Showing posts with label Psycho II. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psycho II. Show all posts

Friday, 4 February 2022

The Fly




Dr. Raymond
Norman was not convicted of Murder. 
He was found 
Not Guilty by reasons of Insanity
and since he is no longer insane
he has the right to live a normal life 
like You and I.

Lila Loomis
That's just legal Hocus-pocus, 
and when he murders again 
YOU will be DIRECTLY responsible.



Norman Bates
Just don't let Them take Me 
back to The Institution, all right?

Mary
[cradling Norman
Don't worry, Norman. I won't.

Norman Bates
You smell good.

Mary
I do?
 
Norman Bates: 
Yeah.

Mary
What do I smell like?

Norman Bates: 
You smell like... 
Like the toasted cheese sandwiches.

Mary
What?

Norman Bates
That My Mother used to bring Me 
when I was in bed 
with a temperature. 

She used to do lots of nice things 
for me before she went... 
before she became...

Mary
Shh. Just remember 
the good things she did for you. 
Only the good things.

Norman Bates: 
I can't. They're not there anymore.

Mary
Of course they're there!

Norman Bates
No, the doctors took them all away. 
….Along with everything else.

[crying

Norman Bates
Except... except those sandwiches.





Alfred Hitchcock :
“I'll bet you nine people out of ten...
if they see something across, like a woman undressing and going to bed, or even sometimes a man pottering around his room doing nothing.

Nine people out of ten will stay and LOOK.

They WON’T Turn Away and Say,
‘It’s none of My Business’ and pull down their OWN curtain.

They won't DO it.”

In the beginning of the movie you're flying into a [hotel bedroom] window with the blinds closed, so you're starting out as a voyeur.

And if you think about it, if The Movie's opening 
from the point of view of A FLY, 
it •changes• the whole context 
of what meaning of The Movie IS.

Norma Bates (MOTHER) :
I'm not even going to swat that fly.

I hope They ARE watching.
They'll SEE, They'll see 
and They'll KNOW, 
and They'll Say...

“..why, she wouldn't even harm A Fly.”
 
 
 
 

Mina Harker’s Journal

30 September.—I am so glad that I hardly know how to contain myself. It is, I suppose, the reaction from the haunting fear which I have had: that this terrible affair and the reopening of his old wound might act detrimentally on Jonathan. I saw him leave for Whitby with as brave a face as I could, but I was sick with apprehension. The effort has, however, done him good. He was never so resolute, never so strong, never so full of volcanic energy, as at present. It is just as that dear, good Professor Van Helsing said: he is true grit, and he improves under strain that would kill a weaker nature. He came back full of life and hope and determination; we have got everything in order for to-night. I feel myself quite wild with excitement. I suppose one ought to pity any thing so hunted as is the Count. That is just it: this Thing is not human—not even beast. To read Dr. Seward’s account of poor Lucy’s death, and what followed, is enough to dry up the springs of pity in one’s heart.

 

Later.—Lord Godalming and Mr. Morris arrived earlier than we expected. Dr. Seward was out on business, and had taken Jonathan with him, so I had to see them. It was to me a painful meeting, for it brought back all poor dear Lucy’s hopes of only a few months ago. Of course they had heard Lucy speak of me, and it seemed that Dr. Van Helsing, too, has been quite “blowing my trumpet,” as Mr. Morris expressed it. Poor fellows, neither of them is aware that I know all about the proposals they made to Lucy. They did not quite know what to say or do, as they were ignorant of the amount of my knowledge; so they had to keep on neutral subjects. However, I thought the matter over, and came to the conclusion that the best thing I could do would be to post them in affairs right up to date. I knew from Dr. Seward’s diary that they had been at Lucy’s death—her real death—and that I need not fear to betray any secret before the time. So I told them, as well as I could, that I had read all the papers and diaries, and that my husband and I, having typewritten them, had just finished putting them in order. I gave them each a copy to read in the library. When Lord Godalming got his and turned it over—it does make a pretty good pile—he said:—

“Did you write all this, Mrs. Harker?”

I nodded, and he went on:—

“I don’t quite see the drift of it; but you people are all so good and kind, and have been working so earnestly and so energetically, that all I can do is to accept your ideas blindfold and try to help you. I have had one lesson already in accepting facts that should make a man humble to the last hour of his life. Besides, I know you loved my poor Lucy—” Here he turned away and covered his face with his hands. I could hear the tears in his voice. Mr. Morris, with instinctive delicacy, just laid a hand for a moment on his shoulder, and then walked quietly out of the room. I suppose there is something in woman’s nature that makes a man free to break down before her and express his feelings on the tender or emotional side without feeling it derogatory to his manhood; for when Lord Godalming found himself alone with me he sat down on the sofa and gave way utterly and openly. I sat down beside him and took his hand. I hope he didn’t think it forward of me, and that if he ever thinks of it afterwards he never will have such a thought. There I wrong him; I know he never will—he is too true a gentleman. I said to him, for I could see that his heart was breaking:—

“I loved dear Lucy, and I know what she was to you, and what you were to her. She and I were like sisters; and now she is gone, will you not let me be like a sister to you in your trouble? I know what sorrows you have had, though I cannot measure the depth of them. If sympathy and pity can help in your affliction, won’t you let me be of some little service—for Lucy’s sake?”

In an instant the poor dear fellow was overwhelmed with grief. It seemed to me that all that he had of late been suffering in silence found a vent at once. He grew quite hysterical, and raising his open hands, beat his palms together in a perfect agony of grief. He stood up and then sat down again, and the tears rained down his cheeks. I felt an infinite pity for him, and opened my arms unthinkingly. With a sob he laid his head on my shoulder and cried like a wearied child, whilst he shook with emotion.

We women have something of the mother in us that makes us rise above smaller matters when the mother-spirit is invoked; I felt this big sorrowing man’s head resting on me, as though it were that of the baby that some day may lie on my bosom, and I stroked his hair as though he were my own child. I never thought at the time how strange it all was.

After a little bit his sobs ceased, and he raised himself with an apology, though he made no disguise of his emotion. He told me that for days and nights past—weary days and sleepless nights—he had been unable to speak with any one, as a man must speak in his time of sorrow. There was no woman whose sympathy could be given to him, or with whom, owing to the terrible circumstance with which his sorrow was surrounded, he could speak freely. “I know now how I suffered,” he said, as he dried his eyes, “but I do not know even yet—and none other can ever know—how much your sweet sympathy has been to me to-day. I shall know better in time; and believe me that, though I am not ungrateful now, my gratitude will grow with my understanding. You will let me be like a brother, will you not, for all our lives—for dear Lucy’s sake?”

“For dear Lucy’s sake,” I said as we clasped hands. “Ay, and for your own sake,” he added, “for if a man’s esteem and gratitude are ever worth the winning, you have won mine to-day. If ever the future should bring to you a time when you need a man’s help, believe me, you will not call in vain. God grant that no such time may ever come to you to break the sunshine of your life; but if it should ever come, promise me that you will let me know.” He was so earnest, and his sorrow was so fresh, that I felt it would comfort him, so I said:—

“I promise.”

As I came along the corridor I saw Mr. Morris looking out of a window. He turned as he heard my footsteps. “How is Art?” he said. Then noticing my red eyes, he went on: “Ah, I see you have been comforting him. Poor old fellow! he needs it. No one but a woman can help a man when he is in trouble of the heart; and he had no one to comfort him.”

He bore his own trouble so bravely that my heart bled for him. I saw the manuscript in his hand, and I knew that when he read it he would realise how much I knew; so I said to him:—

“I wish I could comfort all who suffer from the heart. Will you let me be your friend, and will you come to me for comfort if you need it? You will know, later on, why I speak.” He saw that I was in earnest, and stooping, took my hand, and raising it to his lips, kissed it. It seemed but poor comfort to so brave and unselfish a soul, and impulsively I bent over and kissed him. The tears rose in his eyes, and there was a momentary choking in his throat; he said quite calmly:—

“Little girl, you will never regret that true-hearted kindness, so long as ever you live!” Then he went into the study to his friend.

“Little girl!”—the very words he had used to Lucy, and oh, but he proved himself a friend!

 

 

 

DR. SEWARD’S DIARY

30 September.—I got home at five o’clock, and found that Godalming and Morris had not only arrived, but had already studied the transcript of the various diaries and letters which Harker and his wonderful wife had made and arranged. Harker had not yet returned from his visit to the carriers’ men, of whom Dr. Hennessey had written to me. Mrs. Harker gave us a cup of tea, and I can honestly say that, for the first time since I have lived in it, this old house seemed like home. When we had finished, Mrs. Harker said:—

“Dr. Seward, may I ask a favour? I want to see your patient, Mr. Renfield. Do let me see him. What you have said of him in your diary interests me so much!” She looked so appealing and so pretty that I could not refuse her, and there was no possible reason why I should; so I took her with me. When I went into the room, I told the man that a lady would like to see him; to which he simply answered: “Why?”

“She is going through the house, and wants to see every one in it,” I answered. “Oh, very well,” he said; “let her come in, by all means; but just wait a minute till I tidy up the place.” His method of tidying was peculiar: he simply swallowed all the flies and spiders in the boxes before I could stop him. It was quite evident that he feared, or was jealous of, some interference. When he had got through his disgusting task, he said cheerfully: “Let the lady come in,” and sat down on the edge of his bed with his head down, but with his eyelids raised so that he could see her as she entered. For a moment I thought that he might have some homicidal intent; I remembered how quiet he had been just before he attacked me in my own study, and I took care to stand where I could seize him at once if he attempted to make a spring at her. She came into the room with an easy gracefulness which would at once command the respect of any lunatic—for easiness is one of the qualities mad people most respect. She walked over to him, smiling pleasantly, and held out her hand.

“Good-evening, Mr. Renfield,” said she. “You see, I know you, for Dr. Seward has told me of you.” He made no immediate reply, but eyed her all over intently with a set frown on his face. This look gave way to one of wonder, which merged in doubt; then, to my intense astonishment, he said:—

“You’re not the girl the doctor wanted to marry, are you? You can’t be, you know, for she’s dead.” Mrs. Harker smiled sweetly as she replied:—

“Oh no! I have a husband of my own, to whom I was married before I ever saw Dr. Seward, or he me. I am Mrs. Harker.”

“Then what are you doing here?”

“My husband and I are staying on a visit with Dr. Seward.”

“Then don’t stay.”

“But why not?” I thought that this style of conversation might not be pleasant to Mrs. Harker, any more than it was to me, so I joined in:—

“How did you know I wanted to marry any one?” His reply was simply contemptuous, given in a pause in which he turned his eyes from Mrs. Harker to me, instantly turning them back again:—

“What an asinine question!”

“I don’t see that at all, Mr. Renfield,” said Mrs. Harker, at once championing me. He replied to her with as much courtesy and respect as he had shown contempt to me:—

“You will, of course, understand, Mrs. Harker, that when a man is so loved and honoured as our host is, everything regarding him is of interest in our little community. Dr. Seward is loved not only by his household and his friends, but even by his patients, who, being some of them hardly in mental equilibrium, are apt to distort causes and effects. Since I myself have been an inmate of a lunatic asylum, I cannot but notice that the sophistic tendencies of some of its inmates lean towards the errors of non causa and ignoratio elenchi.” I positively opened my eyes at this new development. Here was my own pet lunatic—the most pronounced of his type that I had ever met with—talking elemental philosophy, and with the manner of a polished gentleman. I wonder if it was Mrs. Harker’s presence which had touched some chord in his memory. If this new phase was spontaneous, or in any way due to her unconscious influence, she must have some rare gift or power.

We continued to talk for some time; and, seeing that he was seemingly quite reasonable, she ventured, looking at me questioningly as she began, to lead him to his favourite topic. I was again astonished, for he addressed himself to the question with the impartiality of the completest sanity; he even took himself as an example when he mentioned certain things.

“Why, I myself am an instance of a man who had a strange belief. Indeed, it was no wonder that my friends were alarmed, and insisted on my being put under control. I used to fancy that life was a positive and perpetual entity, and that by consuming a multitude of live things, no matter how low in the scale of creation, one might indefinitely prolong life. At times I held the belief so strongly that I actually tried to take human life. The doctor here will bear me out that on one occasion I tried to kill him for the purpose of strengthening my vital powers by the assimilation with my own body of his life through the medium of his blood—relying, of course, upon the Scriptural phrase, ‘For the blood is the life.’ Though, indeed, the vendor of a certain nostrum has vulgarised the truism to the very point of contempt. Isn’t that true, doctor?” I nodded assent, for I was so amazed that I hardly knew what to either think or say; it was hard to imagine that I had seen him eat up his spiders and flies not five minutes before. Looking at my watch, I saw that I should go to the station to meet Van Helsing, so I told Mrs. Harker that it was time to leave. She came at once, after saying pleasantly to Mr. Renfield: “Good-bye, and I hope I may see you often, under auspices pleasanter to yourself,” to which, to my astonishment, he replied:—

“Good-bye, my dear. I pray God I may never see your sweet face again. May He bless and keep you!”

When I went to the station to meet Van Helsing I left the boys behind me. Poor Art seemed more cheerful than he has been since Lucy first took ill, and Quincey is more like his own bright self than he has been for many a long day.

Van Helsing stepped from the carriage with the eager nimbleness of a boy. He saw me at once, and rushed up to me, saying:—

“Ah, friend John, how goes all? Well? So! I have been busy, for I come here to stay if need be. All affairs are settled with me, and I have much to tell. Madam Mina is with you? Yes. And her so fine husband? And Arthur and my friend Quincey, they are with you, too? Good!”

As I drove to the house I told him of what had passed, and of how my own diary had come to be of some use through Mrs. Harker’s suggestion; at which the Professor interrupted me:—

“Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man’s brain—a brain that a man should have were he much gifted—and a woman’s heart. The good God fashioned her for a purpose, believe me, when He made that so good combination. Friend John, up to now fortune has made that woman of help to us; after to-night she must not have to do with this so terrible affair. It is not good that she run a risk so great. We men are determined—nay, are we not pledged?—to destroy this monster; but it is no part for a woman. Even if she be not harmed, her heart may fail her in so much and so many horrors; and hereafter she may suffer—both in waking, from her nerves, and in sleep, from her dreams. And, besides, she is young woman and not so long married; there may be other things to think of some time, if not now. You tell me she has wrote all, then she must consult with us; but to-morrow she say good-bye to this work, and we go alone.” I agreed heartily with him, and then I told him what we had found in his absence: that the house which Dracula had bought was the very next one to my own. He was amazed, and a great concern seemed to come on him. “Oh that we had known it before!” he said, “for then we might have reached him in time to save poor Lucy. However, ‘the milk that is spilt cries not out afterwards,’ as you say. We shall not think of that, but go on our way to the end.” Then he fell into a silence that lasted till we entered my own gateway. Before we went to prepare for dinner he said to Mrs. Harker:—

“I am told, Madam Mina, by my friend John that you and your husband have put up in exact order all things that have been, up to this moment.”

“Not up to this moment, Professor,” she said impulsively, “but up to this morning.”

“But why not up to now? We have seen hitherto how good light all the little things have made. We have told our secrets, and yet no one who has told is the worse for it.”

Mrs. Harker began to blush, and taking a paper from her pockets, she said:—

“Dr. Van Helsing, will you read this, and tell me if it must go in. It is my record of to-day. I too have seen the need of putting down at present everything, however trivial; but there is little in this except what is personal. Must it go in?” The Professor read it over gravely, and handed it back, saying:—

“It need not go in if you do not wish it; but I pray that it may. It can but make your husband love you the more, and all us, your friends, more honour you—as well as more esteem and love.” She took it back with another blush and a bright smile.

And so now, up to this very hour, all the records we have are complete and in order. The Professor took away one copy to study after dinner, and before our meeting, which is fixed for nine o’clock. The rest of us have already read everything; so when we meet in the study we shall all be informed as to facts, and can arrange our plan of battle with this terrible and mysterious enemy.






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, 

NoThe 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.

PetersonIt’s actually a marker of lack of social ability to have to do that. 

Because ifyou’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

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 men 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.