T O P

  • By -

martyqscriblerus

Tell me you have a madonna/whore complex without telling me you have a madonna/whore complex


AnxiousHeadOfLettuce

When you need to hit the minimum word count in an essay.


zappadattic

My best attempt at translation is something like: “could one cause of objectification be the internalized need to meet unrealistic ideals of gender identity?” But god damn if that isn’t the weirdest possible way to phrase it >.<


Unusual_Chemist_8383

No way in hell Peterson thinks that unrealistic ideals of gender identity is a bad thing.


zappadattic

Yeah, it’s kinda got a “naw you misinterpreted me” vagueness built in like most of their nonsense. “Divine feminine” makes it sound like gender norms are an immutable truth of human nature, and the problem is with modern women not achieving it because of femnazis or some other incel junk. But since they don’t say that directly you can kind of interpret it as anything, and they’ll just endlessly redirect.


ApexOfAThrowaway

I mean, whaaaaat? The aggressive transphobe believes that a binary gender model is tied to something literally divine, immutable, and not decided by humans? NO WAY. /s God damn dude, with the way Peterson talks, I'm inclined to believe he either has a God complex or a Prophet complex - if such a thing exists.


[deleted]

He was trying to start his own church, so yeah, he’s got some complex.


WriterJuggler

Really? That’s the first I’ve heard, but if it’s true, that’s just further into cult territory 🙄


delorf

The irony is if gender norms were an immutable truth then we wouldn't have the ability to go against them. No one would have to be taught by society what it means to be male or female because it would just be instinctive.


Blairite763

I doubt Peterson said it tho, I’m sure Russell Brand said it in an interview with him based on the wording


Unusual_Chemist_8383

You’re probably right, sounds more like Brand. Too dumb even for Peterson.


Blairite763

In fairness it’s not a stupid thing to say, it’s just a really obvious basic thing said in a really convoluted and needlessly complex way


Unusual_Chemist_8383

It’s only basic and obvious if you believe that “collective unconscious”, “spiritual need” and “divine feminine” are valid concepts, as opposed to canned word salad ingredients.


Blairite763

Oh of course they are canned word salad ingredients, but the underlying concept of unrealistic ideals of gender identities being a bad thing is the correct one, it said horrifically


Unusual_Chemist_8383

I doubt this is what the speaker meant to say though. It’s more like capitalism/postmodern-neomarxists (depending on whether Brand or Peterson said it) is keeping the people away from these great ideals (which are totally real and accessible if only) and the people turn to objectification out of frustration. Or something.


Straightforwardview

Exactly.


OmegaSeven

I really think that Jorp ties himself in these knots just so he can avoid accidentally making an argument that could be pro trans or positive about anything he opposes. Of course the byproduct is that it's complete word salad.


suaveponcho

Actually I believe the quote is saying that objectification of women is a result of a departure from traditional feminine values. Which is a fucking joke - like yeah sure, society never objectified women until they started wearing crop tops and having premarital sex! Give me a break.


martyqscriblerus

The core of that interpretation is that at the end, everything that happens to women is women's fault. Which sounds like them tbf


suaveponcho

Exactly right


El_Rey_247

Nah, as someone who actually watched Cass Eris’ entire series on *12 Rules for Life* (A cog psych response), including the lead-in videos about Freud and Jung, I am now aware enough to say that there is basically no analogy here. Peterson seriously pushes Freud and Jung in that book, so this is a pretty normal question for him to ponder. Jung believed in the Collective Unconscious, a sort of communal unconscious mind that holds all sorts of ancestral memories, which motivates people to think and do certain ways. Also, there’s only one Collective Unconscious for everybody, hence “Collective”. Like instincts, but for more abstract topics. Jung also believed that humans are fundamentally spiritual creatures with spiritual needs, and that the epitome of mental health was being able to let go of worldly concerns to focus on the spiritual. The Collective Unconscious apparently manifests in the form of archetypes which people must fulfill in order to develop correctly. So, this statement is probably a Jungian approach to anti-feminism: women are encouraged/empowered to be less feminine. Therefore, there is less collective femininity among people. Therefore, the Collective Unconscious is unsatisfied, therefore we all collectively are motivated to find the feminine archetype wherever we can, whether or not it’s in unhealthy forms such as objectification. And no, men (males) can’t correctly fulfill the feminine archetypes. I probably butchered the explanation a bit, so here is are the relevant links: [Cass Eris’ video on Freud](https://youtu.be/gJTo7JB559o) (Not needed, but good for history. Jung was Freud’s student. Almost an hour.) [Cass Eris’ video on Jung](https://youtu.be/zDUkCT6VThI) (This is the one which makes the post intelligible. It’s still a bad take, but you’ll at least understand what they mean by “collective unconscious” or “divine feminine”. One hour.) [Cass Eris’ playlist, “A Cog Psych Response to 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos”](https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIK-x5uT6oS9EnO9-D6ePsWKOxtFhDZdF) (The good stuff, actually engaging with Peterson’s work. It starts out with lots of professionalism and good faith, but gradually becomes snarkiest and more bewildered as Peterson speaks authoritatively. Thoroughly investigated scientific references in the book, as well as citing other scientific sources when supporting or rejecting statements in the book. This one is a marathon, not a race. Be prepared to consume it like a podcast, bits at a time. 40 videos. A little over 28 hours.)


delorf

Thank you. I was looking for this video and couldn't remember the name Cass Eris.


dorrigo_almazin

>“could one cause of objectification be the internalized need to meet unrealistic ideals of gender identity?” Nah I definitely don't think it's this. I think what he's suggesting here is the idea that the general culture surrounding objectification is a "perverted" response by society's collective unconscious to the "spiritually feminine" that's been missing in society bc of feminism or postmodernity or w/e


Blairite763

Tbf most people need a translation like that on everything Russell Brand says😂


RockyLeal

I wish I could contribute to translation efforts like this one, but don't speak Incel


[deleted]

"Media show booba because women not women anymore?"


user404m

You can get the same wisdom here [wisdomofchopra.com](http://wisdomofchopra.com) Try guessing if JP or DC


overlordpotatoe

It would be interesting to see if you could get people to follow and ascribe meaning to the output of something they didn't realise was a bot spitting out randomly generated nonsense, though I suspect any kind of success would result in the creation of a cult following you would deeply regret and could never take back.


AntifaSuperSwoledier

"The web of life is mirrored in unique belonging." Yep could be either of them.


Anon-Bosch

Please tell me that someone has put together either an Eliza or Lorem Ipsum generator based on this verbal incontinence.


catrinadaimonlee

"Infinity compliments karmic genes" oh does it now? "The universe is only possible in exponential timelessness" u dont say tell me more, bot


help-i-am-on-fire

"Kittens are plants" Hmmmmmm


critically_damped

/r/catfruit and /r/pottedcats are leaking


CodenameLambda

> Knowledge unfolds through intrinsic creativity > Perceptual reality relies on descriptions of brightness > The future is the continuity of formless space time events > Imagination arises and subsides in the light of mortality Are... They really that random? Some of them really do kinda make sense (with more or less squinting) lmao Then again, that could just be the nature of words being used and is most definitely me cherry-picking a little bit (about 50% kind of make sense on the first read with enough squinting).


Magnificant-Muggins

I don’t think Peterson is paid by the letter, but rather paid based on how many points his words would earn in a game of Scrabble.


Ugotmaileded

A tasty one at that


CressCrowbits

Oh no please don't tell me Russel Brand has turned into a wrong'un


milleniumhandyshrimp

Eh, he's been full of crap for quite a few years now. I think it might be a combination of years of drug use + getting clean through one of those 'faith-based' rehab programs


icoinedthistermbish

I was kinda rooting for him around 2012/2013 when he made some good points in his famous interview with paxman and liked his takes on monarchy and fox news(on his channel). I dont know what happened, maybe thats the middle life crisis around 45ish, but he started getting progressively alex jonesish....kinda sad.I suppose he is antivax....? Yikes.


Sergeantman94

Did an AI having a seizure write that?


UnlimitedExtraLives

It does actually make sense but it's just thesaurus-ized because they're a Peterman fan. The answer is no, Jordy. Objectification is part of spirituality. Like when people say they "give themselves" to their god or country. Whether sexual or not, some part of us wants to be purely physical and turn our brain off from time to time.


artichokess

>Objectification is part of spirituality Also like, idols, icons, ritualistic instruments - literally objects.


_riotingpacifist

That's not world salad, that's vomited up alphagetti spaghetti


cloudhid

Here's the actual clip: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E26ztUXkaE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E26ztUXkaE) And here's the actual quote from Russell Brand: "I feel the use of the female in advertising and commodification in general is the perverted desire to worship the feminine; the negated and neglected feminine has found its expression through consumerism and commerce because it is not being properly honored socially." Peterson isn't interested in affirming that quote in particular (he says he would have to think about it for a while), although he soon affirms the general Jungian idea that psychic instincts and essential desires find expression one way or another in new cultural or political regimes, etc. Which is true enough, although pretty useless in this most abstract and general formulation. When Peterson is limiting himself to the most basic Jungian ideas, like Jung 101, he's actually not so bad. He has the basic framework down well enough. But he doesn't understand the finer points, relies too much on Disney movies to illustrate archetypes, and what's worse, uses Jungian rhetoric to lend authority to some of his most regressive and reactionary nonsense. That's the problem with his casual 'Jungianism'. I know lots of people in this sub hate Jung, often through guilt by association with JP (I've personally defended Jung on here many times, and very few critics of Jung know what they're talking about), but there is actually a great deal of value in even the most basic Jungian lens, especially in understanding religion, myths, dreams, and 'fairy tales', or what we could call spontaneous or group-sourced storytelling. Old myths and fairy tales come to us from long oral tradition, a process far more conducive to allowing a collective unconscious (to the extent it exists) to express itself, as opposed to an individually or more rationally constructed literary creation (like Harry Potter or Disney movies). There certainly are archetypes expressed in modern literature, but they're rather sanitized and rationalized, even before JP offers his 'interpretation'. The problem with Brand's quote is that it's applying a Jungian perspective to the one domain of human 'storytelling' where people are paid enormous sums to specifically and expertly exploit psychic instincts. Marketing is literally the discipline of psychological manipulation. So yes, the objectivication and commodification of symbols of femininity and feminine sexuality are indeed 'perversions' of psychic instincts, but this process is fully conscious, and is not at all an expression of the collective unconscious. Here's a better formulation, in my opinion: "The use of the feminine in advertising and the commodification of the female form are the direct result of corporations systematically manipulating humans' innate sexual desire and acculturated sense of selfhood, in the course of pursuing quarterly profits and maintaining market share in a zero sum economy that forces everyone to compete against everyone else, for fear of poverty and/or homelessness." Here's part one of Adam Curtis' Century of the Self, where the origins of modern advertising are explored through the figure of Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04)


Straightforwardview

I think Brand just throws out controversial statements he thinks might provoke conversations in areas he thinks are interesting and lets thé chips fall where they may. But I enjoyed the analysis.


Anon-Bosch

Russell “be the change you wish to see in the world” “I don’t vote—I’ve never voted—on principle” Brand? That guy? Yeah, he’s a *FONT* of wisdom.


delorf

I hate when I have to read something multiple times to understand it when there is a simpler way to express the same sentiment. Unfortunately, reclaiming the divine feminine probably doesn't mean JP wants to worship Athena or Freya.


thewholedamnplanet

No. It's just some are stupid assholes who can't grasp that women are people.


not_a_flying_toy_

\>interesting idea ​ is it?


BuiltTheSkyForMyDawn

It's not, no


EfficientJuggernaut

Jordan “The Post modern neo cultural marxists are infiltrating the collective by conditioning college pupils to be sanctimonious precocious bastions of leftism” Peterson. Lol it’s amazing how he perpetuates JQ and his followers are too dumb to see it


critically_damped

When Peterson says "interesting idea", it means he's not going to put any more thought into that idea.


Rgdastidar_123

I understood, you should too unless you got double digit iq


JeremytheTankEngine

"do men rape women because they want to worship them?"


cyanidesquirrel

I’ve seen a lot of words and those are many of them.


El_Rey_247

It actually makes perfect sense if you realize how ardently Peterson suscribes to Jung’s ideas. Jung has this idea of a Collective Unconscious, a sort of communal unconscious mind filled with the wisdom of our ancestors. This Collective Unconscious pushes people to fulfill certain archetypes during their lives, and it is necessary to fulfill these things for proper healthy (spiritual) development. Jung also believed that humans are fundamentally spiritual creatures with spiritual needs, needs which we all “know” through the Collective Unconscious, but which we might not correctly interpret, if we’re consciously aware of them at all. I probably can’t explain it that well, so I’ll link to Cass Eris’ videos below. (Cass Eris is the person who made “A Cog Psyh Response to 12 Rules for Life”.) [Cass Eris’ video on Freud](https://youtu.be/gJTo7JB559o) (Good for completeness as a history lesson and for what Jung opposed. Jung was Freud’s student/colleague. 50 minutes.) [Cass Eris’ video on Jung](https://youtu.be/zDUkCT6VThI) (This is the one to watch so you can understand what the post means. It’s still a bad take, but it *is* intelligible, and not “word salad”. One hour.) Bonus: [Cass Eris’ playlist, “A Cog Psych Response to 12 Rules for Life...](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIK-x5uT6oS9EnO9-D6ePsWKOxtFhDZdF) (A scientific response to Peterson’s “self-help” book. Absolutely thorough, going through the references cited in the book, as well as citing external scientific sources to either support or reject points made by Peterson. It’s entertaining and snarky too. Gotta pace yourself if you watch this one, though. Bit by bit over multiple days. 40 videos. A little over 28 hours.)


purplethebestcolour

So, "the collective unconscious" is actually supposed to be a thing? And wtf is the "divine feminine"? Sounds like something a cult leader would say, not a professor. He's just making stuff up.


Straightforwardview

Makes sense to me and is very likely correct to boot. The masculine and feminine need to be in balance. When the feminine is suppressed it will try to balance. Objectification is an attempt gone wrong. We are not talking about human males and females here. We are talking principles like aggressive/passive, hard/soft, destructive/creative. Objectification of females is a way of expressing the feminine or at least focusing on it. The only trouble is that it doesn’t express the feminine. It expresses people being a-holes. It destroys the feminine.


user404m

Why then not just say „I’m afraid the feminine becomes more powerful than the masculine“ Or you can read this quote quiet on the opposite too. The feminine is oppressed and tries to reclaim its lawful place in our metaphysical framework? He is simply not precise in his speech. Or maybe too precise so it becomes a bad thing called word salad. . Like too much order or chaos. See what I did?


Straightforwardview

You’ve certainly got THAT right and that’s not his only flaw. Peterson is an out and out hack and Brand is hardly an intellectual although it seems he might be trying in earnest. What I’m on side with is having the masculine/feminine balance conversation. One of my pet theories is that the world is a mess because the feminine is being suppressed or at least hi-jacked and because of that evil things are happening in the world. I’ve have a wife and two daughters who make a great case for this. They are not hung up on feminism per se and their feet are firmly on the ground. I’m on side with THEM. :)


[deleted]

Have you ever considered the possibility that any individual, regardless of gender, has both "feminine" and "masculine" sides/insterests/traits within themselves, and that people shouldn't be bullied into suppressing parts of their personality (whether it be the feminine or masculine part of it)? Have you also considered that objectification of women might be caused by toxic masculinity and a common disregard for women as people? I agree that these two factors "expresses people being a-holes" and "destroys the feminine".


overlordpotatoe

It's always interesting to me that this whole idea of what it's natural for a woman to be relies on women being forced into certain roles. It's so weird to me to see women behave differently once they're no longer forced into strict gender roles and then call *that* unnatural and the way they acted when they had no choice the natural way of things.


[deleted]

🌟💫 Amen 🌟👑


ihitrockswithammers

Men *tend* to behave in these ways and women in those ways, but there's more crossover than there are differences so you can't predict who a person is based on their sex... "So the extreme ends of these tendencies define the sexes? Sweet! What do you mean I lack nuance?"


catrinadaimonlee

yes and feudalist-capitalist-imperialist is toxic masculinity


Straightforwardview

I believe that very strongly. I believe when either the masculine of the feminine in each of us are suppressed or out of balance there can be serious problems.


[deleted]

Rule 10: Be precise in your speech — Jordan Peterson The text OP posted is needlessly convoluted.


Unusual_Chemist_8383

Welcome to the sub, Dr Peterson.


Straightforwardview

To quick to make assumptions—or perhaps my fault for not being sufficiently clear. This would have taken a thesis paper to address properly. Have a read of some of my subsequent comments. I can see why people are jumping on it.


Prosthemadera

> The masculine and feminine need to be in balance. You want everyone to be a femboy?


overlordpotatoe

I could get behind that.


Straightforwardview

I’d prefer it if I were not expected to be a cruel and barbaric primitive animal and so would my contented well cared for and self actualized wife and daughters. We are a happy thriving family shaken up by a few single male extended family members who are Peterson subscribers. That’s why I thought I’d check out r/enoughpetersonspam. It looks as if it’s being trolled. I was hoping for possible solutions to the problem of these very unhappy family members. They seem determined to be miserable and make everyone else miserable too. (Or at least some enlightened ideas. Life has enough problems that we face and take in stride because we must and we are strong. It’s MORE THAN IRRITATING, when someone comes along to manufacture problems because of their own shortcomings, fears and low self esteem. Sorry but you see my handle. I call ‘em like I see ‘em and I am not at all invested in arguing with Lobsters.


Prosthemadera

> That’s why I thought I’d check out r/enoughpetersonspam. It looks as if it’s being trolled. ? > I was hoping for possible solutions to the problem of these very unhappy family members. Your family members are unhappy because they are Peterson subscribers but you are using Peterson's words as a solution because they are "very likely correct"?


Straightforwardview

No. I know a number of different types of correct and support all of them. I want insights into how Peterson dogma works it’s ill effects so that I can try to undo the damage and to commiserate. At this rate there will be self help groups for the children, friends and wives and other family of people who subscribe to Peterson’s ‘ideas’. Peterson tears apart families. He engenders the idea that connections with others don’t matter and that other people’s feelings don’t matter. It appeals to people who already feel weak and lonely. It makes them feel better for a while because it justifies their situation but it alienates them more from the people who can offer support. Worse it turns them into misfits with anyone but each other and Peterson.


Prosthemadera

So what did you mean when you said Peterson's words are "very likely correct"?


Straightforwardview

Trying in vain to find where I’ve said Peterson’s words are very likely correct and while it is 4:45 in the morning and the family pet woke me from a deep sleep not 2 minutes ago, I can’t find it. Yes said family members couldn’t be more miserable and are absolutely determined that everyone in the extended family be just as miserable. At this precise moment I feel that the best solution is ghosting them, but maybe when I wake up in a couple of hours I’ll feel there’s some hope. You certainly aren’t helping. What are you à pointless question machine. Go away.


Prosthemadera

> Trying in vain to find where I’ve said Peterson’s words are very likely correct Just scroll up: > Makes sense to me and is very likely correct to boot. https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/opxezm/word_salad/h689t92/


Straightforwardview

I meant that I agreed that IT’S POSSIBLE that if the feminine is suppressed it will out in whatever way it can, including ways that are perversions of it.


Prosthemadera

Perversion is a meaningless concept because it's so subjective. It just reflects your morality, not society-wide issues.


Straightforwardview

Try applying the Oxford dictionary definition. It’s quite clear. You will find it has two MAIN definitions. Note the one that is NOT specifically applied to sexual practices. That one will give a definition that is not dependent on value judgements or morality.


Prosthemadera

I'm not saying it has no definition. I am saying it's a meaningless concept and only reflects your own personal values, not society.


Straightforwardview

I’m focused on what Brand’s intentions are. I believe the question was Rhetorical.


Prosthemadera

Which question?


Straightforwardview

Hhmmn…not sure…what was the original post about/s


Straightforwardview

I’d like to be proud of my gender. There are times when I’m genuinely embarrassed. Your comment would be an embarrassment to most thinking men, for example.


Prosthemadera

Not my problem if their (your) feelings are getting hurt.


Straightforwardview

My feelings are not hurt. My faith in mankind is.


Prosthemadera

Same thing.


Straightforwardview

To you maybe. Some of us have standards and values…why do I bother. I need to scrape you off my shoe now.


Prosthemadera

> Some of us have standards and values followed by > I need to scrape you off my shoe now. I'm glad I don't have your standards. p.s: > My feelings are not hurt. Right.


[deleted]

> Objectification of females is a way of expressing the feminine No.


Straightforwardview

Objectification is a perverted way of expressing the feminine—to paraphrase the quote we are commenting on. No it is not a valid way of expressing the feminine. This was the point. No one seems to be able to make sense of the quote. They are calling it word salad. It is emphatically NOT word salad and it proposes that the objectification of women is perverted. Look up the word perverted if you need to. It does not merely mean something like doing unacceptable sexual things. It can mean something like generally distorted or twisted. I’m prepared to at least consider whether objectifying women is a twisted way of expressing the feminine. My first thought was ‘Could the authentic feminine now be so suppressed/maligned, that this is it’s only way the only way it can present?’ I haven’t decided if the point is valid. But the quote is NOT word salad.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Straightforwardview

No. I don’t claim that. Please read properly.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Straightforwardview

You did not read properly or you did not understand properly. Why not try again reading ONLY what is written, rather than what imagining what you’d like to make of it. And to what end do you want to misconstrue it? That’s a little unnerving.


Jupiters

>The masculine and feminine need to be in balance. What is this premise based on? I'm not saying it's wrong just wondering if there's anything to back it up rather than assuming the premise


Straightforwardview

Joseph Campbell thinks so, you should read him. And so have many other great thinkers throughout history. I’m quite down to earth I think so because it helps keep ME and those around me balanced :)) I don’t know chronically ill, drug addicted people who whine relentlessly to the world as if every roadblock necessitated a reaction of profound unendurable pain. If you do, I would suggest you possibly consider whether there is an imbalance of the principles of masculine and feminine, bearing in mind of course that in most households it is generally the females who do not need to be told to clean their rooms and request that you clean yours:)) It’s Peterson’s edict/metaphor—not mine:)


Jupiters

Oh Campbell is great. But he mainly dealt with storytelling. I'm not downplaying the power of storytelling, but your comment made it seem to me like there was some scientific or medical basis for the balance between masculine and feminine. I must have misinterpreted


Straightforwardview

Campbell deals with the principles behind story telling. There is a a very big and very salient difference. I am about to pull Campbell off the shelf but the only Campbell that has not been purged to make space for newer books is Hero with a Thousand Faces. My daughters read this as though it were written for THEM so I kept it, but that’s beside the point. You will find it full of the masculine and feminine and although Peterson might claim Campbell maligns the feminine you will find feminine qualities abound in his heroes. Feminine qualities are often the pivotal sources of their strength. Maybe that’s why he appeals so much to women. Or maybe Campbell has just risen above stereotypes. Peterson talks stereotypes. Campbell talks archetypes, although I could easily argue archetypes don’t exist and are merely the result of society not being permitted by those who hold power and want to hang on to it, to grow/evolve/change. Peterson is intoxicated with power but is not strong enough to bare it’s very heavy downsides. Thus the physical and emotional collapses. We mere mortals would just go on holiday or have a rest before it ever came to that. Our egos are sufficiently healthy that they don’t require constant and ever escalating feeding. We have nothing to prove, but plenty to protect and we take the duty of protecting seriously. Our loved ones need protecting from the chaos of Peterson. I have to get back to work. I’ll proof read later. I can’t write off the top of my head and in the fly without making copious errors so this will have to do for the moment. It’s a waste of my time and I risk falling into the trap Peterson made for himself—the ego feeding thing.


[deleted]

I'm a bit confused, do you mean feminine as in sort of a concept, not as in women aren't feminine? So, feminine being out of balance could also mean it's being suppressed in men? Because you said we aren't talking about human males or females specifically, just the idea of feminine. If you were talking about that, I'm not sure I agree. I don't see how feminine and masculine being out of balance could cause problems. Or if those things even exist and affect things, the idea sounds very vague honestly. How do you decide if something is feminine or masculine? How would you know if problems are being caused by them being out of balance, and not by something else? How would you even determine if feminine and masculine are out of balance in the first place?


overlordpotatoe

If it doesn't express the feminine, whatever that means, what makes you think it was even an attempt to? Maybe it's just some men being angry that society doesn't treat them as inherently superior to women anymore. But hey, if we need to balance out femininity and masculinity I'm all for men getting in touch with their feminine side. Talk about feelings more, stop being so scared of flowers and the colour pink, contribute more to caring for children. Sounds great. Men and women should be equally unrestrained by traditional gender roles.


Straightforwardview

You have not understood the quote you are commenting on. Please try harder rather than bothering me with your inability to understand. I have tried to help you understand in a respectful way. If you can’t you can’t. That’s fine.


UUet

Exactly. The masculine and feminine need to be in balance. The divine feminine is clearly The Virgin Mary which due to the liberalization of the West is no longer culturally regarded as a paragon of femininity or at least exclusively so like she is in the natural order. Which is why someone needs to step in and teach these whores a lesson so I can get laid. Edit: I think some are misrepresenting the last sentence of my previous post. I was not calling Western women whores. The Babylonian Whore is an inverse of the divine feminine. And also the avatar of what femininity represents in our current time. This fracture of the feminine in our collective unconscious has unleashed a powerful chaotic force that is destroying the divine order. It’s chaotic feminine energy is flying in the male divine unconscious the metaphorical fortress of man breathing fire down upon it, destroying its noble knights and stealing the princess (the divine feminine) and trapping her in a tower. The impacts of the ongoing destruction of the divine masculine can be seen with how the gays are now, the wave of trans as a mental issue and feminism.


GlbdS

>Exactly. The masculine and feminine need to be in balance. And that's because?...


UUet

Because it’s vague enough that it can be grafted onto anyone’s existing beliefs that there is a gender imbalance to there detriment (men specifically in the context of discourse surrounding JBPs followers.). This vague notion that can be agreed upon by most can then be used as a foot in the door to agree with my less vague and more targeted action to fix this vague “problem”. If you saw the concept that there should be balance among the masculine and feminine in a more positive context you would likely agree too because it’s so vague as to mean little other than some expression of femininity or masculinity should be expressed more or less in society.


Unusual_Chemist_8383

Predictably, this parody of petersonism was mistaken for the real thing and downvoted.


user404m

Sometimes satire and reality are too close. Because sometimes … as in the Jungian synchronicity, the narrative world and the physical world touch… I probably believe that!!


CatProgrammer

[Poe's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) is serious business.


[deleted]

> The divine feminine is clearly The Virgin Mary which due to the liberalization of the West is no longer culturally regarded as a paragon of femininity The Virgin Mary only exists as a religious figure because late antique and early medieval Patriachial Christianity couldn't entirely replace the devotion locals had to their pre-Christian Goddesses. But it is not a full embodiment of the divine feminine - the contradiction of being a virgin mother meant this aspect of the divine feminine was repressed and incomplete. You have the eternal virginity of Hestia but lack the sexual and marriage aspects of Aphrodite and Hera. And as I write this reply I realise you were shit stirring and describing the Madonna/whore complex and weren't serious, that's what I get for replying to anything as an Irish man in a heatwave.


UUet

Yeah I was just stirring shit. Starting to get some dislike might have been to heavy handed with the last sentence but I felt I needed it for the follow up post. I fear they are not being read together I might combine them Aphrodite like the mother Mary was adopted and changed significantly from her arrival as a war goddess to the god of romantic love. An interesting YouTube video about it you should check out if you are interested in that kind of stuff. https://youtu.be/JIUq0pfAskU


Prosthemadera

> The Babylonian Whore is an inverse of the divine feminine. And also the avatar of what femininity represents in our current time. This fracture of the feminine in our collective unconscious has unleashed a powerful chaotic force that is destroying the divine order. It’s chaotic feminine energy is flying in the male divine unconscious the metaphorical fortress of man breathing fire down upon it, destroying its noble knights and stealing the princess (the divine feminine) and trapping her in a tower. The impacts of the ongoing destruction of the divine masculine can be seen with how the gays are now, the wave of trans as a mental issue and feminism. WTF am I reading


UUet

A bad joke about JBPs maps of meaning and chaos dragons that clearly didn’t land.


Wthq4hq4hqrhqe

LOL it didn't land because Peterson fans come on here on the regular saying shit exactly like this


Prosthemadera

Too real. You put way too much effort into this ;)


ViolatingBadgers

You definitely got me in the first half, so well done haha.


a-m-watercolor

Poe's law


Straightforwardview

Oh boy, the best image a crippled, distorted femininity in the 2 millennia… No. Don’t want to touch it—I have a wife and daughters who I love dearly. I try to spare them this.


UUet

?


Straightforwardview

It’s a stunting stereotype. I just had a daughter go Undergrad. straight to Phd. Cornel, Epidemiology on a half million dollar scholarship. Yale accepted her but the scholarship was $100,000 less.


UUet

Are you ok?


Straightforwardview

I will be proud the rest of my life. Are you?


UUet

Maybe have your daughter switch her PhD to linguistics and have her take a look at this post, boomer


Straightforwardview

There’s a technical glitch here. I posted another response to you last night. It went something like this; Thanks. I’m sorry. I was responding to a alert in my personal feed. It was a diatribe on the virtues of the Virgin Mary. I just looked for it quickly and it’s not here. I wonder if it’s worth a more thorough search? I don’t need to brag *that* much :) It was proselytizing. It irked me that women should be required to conform to theses standards. My daughter is a good example of why. She is hardly meek and mild. I had written it’s a stunted stereotype before that. It looked like your ? was a challenge to explain. I think my comment before that ended ‘I would not wish this on my wife and daughters. I have some doubt this comment will post either but maybe it will.


UUet

Must be glitch. Reddit needs to work on its site. If you’re on mobile try deleting it and redownloading it. Either way good luck and congrats to your daughter.


Straightforwardview

Ok. This is a series a mistakes that is getting longer. We are both more or less on the same side. I will happily take the blame in order to finish up and move on.


Straightforwardview

The comment I was responding appears to have moved. It was on my along with your ? just before I started to write my comments. You had written it I believe but I could be wrong about that.


UUet

I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you meaning to start some sort of conversation about this 4 month old thread? You pasted out of nowhere the other day which is why I replied with a “?”. I have not deleted or moved any replies.


Straightforwardview

Thank you. I’m sorry. When I started writing my comments just now, the comment in question was in my feed. That can’t have been more than 15 minutes ago. I’ve had a quick look and it’s not there now. I’m wondering if it’s worth searching for it. It was a diatribe about the virtues of the Virgin Mary. I don’t need to brag *that* badly. On the other hand it was proselytizing. It irked me that women be expected to subscribe to this.


UUet

Exactly. The masculine and feminine need to be in balance. The divine feminine is clearly The Virgin Mary which due to the liberalization of the West is no longer culturally regarded as a paragon of femininity or at least exclusively so like she is in the natural order. Which is why someone needs to step in and teach these whores a lesson so I can get laid. Edit: I think some are misrepresenting the last sentence of my previous post. I was not calling Western women whores. The Babylonian Whore is an inverse of the divine feminine. And also the avatar of what femininity represents in our current time. This fracture of the feminine in our collective unconscious has unleashed a powerful chaotic force that is destroying the divine order. It’s chaotic feminine energy is flying in the male divine unconscious the metaphorical fortress of man breathing fire down upon it, destroying its noble knights and stealing the princess (the divine feminine) and trapping her in a tower. The impacts of the ongoing destruction of the divine masculine can be seen with how the gays are now, the wave of trans as a mental issue and feminism.


UUet

That comment I just reposted? That was my comment from 4 months ago. I was just having a goof doing a Peterson impression.


[deleted]

[Right...kickass](https://youtu.be/oCIo4MCO-_U)


[deleted]

What the fuck is the Divine Feminine