Part one of a new series on feminism for gamers. Future parts will be in the proper aspect ratio. I put in the wrong setting for this one.
For David Auerbach's original article, click here: http://theamericanreader.com/jenesuispasliberal-entering-the-quagmire-of-online-leftism/
Other images used under Fair Use. I did my best to avoid using non clipart images of people still alive today who aren't newsworthy individuals. I'm not looking to start a fight.
Videos will be added every Tuesday as much as I can. These take more time than other videos, hence the weekly schedule.
Please subscribe, and consider supporting my Patreon. All these videos are supported with Patreon funds, which pay for the monthly license of Adobe Premiere, equipment upgrades, and the considerable time and effort it takes to research these videos. https://www.patreon.com/lianak
I read as many Youtube comments as I can, but I'm more likely to see you on facebook! Join the conversation on my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/RedLianaK/
Why would a university need to pay for a student’s birthcontrol? Should they also pay for their groceries? If birthcontrol is too expensive for students to afford then that is the problem, not that universities don’t take it upon themselves to pay for it.
Feminism, advocating for the rights of women based on the premise of sexual equality.
Feminism is similar to Vikings in a sense. I was told a while ago, not sure if it's true, that the word Viking is used incorrectly a lot. A Viking doesn't exist, in the way most people understand it. You can't be a Viking, you GO Viking, a big difference. Someone who is running laps on a track can be said to be running. If they stop, they aren't still running, they could be called a runner, but if they don't run laps for years and years, are they still a runner?
This idea of verb to noun is important to Feminism because Feminism requires 2 important things. One you must believe that the 2 sexes are equal and can perform on equal grounds. A very simple thing, and I have a near certainty most people do already believe this in at least some way. There are going to be a few holdouts but in the general sense I'm nearly sure that all people understand that people are people, we are capable human people regardless of our sex. You must also be advocating for a woman's rights. This is where things get weird. If you stop, or are not currently advocating for a woman's rights then you're not a Feminist, you can't be advocating for women all the time so you can't "BE" a Feminist. You have to engage in Feminism to be a Feminist. It's like a religion in a sense you have to be practicing Feminism to be a Feminist.
Now here's where I'm going to go off the rails a bit to crazy town. There are members of 3rd wave Feminism, who are categorically anti-feminists. Evidently through campaigns like #killallmen and some shady peer pressure you can see that there are some "False Flag Feminists" who either don't believe that the sexes are equal and should be treated equal or actively undermine a woman's rights.
In summary Third Wave Feminism is like Vikings.
Just wanted to thank you for this. Even though I don't agree with some of what you are saying, I can most certainly listen to your arguments and think (and possibly change my mind) about them without the bitter direct attacks that many Feminist seem to find so gratifying ... I've been trying to find as many Feminist that I feel I can listen to as possible as I do believe it's an extremely complex subject and also to try and get around my own knee jerk reaction to the hate and rhetoric and lump "Feminism" in with the crazies.
Actually studies show that women were happier in before feminism and their happiness has declined with the rise of feminism https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap
"Feminist troll"....sooo you mean TERFs? xD
Also...how can you deny the narrative "Gamers vs Women" if you look at what happens to outspoken women in the gaming community like Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian? In what possible sense is that not a "us vs. them"?
Especially when it comes to FeministFrequency, none of her content has ever blamed gamers for any of the issues she's talked about, yet she has been made a target. It feels like you're trying to sweep these issues under the rug. Or are you just trying to do so in an attempt to more inclusive to people who would otherwise click away and not be interested?
....Imma dude kinda like what she's saying too many IDIOTS male and female make up for themselves what that word means.
LOOKIN AT YOU ANITA SARKEESIAN!!
Sexwork is always a case by case basis do you compare the nymph whose just unhealthy mentally to the girl who just has no morale code and is selfish don't care who she hurt?!?
One very minor comment on your otherwise wonderfully dialogue-oriented video:
Marism. If I had not been exposed to your position a lot before you used that word, particularly as a synonym for authoritarianism, I would have immediately written you off as just another right-wing lunatic. Maybe consider reading up on the meaning of the word marxist - I know it is very common in the US and on the itnernet to use it in this way, but in reality, it is nothing but a dismissive slur like feminazi, regressive leftist or any of these words.
This content is worlds beyond the simplistic, divisive nonsense we've been getting fed for years now; and if the media, especially gaming media, had any damn sense, it would promote this work.
But it won't. Because it's trash.
"Why feminism is still relevant" isn't generally something I'm into, but this video is so well-stated and well-thought-out that I'm watching rest of the series. Thanks for putting it together! Looking forward to potentially learning something new from a different perspective.
I just don't trust feminist anymore especially the ones who act like they can save it... feminism is about as creepy as a Catholic daycare for for children ONLY. this post will be taken down cause feminist rarely even allow comments
American here, who followed the Rush/Fluke thing here from the beginning.
While Rush behaved like a complete jackass, let's be clear about what Fluke was actually advocating.
She was using examples of therapeutic, non-contraceptive uses of birth control medicines to claim that Georgetown, a private school run by a church famous for its opposition to birth control, should not be exempt from requirements that it cover contraceptives as part of its medical insurance policies.
Let's be clear about this: Fluke wasn't saying "Exceptions should be made for medical need;" she was saying that a religious organization should completely reverse its position because.... she wants something and other people should pay for it.
Also, for the record... Georgetown University did not then, and does not now, have a blanket policy refusing coverage of all contraceptive medicines and modalities regardless of their application. Students/employees being denied co-pays or reimbursement for medical-use (as opposed to "lifestyle") contraceptives would have a cause of action under US contract law. As a law student, Sandra Fluke certainly knew this. But she didn't care, because she's after something else.
One more point - you knock "Marxism" as the source of many of the problems of current feminism, but I think that's a bit misplaced. It's true that many of the forms of radical feminism (and here I mean the radical wings of both the second, third, and current waves) drew on heavily on revolutionary Marxism (in the case of second-wave radical feminism largely replacing the category of "proletariat" with "women" or "sex class) and some of the worst tendencies that came with Leninism. However, the social democratic form of Marxist feminism is where you find the feminism of someone like Barbara Ehrenreich, for example, who's pretty far from a radical feminist bomb-thrower.
Also, at least some of Marxist feminist theory provides a solid political economic understanding women's inequality and it's relationship to larger social inequality, notably, the idea that women's unpaid labor in the home is a form of surplus value that produces wealth that is in turn transferred upward in the traditionally male-dominated work economy. (I think this Astrud Gilberto song 'Maria Quiet' (it's on YT if you look for it) gives a great 2-minute summary of this idea. :-) One could extend this to include women's often-underpaid labor in the workforce. Judith Shulevitz makes a good case for universal guaranteed income on this basis (google "It's Payback Time for Women", but ignore that godawful clickbaity headline).
Another point is that you raise "intersectionality" as an idea you're open to. But isn't "intersectional feminism" simply Marxist feminism that's broadened to include other issues of inequality and identity? (Though don't even get me started on the hard-line identity politics and lack of attention to economic inequality that are so much part of much of actual existing "intersectional feminism". :-P )
(Looks like my comments ended up in the permanent spam filter because I included links, so I'll repost w/o them.)
In the video you bring up the point of "not identifying as a feminist" vs identifying as "antifeminist", but I think that needs more discussion. It comes down to an issue of "dictionary feminism" vs "actually existing feminism". (I'm borrowing on the term "actually existing socialism" deliberately. Google the term for full context.) "Dictionary feminism" means you believe in equal status and treatment of women both socially and legally. That's a pretty simple proposition that most even half-way liberal people living in modern societies would say they believe in, at least in theory.
The devil is in the details, though. Actual feminism refers to a number of ideologies, and the most dominant extant forms of these are ideologies many of us find objectionable for reasons other than wanting to "keep women in their place". In terms of my issues with the dominant strains of feminism, my issues are have to do with ideas such as "sexual objectification", "rape culture", collectivism over individualism (especially anti-individualism in the form of anti-individual rights stances), etc, not to mention the really nasty bits of some of the more radical strains of feminism - blatant support of censorship, opposition to sexual freedoms, hatred of men and trans people, paternalism toward sex workers, etc. I believe both older second-wave and current-wave feminism are both infected with some or all of these problems, each to various degrees.
Which leads to the problem of, if you really find the dominant forms of feminism hugely problematic, does that make one an antifeminist? I know that according to many feminists that does, and I'm not going to run from that label. Of course, I don't embrace that label, really, as there are feminist thinkers I hugely respect, and no, I'm not talking about Christina Hoff Summers and the "equity feminist" crowd, but people like Ellen Willis and Barbara Ehrenreich - social critics of the best kind who have not descended into "culture war" bullshit. On the other hand, I look at the godawful moralistic tripe (reminiscent of Christian fundie sites in some ways) published in the highly-popular online magazine Everyday Feminism, and it pretty much epitomizes everything I despise politically. I think the only way to label to describe my attitude to a complex set of ideas like this would be "feminism-critical".
Welcome to the Feminist "No true Scotsman" Fallacy series, Part 1... sorry Liana, but if you call yourself a Feminist, you need to own what ever is done under the label of Feminism, and if it really is wrong, you need to actually do something to fix it. Means you need to start being more vocal than they are, which you have not done.
The problem, as with most ideologies, is how to avoid extremism. Extremism has the passion and so receives the attention, while moderation has more in common with apathy. I don't see a way out, especially since social media seems to have reverted society to a stage of mob rule, except with fire and pitchforks replaced shaming and demands for sackings.
Glad your doing these ( and i really hope the resulting discussions don't chip away all your sanity and patience). I wholeheartedly considered myself a feminist up until around 2008 (born 87), but i still consider equal inclusion and fair treatment to be imprtant topics, so it's good to get a primer in what's been happening since then as well as a well-balanced overview over the subjets.
In recent years I've come to the belief that "-isms" can be dangerous in that they introduce the potential for fanatical dogmatism and tribalism. For this reason I believe that feminism being a thing is problematic. When you identify with something, you tend to be more likely to have a knee-jerk defensive emotional reaction to any type of criticism and be more closed minded to valid criticism. This doesn't mean that I don't believe the ideas within the feminist doctrines don't have merit on their own - quite the contrary and I agree with you on all the specific issues you've brought up. I don't think you're guilty of any of this, this is simply a sociological theory I hold. Let's try to talk about ideas, and not the people (or the groups the people identify with). Thumbs up for bringing up a touchy conversation.
7.27 In western countries with the sheer amount of social media, not using it is a choice, women have the same freedom of speech as everyone else. Women when going to university have the choice to go into fields like science and engineering but many are choosing instead to do gender studies and communications which will earn them a lot less. A couple decide to have children which mean the lady will have to take time off to have the child so over a live time she will earn less because of her choice. since 1917 women have been able to sit in government and over that time less women have chosen to go into politics than men. Your entire argument is based on the faulty premise that women have no agency of their own which makes your argument a strawman and wrong ! Why do you feminists have such a low opinion of women ?
To me the breadth of different opinions and positions that could be counted as "feminist" makes the label more or less meaningless - however this does also mean that the word "anti-feminist" is equally meaningless. I prefer not to use it. Unbelievably in the last 24 hours a female friend said "you're a feminist" to me and I had to say "have you not been paying attention?" I've not claimed to be a feminist since 1994 (mainly because I thought men shouldn't be feminists; there is no honest advantage for a man to gain by calling himself feminist - Ally Fogg did a good article recently that covers some of the reasons that led to my decision back then. It was not, at that time, because I objected to women who were). I started actively debunking feminism three years ago. Although I'd been debunking bits of it based on observation and reason probably since about '86 - we used to have debates in those days; that generation of feminists was capable of having debates without swooning! Not this current lot - they get incensed that anyone should question their infallibility!
So anyway, maybe four years ago I decided I wanted to actively challenge negative perceptions of men in society and researched to that end. I found so much obstruction and backlash from feminists that I lost my patience and could not continue being tolerant to MOST of them. This isn't a small sliver. It isn't just a few angry women spreading lies, cherry picked misrepresentations, verbal manipulations and ungenerous attributions of motives - it's a lot of perfectly nice women BELIEVING lies, cherry picked misrepresentations, verbal manipulations and ungenerous attributions of motives as well.
Even if I was to accept from you that not all feminists are members of a hate group - which I think is true - I can name some dissident feminists that I like (Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, Katie Roiphe), and some second wave feminist authors (Angela Carter, Leonora Carrington) that I like - that doesn't change the fact that there is a growing and powerful hate group that calls itself feminism. The newer generation of dissident feminists, like Ella Whelan, are not even calling themselves feminist any more. I'm convinced if Whelan had been writing during the noughties she'd probably be calling herself a feminist, and I completely understand why she doesn't. The "few bad eggs" argument is out of date - you could have argued that twenty years ago and I'd probably have bought it. Now, it really is a few good eggs amid a majority of bad eggs. And I'm not sure most of those good eggs would still call themselves feminist. Does Cathy Young still consider herself to be a feminist? Does Barbara Dority? If Karen De Crow was still with us do you think she would still call herself a feminist? Katie Roiphe's touching introduction to "The Morning After" is one reason that I am reluctant to just adopt the term anti-feminist, (another is the words "anti-feminist" would cover a vast range of opinions many of which I don't hold), but I have not read Roiphe refer to herself as feminist in a long time.
So here's why I think people should NOT be identifying as feminist. There are feminists like Marcotte and Valenti and Faludi who will use identifying someone like Wendy McElroy as "not a real feminist" to stop sheep-feminists from hearing them, and to tell them "if you listen or agree with those people you're no longer a feminist". Now the threat of excommunication only works in a world where almost everybody is Catholic. That's why they're so keen to convert everyone and insist every celebrity announces their affiliation and they'll say "if you think men and women are equal; you're a feminist" which is as trite as "if you believe in love and forgiveness you're a Christian". They are using the word to forge a herd identity from which they will ostracize "wrong thinking".
One thing you say here that I really do agree with is if you got rid of the label the views would just migrate to another label. You are absolutely right. That is why I am not "anti-feminist", I am anti-misandry - I don't think the problem of misandry would go away because feminism does, but if egalitarians like yourself continue to call yourself feminist you're lending creedance to the lie that equality is what feminism means, and by the actions and attitudes of the vast majority of feminists it clearly isn't.
And it's NOT JUST GAMERS who feminists demonize; it's all males. Some of whom are still boys. It's not just white men either. It's not politically correct for feminists to go after non-white men so they might be more hesitant, but look at their treatment of Chris Gayle for flirting with a woman in public (gasp! How very dare he!). He's not white. The TERFs treatment of transwomen, although I share the TERF's opinion that transwomen aren't "real women" (contentiously, I am aware) and are really the product of an excessively strict essentialist view of gender norms, the assumptions TERFs make about transwomen (e.g. that they will be more violent, that they are out to rape real women, that they're not safe to be around, that they are perverts, that they are trying to keep real women down) are all products of the TERF's misandry. Now that isn't politically correct, but it is feminism - so not only is it not just white men, it's not just "straight cis men" - it's all men... including the men that don't identify as men. A lot of the anti-SJWs I talk to conflate feminism and political correctness and they misunderstand the relationship when they do that. It is politically incorrect to not be a feminist, but feminism in and of itself isn't politically correct, so that means those feminists who are feminists because they would be anything that is politically correct are having to suppress part of feminism to stay politically correct. In fact the TERFs versus the non-TERFs is really a undiluted feminism versus politically correct feminism controversy. If feminism was left unchecked by political correctness it would be directing it's loathing equally to all men. And political correctness is just ettiquette - that's all it is. White heterosexual men may be the only ones they can openly express contempt for - under their breath they have contempt for gay men too and men of all races.
Fine, try and salvage feminism's name if you must, but I think you may be fighting a losing battle. You don't have an awful lot of allies. I don't know any feminists that listen to your vlogs. How can you be speaking for them when you're not even speaking to them? I'm reminded of the typical Velma/Shaggy exchange - Velma would say "there's no such thing as ghosts" and Shaggy would reply "I know that; does the ghost know that?". Why are you telling us feminism isn't about hating men? We know that; do the feminists know that?
I haven't commented on any of them yet, but I've seen quite a few of your videos (especially the series) - I usually find them interesting and thought-provoking; as opposed to just hitting the 'emotion' button all the time... Do you reckon that gets draining? Anyway, based on this intro, this series should be no exception and I'm looking forward to the rest of it. Also, thanks for doing this series, because it seems to be geared at people who haven't done Gender Studies in an academic setting (I'm no stranger to academia, but I can't make head nor tail of some of the theoretical aspects), and this is a welcome addition to the discussion in my view. Cheers.
That diagram is unnecessarily complicated and raises all sorts of questions. For instance, "left libertarianism" and "anarchism" are more or less the same thing. The type of feminism that you are into is called "liberal" or "bourgeois" feminism, probably the most ineffectual and vacuous kind.
Its not that women consciously choose to make less money or have less power that men. its that women(as a group) tend to place priority on other things: Comfy working environment, more flexible schedule, or not putting themselves in the financial risk associated with starting their own business(or running for office). Whereas men as a group tend to prioritize having authority and/or earning money.
In other words, its a trade-off. And, again, its not as if women are consciously saying 'I want to earn less money.' But by placing priority on other things, earning less is the result.
I'm seeing a lot of people kind of nitpicking this video and being unnecessarily rude (surprise! people on the internet can be dicks!) so i just wanna say thank you for making this, Liana. While i don't consider myself a feminist (for about the same reasons as you don't consider yourself an egalitarian) it's great to see someone finally acknowledge that just because a person does not think of themselves as a feminist doesn' t mean they don't care about women's rights. Great video! Can't wait for the next part!
I think its also important on essentalism to note that there is a difference between claiming that women are naturally inclined to dislike video games, or work certain jobs, and simply noting that they generally arent and leaving it at that.
I'm honestly not that concerned with WHY women arent as interested in(on the whole) in large action games as men are. It might biological(although I doubt its entirely so), it might be cultural, it might just be a weird fucking coincidence. It really doesnt matter to me. What matters is that the inequalities we see(at least in certain areas, like gaming or STEM) are the result of women choosing not to participate at the same rate men do.
To that end I recommend that internet-feminists need to learn the difference between a 'boys club' and a 'sausage fest.'
I look forward to this series of videos. But I do have one thing to say:Please avoid the "no true Scotsman" fallacy at all costs. The instant you say "this is not what feminism is/is about" you will have a dozen or more videos sent your way which will feature self-proclaimed "feminists" doing exactly whatever it was that you were discussing. This video is encouraging on this score, so consider my comment a bit of well-intentioned advice.I would also like to hear your views on how some aspects of feminist theory have become entrenched in modern legislation, particularly in regards to things like domestic violence. This is often the elephant in the room when it comes to discussions of feminism - nobody seems to want to talk about how feminism has been amazingly, overwhelmingly successful in a number of areas.
I held onto subscription despite ignoring all the mountains of waffle on other vids for just this type of thing. I'm really glad you made this. Not a Feminist here, because no way I'm taking on a label so ridiculously vague, but at the same time a vague label means it couldn't possibly deserve the very specific criticisms it gets.
One small point of disagreement - I think a lot of 'Anti-Feminists' are really just anti this or that thing from a Feminist, and it's quite understandable in many cases. If the only aristocracy you've seen is hereditary, you're liable to think all aristocracies are a bad idea. Their research may be wanting but I don't think they're all that 'anti-woman'.
Ugh. As usual, the astounding arrogance of "you don't like feminism because you just don't know what the one TRUE feminism is" is on full display. Just like I don't believe in God because I haven't learned enough to experience Him.
Liana, has it *ever* occurred to you that perhaps *you* are the one who doesn't know enough about what feminism actually does in the western world? Have you not been watching the amount of pure propaganda that hits the mainstream media from the supposed "fringe radical feminists"?
Academia and human learning systems does not have the framework to study gender, race or other highly divisive topics. There is no way to eliminate bias. The notion that gender can even be studied at university by politically motivated women and the men they choose in their club is at best laughable. Go look up "ingroup bias", Women are Wonderful effect. The only reasonable assumption is that any research and findings are going to have bias.
On the point of equality - there is no such thing. Its like infinity Or Zero or Unity - they are theoretical ideas, but in reality no two things are equal and certainly different groups really cannot be. Equality advocates want "equal outcomes" Re - Equal pay, or equal numbers of women in management - without any basis for these ideas. Equality is self defeating - to make things or groups equal, they must be made equal as they cannot exist naturally. And to do this we have to cut down or deny the advancements or achievements of certain groups. So in order to have equality, we must treat each group unequally - which defeat the idea of equality in opportunity and before the law. THIS IS ALL RUBBISH AND NONSENSICAL, and can be show to be so. Feminism itself advocates inequality by requiring different treatment and laws etc to treat women unequally (or better) which is proof that women ARE NOT equal.
Can we force certain members of the Feminist Movement to watch this series of Videos? Seriously this first one was great! I can't wait for the others. I still don't agree with many of the Feminist Views but I'm watching this video over again and again to learn what I can from it and try to understand. =)
I thought this was really interesting, if not for the content, then for how different it felt from modern feminism in gaming. I hope this series finished because I feel like perspectives like these aren't seen very much.
I suspect that people suggesting feminists should identify as something else are trying to separate you from hateful people who use the feminist label as a credential to support their divisive ideology. The idea being that phrases like 'Not all feminists hate men.' and 'Men can be feminists, as long as they understand that their role is to listen and not expect to be heard.' would not make sense in a group identifying itself as gender egalitarians or humanists or equal rights advocates.I notice that often discussions about feminists are often derailed by the defensive feeling people have towards words they identify with. For example, an episode of Godless Bitches (a podcast) went on for several minutes about how much they disliked The Amazing Atheist because he made a video called Feminism Sucks. It was clear to me, however, that the video was in response to a specific person and that The Godless Bitches would not have agreed with anything that specific person had said, but felt the need to defend the feminist label instead of realizing they agreed with all the points The Amazing Atheist had against the individual.
+Maeve Murray There's a phrase often spoken (usually by opponents of feminism, for better or for worse) that feminism doesn't hold a monopoly on equality. To your your analogy - one might call a doctor who specialises in skin treatment a dermatologist. But that doesn't mean that a surgeon, a podiatrist - or even a builder or a florist - is _opposed_ to and/or knows nothing about keeping skin healthy.
Furthermore, every bugger and his mother seems to have a different definition for "feminism". Our gracious host Liana seems to, go for the "gender equality advocate" one, which differs slightly from the dictionary definition, more from my own definition ("womens' rights advocate", in case it matters), and to varying degrees from the myriad definitions others (notably including many feminists) may hold. A tangled web indeed.
because feminism isn't about equal rights. The definition that feminists tend to throw around is something like "the social, political and economical equality of women". Nobody can actually agree on what that means though, which results in dozens upon dozens of submovements and countermovements. You mentioned equal rights, but that's just one possible interpretation of the definition. The more common feminist one is equal outcome and equal representation, which requires unequal (discriminatory) rights/rules.
I'm actually not familiar with the term "womanism." More or less, if the shoe fits and you believe something that comes with a specified label, doesn't that make you that thing? Or is a doctor who specializes in skin not a dermatologist, for example? Or a person who believes and lives their life by a certain religious text not a member of that religion?
The idea that a feminist can hate women doesn't make any sense to me. I know Greer is second-wave, but I'm not totally familiar with her theories.
"why women would chose to earn less money [...]" Because being able to spend money is what gives money it's worth, not receiving it. In most countries women spend more money than men. they have a higher purchase capital.
Good video by the way.
13:30 WHAT? no typically moral police is some thing women engage in. Look at the church of yore, their is a reason the stereo type of a gaggles of women tut tut tuting at a social outlire or not falling in with the social hegomony exists. no no no, men really dont enforce social norm or develop them. that is some thing that has fallen on women shoulders and continues to fall on mens shoulder since we exited out H&G societies.
look at moral bodies liek the church, yes a mna may lead it but look at who swarm around that man, a lot of women who use the moral wieght of the church to enforce social cohesion on to a group by unpersoning people that dont follow in lockstep with the churches moral edicts. morality has always been the mace the women swing
+Bevin Warren I'm not saying that at various points in history some people haven't altered laws using the reasoning that "Well, if you're old enough to get drafted you should be old enough to vote." I'm well aware of that. But that is a completely different thing than saying that if you don't get drafted, you shouldn't have the right to vote. That's completely insane.
There are plenty of movements to get the drinking age reduced using the reasoning that people can get drafted and serve in the military at the age of 18, so why should you have to wait until 21 to drink? That doesn't mean that the right to drink is dependent on military service. Reversing the reasoning like that makes no sense. Perhaps it'd be more clearer If I had worded it like this: suffrage is not dependent on military service/draft in any objective truth. Reversing the reasoning that people actually used is both flawed logic and a fairly dishonest way to find a way to bash feminism and the suffrage movement.
And speaking of objective truth, the only reasoning I'm hearing here (which is completely flawed in the way I mentioned) is that something was done before at various points in history. Therefore it's a tradition (well, as long as we ignore the times it wasn't done). Therefore it's completely right and we should always do it that way. The existence of a tradition (even if it's inconsistent and cherry picked) is a terrible way to make an argument. Especially when it's used as justification to restrict the rights of a group of people.
The reason I'm engaging here is that I've never heard this opinion stated other than those Honey Badger videos/podcasts/interview I saw and they had no interest in ever making a case for their views on suffrage. So I was curious enough to delve in and find out what the line of reasoning was. If this is it though, then it's as bad as I imagined. Though I'm okay with that.
+Mike Hirabayashi Mike, they are tied together. They simply are. You're clearly historically illiterate on this subject.
The evidence is out there. The vote is tied to military service for men. While that has disappeared in some countries here in Europe, it's still the rule in the rest of the world.
There is a reason why all males a certain age have to sign up for selective service in the US or face FELONY CHARGES which, just so you know, if you're deemed guilty? Well, you can't vote anymore because you have a felony status.
+Mike Hirabayashi It depends on where you are from. But yes in UK the franchise was directly tied to national service implicitly. In Australia we reduced the voting age due to conscription. we felt that in order for a person to be conscripted they had a right to vote for who sent them to warn. also The UK and USA did the same thing. This is why the voting age in the USA is lower then the drinking age.
these days we generally don't think about voting as being tied to military service because it has now been divorced form it, mostly in act because we don't have conscription anymore.
This tradition of military service to the franchise goes back beyond the middle ages and back to Greece and then Rome. This is basic history and yes it gets taught in school as part of the base curriculum.
+louie wallenberg "To this day, voting is still tied in with potential military service for men." Uh, no it's not. You seem very intent on tying the two together, but that's not objectively true. If you're basing your derision of women's suffrage on that... well... I'll just call it irrational.
Do you have any kind of fantastic evidence or something that I wouldn't have been exposed to, or is this just a cause-I-say-so kind of thing? Or worse, because someone on the internet said so. And someone else heard it and repeated it. So now it's a thing. It'd be sad if that's what it is. It's really unfortunate how effective the whole "The Big Lie" principle is.
+Mike Hirabayashi You don't understand voting history. To this day, voting is still tied in with potential military service for men. Just for men.
Meaning that the same rules don't apply to women. Women don't have to apply to selective service to vote. Women are not forced to go to war for their right to vote.
Men have circumstantial freedom for their right to vote. Women don't. Hence, inequality.
This is the first I've heard of missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada. I would like to hear more about that and why it hasn't even made it across the border at all. That's disappointing for someone who tries to be tapped in on what's going on in the world around them even through alternate news sources rather than just mainstream media.
"Women are naturally more happy in traditional roles" - Yeah but the studies show this. Ever since the end of the 60's, at the end of the golden age of the housewife, female happiness has steadily declined in a downwards march. If you rate the happiness of a working woman compared to a housewife, the housewife will generally score herself higher on that happiness scale.
This isn't some evil conservative nonsense. It's blatant fact. Now, you can argue of WHY this is but you can't argue that it's not that case. It's a fact, in general, more women will be happy as a housewife than they are happy as a working wife.
I think it all goes to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In the olden days basic needs and survival was a lot harder and people did not have time to think about anything higher on their needs pyramid. People Married to survive, life's goals was simple and easy to understand: "live long enough to make as many babies as possible, then die" Now days anyone can get their basic needs satisfied by making like 100 cappuccinos a day at a coffee house. Living like a rodent is no longer in vogue, now everyone is suppose to make something of themselves, while paying off titanic student loans and clopping to vampire bondage porn in a movie theater. More and more people have time to think about their higher needs and how lacking they are at achieving them. Leading to depression and dissatisfaction with life.
I'm interested to find out more.
I've personally noticed that previous generation's (I.e my grandparents) general constitution is relatively more stoic and is often combined with a general reluctance to either acknowledge, or dwell, on hardships, emotional or otherwise.
I know I am inferring the general from the specific, however I have more people whom I've met from the same generation with similar dispositions (which still proves nothing).
Another general point is that men generally prefer not to be viewed in a vulnerable light. I myself could choose at any moment embrace my own latent unhappiness. I can also choose to remain positive and optimistic.
I do know that B.P.D is more prevalent among females, which isn't usually conducive to all round happiness. their we go, a fact.
The problem I have with feminism a threesome. First, it has a fundamentally wrong view of history that now infects public discourse. Two, it reinforces a lot of gender roles. #HeForShe is an atrocious example of this. Oh, how modern, ask the men to take care of the women. Three, it steals the progress of other communities. The LGBTQ movement, the civil rights movement, the atheist movement, feminism tries to devour these movements with twisted monstrosities such as Atheism+.
I'm not even talking about the now systemic bias against men in almost every single part of their lives, which you can in some occasions trace right back to Feminism itself.
I cannot take a philosophy seriously that assumes that men as a group wants to oppress their lovers, their daughters, their mothers, their sisters and the ones who raised them. This is, nothing short, of an idea that puts most of its responsibilities on the shoulders of men.
Feminism needed in 3rd world not the 1st.
3rd wave feminism is part of a larger regressive left movement. This movement is authoritarian /anti reason based.
Pay gap myth see Christina Hoff Sommers.
Women who are childless and under 30 out earn their male conterparts.
Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory.
The majority of voters are female.
3rd wave feminism is intellectually banrupt.
People will give you the dictionary definition of feminism. Which is equality.
But then try to call yourself a feminist and not believe we have a rape epidemic, question the wage gap numbers, or mention that those accused of rape have rights & that proven false accusations aimed at destroying lives should not be consequence free, etc.
And the people who seem to be the leaders of modern feminism will eat you alive. Oh, and if you're male you can't even be a feminist, you're an "ally".
Perhaps I'm being dense but I'm struggling to follow Liana's point at 11:30 in regards to anti-feminists, I can interpret it in 2 contradictory ways and I'm not sure which position shes arguing.
These are my interpretations:
1. Anti-feminists are anti feminism and therefore in opposition to womens rights.
2. Anti-feminists are anti feminism but may still hold views that are favorable to women and their rights.
Very interesting video, I very much look forward to the next. I feel though that you didn't really answer your own question regarding anti woman and feminism. First you asked if not being a feminist makes you anti woman, the answer is no, naturally. Then you brought up anti feminism, but here you didn't answer the question. You stated that being anti feminist is being in opposition to feminsim, well dah, it's in the name. Th question you asked though wasn't if being anti feminist makes you anti feminist, the answer was, does being an anti feminist make you anti woman? I understand if you don't feel like opening this can of worms, but I would like to add this question. If being feminist pro- women, and is feminism always good for women? I for example, like you I assume, think that sex negative feminism isn't good for women...
Anyways, those are just my thoughts, looking forward to your next video...
+hasábburgonya Agreed, I felt much the same. It seemed like anti-feminism was being almost exclusively labelled as extremist and I don't think that's necessarily the case (nor to I think being anti-feminist means that you disagree with everything feminists espouse).
"I don't believe fundamentalists of any stripe deserve as much inclusion as moderates because they exist to take away freedoms in accordance with their own ideology."
I actually sat up and shouted "Fuckin A!" at the computer when I heard this.
If you look for the root of Canada's missing or murdered aboriginal women problem, you will find The Indian Act. TIA controls every aspect of native's lives, including how law enforcement deals with them. Domestic and sexual abuse are difficult, some would say impossible, to prosecute because TIA allows the band leadership to interfere with investigations. TIA is designed to keep natives on reserve, poor and dependent on the government.
The only truly happy natives I've ever known have escaped TIA and the reserve system and live just like every other Canadian.
TIA is a shining example of why race-based legislation is a recipe for DISASTER!
After a year and a half of shit and abuse from SJW style feminists, only you and C.H. Sommers have kept me from going full on anti feminist! Thank you both for not being slavering misandrists! You're doing the Lord GabeN's work, Liana!
"Many say assimilation is a bad word in dealing with FNs, but I think its necessary when considering making the FNs full and equal citizens under Canadian law and its protections and there is definitely a way to do it while respecting their culture, communities and personhood"
I CANNOT agree more!
+cybermiester I think its more than the Indian Act that lies at the heart of what inflicts FNs today - I think TIA is a symptom and a complication. I think there's a large amount of tribalism and non-FN Canadians viewing FNs as an undeserving other. In other words, racism compounded by the fact that FNs technically aren't Canadian citizens. Add to the fact a large number of FNs are (rightfully so), constantly raving in anger about how they've been historically mistreated and ignored and you have a cauldron of hate and spite between 2 very distinct demographics in lineage, geography and socio-political status. If you added terrorism and military action in the mix and it would look exactly like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Many say assimilation is a bad word in dealing with FNs, but I think its necessary when considering making the FNs full and equal citizens under Canadian law and its protections and there is definitely a way to do it while respecting their culture, communities and personhood. Then we'd have no excuse or barriers when lifting and keeping them from poverty and keeping their communities safe - because that's what all Canadians deserve within Canada.
+Fireproof Troll Pretty much. Canada is consistently in the top ten best countries in the world to live in, yet TIA makes sure that Status Indians live on reserve in third world conditions.
Having read through that god awful mess, the Indian act likely created AIDS as well. Given the many convoluted natures of losing status it looks like a directive to inbreed as status is only attached to matrilineal lines. The whole thing looks to be geared towards stripping rights, status and encourage infighting in the name of "enfranchisement".
Therin lies the rub. Even a redneck like me gets caught up in the narrative, because of the normal instinct of human males to be solicitous of females safety.
I agree that the issue shouldn't be gendered.
Do you agree that The Indian Act is the root of the problem? (careful, I've been called racist for saying that, even though I really like natives, hung out with them in school and half my cousins are metis!)
On the sex work thing, one of my friends left a job which was reasonably paid, with not the worst hours, in a shop, to become a full-time prostitute. She did it as a choice, as she found it much more fulfilling, with better hours to suit her, where she could vet her customers before having to deal with them, and saw a marked improvement in mood and health. This is why as a feminist I'll always support sex workers' rights to self-determination if they actively choose it as a career.
+sunyavadin Exactly. I support legalizing and taxing sex work because there will always be demand and supply regardless of the legality. But when it is illegal sex workers have no worker rights or forms of legal protection. Not to mention if it was legal the amount of money that goes to crime syndicates or cartels will be reduced. Not to mention the boost to tourism.
This is a very thoughtful video. I cringe at a lot of feminist videos, but I enjoyed this one, and I'm looking forward to the rest.
Even though I sometimes like to call myself an egalitarian, the fact is, I just have nowhere enough empathy to live up to it, and also feel that not everyone is equal. I do feel logic is more important than empathy and emotion, but without empathy, it's hard to have the patience to even think logically, so it's still relevant. It can just be frustrating when people pick a side, over a specific incidence of something occurring. If one woman was treated really badly on an occasion, it's easy arouse sympathy, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's a very rare occurrence. They should check statistics and know all the facts before doing so. Otherwise, don't pick a side. Not picking sides is often better than picking one.
While I don't claim to know the ins and outs of everything, I do feel male feminism is just silly. There are female anti feminists. If the two started arguing with one another about the subject, what the hell is that going to accomplish? Men claiming to understand women's rights to the point where they argue against a woman's beliefs on their own rights, can just end up being sexist.
It's not easy being top right in a top left world.
As for the relation to egalitarianism, I always think of that video of the guy saying that egalitarianism is seeing an unbalanced scale and adding equal weight to both sides. Whereas I say that reducing all imbalances to a single aggregate scale betrays the depths of one's collectivism. Even abstract social issues are a single homogeneous group in their mind. A more accurate representation would be a scale for each form of inequity, granted with a majority tilted in favor of men. A feminist then is someone who only necessarily wants the one subset balanced but could have any possible opinion regarding the other subset ranging from "it doesn't exist" to "it's just as important." Even the onscreen definition says as much in that it specifically pertains to inequalities faced by women. An egalitarian then is someone who would seek to have all scales balanced regardless of their initial imbalances, and an egalitarian feminist would be an egalitarian whose priorities lean towards correcting one imbalance over another but who still has an interest in both. The problem though is that while there are certainly sincere egalitarian feminists who wouldn't hesitate to acknowledge men's issues in good faith and with an open mind (to your credit you seem to fall under that), there are also plenty of "yeah men suffer too under patriarchy because it makes them toxic and gross. Higher conviction rates? Family court reform? What's all that nonsense? I'm more worried that these action movies and video games make you feel inadequate and violent" types. I'd take the ones who never claim to be helping men, like Julie "equality is for cowards" Bindel, over the ones who'd piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, any day. Like, be a feminist. That's cool. Only care about some issues and not others if you want. That's fine too. You don't need to devote your time to all forms of equality. Or any. Just be honest about what you're doing.
Although I do prefer your brand to the others.
I have started talking to people online. Feminists have to stop the fucking FemNazis from furthering the soiling the name of Feminism. Liana, you cam help by attacking FemNazis, and helping to give Feminists a side that most Western men have already accepted and helped in the past. FemNazis have used the terms you deal with here to further their socialist/religious FemNazi doctrine.
13:52 Based on what you have said, isn't the obvious conclusion that men are the ones forced to take responsibility? Isn't it a leap to say that it is because men are perceived as superior rather than, say, that men are to be made into the responsible party in a given situation?
You do not have to be superior to be made into a beast burden with regard to responsibility, rather the opposite possibly.
When men are made responsible, isn't it possible that women are then put into the role of a manager rather than victim?
Decisions made without empathy aren't "good ones?" Empathy is claiming to feel what others feel--it's dealing with issues in others because you've placed yourself in their position. It's an inherently narcissistic posture. There's plenty of other ways to make decent decisions: Try sympathy, or ethics, or morals, or analysis. Empathy's greatest limitation is that it's strongest for those who most resemble ourselves, which simply lends itself to tribalism and cultural manifest destiny. Obviously, there are other, still good, ways to approach the problems of the day.
+Kat Welham The only helpful half of the concept of empathy, the only part that distinguishes it from sympathy, is (sharing) feeling. I'm picking a linguistic nit, not disparaging the idea of understanding the hearts and minds of others. As to the rest, I don't think men or women are as 'conditioned' as you purport. For the most part, it's just an extension of the fundamental attribution error, to see the actions of those with whom we disagree, and cultural phenomena that we dislike, to be the product of 'conditioning' and other non-reasoning processes. Meanwhile our own opinions and behavior are explained as being the result of reason, of rationality, of analysis, and a product of higher-order morality, ethics, sympathy, and empathy, than that of others.
The underlying problem is uncharitability, combined with our tendency to curate our data inputs to the point of bubbling ourselves in information feedback loops.
No it's not it's attempting to understand INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY those you do not disagree with or whom don't disagree with you.
Actually coming here to these videos has helped me learn shedloads about why the dudes are so aggressive about hating on some things. It doesn't mean I think you guys are right but it means I understand better where you're coming from. I think I actually got a reply back from Thunderfoot once replying to one of his vids which really made me think - I still don't subscribe to his theory that men have it rougher than women these days but it helped me understand why he thinks that and the problems dudes face that are unique to them.
This is what happens when you open your mind and practice empathy - your understanding improves. The left and right sides of our brains are meant to work in harmony but opposition. I was thinking about vis a vis the most contentious issue of the childcare after a divorce and I think the problem is that often in that situation you are not thinking clearly because the bitterness to do with why you broke up poisons the thinking of both sides also the delusion re-inforced by conditioning. Women are conditioned to think they are always altruistic and men that they are always rational and in a situation like a divorce or any stressful situation - women can get vengenful and men profoundly irrational and neither can see it.
This looks and sounds like it will be an interesting series. A rationalist discussion of feminism with a Gamer slant. I think that it's great that you're making the distinction between the various forms of feminism out there.
It really shows that, "Not all X..." is a pretty accurate description of any polymorphic group, and that the most vocal segments do not necessarily reflect the whole, or even the majority.
I look forward to hearing more.
"Another example of modern feminism Malala Yousafzai". No. She actually dodges the label when asked about it, instead focussing on her work. You can't just call random people "feminist" just because they do things you like :/.
The idea that women earning less money due to their choices is actually true, and supported by all studies (including feminist ones) that I've read on the topic. As much as feminists blame "the wage gap" on sexism, even all the feminist papers that I've read attribute over half of that wage gap on personal choices. So this idea that makes no sense at all seems to be reality. I disagree that men and women are identical.
The vibe that I got from feminism from this video is that it's an ideology that even at a basic level does not understand how basic statistics work, and has no idea how to describe groups of people, and basically incapable to see grey. There are actually shades of grey in between "forcing gender roles onto all women" and "men and women as groups do the exact same things". The problem with choice feminism is that if you support it (and I do), then you actually have to respect the choices that people make instead of concluding that if the system doesn't evolve in the way that you predicted, it must be because either women's choices are wrong or because society somehow forced people.
The more I "learn" about this, the more it really seems to solidify that I actually am a feminist antifeminist. I think that the abolishment of feminism as a collection of movements would be a great step forward in terms of achieving gender equality in society.
There are people that want to tightly define "feminist", but I don't believe in that. There is not a defined set of guidelines or restrictions you must follow to be a "feminist". If you support the right to equality, no matter what you think real equality is, then you can consider yourself a feminist.
If a woman wants to be a stay at home wife then she has the right to do that. If a man wants to be a stay at home husband then he also has the right to do that. That's the type of equality and feminism I believe in. If a man or woman feels that our genders aren't "equal" and that we have some differences and therefore to be equal we need to embrace those differences then I am fine with that too.
I don't think that feminism should be abolished, but the thinking that it is one singular thought or movement should be. I am on the fence on if the name of the movement should be changed or if it should stay as is and they should work with other groups rather than be at odds with them. However there is no head of feminism or someone guiding the direction. It many different people with different ideas on what is equality.
+TakesTwoToTango Yes. It seems to me that labels (such as feminist) can serve a purpose as a rallying cry, but not much else constructive. When you are working to help women in the middle east, it doesn't help that people want to put you in the same box as the people who fight to limit free speech in favor of their own ideology.
+Hjerrick That's a valid question / remark. My stance is definitely aimed mostly at the western world (well, mostly Western Europe). I find it really difficult to judge other societies.
Now what I stand for is looking at the issues at hand and discussing them rather than framing them into some larger feminist framework that's riddled with what looks to me like astrology and crystal healing. Malala Yousafzai is a good example of what I mean: when asked (again and again) about why she won't call herself a feminist, her answer boils down to "Can we just focus on helping girls not get shot by the taliban? Put whatever label you want on that, but let's focus on girls not getting shot by the taliban." I think that's great. That's discussable and workable for everybody. No need to link it to possible invisible influencing by Robin Thicke songs.
As for the main differences between the western world and the middle east from my point of view: the middle east has more / more severe such problems to actually discuss / solve.
+TakesTwoToTango "I think that the abolishment of feminism as a collection of movements would be a great step forward in terms of achieving gender equality in society."
Depending on where in the world we are, I assume? Like, the middle east sorely need feminism, while feminism is mostly spinning it's wheels and making a lot of smoke in places like Europe and North America.
nicely done. i did however want to point out on of tge big issues, an i believe you did it by mistake, but many don't.
using feminism and woman as a group as synonyms. you started a statement saying (paraphrase) "not being a feminist doesnt mean that you hate woman, being an egalitarian doesnt mean you hate woman, however being an antifeminist requires a hatred of feminism" the train of listing positions to like outcomes, then using feminism as the woman replacement is the error. though i believe that last statement is accurate, it would not be accurate that antifeminist hate woman, just feminists.
again, i dont believe it was purposeful in this case, but if you observe any conversation online, or off, dealing with feminism you will see this swap constantly. there are two options for why this happens. either it is unintentional, and the person doing it views feminism and woman as a group as the same in their head, or, done intentionally for the crowd. how do you get EVERYONE on that graph to go after or distance themselves from someone? say they hate woman. even though the convo started with saying that "radical marxist sex negative trans exclusive feminists are speaking out of their asses"
+TakesTwoToTango Being anti-anything does not infer a hatred of anything, nor even necessarily a dislike....just disagreement. The same point made in your argument is the same point people from all of these different camps use to essentially force someone into a 'you're either with us or the enemy' situation....in which the mere act of disagreeing has become synonymous with dislike or EVEN HATRED.
+Mecha Sauce Actually being antifeminist doesn't imply you hate feminists either. Just feminism. There's a difference. You can hate Islam without hating Muslims too. And even then, "hate" isn't the right word. You can be against stuff without hating it.
Good video, I think you bring up a lot of valuable points. However I think the problem most people have (myself included) is the use of feminism as an identity. Unlike many I think that feminist theory has a lot of value, but feminist identity is rather counter-productive. It gets particularly bad when feminism is used interchangeably with "anti-misogyny", and those who reject the identity (especially women) become the target of abuse.
It doesn't matter to me if you identify as feminist, a MRA or egalitarian. What matters is what you stand for. To me, every woman is a feminist as long as she is looking out for herself or other women. What is equality is going to vary from person to person. When a woman speaks out against feminism it doesn't make any sense to me and I feel like they don't really understand it. However I understand that not all feminists feel this way.
I think both women and men's rights advocates have been demonised when whilst both contain chauvanists (sorry my spelling sucks it always did - and it just does I am an native English speaker who isn't dislexic as far as I know - it just sucks) of both stripes neither movements are chauvanistic in and of themselves.
+Alpha FourNineTwo (Alpha492) Liana, someday you should consider doing a video on "rape culture." It's a term a hear a lot these days and I'm admittedly confused a lot by the whole thing. From a male perspective it seems like its tossed around so haphazardly it has become some kind of ill-defined boogeyman.
I'd like to hear your perspective because I feel like there's something more I'm missing. Just basic stuff like what is the exact definition of a rape culture, how do you identify rape cultures, and what actually does and doesn't contribute to rape culture.
Is it possible to be a feminist and, still, negate the feminist theory of patriarchy, and all of that part with the false dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed, and the part that says that gender is entirely a social construct and that biology doesn't matter (or matter just a little)? If yes, what type of feminist does that make me? Your explanation made me think that the use of the label "feminist" is irrelevant. It doesn't describe anything beyond "person who thinks in women's rights". If the conflict inside the label is so huge I don't think it can have any meaningfull use.
+Alan Flamer well how about treat it like any theory in Science... test it and make changes based upon observations and by that I do not mean change the meaning of words like Patriarchy which they did. I live in a country where women can vote and became Prime Minster and I even have Queen as Head of State... So women are not legally prevented from attaining the pinnacle of power in my Society.
heck People expect Hilary Clinton to be the next US president... that is not a Classical Patriarchy.
It is weird how Feminism seems ti sit in the Social Sciences but Its theories don't really seem to get tested (partially from ethical reasons - human test subjects and all)
That's the thing. I'm not selling to the person who dwells in identity politics. I'm selling to the person who goes along to get along. Who might hear the idea about say the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy reinforcing the lack of agency of women, or the general messed up-ness of blank slate ideology meaning that it's A-OK to bully in order to reprogram people's personality to something palatable to you...who might hear these things and say, you're right. That does sound pretty messed up. Or not even think that, but they'll start to talk about things in terms of the blank slate. They'll share on Facebook or Retweet suddenly an article talking about the lack of seriousness handling certain issues by those people who dwell in identity politics.
I'm not even "selling" to them. Not really. Just throwing the ideas into the ethos like seeds in the wind.
I guess at the end of the day, I'm less concerned with "tearing down feminism" as I am tearing down specific ideas that just happen to make up a substantial chunk of feminist ideology and culture. Focusing on the identity..feminism, in this case...just makes us yet another identity ideological. We need to focus on the ideas themselves and not the group designation.
In short, it'll be a great day when we reach a point where most people are aware of the issues...even if they don't fully agree, they understand why some people see it as an issue...with things like the oppressor/oppressed gender dichotomy, or blank slate theory, or threat narratives or whatever.
+Karmakin I personally cannot even try to sell any of that from inside. To the people that dwells in identity politics I'm the kind of person that they will not even listen, regardless of my argument, because I'm a white, cis, straight, man. Any attempt from me of aproaching them is seem, by them, as trying to "steal the spotlight of minorities", well, you must know the strategies. I have no choice but to speak from the outside, trying to establish a dialogue with as much people on the edge of the ideology as possible. Now, I don't even think this is a "strategy", rather is just what is left for me to do.
I'm currently 8:35 in, and I had a little comment about The Feminine Mystique and the idea that women choose a cage (guided or otherwise).
The first is that most people saying the wage gap is down to choice aren't saying that women are choosing to be housewives or other 1960s stereotypical roles. Rather they're saying that women choose to work fewer hours in their jobs, they choose jobs they find more enjoyable over roles that pay better.
The second point is that a 1960s (when The Feminine Mystique was published) housewife has a very different experience from a 2010s housewife. While a 9-to-5 job might be more fulfilling than a 60s housewife role, perhaps a 2010 housewife role has risen above a 9-to-5 job. It's worth rexamining that question in light of the last 50 years of technological and social change.
Maybe you'll get to these ideas later, or in a later vid. I'm sure I'll find out once I get back tonight and have time for the second half :)
I never had anything against feminism in general (or else I wouldn't be subscribed to you).
I realize that the kind of feminists I hate (the ones who think games are sexist and want them banned) are (hopefully) the minority.
But it also sometimes feels like a very loud minority with huge megaphones and a ton of supporters...
"There are many types of feminism" - Says the feminist who wants the acomplishments of other facets of feminism to shield her from criticism, while holding beliefs that are opposed to said facets of feminism.
Liana. Feminism having many faces is not an argument in defense of the term but against it!
I have a couple of issues with this. I like how you bring up several issues and point out that their backgrounds aren't exclusively related to gender (race, poverty and religion being factors too). Other stuff, I was kind of hoping you'd be able to delve into a bit more. Still, with only a week to wait, it isn't like we'll be waiting months for an update like with Feminist Frequency.
My grievances with feminism tend to lie in two places: 1) revisionist history and 2) claiming to be an equality movement when so little focus is placed on both sexes. You mention that it's important that everyone's issues get "unique and equal attention" but I'm finding a lack of equal attention for men. For example, here in the UK, there has been more discussion for the lack of women on bank notes than there has for the lack of domestic violence shelters for men. The idea that, in this day and age, feminists feel that women are underrepresented is somewhat mindboggling to me.
Thumbs up anyway.
The problem is that this is what the media portrays and they are easy for the majority to digest. There are men out there talking about these issues, but very few are listening. If men aren't being heard on these issues, why would women? The issue you bring up is a huge issue to begin with. Society thinks that men can't be abused and that they must be big and strong. Men just need to "man-up". I think these issues don't go very far. It's really a shame and I think it will be quite a battle to change this way of thinking, but it is something that is necessary to have true equality.
Regardless I haven't seen as many feminist talk about the issues males face..although most of them fully understand the problems males face and support them.
+Bevin Warren Jess Phillips actually said that about men's issues here in the UK. I was actually thinking about that when it was mentioned in the video. :)
You're also right about male MPs concerned with governing for the entire country. Yet while the female vote is a legitimate discussion point, I'm willing to bet that if "men's issues" was raised to a political or presidential candidate, they wouldn't know what it means (and probably assume it means education/taxes/unemployment or another mainstream issue).
well that would be because the female MP's as a group feel that because they are out numbered so many times numerically that issues effecting men could be raised on any day of the year (I say this because I have heard interviews where female MPs have actually said this). This however ignores the fact that said male MPs are concerned primarily with governing for their entire electorate and country not just the male populations. Does that mean female MPs govern just for women or do they feel they have t explicitly advocate for women's issues, which raises the question of do male MP's have t explicitly advocate on male issues.
+TakesTwoToTango It's exactly a parallel of the religious argument of "when good things happen - god done it, when bad things happen - people done it".
With feminists it's. People did good things - It's an accomplishments of THE WHOLE OF FEMINISM. People did bad things or think bad thoughts - "there are many types of feminism, you know, THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME, YOU KNOW?"
+TakesTwoToTango That's nothing new.
Take the sufragettes for example. Most modern SJW feminists would see the original sufragettes as being racist, sexist and a bunch of other 'ists on top of that. The opinions those women had are much worse than those of people feminists now deem as despicable. That does not stop them from taking the accomplishments of the original suffragettes as their own, and from painting those original women as feminists, when convenient of course.
Thanks for this video, it was very informative. It seems neutral and well documented. Even if, as I am sometimes quite lazy as people are, I might just take your word for it concerning feminist theory. Maybe some additional links could be useful regarding those topics? Anyway, thanks for your work and i'm looking forward to the next episode!
+fredguy2 The mass fleeing from states in which the state authority is completely broken, is a result of global capitalism mechanisms. Take Afghanistan for example, the U.S. intervention and the country being dragged into international political affairs then later led to the breakdown of the secular left in the country and finally the IS had an opportunity to jump in there etc. — at the same time, things ARENT so clear (we have that one very special guy here in Germany, his name is Jürgen Todenhöfer, funny name, eh, who visited the IS and completely and solely blames everything the IS is doing on the wester powers), because Germany, for example, didn't subscribe to the intervention above, France (i think) didn't either and so on — but in overall, this is the mechanism which is responsible. Colonialism, more or less. In Africa, especially the Central African Republic and Kongo, it is pure economical interest which are responsible for what is going on there.
In order to try and make people (anti immigrant nationalists or people who fear them) think about the destructiveness of their behavior, you can try and explain it, but i think it is very hard to do. They need to realize themselves, all you can do is point out the correlations, i guess.
Heres a little more, what Zizek said about it https://zizektimes.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/the-new-class-struggle/
Also try and google "Zizek migrants" or similar, there are quite a few very interesting and recent articles by him on the topic available.
Just like the rest of Europe, we also have a massive problem of the far right uprising at the moment, in our country. It is not so much in politics, like in Hungary, Austria or Poland, but violence in the streets (so called "worried citizens", which is PEGIDA - we already exported that to Canada, i think...— violent nationalists and hardcore fascists) really is on the uprise at the moment. It is quite a puddle of shit we're sitting in over here, at the moment. Hope you are more lucky. Have a good weekend, mate.
+ReichHop As a german what is your view on the migrant crises? I'm Canadian and I support helping those in need but at the same time I recognize alot of people think refugees should stay where they came from. But to me that seems like a non solution.
If you ask me, "True equality" doesn't mean "everyone gets an equal amount of X". To me, it means that how much "X" you get is based on the things you do, but not based on who you are or where you come from.
+JamesBideaux My idea of a society that I would like to live in is where people get help in figuring out where their strengths lie. So that everyone actually CAN contribute to society in a useful way and be rewarded in kind.
+Dharengo a lot of people dislike the term meritocracy, because you can never measure merit absolutely correct. you might do something that is incredibly lucrative in the short term, but disastrous in the long term etc. The thing is, you need to prove that unequal treatment leads to unequal outcomes, for the outcome to matter.
+Dharengo Well put.
Apologies again for getting a little tunnel vision on the side points for added confusion. I appreciate your willingness to continue a reasoned discussion in spite of my miscommunication ^_^;
+Shalune I understand. This is actually the type of talking I feel most comfortable with. I'm absolutely terrible at binary talk. There is nuance to everything, especially stuff like discrimination.
For example, there is truth in matters of, "many members of X group perform poorly in Y area".
It's not fair to judge people merely based on whether or not they're part of a certain group, but reversing that and saying "X group is underrepresented because of unfair discrimination" may not always be the case. Sometimes it really IS because many members of said group perform poorly. What may seem like a straightforward reversal may actually be flawed logic.
The fact that unfair discrimination DOES actually happen sometimes just muddles the issue even more.
+Dharengo I never claimed what I was describing was representative of your logic. My apologies if it came across that way.
My intention was to elaborate on what Alpha was talking about. You expressed confusion over how their comment related to your point, so I went into detail.
To bring it back to his/her point more directly:
What I described is often used as the justification for dismissing proposals for favorable treatment of disadvantaged minorities. Now regardless of how you personally feel on the topic it is patently unfair to - assuming the world is now unbiased for sake of simplicity - draw the conclusion that these equal opportunities will result in a distribution based purely on effort applied. The sad fact is that many groups, some ethnic/racial, are severely disadvantaged in what they have access to.
The two ends of the spectrum of rationally justified responses (with a whole range in between) are:
- In recognition that we are all running the same race, but some people start much farther back, we will provide them compensatory advantages by default.
- We recognize that, while tragic, we are personally not responsible for the series of events that led to these people's disadvantage. It is neither our place nor responsibility to take action to attempt to correct it.
To be perfectly clear, neither of these are perfect or necessarily "right." This is one of those complex moral dilemmas with no easy answer. But the logic Alpha was referring to, that I outlined, is often used by right wing pundits in the US to push an untrue third option that is roughly 'The system is already perfectly fair. Therefore if you fail, it is your own shortcoming and nothing else.' This ignores the factual reality that many people are not properly equipped - often stemming from causes with well documented racial correlations - to compete for said opportunities.