When i was listening to this discussion about differences in gender aggression it suddenly dawned on me what i was really listening to.
It was really not the subject at hand, or the statements made, it was the spirit of their arguments. How they confronted each other. It suddenly made sense to me what was happening.
Mr Peterson was not trying to relate any of his arguments to her. Or create a common ground of mutual interest between them. He was trying to make his point, no matter what. His arguments where non-relational and affected. They came out almost as he was being possessed. And if psychic connectivity is a feminine trait, it was clearly absent. It was not inspired as in a relation to her. To the external situation. There was no kindness or warmth in this discussion trying to bridge a connection by subject on to the other part. It was conditioned and he was opinionated and affected, and he was trying to force his arguments through without really relating them to her.
On the other hand she was trying to diminish his arguments and ridicule individual statements. She was not trying to process any of his arguments based on their own value, making this a discussion about the subject at hand. She was not into the spirit of the conversation. And if objective interest is a masculine trait, her masculinity was destroying her ability to relate with her masculinity to the arguments presented to her. She obviously sensed that she was pushed because the arguments was not aimed for her, but forced onto her. So she then appeared equally possessed, but by her masculinity, making them both have a go at each other with a kind of automatic and confrontational behaviour.
So, if it has ever been masculine traits in women, and female traits in men, this is how I imagine they would appear when they are compulsive. Animating men and creating animosity for women.
I just had to look at the spirit of a conversation to be able to see it.
Have a look.