If it weren’t for the dread of having to worship a different sky goblin, I swear these people would have a field day being able to revert their treatment of women to that of the 1800s.

Jordan Peterson claims women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup or high heels at work; that sexual harassment is their fault and women and men likely aren’t able to work together.

This guy has been praised for a good couple of years for his stand on newly invented gender pronouns; ever since, he has evolved into the go-to conservative academic for opposition to whatever the left tries to push. Although he sounded levelled to begin with and more tempered than the usual reactionary band, it seems that at the end of the day, philosophising aside, he holds the view of a religious puritan – women should be mandated to stop “provoking”, because men can’t help themselves.

Though his solution is not to have them covered from head to toes, as those in Islamic theocracies are, the drive is identical – women enjoy too much freedom of expression; they should be treated as sexual nitroglycerine and have a dress code imposed on them when men are present.

Never mind that women who abandon their femininity in aesthetic terms (some radical feminists for instance), giving up makeup, cutting their hair short and at times growing their armpit hair, are referred to, by the same crowd, as a disgrace to womanhood and completely unappealing.

Nope. They don’t want them dressing like men (that causes impotence apparently), but they don’t want them excessively feminine either, as unwanted erections are also an inconvenience. They must want some virginal, nun-like characters whose sole intention is to make sure they are not noticed. Who would know that their appearance is likely to cause offence for all the wrong reasons.

Reinstate Magdalene laundries while you’re at it. Dickhead.

Why red lipstick, he asks. Well (I’m paraphrasing), it’s because it’s indicative of sexual arousal. Because every woman going to work, apparently, is not worried about the long hours, mortgage, debt, family duties or a boring job – she goes there specifically to show her male colleagues how she looks when sexually aroused. Every single day, as she gets ready, that is her drive. For an academic, such views are incredibly simplistic and idiotic.

Never mind that a woman goes out in public in a manner she feels comfortable in, and some wouldn’t leave their homes without the makeup routine – partly because they know that if they don’t look their best, they might be jeered at by the same entourage which also jeers at them for looking too appealing. They just can’t win, can they? And by winning, I mean be left alone.

I don’t suppose the same standards would apply to ladies well past their prime, considerably overweight ones or those with a visible physical defect. Men who think like Jordan Peterson are only concerned with the object of their own desire – young,  very attractive women. Maybe if they stopped wanking off to porn every day they would cease to look at a colleague and immediately think she is provoking through the colour of her lipstick, like a Playboy bunny. I understand male hyper-sexuality, but FFS, they can keep these obsessions to their private space.

I think it’s grotesque for a woman to set off to work each day keeping primarily in mind that her male colleagues or employers will study her from head to toes. And that she, just by being female, is some kind of threat to their mental well-being.

Which brings me to the fact that I don’t understand the alt-right’s opposition to Sharia law, where women are concerned; if someone were to formulate a similar doctrine for the west, changing only what specifically pertains to Muslim worship, I reckon they’d be more than happy. Apparently, they’ve got vagina on their brains to such extent that women in their vicinity are a danger/ in danger.

Stefan Molyneux, another guru for young men who can’t get laid and become nostalgic for eras they’ve never experienced, claims, among other things, that a woman belongs in the home, for breeding purposes (I know I sound like a feminist here, and believe me, I’m not; I simply find this approach vile, as is any attempt to impose a lifestyle choice to others). Being a homemaker is a choice, in the west anyway. It’s not my place or Molyneux’s to dictate what a woman should want out of life.

The illustrious bullshit spinner also has a rather strange obsession with the clitoris (a woman wants to tie a string to her clit and drag the man along, paraphrasing again). His misogyny, transparent down to his tone, which oozes anger and frustration, is poisonous to young minds.

One notable position he holds is that women are responsible for starting families with complete arseholes – as if, you know, during courtship an arsehole actually displayed his natural behaviour. In other words, if a woman finds herself in an abusive situation and is unable to leave, it’s her fault after all. The idea that women only date aggressive men and should instead date “nice” members of Incel was what motivated Elliot Rodger to go on a shooting spree. AWALT is not some innocuous groan of frustration thrown around on Reddit; it actually has consequences.

All in all, I can find clear congruence between adepts of Sharia law and this new generation of right-wingers (MRA, alt-right, Christian conspiracy nutters etc; they are all patting each other on the back for being “red pilled” when it comes to women). These are some of the points they seem to agree on:

  • A return to outdated moral values and social standards is necessary;
  • Attractive women should cover up to avoid male attention;
  • Men just can’t keep it in their trousers and sexual assaults are provoked;
  • There is rampant sexual immorality in the world, with a focus on sexual minorities;
  • Women either belong in the home, with alpha males as providers, or should be rejected altogether as whores and deviants;
  • The alpha male must protect his territory, status, ego etc;
  • Militarism and hawkishness are apparels of “true alpha males”;
  • Men should be the unquestioned leaders of their households and communities (it’s not like Jim Jones and Warren Jeffs didn’t do a splendid job);
  • Adultery on a woman’s part is unforgivable, whilst men can fuck about all they like, or have multiple wives, respectively;
  • Women’s nature is to be submissive and a variation in that sense is deviant/ rebellious;
  • In group interactions (work for instance), men and women are better off separated.
  • Women are immature and unworthy of leadership positions or intellectual endeavours.

It’s slightly amusing that just today I learned of research carried out by Dr. Hector Garcia, regarding the god archetypes humanity seems to construct. “The Alpha God” details the links between our late primate ancestors and our current behaviours and aspirations, culminating in the kind of being we imagine as worthy of worshiping.

The archetype of an all-powerful alpha male, before whom mortals must bow (I’d never known apes also bow before alphas in their group, hence that’s where all the submission rituals must come from…and believers think they are establishing a connection with the divine… when they are in fact just imitating apes).

The being Christians and Muslims worship is very, very concerned with men’s inability to control their sexual urges and women’s moral duty to cover up.

This has nothing to do with ethics or spirituality but with Cro-Magnon understanding of human nature.