“Do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance?”
[…taken from a conversation with Roger Scruton]
Jordan Peterson on the emasculation of the human male:
I have a hypothesis about the feminist end of the postmodern radical leftist movement, and this isn’t something I’ve talked about much in public but here goes. This should give me lots of trouble, and there’s a variety of things that are tangled together here. We don’t know how female biology would manifest itself politically. Male biology does, female biology is going to and that’s because female political activity on the largest possible scale is a relatively new phenomenon. It isn’t obviously the case that men and women’s views of the world are going to dovetail precisely, so here’s a hypothesis. One thing that a woman really wants to know about a man, or perhaps you might say one thing that a female wants to know about masculinity is that he’s not a predatory tyrant. What I mean first of all is there’s fragility, and feminine sexuality is so to a greater degree than there is in male sexuality because women bear a higher price for sexual misadventure. They are perhaps more prone to exploitation by force, but more than that part of being a woman is having the possibility of bringing something extraordinarily fragile and vulnerable and valuable into the world. The first concern might be if you are a predator. Fundamentally are you a predator, and so what I see happening in the in the feminist disciplines like gender studies is the politicization of that accusation, and the accusation is to prove to me that you’re not predator-like in the fundamental element of your masculinity. Not only historically but now, because the cost of you being a predators is too high. Now I feel that that’s inappropriate, I think that’s what’s driving the demolition of the idea of presumption of innocence, for example. We’ll start with presumption of guilt and you’ll have prove to me that you’re innocent. I think the problem with that isn’t that there are no predatory men, because there are plenty of predatory men. The problem is that the courageous way to deal with the problem of the predator, is to offer a hand in courageous trust and to invite forward a partner from the monster. That’s the mythological manner in which this is supposed to be undertaken. The courageous a part of the woman’s journey, let’s say, is to face the monstrosity of a man and to invite out of that something more noble to emerge, and there’s courage in that in genuine risk. I think that that’s foregone in the accusation process, and then the other element of that seems to me to be that if you are a predator, and you’re irredeemable in your predatory nature, then the best thing to do is to render you harmless. If we’re going to obscure the relationship between competence and power, and assume that all of your striving upward is merely a manifestation of power, then what we’ll do is weaken you as much as possible, so that harmlessness can replace virtue. I see all of that driving these resentful disciplines in there, and their ideology. That’s the evil queen who’s lurking there somewhere.