“If you can’t say what you think, soon you won’t be able to think what you think. The corruption of speech leads to the corruption of being.” — Jordan B. Peterson
In the upside-down world of progressive morality, nothing is sacred—least of all the truth. We now live in a society where even speaking passionately can be considered an act of aggression, particularly if you’re a man. One wrong tone, one desperate plea to be heard in a tension-filled marriage, and you’re suddenly branded “verbally abusive.” No context, no history, no nuance. Just judgment.
This is not justice. This is a joke.
In an age of hashtags and hypersensitivity, the accusation of “verbal abuse” has become the new Scarlet Letter. It requires no evidence, no pattern of harm—just a feeling. And feelings, in our culture, now carry more moral weight than facts. This should alarm anyone who values fairness, due process, or the messy reality of human relationships.
For men, especially those in long-term marriages or emotionally complex relationships, this cultural drift is not just frustrating—it’s dangerous. It turns ordinary conflict into crime. It transforms emotional expression into grounds for exile. It makes masculinity itself suspect. And when someone—a counselor, a critic, or anyone invokes that phrase, it’s not just frivolous, it’s manipulative. It’s the verbal equivalent of crying wolf, and the cost is real.
But something is shifting. And it has started, in many ways, with Jordan Peterson.
When Peterson first rose to prominence, it was for daring to say something utterly basic but revolutionary in our current moment: men are not toxic by default. His message wasn’t about domination or suppression, it was about responsibility, structure, and voice. And the response was seismic. Millions of young men—and not a few wounded fathers and husbands—heard the call. They stood up straight, not just physically but morally. Peterson cracked open a space for masculine virtue to be spoken aloud again.
In his lectures and interviews, he often returns to this very theme: in close relationships, there will be conflict. There will be emotional escalation. But to label that as “abuse” every time it’s uncomfortable is to infantilize adults and destroy the foundations of partnership. A marriage without conflict is not a healthy marriage—it’s a lie. And Peterson’s influence proves people are hungry for that truth again.
Let’s be honest about marriage. After decades together, emotions rise. People get hurt. Words fly in both directions. A raised voice doesn’t mean violence. It often means investment. It means that a man is still fighting to be seen, heard, and understood. That’s not abuse. That’s intimacy under pressure. But the culture no longer makes room for that distinction. It wants neat villains and clean victims. And men, by default, are cast as the former.
What’s even more perverse is that in condemning “verbal aggression,” the culture leaves men no outlet at all. We’ve criminalized speech while simultaneously declaring physicality off-limits— which it should be. But here’s the truth no one wants to say: verbal expression, even when loud or impassioned, is better than physical reaction. It’s the more human, restrained, and vulnerable response. But even that, now, is used as a weapon against the speaker.
And why? Because in the age of emotion-as-absolute, power lies not in truth but in perception. Whoever claims to be offended first wins. Whoever cries “abuse” owns the narrative. And men, who are more likely to speak with force, more likely to argue directly, are caught in a rigged game. The rules shift based on feelings. There’s no appeal. No defense.
We have allowed the courtroom of public opinion—and now even real courtrooms—to tilt toward subjective emotional claims rather than evidence-based standards. The burden of proof has been replaced by the burden of perception. Legal accusations that once required clear facts and corroboration now bow before the altar of narrative. This is not a system of justice, it is a system of performance. And the scales need rebalancing before we destroy the sacred institution that bears the weight of our civilization: marriage.
The time for correction is now. We must refuse the weaponization of emotional fragility. We must refuse to allow our courts, our media, and our homes to become stages where only one kind of pain is acknowledged while another is vilified. Men must have the right to speak, to argue, to struggle aloud in the emotional storm without being cast out for it. And women—especially those who still honor strength and truth—must help re-establish balance and grace in that dialogue.
Jordan Peterson and others have helped open the door. Now it’s time to walk through it. If we don’t, we hand the keys of our institutions to those who mistake drama for truth and power for justice.
Men cannot win this contest. Not because they’re wrong—but because the game is rigged. It is built on shifting feelings, not fixed standards. And if we do not push back now—loudly, clearly, unapologetically—we will surrender our voices, our marriages, and our sons to a culture that fears men not for their faults but for their strengths.
And that, in the end, would be a tragedy.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member