Something I've noticed ever since I first listened to Jordan Peterson is he's careful with his words. I believe Peterson has a deeper understanding of female psychology than he dares pour into words. I see this segment of one of his latest videos as evidence:

Jordan Peterson - Men Can't Control Crazy Women

The message: Men need to defend themselves against women. To put it in JBP's words: "Men are going to need to stand up for themselves."

He's addressing the general political situation. But the general political situation, isn't merely political, isn't it? Political ideologies in modern times have intertwined with everyday life to an extent that I believe humans have never experienced as strongly as today.

We all know that the feminist movement, probably the most potentially dangerous and largest section of the current political climate, has infected present and past few generations enough so, that we can easily encounter atrocious examples of its psychological influences on women and men in our everyday lives. The ideology is based on false pretenses accepted as axioms with little to no actual scientific theory backing them. Like an epidemic, the ideology (which actually started out as a noble cause) accumulated several other ideas and ideologies, which have since integrated and evolved into what has become the main narrative of the modern social theater.

There exist too many examples of certain women - fallen too deep into feminist delusion - who will escalate situations to measures that I can not find any other word to describe with than "uncivil." These women will put up scenes you wouldn't believe, with different acts switching between the damsel in distress and independent woman. Many times they easily escalate to physical violence thinking nothing can possibly happen to them. And how true! They get away with most acts of violence, up until the point they meet a man who can actually stand up for himself or the victims suffering from the woman's upheaval. The chances of this happening is of course extremely rare.

The problem is: men let women escalate to such measures. Instead of needing to resolve to violent counter-measures, men should learn to detach problematic women from their sexuality, and learn to control out-of-hand situations with frame. This detachment, I believe, is the closest actual solution to what Peterson explains as the absence of an underlying threat of physical violence between two males in an argument. A man has to consciously, if he's not in an abundance of sexual gratification, put aside his urge to please the problematic woman. A man entering social situations deliberately neglecting his sexuality, can very easily learn how easily women can be controlled with assertive dominance (disproving exceptions are scarce). Successful acts of dominance will return back to sexuality, but that is a different matter, for a different conversation. Dominance does not need violence to be reassured or attained. But without exception, real dominance needs to be practiced and earned through self-improvement. It is much harder to attain than just achieving physical prowess and the ability to act violent at certain times.

These circumstances lead to another problem though. To this problem I don't believe there is a solution, or if there is one, I haven't the slightest clue what that could be. Take it this way: for all the eternity of our biological existence we have been organizing ourselves in hierarchies. In these hierarchies only a select few take the highest, or let's say high-enough positions. These positions are the most rewarding in many ways, but also, as mentioned before, the hardest and riskiest to earn. Only the leaders of organized hierarchies have a deep enough understanding of how to influence other members of the social structures. This understanding is partly how they reached their position, and partly how they hold on to it. If only this select few can actually influence people, how will the increasingly growing number of crazy women be tamed down, before it becomes too late?