Three words. It’s all a woman needs to destroy a man. It’s her nuclear weapon in the power struggle of the sexes. She utters three words and unleashes a megaton of moral radiation. Her primary target—the reputation of the man at Ground Zero—is obliterated. Her secondary target—his job, his family, his friends, and his future are vaporized. The woman has created a radius of lethality detonated by just three words.
Bizarrely, you can compare this to God creating the world in the book of Genesis. Unlike the other gods of the ancient Near East, who create by large-scale acts of violence and bloodshed, the God of the Bible creates by his Word. God creates ex nihilo—out of nothing. The woman does the reverse—she de-creates or destroys, not by violence or bloodshed, but by her word. Her de-creation of the man and his world can be ex nihilo—out of nothing.
Three words: He raped me. He groped me. He assaulted me. The three words—the nuclear trident—spoken by the woman results in chaos.
Christine Blasey Ford, a once-obscure psychologist and professor of statistics, now made famous by her Democrat feminist co-conspirators, is using three words to unleash chaos against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and by proxy against the Trump administration and conservatives who want to secure the future of a constitutionalist majority on the Supreme Court bench. Ford the femme fatale has spoken the three nuclear words: “He groped me.”
The accusation is ex nihilo—Ms. Ford cannot remember precisely when or where the alleged incident occurred—36 years ago. She did not complain to the police at the time. Her psychiatrist’s records do not name the alleged perpetrator(s). She was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, she claims, adding that he was drunk.
Legal analysts, including Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, an ardent liberal and Democrat, agree that the evidence is tenuous, if not completely non-existent. Ultimately “we’re going to be stuck with he said, she said” because Ford can’t remember key details about the alleged sexual assault, according to what she told the Washington Post.
“I don’t think we’re going to get very much more,” Dershowitz said. “The American public is going to have to decide … who do you believe when you have a situation like this?” Precisely. We want justice to be done. But how can justice be done if there is no evidence to prove an allegation? Even more critically, how can society survive if the dragon of chaos devours more and more men simply on the basis of three words uttered by a woman?
Chaos is another word for de-creation. In the archetypal stories of the Bible and other ancient mythologies, chaos also refers to the primordial mess existing before creation. Chaos is mythically imagined as a dragon of destruction. “As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine,” writes Jordan Peterson.
Peterson’s most noteworthy contribution is his rediscovery of archetypal stories. He writes in Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief:
“Narrative description of archetypal behavioral patterns and representational schemas—myth—appears as an essential precondition for social construction and subsequent regulation of complexly civilized individual presumption, action and desire.”
Let’s unpack Peterson’s academic jargon. If you want to order society and understand how individuals behave, read archetypal stories and store them in collective memory. Societies and individuals self-destruct if they don’t build on the bedrock of archetypal stories because such myths reveal universal human experiences and illuminate conflicts intrinsic to human nature.
“Deep within these characters and their conflicts we discover our own humanity,” and it is through story that we “make sense out of the anarchy of existence,” writes Hollywood scriptwriting guru Robert McKee. No wonder Hollywood is always hungry for an archetypal story it can turn into a film!
Consequently, feminists who want to destroy society have to make sure they erase the memory of archetypal stories that debunk the grotesque heresy, i.e., “the woman must always be believed because the woman is always the victim”. In fact, a column in today’s Guardian sets out to attack anti-feminist archetypal stories. “We know that women have been portrayed, ever since Eve offered Adam an apple, as temptresses, more responsible for men’s acts than men themselves are...” writes Rebecca Solnit.
But in ancient literature, we have archetypal stories that turn this charade upside down and instead exposes the #MeToo woman who fakes her rape or assault and smears her alleged attacker. Solnit wants us to erase the collective memories of such stories. I want us to remember them.
The archetypal story of Potiphar’s wife falsely accusing Joseph of attempted rape comes from the book of Genesis and is set in the period ca. 1704-1594 BC. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat portrays Potiphar as an Egyptian tycoon whose wife is a seductive man-eater.
In the biblical story, Potiphar, a senior official of the Egyptian Pharaoh, buys Joseph as a slave. God blesses Joseph and he finds favor in his master’s sight. Potiphar elevates Joseph to the position of overseer of the household. Joseph is “handsome” and Mrs. Potiphar attempts to seduce him. “Lie with me,” she says. You can imagine a two-word Anglo-Saxon equivalent for this.
Joseph resists. Her seduction turns into sexual harassment as “day after day” she forces herself on him. One day when the servants are out she catches him by his cloak and jumps on him. Joseph leaves his cloak and flees. Mrs. Potiphar goes out with his cloak as evidence and accuses him of attempted rape in front of the servants. When her husband returns she recounts her carefully rehearsed fiction and again accuses Joseph, flashing his garment as proof. Potiphar takes his wife at her word and throws Joseph into prison.
The story has a close parallel in the Story of Two Brothers, an Egyptian tale from the thirteenth century BC. Here again, one of the brother’s wife tries to seduce the other brother and falsely accuses him of rape when he refuses.
The story of Joseph is about sex and power, but it’s the woman who has power and wants sex. Joseph is a Hebrew, a foreigner, an outsider, a slave. Mrs. Potiphar has power over him and her husband. She scornfully blames her husband in front of the slaves for the attempted rape: “See, he (my husband) has brought among us a Hebrew to insult me.” When Mr. Potiphar comes home, she blames him to his face: “The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to insult me,” also accusing Joseph of humiliating her sexually.
Her timing and audiences (servants and husband) are calculated to manipulate. Her presentation is rehearsed. “Each of her reports reinvents the ‘facts’ and plays by subtle rewording to her audiences, creating the angry responses she desires,” notes biblical scholar Kenneth A. Matthews. She uses the prima facie evidence of the cloak to support her story and plays on any existing power and racial rivalry between the Hebrew Joseph and the Egyptian servants (who are under him). She plays the “us-versus-them” game.
Casting Joseph in as poor a light as possible, she acts out the innocent victim—the damsel in distress. This is the classic case of “she said, he said” as there is no witness to the incident. Even in a patriarchal society like that of ancient Egypt, “she said” wins and “he said” loses.
The story is a huge embarrassment to feminist interpreters of the Bible, especially since Joseph is later vindicated, rises to the highest position in Egypt and saves the nation from famine. It is hugely amusing to watch these feminists try and wriggle out of the difficulty posed by its portrayal of human nature. Yes, women do initiate illegitimate sex, attempt to rape men (for Mrs. Potiphar “catching” Joseph by the garment is used elsewhere for “rape”), lie and make false accusations. Duh?
Nevertheless, feminist scholars like Laura E. Donaldson shamelessly perform a dishonest literary autopsy on the story. Writing in the academic journal Semeia, Donaldson explains Potiphar’s wife as a “woman who uses her sexuality to prevent a male homosocial redistribution of the household rather than to sexually harass Joseph”. Her gobbledygook is far from convincing—unless, of course, you buy into the mumbo-jumbo of academic feminist discourse.
You don’t have to be a Jew, a Christian or a biblical scholar to acknowledge the trans-cultural and trans-religious implications of this story. And if you think the story is an attempt to impose Judeo-Christian morality, you can find dozens of similar archetypal stories from other mythologies.
Stories about false allegations of rape and sexual assault are common in Greek mythology. The most famous example is Phaedra, whose false accusation against her stepson led to his death. Phaedra was married to Theseus but fell in love with Hippolytus, Theseus’s son by another woman. But Hippolytus rejected her.
In retaliation, Phaedra wrote Theseus a letter that claimed Hippolytus had raped her. Theseus believed her and cursed Hippolytus. As a result, Hippolytus’s horses were frightened by a sea monster and dragged their rider to his death.
Of course, anyone supporting the “innocent until proven guilty” status of Justice Kavanaugh could marshal a truckload of statistics and stories from the last few decades that will blow to kingdom come feminists who defend the perpetual innocence of women and the permanent guilt of men.
In Britain, at least 109 women have been prosecuted from 2009-2014 for making false rape allegations. Theoretical physicist William Collins has compiled a “small sample” of 146 false rape allegations from 1997 and 2018 in Britain. His list is revealing.
But this does not deter feminists like US law professor, Lisa Avalos, of the University of Arkansas, from complaining that the UK’s stance on false allegations is more aggressive than in countries like the US, Canada, and Australia. False allegations in the US are dealt with as minor offenses, not a felony—and most women were not jailed if found guilty. Avalos wants Britain to follow suit, so female false accusers will get off with a slap on the wrist. She moans that these poor women accusers have had their human rights violated!
When Jemma Beale, 25, was jailed for ten years for falsely accusing 15 men of rape and sexual assault, causing one innocent man to spend two years in prison, the leftwing Independent newspaper screamed out a headline:
“False rape allegations are rare—rape is not. Stop using the case of Jemma Beale to discredit all women.”
But in the #MeToo era, false rape or sexual assault allegations are not rare. In January, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would review every rape and serious sexual assault case in Britain after four rape trials collapsed in the space of two months. Oxford student Oliver Mears, 19, was cleared of rape after spending two years on bail. Liam Allan, 22, was cleared after it emerged that police had failed to disclose texts from a woman that proved his innocence.
Danny Kay spent more than two years in jail for a rape he did not commit and had his conviction quashed only after a relative uncovered Facebook messages proving that Kay had consensual sex with his accuser.
Three words and no evidence (unlike Christine Blasey Ford, Mrs. Potiphar has fake forensic evidence—Joseph’s cloak) is enough to destroy a man completely. This does not prevent feminist criminologists like Jan Jordan from using feminist rhetoric rather than irrefutable evidence to establish the truth.
Jordan claims in her book The Word of a Woman? Police, Rape and Belief:
“The fact that rape is the word of a woman against the word of a man is of critical importance. Women’s words, historically, have counted for less than men’s—if only because men regarded them that way. Throughout the history of patriarchy, men’s ‘truth’ prevailed and women’s voice was silenced.”
The word of a woman? In that case, why not believe the word of 75 women who have come forward to testify to Judge Kavanaugh’s impeccable moral integrity—some of them were with him in high school and dated him? Why not believe the word of his wife and two daughters, who are facing the most traumatic time of their lives? But, for Jan Jordan the word of a woman doesn’t count when it serves to commend a man; it only counts when it is used to destroy him.
Ms. Jordan is asking us to trust the word of women like Mrs. Potiphar, Phaedra, and Christine Blasey Ford. Ms. Jordan insists that three words are enough—provided a woman utters them.