Earlier this year our house caught on fire. It was a stinking hot day and a chewed lighting cable, embedded in dry bird nest material, arched in the roof cavity of our front porch eave. We were all there at the time and with the help of the local fire service managed to save the house with not too much damage done. One of the casualties however was that we lost our TV reception as it had destroyed the wiring to the ‘receiver’ (not quite sure what its called). My husband Tim, an electrician by trade added it to his to-do list but other more pressing jobs have left it gathering dust. I haven’t minded at all, in fact it’s been a blessing. Our TV is now a dedicated internet screen, via which we’ve enjoyed finding out all the local and global news and the plethora of Youtube videos available seem never ending. One person to catch both Tim’s and my interest in our viewing has been the person of Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. A controversal figure he could well be one of the worlds best known psychologists at least of this year, initially because of public statements made concerning freedom of speech and transgender pronouns in the process of being made lawful in Canada at the time. The U.S ‘Right’ love him for his conservative patriarchal views and is seen on FOX news occasionally as a contributor since introducing his self-help book ‘12 Rules For Life’ internationally. Though I haven’t read it myself, it appears to be a pragmatic ‘pull-up–your-socks’ kind of book helpful for both men and women.
Yesterday Tim and I were watching a few of his many lecture clips on Youtube. I must drive Tim crazy some times because I’m forever asking him to pause the video to object to something said or done etc. This definitely occurrs when Jordan Peterson is on the screen. Its been interesting to watch how he has been embraced by the church and given guest speaking opportunities in various christian organisations as both Tim and I both very much doubt he himself, is a believer in Yeshua and suspect he has an issue with women for the language used and inferences made. Anyway, yesterday I finally saw clearly where he was coming from. It was one of those ‘pause the vid!’ moments. He was talking about femininity and what it represented. I was stunned –but not speechless -ha!
Here is a transcript (starting at 2:07 minutes) of the Youtube video – Jordan Peterson: Why women reject men – Essential Truth 1.2M views:
“Women select men – that makes them nature – because nature is what selects. So you know, you could say; well its only symbolic that women are nature –its like no, its not just symbolic. You know – and the woman in some sense is the gatekeeper to repr –is – not ‘in some sense’ – is the gatekeeper to reproductive success and you can’t get more like nature than that – in fact it’s the very definition of nature.
So, as I said, there are lots of reasons why these symbolic representations are set up the way they are. Alright so: that’s the great mother nature, the queen, the matrix (-the matrix is something from which all things form, same root word as matter, mother, –all the same root word). The matriarch, the container, the cornucopia, the object to be fertilised, the source of all things, the fecund, the pregnant. (There are more parts of the association network):- the strange, the emotional, the foreigner, the place of return and rest, the deep, the valley, the cleft, the cave, Hell, death and the grave, the moon (ruler of the night and mysterious dark) and matter in the earth.
So, those aren’t necessarily associated with femininity but typically associated with femininity from a symbolic perspective. You know, so generally like, a witch in a movie doesn’t come riding out of the full bright sun at noon right? –That just doesn’t happen because it doesn’t make sense – it’s a dark thing and so if you saw that occurring in the light -in a movie – you’d think – what the hell is going on here? –That doesn’t make sense, and the reason it doesn’t make sense, is that it violates the complex –symbolic complex [system, structure]. So those are sort of – those are female denisons [Dionysian?] of the underworld and Hell –very pleasant creatures. It’s like Medusa with the head of snakes – you know- and if you might – if you ask why would a woman have a head of snakes in reference to a man? That’s really simple –I bet there are men here who would know the answer to that.
I don’t know what you guys think of this but I was pretty happy when I thought this up and it took me a long time. So(-big pause). So if you think of the world in Darwinian terms, it’s a struggle for survival in reproduction…”
I’ll give you a moment to retrieve your chin from the floor because the list he gave was incomplete and should have included along with the others:
‘… unexplored territory… the unconscious, dionysian force, the id, the Great Mother goddess…the unconscious, the sensual…the maw of the earth, the belly of the beast, the dragon, the evil stepmother…(89) -‘Maps of Meaning –the Architecture of Belief -by Jordan B. Peterson
The full list found In his 1stbook – ‘Maps of Meaning’ describes ‘the unknown’ -also considered as symbolically feminine. So I am figuring these lists are one and the same.
Alexander Douglas points out that:
This is a description of a Jungian archetype. And the deeply implausible thing about the theory of archetypes is the supposition that every society will unconsciously assign the same meanings to the same icons: the moon, the stepmother, etc. Yet Peterson goes on: ‘Any story that makes allusion to any of these phenomena instantly involves all of them’.
NewRepublic.com says Peterson has a –
‘deeply polarized view of gender. He believes that the divide between men and women is absolute in the mythological realm (which, he believes, should guide all well functioning societies). “Order and chaos are the yang and yin of the famous Taoist symbol: two serpents head to tail,” Peterson argues in 12 Rules of Life. “Order is the white, masculine serpent; Chaos, its black, feminine counterpart.” What makes Peterson a reactionary thinker is not just that he sees the world in such stark categories, but that he believes these categories are invariable.
NewYorker.com quotes Peterson –
“The division of life into its twin sexes occurred before the evolution of multi-cellular animals,”
I’m sure many alarm bells must be clanging in you concerning his beliefs and basis of thought. Jung’s mythology is interwoven with ‘myths of the bible’ along with other ‘sacred myths to form the framework of – I guess – our human inter-relational evolution? And unfortunately we as women don’t emerge in the best of light in his take on humanity – but be of good cheer because really what does it matter anyway?
I don’t know if you’re outraged or not but I’m just laughing because there is an antidote to all this nonsense (albeit very destructive nonsense).
Thank God for the Bible and Genesis and the root words undergirding those we read therein, because we can immediately know it is a lie and has no footing in defining who we are as women as to our character and being –for obviously we are not ‘the source of all things’ –that is YeHoWaH Elohim! Nor at the other end are we the ‘dragon’ whom the bible clearly reveals as Satan.
We need look no further than the first mention of the word Female in Genesis 1:27
So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
To use a previous post’s mention (Tradition or the Bible – your choice) –
The meaning of ‘female’ (neqeba in the Hebrew) comes from the root word naqab meaning – to pierce; to curse. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance gives the meaning of naqab as being: to puncture, lit. (to perforate, with more or less violence) or fig. (to specify, designate, libel* ):- and is translated in English – appoint, blaspheme, bore, curse, express, with holes, name, pierce, strike through. This then is given as the attitude or action toward a female – there is no sense of love or respect for her in it’s meaning, but more so to ‘use and abuse’ for self interest. It does not imply equality but rather subjection. It is what women have suffered throughout past and present history at the hands of sinful men intent on their way apart from God … just as He said would happen.
*libel (in case like me you were unsure of it’s meaning):
- a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.
- A false and typically malicious statement about a person.
- A thing that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.
So interesting…it being there all the time, like a literary tag attached to her person.
So just to be perfectly clear this was never God’s intention or outcome for us as women but nonetheless it appears from of old this is how we have been portrayed/ our character perceived(?) because of sin.
Jordan Peterson’s polarised view of men and women only increases the chasm of misunderstanding and mistrust between the sexes and provides a convenient cop out for men to not even try…because of course –
how can the ‘unknowable’ ever be known?
YeHoWaH Elohim! Thankyou for your Word that let us know right from the beginning as to what would happen. Strikingly again, your Word is confirmed as TRUTH. Thank You for the freedom it brings!
NB: Alexander Douglas also mentions Jordan Peterson’s take on the Enuma elish mythic tale which I find quite disturbing and is worth a read if interested to hear more from him. https://medium.com/@alexanderdouglas/jordan-petersons-maps-of-meaning-no-it-s-not-legit-763d9373db65