Leave it to a modern feminist to completely miss the point and create a false narrative so that it satiates their bloodlust for men in general.
That happened on Sunday when Rachael Revesz wrote an op-ed for the Independent in order to make Channel 4 News’ resident instigator Cathy Newman seem like a victim of the male ego in the aftermath of her total and utter debate loss to clinical psychologist and professor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. The YouTube video of the interview has gone viral, garnering almost three million views in a little less than six days. If you haven’t seen it, I highly suggest it, if for no other reason than to watch Peterson’s mind at work.
Here's the full interview, in case you're curious:
Newman allegedly invited Peterson to the show to speak on the supposed plights facing women. In reality, it was an attempt by Newman to discredit Peterson by constantly seeming outraged and continuously misquoting him to make him seem like a monster.
Peterson is well-known for the truth bombs he delivers on a daily basis in the form of substantiated analysis and research. His YouTube videos have generated a loyal following of people who are capable of critical thinking. Liberals and ultra-Left wing feminists attack Peterson, because — for them — the truth gets in the way of the narrative.
Revesz’s op-ed comes from a place of weak outrage resulting from backlash that Newman seems to have received in response to the half-hour attempted hit job on Peterson’s career. Revesz chalked this up to men feeling threatened that woman are seizing power on a grander scale in the wake of the #MeToo campaign.
Here’s a portion of what Revesz wrote:
When white men feel they are losing power, any level of nastiness is possible, and much power has been ceded recently. Amid the steamrolling effect of the MeToo campaign, of the sudden dominance of gender equality in the news and amid the fall of many Great Men, here comes the whirling centre of the storm, when we have to fight harder than ever to be heard. We are in backlash season.
Get a grip, lady! And I mean that in the most respectful of ways — okay, maybe not.
With this paragraph, Revesz has confirmed my, and many other skeptics of modern feminism’s, sneaking suspicions. Modern feminism isn’t about making the sexes equal. It’s about men becoming subservient to feminists and bowing to their fascist style of bloviating dogma.
Revesz’s point that women have to try harder than ever to be heard is absolutely full of horse flop. I’m sorry, but who was conducting the interview with Peterson? And who was the person trying to steer the conversation and confuse viewers by putting feminist talking points about men into Peterson’s mouth?
That would be Cathy Newman herself.
There were countless times throughout the interview when Peterson had to say, “That’s not what I said at all.” Peterson constantly had to defend and reiterate his viewpoints which were totally understandable the first time he said them. Well, they were perfectly understandable to anyone who actually listened to what Peterson had to say in response to the constant barrage of feminist ideology from Newman.
From the mythical gender wage gap to the unicorn that is woman not being treated equally in the workplace, Peterson repeatedly took Newman to the woodshed with answers that were based on research and not necessarily Peterson’s own views. Although, Peterson bases most of his beliefs on empirical evidence.
Revesz herself attempted to discredit the argument against anything feminist by continually bringing up the #MeToo movement, while at the same time making “heroes” out of former Harvey Weinstein adviser and feminist ambulance chaser Lisa Bloom. Revesz even took a shot at President Trump from across the pond.
“It’s not easy to defend a serial rapist, or even a one-off rapist, although some people do,” Revesz wrote, “let’s not forget that 63 million people recently voted for an alleged offender as President.”
Oops! I forgot. Men aren’t afforded the same “innocent until proven guilty” staple of justice in the eyes of modern feminists.
But perhaps the most astounding example of Revesz’s journalistic immaturity — and failure to understand the English language — when she called Peterson “vacuous.”
Here’s what Revesz basically concluded with:
There is no doubt that Peterson was intelligent, determined and quick. No doubt, indeed, that the Channel 4 News interview was entertaining. But his words, on closer inspection, were vacuous and confusing, and he left gaps[…]
He also failed to mention how centuries of patriarchy have brainwashed us, making us accept the status quo as logical and necessary, and one that benefits us all. He believes it, too.
In one breath, Revesz called Peterson “intelligent,” while in the next breath calling him “vacuous.” Miss Revesz, the definition of “vacuous” is “expressing or characterized by a lack of ideas or intelligence; inane;stupid." How can he be intelligent and lack intelligence at the same time? The facts are the facts.
It’s funny how Revesz talks about the “patriarchy” brainwashing people since radical Leftists and modern feminists have attempted to brainwash — somewhat successfully mind you — people all over the world for decades through political correctness and faux social outrage in pursuit of a utopia that’s never going to exist.
I’m sorry that reality and facts are just too much for a modern feminist to comprehend.