation, like the Title 9 memo that was written in 2011. I recently got a copy of that goddamn thing. That was one polluting bit of legislation.

That memo basically told universities that unless they set up a parallel court system, they were going to be denied federal funding. 

It is absolutely unbelievable.

Paglia: Incredible. And the leftists are supporting this? This shows there is no authentic campus leftism. I’m sorry, it’s a fraud. The faculty should be fighting the administration on this. Federal regulation of how we’re supposed to behave on campus?

Peterson: Well how can you be so naive and foolish to think that taking an organization like the university, which already has plenty to do, and forcing it to become a pseudo legal system that parallels the legal system could possibly be anything but utterly catastrophic..?

It would mean you have to know absolutely nothing about the legal system and about the tremendous period of evolution that produced what’s actually a stellar system and an adversarial system that protects the rights of the accused and of the victim. 

And to replace that with an ad-hoc bureaucracy that has pretty much the same degree of power as the court system with absolutely none of the training and none of the guarantees.

Paglia: Kangaroo courts. 

That piece that I wrote about date rape - it was in January, 1991 Newsday - was the most controversial thing I ever wrote in my entire career.

I attacked the entire thing, and demanded that colleges stand back and get out of the social lives of the students. The reaction. People tried to call. . . They called the president of my university, tried to get me fired. You can’t believe the hysteria.

Peterson: I can believe it...!

Paglia: Yeah, you can believe it. 

Anything that says to women that they should be responsible for their own choices is regarded as reactionary? Are they kidding me?

This is such a betrayal of authentic feminism in my view.

Peterson: Well it’s The Ultimate Betrayal of authentic Feminism because it’s an invitation of all the things that you might be paranoid about with regards to The Patriarchy back into Your Life. 

It’s an insistence that the most intrusive part of The Tyrannical King come and Take Control of the most intimate details of your life.

Paglia: Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

Peterson: And the assumption is that that’s going to make Your Life better rather than worse.

Paglia: And not to mention this idea of the stages of verbal consent, as if your impulses based in The Body have anything to do with words. 

That’s the whole point of sex is to abandon that part of the brain that’s so trammeled with words.

Peterson: It’s actually a marker of lack of social ability to have to do that. 

Because if you’re sophisticated. . . It’s not like if you’re dancing with someone, it’s not like you call out the moves. If you have to do that, well then you’re worse than a neophyte. You’re an awkward neophyte, and anyone with any sense should get the hell away from you.

So if you’re reduced to the point where you have to verbally negotiate every element of intimate interaction. . .

Paglia: What a downer.

Peterson: Yes, but what an unbelievably naive and pathological view of the manner in which human beings interact. There’s no sophistication in that.

Paglia: What I’m worried about also, in this age of social media. . . 

I’ve noticed that as a teacher in the classroom that the young people are so used to communicating now by cellphone, by iPhone, that they’re losing body language and facial expressions, which I think is going to compound the problem with these dating encounters.

Because the ability to read the human face and to read little tiny inflections of emotion.. . 

I think my generation got that from looking at great foreign films with their long takes. So you’d have Jeanne Moreau and Catherine Deneuve in like potential romantic encounters, and you could see the tiniest little inflections that signal communication or sexual readiness or irony or skepticism or distance or whatever.

The inability to read other people’s intentions. . . 

I think this is going to be a disaster. 

I just notice how year by year the students are becoming much more flat affect. And they themselves complain that they’ll sit in the same room with someone and be texting to each other.

Peterson: 

Yeah, well there’s a piece of evidence, too, 

that supports that to some degree --

Women with brothers are 

less likely to get raped. 

And the reason for that is that 

they’ve learned that 

nonverbal language deeply.

Paglia: 

Not only that but I have noticed in my career that 

women who have many brothers 

are very good as administrators 

and as business people, because 

they don’t take men seriously. 

They saw their brothers. 

They think their brothers are jokes. 

But they know How to Control Men 

while they still like men. 

They admire men. 

This is something 

I have seen repeatedly.

Peterson: 

So that would be also reflective 

of the problem of fewer and fewer siblings.

Paglia: Yes, that’s right. I’ve noticed this in publishing. The women who have the job of publicist and rise to the top as manager of publicity - their ability to take charge of men and their humor with men. 

They have great relationships with men, because they don’t have a sense of resentment and worry and anxiety. They don’t see men as aggressors.

And I think that’s another thing, too. 

As Feminism moved into 

its present System of Ideology 

it has tended to 

denigrate Motherhood 

as a lesser order 

of Human Experience, 

and to enshrine, of course, abortion. 

Now I am a hundred percent for abortion rights. I belonged to Planned Parenthood for years until I finally rejected it as a branch of the Democratic Party, my own party.

But as Motherhood became excluded, 

as Feminism became obsessed 

with The Professional Woman, 

I feel that the lessons that Mothers learn 

have been lost to Feminism. 

The Mothers who bear Boy-children understand The Fragility of Men, The Fragility of Boys --

They understand it. 

They don’t see Boys and Nen 

as a menace. 

They understand 

the greater strength of women.

So there’s this Tenderness and Connectedness between The Mother and The Boy Child when Motherhood is part of the experience of women who are discussing gender. 

So what we have today is that this gender ideology has risen up on campuses where all... None of the girls, none of the students have married. None of them have had children.

And you have women, some of whom have had children. . . 

But a lot of them are like lesbians or like professional women and so on.

So this whole Tenderness and Forgivingness and Encouragement that Women do to Boys. . . 

This Hypersensitivity of Boys is not understood. 

Instead, boys are seen as somehow more privileged. And somehow their energy level is interpreted as aggression, potential violence, and so on. 

We would do better if would have. . . I have proposed that colleges should allow. . . 

The moment a woman has entered, she has entered that college for life and that she should be free to leave to have babies when her body wants that baby, when it’s healthy to have them. 

And then return, have the occasional course, and build up credits. And Fathers might be able to do it as well.

To get married women and women with children into the classroom. The moment that happens, as happened after Word War II where you had a lot of married guys in the classroom. . . Not that many women. The experience of a married person with a family talking about gender. . . Most of the gender stuff would be laughed out of the room if you had a real mother in there who had experienced childbirth and was raising boys.

So I think that’s also something that has led to this incredible artificiality and hysteria of feminist rhetoric.

Peterson: There’s another strange element to that, which is that on the one hand the radical feminist types, the neo-Marxists, postmodernists, are very much opposed to The Patriarchy, let’s say, and that’s that uni-dimensional, ideological representation of Our Culture.

Paglia: That has never existed. Perhaps the word could be applied to Republican Rome and that’s it.

Peterson: Maybe it could be applied usefully to certain kinds of tyranny, but not to A Society that’s actually functional.

Paglia: Victoria England, arguably. But other than that, to use the word ‘Patriarchy’ in a slapdash way, so amateurish. It just shows people know nothing about history whatever,

have done no reading.