Your both taking segments and quotes from each others videos and placing them out of context.
But I have to go with ArgusEyes more, the rise of feminism has become something of a cult to hate on all men, a movement that has risen from past female oppression and something that non sexist men have to suffer from as a result.
History has been misogynistic, but it's getting to the point of generalising men as a species of evil in the present day and WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT'S MISTAKES.
Re: Patriarchy definition. You broke a single definition down into two separate and distinct factors, but they are not separate and distinct. You pretend that because men are predominant in government, thus meeting the first portion, that legitimizes your claim, but it is not a patriarchy, because the cultural and social norms represented by those predominantly male government officials are not for the benefit of men, but rather, women, as evidenced by the single-minded focus on female concerns.
@MNeilGri You then proceed to demonstrates examples where you perceive women are exploited or don't maintain the level of independence you would wish, but you fail to even examine what men have and/or endure. How can you claim cultural norms favor men when you only examine what you claim not to have, and ignore examining what you do have, what men have and what men don't have. You're not even looking at half the picture, let alone the whole thing. And you believe this is honest?
Instead of a man against women fight, I see it as more a class war in the past and still today. Countless men were oppressed as well as women. The trouble is most feminist don't see it this way. They are all too happy to play into a victimization role. The upper crust elites bankrolled this movement to drive a wedge between the sexes. A way to further distance themselves between us and them, and returning back to a feudal way of life. Almost all minorities and women's groups have been co-opted.
Interesting points you make, I think you and Argus would make a great couple. But what I do find odd is that whilst men went out and took power, forged there futures and progressed society along the way (and some women did as well, a select few), you seem to think a few youtube videos is enough. So we fight to the death for it, you make an account on a website. Interesting...
@Malusdarkblade I think you're a little misinformed about the history of gender relations. Men did not simply rise naturally to the forefront of the development of society because they had greater ingenuity or intellect, for example. In fact for hundreds of years men actively prevented women from entering education, or having political power, or holding stations outside of the home. I'd be interested to know how much men would have achieved without basic literacy and numeracy, and 14 children.
The winner of a fight is the one most able to fight. If women were at disadvantaged, then by whom? if it was men, then men must have had something they could use to control the females. Truth is, its a myth that women were kept under whilst men lived it up large. Most humans, of both sexes, lived in slavery and poverty.
@Malusdarkblade Men had lots of means of controlling women. Take their physical strength over women, women's lack of access to contraception, women being denied the vote or the legal means to own property, male domination of eduction and politics, male domination of the means of state violence - the military, the police - as well as a little known book called the BIBLE which was enforced by a death penalty. You want to go back to living in a Shariah country? You people are 200 years late.
I just watched most of that exchange, and read back through Arguseyes' transcript of his video (I found this by typing 'feminism is a sham' into google.. trying to find a couterargument for an essay)
He's an idoit. Don't bother, I tried to write up a logical response, but got bored and gave up. Well done to you for keeping your head. I just wish you'd owned him more on his argument about biology and women having bigger vocabularies. That really made me chuckle.
It's confusing to talk about wanting to block someone who you took a big step into furthering communications with by adding a video response in the first place :) Of course, one could simply ignore without blocking, as blocking is to prevent spammers.
I am with you, I do believe it is women who say that " It takes a real man to support his Children " . What they refer to is money. That is not saying guys shouldnt help. For me as a guy , sometimes thing might get tough finicially, I may not have enough money to offer the children, but it shouldnt be said that I am a dead beat dad. To me as a guy, offering my children wisdom, love and compassion makes me as much of man as any child support payment or alomony
In other words you have nothing to blame but patriarchy itself if men are not viewed as competent care givers. That role was assigned to women before women had the right to exist as legal persons, see "coverture". The role of care giving has been devalued, if you want it then why not work on changing the way men are viewed, maybe by becoming the primary care giver rather than whining about feminism.
If more men were primary care givers in marriage there might be more outside of it, simple.
And of course none of this has anything to do with how men are socialized or the long history of forcing women to remain at home caring for children.
Newsflash, women were considered the primary caregiver long before feminism had been imagined. This was used to keep women out of power, no votes, no paid work, etc. Single fathers were rare before feminism.
The difference feminism made was extending the right of divorce to women and giving women the right to hold property in marriage.
I remember very well when a man pushing a stroller was considered an emasculated clown. Fathers were remote disciplinarians in a lot of families and it's heartbreaking to hear people of my generation say they hate (really do hate) their fathers.
Nowadays, fathers are more relaxed and loving. No one thinks twice about who's pushing the stroller, changing the diaper, kissing the boo-boo. I think many fathers today have much happier relationships with their families - thanks to feminism.
@EyeLean5280 My father was definitely pushed out by my mother and her family, so they made me choose alliances. Naturally, I declared loyalty to he whose blood flows in me.
So those pansy fathers you mention are likely kept in line by feminism. Don't believe me? Then ask the male next chance you get whether he feels he truly has the power over his wife/girlfriend or whether he has acceded to her entitlement.
Jabes, while I do agree that it is not a good idea for a woman to try to raise children on her own if she has any choice and that for a while feminism had some women glossing over how difficult and non-ideal single motherhood is, there is another side as well.
As a middle-aged person I remember very clearly the arguments feminists made for MORE involvement & intimacy from fathers, that being emotionally engaged would be liberating for men, as would equality for women.
Partriarchy as the definition rolls out in the dictionary definition actually has two portions:
A) that most in power are male and
B) with cultural values and norms favoring men
It is point B that many feminists never bother to try to prove in their discussions about patriarchy.
The simple fact is, it is incredibly hard to find *systemic* discrimination against women by *the establishment* that holds a candle to the discrimination the establishment lays against men.
Also, I must say that I believe in a world where feminism is no longer (if at all) needed as there is no bogotry and oppression. I do assume that you would support unity and mutual respect?
Unfortunately I think that you and ArgusEyes do not help that aim, if in fact you do seek it. You are both clearly seasoned debaters, the overtone of what you say though comes across as very hostile. While I respect your right to hold your views, I do not feel that your hostility is helping matters.
I don't see why feminists and men's rights activists cannot work alongside one another to achieve a unified society, seeing as we both share an interest in creating an equal society. Unfortunately, ArgusEyes is not an MRA, despite his own assertions. He has no videos on issues effecting men. He is simply an anti-feminist who views women's drive for equality as detrimental to his own position.
He doesn't seem to recognise that it is the insititution which causes his grievances, not feminists.
With the whole thing about how only a fifth of the House of Commons is female, this is in no way sexist. The MPs face two hurddles, the Party, then the constituents. In both cases they face mixed voters. If there is discrimination its usually in favour of women.
With the women only shortlists things (undiluted sexism, shouldn't feminists be against that?) It came out that 30% of candidates are woment, and 30% of MPs are women. If there is a problem then it is that not enough women are standing.
Yes, but I think that all too often this is put down to an idea that this is because women are somehow biologically disinclined to engage with politics without any examination of what might be causing such a psychological effect (such as the fact that it is more difficult for women to enter politics because they are moving against the norm).
Arguing that for example females being more talkative than men can be a result of social norms and thus does not prove any inherent differences is a valid argument for once. However, this observation does not falsify said argument either. His underlying argument is that men and women are different not just on a physical scale but with their mental faculties as well.
Your underlying proposition is that men and women aren't different with regards to their mental faculties and that all observable differences are due to societal norms. This is not a falsifiable argument and thus not scientific, since it is impossible to negate societal norms from human development altogether.
However in the scientific, statistical analysis of data, the same societal norms themselves can also be investigated and used to correct discrete measurements in behavioral differences. As a result it is possible, with some scientific credulity, to argue whether there are underlying differences or not.
Your rejection of what every credible study on the subject has come up with is not based in scientific skepticism, but due to a dogmatic belief in tabula rasa.
Oh my Goddess! That was absolutely excellent. Argus continually encounters bright, intelligent women which he quickly chuffs off by saying he won't even stoop to argue with them because they're so unintelligent. Oh Boundless, you're my heroine!
Patriarchy is not a hard concept, what is wrong with this boy ? You are right men still hold most of the power. A bad idea. One hopes that this will pass. Good post. I think it's endemic stupidity.
And I'm a guy. It 's not rocket science is it.
Capitalist hegemonies such too.
Adorno and the Frankfurt school had quite a bit to say about this. But gender and genes are recent concepts and are not well treated as yet.
this video didn't comment on argue eyes other points like the fact womens choices atribute to their lifes outcome. you need to refute all his points not just one. also at the end you claim victory by saying that you won't make any more video reponses but you have sadly failed.
It's also pretty ridiculous that he quotes Dennis Prager as an authority on this issue. He is just an American conservative talk show host, hardly what one would call an expert or even an objective source.
It seems to me that patriarchy means that it is necessary (i.e. the law) for a predominance of men, not simply that it occurs that way. You say the leader of a country is above other leaders, who are above the general population. You describe it like a dicatorship. A democracy is when the leader is supported by the general population. Don't like the leaders? Stop supporting them.
Women are ok, I see 'women' as people.... they can do what they want... really they can. and can have an advantage in many roles and areas why is their so much hate and nastyness here..... :(
My granny was a magnificent person she dedicated herself to nurturing, to building personalitys and making her kids feel safe, strong and comforted. She never worked but she is a hero to me a massive influence to my life and I destest that any man or woman would disrespect her role.
but cultural norms don' favour men eg the Family Court
here the wimyn generally get the issue of the marital assets his kids and on going peonage dues eg maintenance
men are in positions of power and influence because they dedicated their lives in attaining thier status wimyn however are shoehorned ot advantage through quota and affirmative action
this feminits like all others chatter spiel to support thier dereistic pipe dreams
According to polls here in the USA, about 20% of all women want full-time careers, 60% want jobs but not careers and 20% want to be full-time mommies. Considering that 40 years ago the majority of middle class women of child-rearing age were stay-at-homes, it would seem that it's the 20% holding out who are resisting societal trends and pressures.
And if the figures for female work-related desire are roughly the same in GB, then 19% female MPs would be just about right.
Those trends demonstrate the results, in part, of a sexist socialisation. I see no reason why a woman with children can't be an MP. I mean, Obama has two kids, right?
Whatever US trends exist that are derived from sexist socialization can now be accredited to women. The trend of today is that being a homemaker/mom is a "patriarchal" construct, forced to keep women in the home, on a leash, etc. Modern feminists -- like yourself -- claim they know what's best for other women and look down on the ones who have openly embraced motherhood. In you're eyes, they're making a silly, wrong decision.
Claim oppression all you want, but a lot of it comes from your end.
I'm a woman who's "openly embraced motherhood." I made tremendous professional and financial sacrifices to stay home for years & raise my daughter, because that's what children need.
BUT YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME.
I don't find adversaries among "modern feminists." It's conservative women who are stabbing me in the back at every turn, supporting public policies that favor corporations over people and families. Feminists fight for things that matter to mothers & children.
You must not live anywhere like or close to San Francisco or Berkeley. I think the feminists you refer to/side with are more conservative feminists -- which I do agree with.
Modern feminism, however, is a completely different story. And if you would like to see the forefront of it, then come to SF, please...
And you're right, I don't speak for you. And Frankly, I couldn't care less. Sorry. I'm merely against feminism, not FOR motherhood. I was just making a point against the former.
EyeLean, so pleased that you recognise that. In fact, one of my main drives is to achieve free childcare single mothers and those mothers in relationships who necessarily need to work. Women are being crippled by childcare costs which almost make it worthwhile to sit on state funding rather than working because you end up just as poor, but with more time with your children.
I'm not too familiar with British government but don't you vote for members of parliament? Wouldn't that mean that the women in Britain are voting for those men as well? or that maybe there just aren't as many women who choose to run in the election?
Yes, perhaps because the perception that there are no female candidates leads to a stereotype of men as better leaders. Otherwise why WOULDN'T women want to lead? They're perfectly able.
Your suggestion is patronising because it suggests women do not wish to enter politics. This is obviously incorrect. And yet still the stereotype prevails. *sigh*
Just because a person is capable of doing something doesn't mean that they are going to WANT to do it. For example, I'm perfectly capable of becoming an engineer, but it's just not a field that I want to go into. (I'm a man but the idea is the same).
I disagree with this too. My mother gave up her job of choice to raise me and my siblings. She decided to do it and after she was happy with it after a decade she went back to work. A crazy person once said that no woman should have the choice to be a stay at home mom, because to many would make that choice. This confuses me, as they would make the choice for themselves. I also know a few stay at home dads with small part time jobs who decided with the spouse they would stay at home for the kids
'Choice' is a very loaded word, containing within many factors which are not immediately apparent. but I support your mother's choice and the choice of men who stay at home. I'm not arguing this in itself is oppression. I'm arguing that women are NOT free to make a 'choice' because of the heavy 'nurturing' socialisation, behavioural rewards for submission, and the media portrayal of dominant gender norms, male and female.
I disagree here too. Choice is a loaded word if you mean the ability to make choices without outside pressure. This is an impossible standard for any person, much less group, to strive for. I understand where your coming from I just don't agree with it. Yes, if it was so heavily indoctrinated that you are less of a person because you don't stay at home with your kids, I would agree ,but its not the case. IE. a slave has a choice, continue to be a slave or escape/revolt/die. It's still choice.
That's true, but other free persons have a right to view the slave and try to help or not.
Also the slave has a right to protest.
These are the only rights I am exercising here.
It's a matter of opinion what pressures are on women to conform. For instance, I keep saying I don't want kids, and everyone keeps telling me I 'will when I grow up' as though a 22 yr old woman cannot have a complete aversion to child rearing without being naive.
That said, I'm not sure how useful it is to argue about who is more "oppressed" than whom. On a side-note, I think the gay rights movement is doing more to help straight men than most people realize. Since the threat of being considered homosexual is (imo) the largest cudgel used to keep straight men firmly in their gender role, and the gay rights movement is helping to remove the stigma on homosexuality, it is in effect helping to neutralize coercive gender roles for men.
I don't know why you say we can't evaluate the claim that men have farther to go with respect to freeing themselves from coercive gender roles than women. We can know this in the same way that women could know they were oppressed at the beginning of the feminist movement. That is, one can look at objective facts. Using accepted methods for conducting sociological and psychological tests, and by analyzing laws that seem to favor one sex over another, we can judge which sex has farther to go.
At the start you say how most MPs are men so it's a patriarchy. But men and women both vote, more women than men in fact, so if more men are being chosen by both sexes it's not just men's power - it's power given to those ruling men by everyone. Also the laws those men pass - they don't favor men in divorce, child custody or any other social area, wouldn't they do so in a patriarchy? Surely the content of the laws is more revelant to whether it's a patriarchy or not than the sex of the MPs.
Until men are free to choose to either work or stay home with the children without fear of social stigma, women will not have complete freedom of choice either. Someone has to take care of the kids, and if men have no choice but to work, women will be expected to fulfill this role (even if they also work). In this way, male and female gender roles are linked. You can't end coercive gender roles for women without doing likewise for men, and men have much farther to go at the moment.
I agree with everything you say here until the last line. I'm not sure how one judges this part "and men have much farther to go at the moment." without comparing subjective experiences, which is unscientific.
At the moment data seems to point in many areas to discrimination of one or the other based on sex.
Lastly, both men and women participate in socialization. Women select for certain traits in men, as do men with women. Children are socialized by both men and women to continue in this way. This is a cycle, and I'm not sure why you feel that men are more responsible for it than women. I support the feminist project of abolishing social stigma enforced gender roles, however I think we should realize that men are still mired in traditional gender roles, even as womens' roles have loosened.
You talk about socialization that "cannot be said to be natural". I really don't understand what you mean by "natural". Humans are social creatures. We have always lived in some sort of society, so your idea of a "natural" human free of the influence of socialization is an entirely hypothetical entity. You assert that the studies he cites are irrelevant because all participants were socialized, but this makes your position unfalsifiable.
i'll start believing socialisation when i see it applied and working for all types of creatures/animals. If you can teach my grans pet poodle to speak that would be a start. pet dogs much be the most domesticated animals around. My gran has been treating her poodle like a human being forever and ever and still has never show human traits in anyway. Still acts like a pact animal since the day it was a poodle. Scooby Doo is not a case in point btw.
Judging from your comment ratings, you have many viewers who disagree with your position *and* take the time to vote down the comments they don't like (just pointig out the obvious here).
Patriarchy is not a the name of a form of opression exerted by men over women. It's exerted mainly by men (but with the active participation of many women) over women, specially, but also on men.
Yeah ofcourse its not. My examples are all wrong arent they. See this what Im talking about when it coems to arguing. You feminist and manginas always just disagree without any proper reasoning other then that you dont like. If i went up and punched you in the face Gilles you'd probably get the message. When i insight violence its bad but when I argue with you people I cant win because it on your terms. The only thing i can really pout of that argument is that you believe the only way the world
.. will be equal is under a matriarchal society where women have total and utter control because even when they do in this society its not good enough. So yeah you've pretty unearthed and disproved everything feminism stands for and what you think you believe in. Be sure to wash the keyboard down with detergent before anyone else uses it.
And by the way, reports on Gilles de Rais being a rapist and a murderer (and a Satanist) come form his Catholic Inquisition trial, which is not the best source, don't you think?
For me Gilles de Rais is the symbol of a different form of masculinity: a strong man who wasn't afraid of being under the orders of an even stronger woman, as you mention he has Joan of Arc's bodyguard. My nickname is also an hommage to him.
DibleyParty, I don't know how to explain things to you if you have trouble differentiating between opinion and a claim about reality, if you don't know that when she said "we don't know" was actually a very useful and topical point of argumentation, if you don't understand that any perceived "pomposity, anger, defiance" has no bearing upon the truth of her arguments or the goodness of her ideals, if you don't understand that arguing against someone's points and then calling
...them a name simply is not an ad hominem attack, and if you are apparently incapable of understanding that a multifaceted political movement/belief system simply isn't the type of thing that any adherent of can speak for on every point brought on by any other adherent (any more than I can as a feminist myself).
Sorry Dibley, but you didn't convince me of your position at all -- all I could gather is that you feel terribly threatened by feminists and you don't have good comprehension skills.
in essence be discriminating against her because she chose to be a stay at home mother.
And don't tell me they don't exist because my mother lost half her friends when she decided to abandon her career as a Wren and have me instead. They belittled her and turned their backs on her because she chose not to abort me.
Both women and men should be permitted to make their own choice about how to live their lives without undue pressure from ANYONE.
I absolutely agree. But I do not feel that when YOUR life choice is presented as the most prevalent and natural, that women are able to make a decision without undue pressure.
We are arguing for the same thing. Women's right to free choice without undue social pressures.
Socialisation which can not be said to be natural does not allow women to make a free choice based on their natural desire, it skews it to become the only acceptable option.
Okay, I may well be missing the point here, but I'm running on about three hours sleep in the past seventy two and the scrapings from the bottom of the coffee jar, so if I do, please be kind.
"Socialisation which can not be said to be natural does not allow women to make a free choice based on their natural desire,"
If I understand you, I gotta say that Socialisation is natural. We are evolved social creatures and we get it nautrally. I'd say we are able to choose its forms and strictures ...
So we can, with effort, change the shape and impact of that socialisation but we cannot get rid of it.
Even if we make everything perfectly equal without any expectations based on gender, race, class or creed, that structure would still be an artificial construct... even though the presesnce of the socialisation would be natural.
So long as no one is me to do what I don't want to do and everyone is treat the same as me, I'm gonna say we can accept the social construct as a work in progress.
"All that I have done is not against Youtube rules, BUT, you swearing, writing "f--k off" and calling me directly an "a--hole." Those are reportable offenses. Oh how delicious it is...tss tss tss. When shall I report you for abusive language. Now, or shall I make you wait, wondering when it is coming. You realize I have thirty days to report it. Maybe I'll keep it back a few days... (cont)
hen once you post some new clip your proud of I'll have you suspended for your foul language... oh it is sweet... tick tock tick tock tick tock......."
After recieving this email I have blocked this user, having no cause to further interact with such tactics.
It is clear that willmprise is attempting to bury many reasonable arguments under a barrage of his own. I will consider blocking you if you will not consider be more moderate in your wordcount, because you are censoring many others in this way.
Feel free to comment, but do so in one or two boxes, not long rampages of 5 or 6 all repeating how discredited I am by telling you, a single commenter, to fuck off.
I do not think this style demonstrates a rational approach.
If you support me and our children, I will more then willingly be barefoot, washing the dishes and laundry and raise our children. No problem here. I'll even let you beet me every so often. I'm into s&m.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable choice for a couple to make, but I'm sorry you felt it necessary to equate this with submission. If so you must surely recognise that the vast maority of homekeepers being women represents a mass submission, and therefore that I may have a strong point when I consider the manner in which we socialise gender roles, seeing as it means my sex are more likely to have to live in submission.
I just seem various angles of confusion and anger coming from you. Why are you angry? What do you have to be angry about? Your young, healthy, white, born in one of the most powerful nations in history, no fear of starvation ,little fear of disease, little fear of invasion. Why be so angry. I'm not angry. Is it that you are simply projecting your internal discomfort upon the rest of the world. And by the way, what are you academic credentials IF YOU ARE STILL IN SCHOOL. None yet right.
This is why it is necessary for me to point to the field of social psychology, the scientific study of effects of gender stereotypes etc, and not just bow under the accusation that because I am angry about my oppression my opinions are less valid.
Anyone wishing to review scientific evidence can clearly see a large body of understanding in regards to this. I should not have to reprove what has been proved in a youtube video to an asshole for that to be fact.
The studies she cites are not feminist. In fact, she provides stong evidence for MEN being oppressed by their gender role when she provides as evidence a study concerning the effect of damage caused to boy who do not conform. In my view this is perfectly fair and balanced.
Both men and women have an interest in recognising the harmful effects of the gender norms we do not question. Men's Rights in the custody courts have an interest in demonstrating that men are equally good parents.
No, I'm not. But the scientists I clearly referenced are not acting under some feminist conspiracy. They are acting under objective observation.
I repeat, proof of normative pressure and informational influence should not be disregarded as unscientific. Controls on such experiments are rigourously policed and later peer reviewed.
It is not arrogant of me to have an education in the reality of the situation and to present it.
Not only illogical, not only morally flawed, BUT FOUL MOUTHED TOO. What a good example of an intelligent adult. How often did Marx, Freud, Aristotle, Hawthorne retort with F--K OFF. The intellectual elite don't swear like that. The groundlings, the fools do. Oh wait... what if the F word was first forged by a man, could you still use it. What about the alphabet, would you give yourself permission to speak in the language invented by MALES. Your response will be on a male invention.
Also she is at University which was invented and built by men, she drives her car to school, men. I see that she wears clothes, men again. Probably wears a bra, man invented. Hmm. Looks like its necessary to CONSUME THE THINGS THAT MEN CREATE. So to say that one is unwilling to consume the WORDS of men is as foolish as saying it over the INTERNET, A MALE CREATION. So hold to your value system and disconnect from this MALE CREATION. Good luck with existing in a world of male invention.
This completely disrespects the important role women have played historically, seeks to remove an entire half of the population of their true history, and suggests that the effects of chauvanism are the cause.
This is truly pathetic. You are not a respected academic so your words mean nothing. This is why you should fuck off and bother a more subservient woman.
nor buy and use a handgun, nor work in a building mostly built by men, some of whom died while building it, nor live in her house mostly bulit by men, some of whom may have died building, nor live in her country won on the deaths of men and fought for mostly by men. She claims that she is not willing to CONSUME THE WORDS OF MEN, BUT SHE IS WILLING TO CONSUME THE PRODUCTS OF MEN'S LABOR. Logically flawed much. Hold to your inability to consume male things and go homeless.
you can't force people into positions of power they don't want and with the lastest Expenses witch hut would you be suprised.
When MPs are questioned when and why they got into politics they tend to say something like to affect the world for good change. When i see people that don't get into politics that could i see people(women) that clearly didn't have it in them to affect the world for good change.
head of home being the father? please acquaint yourself with women and Authority by Maxine Hanks where influential Authority is discussed. A social construct so you should like it.
democracy = patriachy
In what realm of existence is that true?
Apparently with the greater female population in the UK you still can't vote in more people. I see that as a deficient voting public.
Whenever you or one of your ilk is asked to list laws favouring men you come up blank time and time again.
Women are human and thus susceptible to socialisation as men are. If the dominant discourse in socialising women is to believe they don't make good leaders, they are not as likely to vote for a woman. This also obviously impacts on the likelyhood of men to vote a woman.
I'm sure many more women would be both voted and successful in politics were they not taught from a young age that they are gentle, and not passionate in matters of politics, which is a 'men's' sphere because it is 4/5s male.
it is interesting to see your slide with the definations of patriachy.
without listing them:
2.a i didn't realise that the PM was organised via oldest male decendent. Who is Margaret Thatcher the Male decendent of?(Argus addressed this already)
government or rule by a man or men?
So it isn't HER MAJESTY the QUEENS GOVERNMENT. I'll have to remember that.
3 You have failed to prove that rule favours men. I gave an example of the OLD Bailey 1820 favouring Women.
I clearly claimed to be using the third definition of patriarchy so your attack on our society not meeting the qualification of the second is irrelevant.
I proved that government of the country is overwhelmingly male. That fits accurately with the third definition.
Furthermore, the prevalence of women taking men's surnames in marriage etc suggest that it is accurate to refer to dominant patriarchal values in our society.
If you're taking about my video, then I was clearly using the third definition of patriarchy which makes no mention of decent through male lines.
However is is debateable what makes someone HAVE to do something, such as fear of social disapproval, working against norms etc and an ingrained belief that descent IS somehow through male lineage despite women being the ones who actually give their bodies to the cause.
The fact I was born a man doesn't mean I have to hunt and conquer women.
If (as some of the youtubers here or as biolgists like Steven Goldberg say) Patriarchy necessarily followed from our nature, from our biological bagagge as a species and as individuals, then we should have to REBEL against nature. But there's a bias here, some scientist think nature is just made of facts, (a machista point of view) but Nature is also made of possibilities.
BoundlessEyes, I'm a 28yo man, I live in Mexico, here 7 of every 10 women have been physically abused by men, in my life I see everyday strong intelligent women being humiliated, repressed, raped; the legal authorities in my country are about to face a Trial for Human Rights Violations on Ciudad Juarez, women are killed and raped just for the pleasure of it, and then a moron comes and says Feminism is a conspiracy theory? Please, don't lower yourself debating such people.
Such people need to be shown, at least to one or two of their subs, that they do not hold all of the answers as they purport to do. Some of the people watching his videos might not be sure, it is those people who it is worth trying to reach.
patriarchy developed out of material conditions. The domestication of cattle and the agricultural revolution brought about massive changes in how humans distributed property, it became private and in the hands of the male, whereas before property was communal and matrilineal. You still see in certain cultures that lack private property a matriarchal structure and egalitarian relations between the sexes.
People like philosopher John Zerzan and SciFi writer Robert Sawyer argue that agircultural civilization weren't a necessary develpment. but rather a praxis, a practice thougt thrugh and with a purpose, a wrong one.
There are other possibilties. Ivan Illich argues similar things, a radical change in our so called civilization: in our technology, politics in our relations with the natural world and in our spiritual life. That's Feminism, the most encompassing social theory and movement today.
I think Feminism is a compex debate, some things called feminism are not it at all, and Feminism (and all Identity Polticis) becomes a new opium for the people when not grounded in a solid Political Economy Theory.
Sexual politics are actively repressed in Political Economic theory because of the pervasive 'naturalness' of our stereotypical gender roles, and a refusal to recognise the substantial differencs in our socialisation of men and women. We are attributing as biological the effects of our creations, without any scientific reason to do so, despite the fact that men and women develop from something foetally identical in their early stages, etc., the only differences being in modes of reproduction.
Sometimes I don't know whether to feel sorry for your future husband, or to bow down to him for having the most classy intelligent woman in all of Europe. It's always a tough decision, and I lean more to the latter. :)
I don't think they are trying to... atleast not the smart ones.
You can split feminists into two groups - the ones that applaud a woman for choosing to raise her kids as a stay-at-home mum with the dad as a 'bread winner' and the ones who vilify her for it.
Note, the woman chooses that life, she is not forced into it.
The first bunch are fine and noble and I count myself among them. The second have missed the point.
I may give a Video response to this at a later date.
If anyone wants to know if behavior or anything else for that matter is Societal or Genetic based all one must do is simply find out if its (Local or Global). The basic Male/Female Dynamic ~ A.K.A. ~ Gender Roles are for the most part Universal with some minor differences of course which means it cant be Societal considering all of the different Socities involved.
Lastly I dont like the dishonest way you edited his speech at the end.
It's not dishonest if I don't claim anything by it. I simply edited his speech demonstrating the passionate hatred of his argument to dispel later claims that I was somehow cowed under a superior argument causing me to flee.
Hmmm... did you happen to notice the volume of comments ArgusEyes left here and elsewhere on Boundless videos? If you think it is possible to even begin to address what makes Argus a misogynist in 500 characters it is you who are divorced from reality. Aside from that I think his comments scream his bigotry on their own... It would be redundant for me to point it out. But bigots like you and he find comfort in your denial so... have it. The truth is women are not treated socially equal to men
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that ArgusEyes is incapable of responding to her points because they're just a matter of opinion?
Maybe you didn't watch the videos all the way, but she made a number of points that weren't opinion, but obvious fact (and the consideration of said facts should have kept ArgusEyes from making many of the points he did.
It seems to me that a sense of victimization may become important somehow to those being victimized. Of course I could be completely off base with my reasoning there . I could not even begin to list mentally the positive social advancements that have arisen as a response to a sense of victimization.
Great video but I'm really confused. Why does ArgusEyes ignore points you have already made (such as the fact that gender roles are a result of societal pressures, and no one ), when your points obviously have a great deal of bearing upon his later replies?
Does ArgusEyes have a memory problem and simply can't focus long enough, or maybe he's just stupid, or maybe he's just dishonest?
"Does ArgusEyes have a memory problem and simply can't focus long enough, or maybe he's just stupid, or maybe he's just dishonest?"
I think he is intellectually dishonest, but he's lying to himself too. If he had to acknowledge reality he'd have to admit to himself that he's a bigot.
so true he is a bigot...the thing about with die-hard bigots is that they don't realize their overly extreme bias against women. I'm bias against men true but I don't hate them. YES I DO HATE some of their terrible characteristics but hey! you deal.
Althought there is a distinct lack of women in parliment, the problem is the women in political power are useless at their job, whether this is through the fact that only people who can do very little else go into politics or some other reason. Wouldn't it be better to get the same number of women in parliment as there is now but employ those who could fulfill the criteria of the job. It would also be nice if all the male MPs followed suit in this
Blocking jerks isn't censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from having their say. The other guy's right to speak his mind doesn't obligate you to provide him with yourself as an audience.
"he other guy's right to speak his mind doesn't obligate you to provide him with yourself as an audience."
She obligates herself. It's an intellectual war and she's put herself on the front lines. What's the point in pretending there aren't misogynists like ArgusEyes out there? What's the point in ignoring him when his ilk are the reason she speaks out in the first place? No, she doesn't deserve to hear such hateful speech... but that's the point.
history doesn't suppport that either. google something like "neolithic women" or "women of the stone age" or something like that and you might learn something. 10,000 BCE.
right to do so because of their victimhood, who think like you do that it's all about the socialisation they have suffered and that they have no say in it, people who had the absolute assurance that they were right. Needless to say, worthless individuals are the ones who are most susceptible to doing this, that would be you Jess.
Your socialization theory insinuates that ALL INVENTION then must be socialized. Where then does invention come from? Often invention is counter to socialization, scientific discovery works against the norm, the society, the socialization ... think of galileo, think of kepler. They INVENTED AGAINST THE NORM, They invented against the socialization. Your ONLY SOCIALIZATION THEORY IS tremendously flawed. At a time when record females are going to college, new billionaires, google, are male
I am the first to claim and demonstrate that socialisation is by no means immuteable. I was showing Argus that the fact that you see tendencies doesn't necessarily demonstrate a biological link. It could just as possibly and more so in my opinion be the effect of a shared socialisation/
Here's you logical flaw. You claim that nazi's are evil because their government taught them to be evil.
The nazi's gassed people. This was not taught because it was not EVER done before in large chambers. From where then did this ability to GAS come from. Independent intelligence? The nazi's had the free will to gas, not being taught, but being invented, thus they invented NEW evil forms that were SOCIALIZED BY them. Cheap poison gasses showed up only around 1930 by germans.
Not at all, I claim the nazi's were acting under massive brainwashing. Let me now clarify that I mean ideological brainwashing. Actions and motives stem from ideology but are not ideology in themselves, they are actions.
Under your method of thinking The nazi's could not have been socialized because they performed actions outside of ANY SOCIALIZATION. The nazi's GASSED people in chambers, thus having never been done before you are assuming then that it could not be done, meaning the only way that they could gas people in chambers was by being taught to gas people in chambers "by their government" They were the first to do it, thus proving THEY INVENTED IT. You are claiming people can only do what is taught
The Nazis have irrevocably been shown to be acting under brainwashing. I do not allow comments to educate me beyond the realms of my formal education. Sorry.
Your both taking segments and quotes from each others videos and placing them out of context.
But I have to go with ArgusEyes more, the rise of feminism has become something of a cult to hate on all men, a movement that has risen from past female oppression and something that non sexist men have to suffer from as a result.
History has been misogynistic, but it's getting to the point of generalising men as a species of evil in the present day and WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT'S MISTAKES.
Muskateering 6 days ago
Re: Patriarchy definition. You broke a single definition down into two separate and distinct factors, but they are not separate and distinct. You pretend that because men are predominant in government, thus meeting the first portion, that legitimizes your claim, but it is not a patriarchy, because the cultural and social norms represented by those predominantly male government officials are not for the benefit of men, but rather, women, as evidenced by the single-minded focus on female concerns.
MNeilGri 1 month ago
@MNeilGri You then proceed to demonstrates examples where you perceive women are exploited or don't maintain the level of independence you would wish, but you fail to even examine what men have and/or endure. How can you claim cultural norms favor men when you only examine what you claim not to have, and ignore examining what you do have, what men have and what men don't have. You're not even looking at half the picture, let alone the whole thing. And you believe this is honest?
MNeilGri 1 month ago
Instead of a man against women fight, I see it as more a class war in the past and still today. Countless men were oppressed as well as women. The trouble is most feminist don't see it this way. They are all too happy to play into a victimization role. The upper crust elites bankrolled this movement to drive a wedge between the sexes. A way to further distance themselves between us and them, and returning back to a feudal way of life. Almost all minorities and women's groups have been co-opted.
TheAdept33 5 months ago
If it weren't for "Patriarchy" your bitch ass wouldn't have anything of civilization to begin with. Now get back in the kitchen where you belong.
JesusManson323 7 months ago
@JesusManson323 Lol, inferiority complex.
BoundlessEyes 7 months ago
Interesting points you make, I think you and Argus would make a great couple. But what I do find odd is that whilst men went out and took power, forged there futures and progressed society along the way (and some women did as well, a select few), you seem to think a few youtube videos is enough. So we fight to the death for it, you make an account on a website. Interesting...
Malusdarkblade 1 year ago
@Malusdarkblade I think you're a little misinformed about the history of gender relations. Men did not simply rise naturally to the forefront of the development of society because they had greater ingenuity or intellect, for example. In fact for hundreds of years men actively prevented women from entering education, or having political power, or holding stations outside of the home. I'd be interested to know how much men would have achieved without basic literacy and numeracy, and 14 children.
BoundlessEyes 1 year ago
@BoundlessEyes
The winner of a fight is the one most able to fight. If women were at disadvantaged, then by whom? if it was men, then men must have had something they could use to control the females. Truth is, its a myth that women were kept under whilst men lived it up large. Most humans, of both sexes, lived in slavery and poverty.
Malusdarkblade 1 year ago
@Malusdarkblade Men had lots of means of controlling women. Take their physical strength over women, women's lack of access to contraception, women being denied the vote or the legal means to own property, male domination of eduction and politics, male domination of the means of state violence - the military, the police - as well as a little known book called the BIBLE which was enforced by a death penalty. You want to go back to living in a Shariah country? You people are 200 years late.
BoundlessEyes 1 year ago
I like you.
I just watched most of that exchange, and read back through Arguseyes' transcript of his video (I found this by typing 'feminism is a sham' into google.. trying to find a couterargument for an essay)
He's an idoit. Don't bother, I tried to write up a logical response, but got bored and gave up. Well done to you for keeping your head. I just wish you'd owned him more on his argument about biology and women having bigger vocabularies. That really made me chuckle.
blue89shoes 2 years ago
It's confusing to talk about wanting to block someone who you took a big step into furthering communications with by adding a video response in the first place :) Of course, one could simply ignore without blocking, as blocking is to prevent spammers.
tyciol 2 years ago
I am with you, I do believe it is women who say that " It takes a real man to support his Children " . What they refer to is money. That is not saying guys shouldnt help. For me as a guy , sometimes thing might get tough finicially, I may not have enough money to offer the children, but it shouldnt be said that I am a dead beat dad. To me as a guy, offering my children wisdom, love and compassion makes me as much of man as any child support payment or alomony
orgasmtron1 2 years ago
Would femminist rather men didn't exist. I stay away from women they scare me.
anticapitalist1777 2 years ago
In other words you have nothing to blame but patriarchy itself if men are not viewed as competent care givers. That role was assigned to women before women had the right to exist as legal persons, see "coverture". The role of care giving has been devalued, if you want it then why not work on changing the way men are viewed, maybe by becoming the primary care giver rather than whining about feminism.
If more men were primary care givers in marriage there might be more outside of it, simple.
nagaLilith 2 years ago
And of course none of this has anything to do with how men are socialized or the long history of forcing women to remain at home caring for children.
Newsflash, women were considered the primary caregiver long before feminism had been imagined. This was used to keep women out of power, no votes, no paid work, etc. Single fathers were rare before feminism.
The difference feminism made was extending the right of divorce to women and giving women the right to hold property in marriage.
nagaLilith 2 years ago
@nagaLilith So what's your point?
luvkrafft 1 year ago
Oh dear. It looks like that guy pissed you off proper.
yanikv 2 years ago
I remember very well when a man pushing a stroller was considered an emasculated clown. Fathers were remote disciplinarians in a lot of families and it's heartbreaking to hear people of my generation say they hate (really do hate) their fathers.
Nowadays, fathers are more relaxed and loving. No one thinks twice about who's pushing the stroller, changing the diaper, kissing the boo-boo. I think many fathers today have much happier relationships with their families - thanks to feminism.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
@EyeLean5280 My father was definitely pushed out by my mother and her family, so they made me choose alliances. Naturally, I declared loyalty to he whose blood flows in me.
So those pansy fathers you mention are likely kept in line by feminism. Don't believe me? Then ask the male next chance you get whether he feels he truly has the power over his wife/girlfriend or whether he has acceded to her entitlement.
luvkrafft 1 year ago
Jabes, while I do agree that it is not a good idea for a woman to try to raise children on her own if she has any choice and that for a while feminism had some women glossing over how difficult and non-ideal single motherhood is, there is another side as well.
As a middle-aged person I remember very clearly the arguments feminists made for MORE involvement & intimacy from fathers, that being emotionally engaged would be liberating for men, as would equality for women.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
Partriarchy as the definition rolls out in the dictionary definition actually has two portions:
A) that most in power are male and
B) with cultural values and norms favoring men
It is point B that many feminists never bother to try to prove in their discussions about patriarchy.
The simple fact is, it is incredibly hard to find *systemic* discrimination against women by *the establishment* that holds a candle to the discrimination the establishment lays against men.
Jabes1966 2 years ago
Also, I must say that I believe in a world where feminism is no longer (if at all) needed as there is no bogotry and oppression. I do assume that you would support unity and mutual respect?
Unfortunately I think that you and ArgusEyes do not help that aim, if in fact you do seek it. You are both clearly seasoned debaters, the overtone of what you say though comes across as very hostile. While I respect your right to hold your views, I do not feel that your hostility is helping matters.
samuelchap 2 years ago
I don't see why feminists and men's rights activists cannot work alongside one another to achieve a unified society, seeing as we both share an interest in creating an equal society. Unfortunately, ArgusEyes is not an MRA, despite his own assertions. He has no videos on issues effecting men. He is simply an anti-feminist who views women's drive for equality as detrimental to his own position.
He doesn't seem to recognise that it is the insititution which causes his grievances, not feminists.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
With the whole thing about how only a fifth of the House of Commons is female, this is in no way sexist. The MPs face two hurddles, the Party, then the constituents. In both cases they face mixed voters. If there is discrimination its usually in favour of women.
With the women only shortlists things (undiluted sexism, shouldn't feminists be against that?) It came out that 30% of candidates are woment, and 30% of MPs are women. If there is a problem then it is that not enough women are standing.
samuelchap 2 years ago
Yes, but I think that all too often this is put down to an idea that this is because women are somehow biologically disinclined to engage with politics without any examination of what might be causing such a psychological effect (such as the fact that it is more difficult for women to enter politics because they are moving against the norm).
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
the sad thing though is that HIS fans are watching his vid and saying he owned you. but obviously havent watched your rebuttal
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ilikenuman 2 years ago
Arguing that for example females being more talkative than men can be a result of social norms and thus does not prove any inherent differences is a valid argument for once. However, this observation does not falsify said argument either. His underlying argument is that men and women are different not just on a physical scale but with their mental faculties as well.
InternetStudiesGuy 2 years ago
Your underlying proposition is that men and women aren't different with regards to their mental faculties and that all observable differences are due to societal norms. This is not a falsifiable argument and thus not scientific, since it is impossible to negate societal norms from human development altogether.
InternetStudiesGuy 2 years ago
However in the scientific, statistical analysis of data, the same societal norms themselves can also be investigated and used to correct discrete measurements in behavioral differences. As a result it is possible, with some scientific credulity, to argue whether there are underlying differences or not.
Your rejection of what every credible study on the subject has come up with is not based in scientific skepticism, but due to a dogmatic belief in tabula rasa.
TL;DR: You suck at science & math.
InternetStudiesGuy 2 years ago
Oh my Goddess! That was absolutely excellent. Argus continually encounters bright, intelligent women which he quickly chuffs off by saying he won't even stoop to argue with them because they're so unintelligent. Oh Boundless, you're my heroine!
DianaBoston 2 years ago
The transparency of evil.. Baudrilard..(Sp.) Oooh he called you sexist.
'Reeks of' is not a logical disjunction. Do we think he knows this ?
Argus.. the guy with 100 eyes, ya think he means he's perceptive ?
faunflynn 2 years ago
Patriarchy is not a hard concept, what is wrong with this boy ? You are right men still hold most of the power. A bad idea. One hopes that this will pass. Good post. I think it's endemic stupidity.
And I'm a guy. It 's not rocket science is it.
Capitalist hegemonies such too.
Adorno and the Frankfurt school had quite a bit to say about this. But gender and genes are recent concepts and are not well treated as yet.
Well, they are ,but recently.
Wilson's sociobiology et al.
faunflynn 2 years ago
this video didn't comment on argue eyes other points like the fact womens choices atribute to their lifes outcome. you need to refute all his points not just one. also at the end you claim victory by saying that you won't make any more video reponses but you have sadly failed.
robtherobber 2 years ago
It's also pretty ridiculous that he quotes Dennis Prager as an authority on this issue. He is just an American conservative talk show host, hardly what one would call an expert or even an objective source.
RayBobb 2 years ago
It seems to me that patriarchy means that it is necessary (i.e. the law) for a predominance of men, not simply that it occurs that way. You say the leader of a country is above other leaders, who are above the general population. You describe it like a dicatorship. A democracy is when the leader is supported by the general population. Don't like the leaders? Stop supporting them.
alphayt 2 years ago
What is this?
Women are ok, I see 'women' as people.... they can do what they want... really they can. and can have an advantage in many roles and areas why is their so much hate and nastyness here..... :(
My granny was a magnificent person she dedicated herself to nurturing, to building personalitys and making her kids feel safe, strong and comforted. She never worked but she is a hero to me a massive influence to my life and I destest that any man or woman would disrespect her role.
strunway 2 years ago
but cultural norms don' favour men eg the Family Court
here the wimyn generally get the issue of the marital assets his kids and on going peonage dues eg maintenance
men are in positions of power and influence because they dedicated their lives in attaining thier status wimyn however are shoehorned ot advantage through quota and affirmative action
this feminits like all others chatter spiel to support thier dereistic pipe dreams
and why are feminits ugly
shazam20007 2 years ago
BoundlessEyes,
According to polls here in the USA, about 20% of all women want full-time careers, 60% want jobs but not careers and 20% want to be full-time mommies. Considering that 40 years ago the majority of middle class women of child-rearing age were stay-at-homes, it would seem that it's the 20% holding out who are resisting societal trends and pressures.
And if the figures for female work-related desire are roughly the same in GB, then 19% female MPs would be just about right.
braintree2 2 years ago
Those trends demonstrate the results, in part, of a sexist socialisation. I see no reason why a woman with children can't be an MP. I mean, Obama has two kids, right?
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Whatever US trends exist that are derived from sexist socialization can now be accredited to women. The trend of today is that being a homemaker/mom is a "patriarchal" construct, forced to keep women in the home, on a leash, etc. Modern feminists -- like yourself -- claim they know what's best for other women and look down on the ones who have openly embraced motherhood. In you're eyes, they're making a silly, wrong decision.
Claim oppression all you want, but a lot of it comes from your end.
Shaman145 2 years ago
Shaman145,
I'm a woman who's "openly embraced motherhood." I made tremendous professional and financial sacrifices to stay home for years & raise my daughter, because that's what children need.
BUT YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ME.
I don't find adversaries among "modern feminists." It's conservative women who are stabbing me in the back at every turn, supporting public policies that favor corporations over people and families. Feminists fight for things that matter to mothers & children.
EyeLean5280 2 years ago
You must not live anywhere like or close to San Francisco or Berkeley. I think the feminists you refer to/side with are more conservative feminists -- which I do agree with.
Modern feminism, however, is a completely different story. And if you would like to see the forefront of it, then come to SF, please...
And you're right, I don't speak for you. And Frankly, I couldn't care less. Sorry. I'm merely against feminism, not FOR motherhood. I was just making a point against the former.
Shaman145 2 years ago
EyeLean, so pleased that you recognise that. In fact, one of my main drives is to achieve free childcare single mothers and those mothers in relationships who necessarily need to work. Women are being crippled by childcare costs which almost make it worthwhile to sit on state funding rather than working because you end up just as poor, but with more time with your children.
I'm so pleased you feel that way.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Studies have shown the words-per-day stuff to be nonsense.
anonkip 2 years ago
You both talk in a very similar way ^^
x
Pagyptsian 2 years ago
I'm not too familiar with British government but don't you vote for members of parliament? Wouldn't that mean that the women in Britain are voting for those men as well? or that maybe there just aren't as many women who choose to run in the election?
JBuLLz69 2 years ago
Yes, perhaps because the perception that there are no female candidates leads to a stereotype of men as better leaders. Otherwise why WOULDN'T women want to lead? They're perfectly able.
Your suggestion is patronising because it suggests women do not wish to enter politics. This is obviously incorrect. And yet still the stereotype prevails. *sigh*
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Just because a person is capable of doing something doesn't mean that they are going to WANT to do it. For example, I'm perfectly capable of becoming an engineer, but it's just not a field that I want to go into. (I'm a man but the idea is the same).
JBuLLz69 2 years ago
I agree. But I have the same problem with the idea of ''wanting something'' without any external influence whatsoever.
Closing data trends would suggest it was not a lack of desire, but a lack of acceptance, which causes part of the observable gender gap.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Comment removed
DAC153 2 years ago
I disagree with this too. My mother gave up her job of choice to raise me and my siblings. She decided to do it and after she was happy with it after a decade she went back to work. A crazy person once said that no woman should have the choice to be a stay at home mom, because to many would make that choice. This confuses me, as they would make the choice for themselves. I also know a few stay at home dads with small part time jobs who decided with the spouse they would stay at home for the kids
Fuunken 2 years ago
'Choice' is a very loaded word, containing within many factors which are not immediately apparent. but I support your mother's choice and the choice of men who stay at home. I'm not arguing this in itself is oppression. I'm arguing that women are NOT free to make a 'choice' because of the heavy 'nurturing' socialisation, behavioural rewards for submission, and the media portrayal of dominant gender norms, male and female.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
I disagree here too. Choice is a loaded word if you mean the ability to make choices without outside pressure. This is an impossible standard for any person, much less group, to strive for. I understand where your coming from I just don't agree with it. Yes, if it was so heavily indoctrinated that you are less of a person because you don't stay at home with your kids, I would agree ,but its not the case. IE. a slave has a choice, continue to be a slave or escape/revolt/die. It's still choice.
Fuunken 2 years ago
That's true, but other free persons have a right to view the slave and try to help or not.
Also the slave has a right to protest.
These are the only rights I am exercising here.
It's a matter of opinion what pressures are on women to conform. For instance, I keep saying I don't want kids, and everyone keeps telling me I 'will when I grow up' as though a 22 yr old woman cannot have a complete aversion to child rearing without being naive.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
That said, I'm not sure how useful it is to argue about who is more "oppressed" than whom. On a side-note, I think the gay rights movement is doing more to help straight men than most people realize. Since the threat of being considered homosexual is (imo) the largest cudgel used to keep straight men firmly in their gender role, and the gay rights movement is helping to remove the stigma on homosexuality, it is in effect helping to neutralize coercive gender roles for men.
DAC153 2 years ago
Good point DAC153
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
I don't know why you say we can't evaluate the claim that men have farther to go with respect to freeing themselves from coercive gender roles than women. We can know this in the same way that women could know they were oppressed at the beginning of the feminist movement. That is, one can look at objective facts. Using accepted methods for conducting sociological and psychological tests, and by analyzing laws that seem to favor one sex over another, we can judge which sex has farther to go.
DAC153 2 years ago
At the start you say how most MPs are men so it's a patriarchy. But men and women both vote, more women than men in fact, so if more men are being chosen by both sexes it's not just men's power - it's power given to those ruling men by everyone. Also the laws those men pass - they don't favor men in divorce, child custody or any other social area, wouldn't they do so in a patriarchy? Surely the content of the laws is more revelant to whether it's a patriarchy or not than the sex of the MPs.
fuckfeministlies 2 years ago
a patriarchy as per the definition she cites as 3. a definition not found at the askoxford(.)com website.
java501 2 years ago
Until men are free to choose to either work or stay home with the children without fear of social stigma, women will not have complete freedom of choice either. Someone has to take care of the kids, and if men have no choice but to work, women will be expected to fulfill this role (even if they also work). In this way, male and female gender roles are linked. You can't end coercive gender roles for women without doing likewise for men, and men have much farther to go at the moment.
DAC153 2 years ago
I agree with everything you say here until the last line. I'm not sure how one judges this part "and men have much farther to go at the moment." without comparing subjective experiences, which is unscientific.
At the moment data seems to point in many areas to discrimination of one or the other based on sex.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Lastly, both men and women participate in socialization. Women select for certain traits in men, as do men with women. Children are socialized by both men and women to continue in this way. This is a cycle, and I'm not sure why you feel that men are more responsible for it than women. I support the feminist project of abolishing social stigma enforced gender roles, however I think we should realize that men are still mired in traditional gender roles, even as womens' roles have loosened.
DAC153 2 years ago
You talk about socialization that "cannot be said to be natural". I really don't understand what you mean by "natural". Humans are social creatures. We have always lived in some sort of society, so your idea of a "natural" human free of the influence of socialization is an entirely hypothetical entity. You assert that the studies he cites are irrelevant because all participants were socialized, but this makes your position unfalsifiable.
DAC153 2 years ago
i'll start believing socialisation when i see it applied and working for all types of creatures/animals. If you can teach my grans pet poodle to speak that would be a start. pet dogs much be the most domesticated animals around. My gran has been treating her poodle like a human being forever and ever and still has never show human traits in anyway. Still acts like a pact animal since the day it was a poodle. Scooby Doo is not a case in point btw.
java501 2 years ago
Let me help you with your brilliant argument. You make a strong point but I think you could be more concise:
"LULZ! Dogs don't talk!!!111"
If you were days earlier you could have also posted "FIRST!!11" which would have added tremendously to what you have to say.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I wonder if my lag is due to my Web-Cam or some other factor I have an extremely fast connection so I dont think that can be it.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
Judging from your comment ratings, you have many viewers who disagree with your position *and* take the time to vote down the comments they don't like (just pointig out the obvious here).
I, however, did enjoy your video. That's all.
petname 2 years ago
Yes, it is a phenomenon which only began to occur when I responded to ArgusEyes. I wonder why.
None of my own subscribers previously showed any desire to rate each comment. This new voting behaviour might suggest a new influx of viewers.
Men's Rights Activist-descrediting sexists, per-chance?
I support men's rights activism, but I am abhorred by some of its proponent's attitudes towards both women and feminism.
Guess you always have radicals, and I hit gold with ArgusEyes.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Btw, i stumble upon a good saying the other day, it goes:
Feminism - a fight against reality!
XxOZONEMILITIAxX 2 years ago
Which is a joke bsed on the oppression of women which seeks to continue it.
Congratulations, how proud you must feel to be born with a penis.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
It takes a true man to be himself and not submit his integrity to ANYONE. Plenty of us on the other side of the pond.
TheBrutalReality 2 years ago
I feel this way about being female.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Patriarchy is not a the name of a form of opression exerted by men over women. It's exerted mainly by men (but with the active participation of many women) over women, specially, but also on men.
So Margaret Thatcher is not a fine example.
BlackLaval 2 years ago 3
Yeah ofcourse its not. My examples are all wrong arent they. See this what Im talking about when it coems to arguing. You feminist and manginas always just disagree without any proper reasoning other then that you dont like. If i went up and punched you in the face Gilles you'd probably get the message. When i insight violence its bad but when I argue with you people I cant win because it on your terms. The only thing i can really pout of that argument is that you believe the only way the world
techlogi7 2 years ago
.. will be equal is under a matriarchal society where women have total and utter control because even when they do in this society its not good enough. So yeah you've pretty unearthed and disproved everything feminism stands for and what you think you believe in. Be sure to wash the keyboard down with detergent before anyone else uses it.
techlogi7 2 years ago
And by the way, reports on Gilles de Rais being a rapist and a murderer (and a Satanist) come form his Catholic Inquisition trial, which is not the best source, don't you think?
For me Gilles de Rais is the symbol of a different form of masculinity: a strong man who wasn't afraid of being under the orders of an even stronger woman, as you mention he has Joan of Arc's bodyguard. My nickname is also an hommage to him.
BlackLaval 2 years ago 2
DibleyParty, I don't know how to explain things to you if you have trouble differentiating between opinion and a claim about reality, if you don't know that when she said "we don't know" was actually a very useful and topical point of argumentation, if you don't understand that any perceived "pomposity, anger, defiance" has no bearing upon the truth of her arguments or the goodness of her ideals, if you don't understand that arguing against someone's points and then calling
-cont-
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
...them a name simply is not an ad hominem attack, and if you are apparently incapable of understanding that a multifaceted political movement/belief system simply isn't the type of thing that any adherent of can speak for on every point brought on by any other adherent (any more than I can as a feminist myself).
Sorry Dibley, but you didn't convince me of your position at all -- all I could gather is that you feel terribly threatened by feminists and you don't have good comprehension skills.
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
post scriptum it was good fun playing with you.
java501 2 years ago
I'm now not keeping as heavy tabs on this video any more. thanks for the lively discussion guys and gals.
java501 2 years ago
in essence be discriminating against her because she chose to be a stay at home mother.
And don't tell me they don't exist because my mother lost half her friends when she decided to abandon her career as a Wren and have me instead. They belittled her and turned their backs on her because she chose not to abort me.
Both women and men should be permitted to make their own choice about how to live their lives without undue pressure from ANYONE.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago 8
I absolutely agree. But I do not feel that when YOUR life choice is presented as the most prevalent and natural, that women are able to make a decision without undue pressure.
We are arguing for the same thing. Women's right to free choice without undue social pressures.
Socialisation which can not be said to be natural does not allow women to make a free choice based on their natural desire, it skews it to become the only acceptable option.
I aim for freedom of choice and respect.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Okay, I may well be missing the point here, but I'm running on about three hours sleep in the past seventy two and the scrapings from the bottom of the coffee jar, so if I do, please be kind.
"Socialisation which can not be said to be natural does not allow women to make a free choice based on their natural desire,"
If I understand you, I gotta say that Socialisation is natural. We are evolved social creatures and we get it nautrally. I'd say we are able to choose its forms and strictures ...
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
So we can, with effort, change the shape and impact of that socialisation but we cannot get rid of it.
Even if we make everything perfectly equal without any expectations based on gender, race, class or creed, that structure would still be an artificial construct... even though the presesnce of the socialisation would be natural.
So long as no one is me to do what I don't want to do and everyone is treat the same as me, I'm gonna say we can accept the social construct as a work in progress.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
PS...
I kinda nodded off a couple of times there so if it doesn't quite add up, please don't eat me. ;)
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago
"So we can, with effort, change the shape and impact of that socialisation but we cannot get rid of it."
That's all I aim to do. And yet I seem to be arguing with claims (not necessarily yours) that socialisation is biological in cause.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Not a joke.
Sorry most men don't feel the way I do.
I love strong Intelligent women. I need a good woman to control me.
ragetony 2 years ago
"All that I have done is not against Youtube rules, BUT, you swearing, writing "f--k off" and calling me directly an "a--hole." Those are reportable offenses. Oh how delicious it is...tss tss tss. When shall I report you for abusive language. Now, or shall I make you wait, wondering when it is coming. You realize I have thirty days to report it. Maybe I'll keep it back a few days... (cont)
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
hen once you post some new clip your proud of I'll have you suspended for your foul language... oh it is sweet... tick tock tick tock tick tock......."
After recieving this email I have blocked this user, having no cause to further interact with such tactics.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
and that is how you get blocked. point in case learnt.
java501 2 years ago
It is clear that willmprise is attempting to bury many reasonable arguments under a barrage of his own. I will consider blocking you if you will not consider be more moderate in your wordcount, because you are censoring many others in this way.
Feel free to comment, but do so in one or two boxes, not long rampages of 5 or 6 all repeating how discredited I am by telling you, a single commenter, to fuck off.
I do not think this style demonstrates a rational approach.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
If you wish to have a soapbox, youtube channels are available for everyone to spout their views. You can do it there. My channel is not your soapbox.
Arguments which do not engage with my own or anyone else's will not be allowed to cover the diversity of opinions.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
If you support me and our children, I will more then willingly be barefoot, washing the dishes and laundry and raise our children. No problem here. I'll even let you beet me every so often. I'm into s&m.
ragetony 2 years ago
It seems like a perfectly reasonable choice for a couple to make, but I'm sorry you felt it necessary to equate this with submission. If so you must surely recognise that the vast maority of homekeepers being women represents a mass submission, and therefore that I may have a strong point when I consider the manner in which we socialise gender roles, seeing as it means my sex are more likely to have to live in submission.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
I just seem various angles of confusion and anger coming from you. Why are you angry? What do you have to be angry about? Your young, healthy, white, born in one of the most powerful nations in history, no fear of starvation ,little fear of disease, little fear of invasion. Why be so angry. I'm not angry. Is it that you are simply projecting your internal discomfort upon the rest of the world. And by the way, what are you academic credentials IF YOU ARE STILL IN SCHOOL. None yet right.
willmprise 2 years ago
This is why it is necessary for me to point to the field of social psychology, the scientific study of effects of gender stereotypes etc, and not just bow under the accusation that because I am angry about my oppression my opinions are less valid.
Anyone wishing to review scientific evidence can clearly see a large body of understanding in regards to this. I should not have to reprove what has been proved in a youtube video to an asshole for that to be fact.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
The studies she cites are not feminist. In fact, she provides stong evidence for MEN being oppressed by their gender role when she provides as evidence a study concerning the effect of damage caused to boy who do not conform. In my view this is perfectly fair and balanced.
Both men and women have an interest in recognising the harmful effects of the gender norms we do not question. Men's Rights in the custody courts have an interest in demonstrating that men are equally good parents.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
No, I'm not. But the scientists I clearly referenced are not acting under some feminist conspiracy. They are acting under objective observation.
I repeat, proof of normative pressure and informational influence should not be disregarded as unscientific. Controls on such experiments are rigourously policed and later peer reviewed.
It is not arrogant of me to have an education in the reality of the situation and to present it.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Not only illogical, not only morally flawed, BUT FOUL MOUTHED TOO. What a good example of an intelligent adult. How often did Marx, Freud, Aristotle, Hawthorne retort with F--K OFF. The intellectual elite don't swear like that. The groundlings, the fools do. Oh wait... what if the F word was first forged by a man, could you still use it. What about the alphabet, would you give yourself permission to speak in the language invented by MALES. Your response will be on a male invention.
willmprise 2 years ago 3
Its a personal message to an asshole, not an academic document for the scientific community.
I do not regard you as any kind of expert or even any kind of logical thinker. So why should I not tell you to fuck off?
Many of my other videos, for example to Tristan PEJ, demonstrate a complete ability to behave seriously in an academic debate.
But you are neither, serious, nor academic. You're a toy to me, something I play with for amusement and refleive practise.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Also she is at University which was invented and built by men, she drives her car to school, men. I see that she wears clothes, men again. Probably wears a bra, man invented. Hmm. Looks like its necessary to CONSUME THE THINGS THAT MEN CREATE. So to say that one is unwilling to consume the WORDS of men is as foolish as saying it over the INTERNET, A MALE CREATION. So hold to your value system and disconnect from this MALE CREATION. Good luck with existing in a world of male invention.
willmprise 2 years ago
This completely disrespects the important role women have played historically, seeks to remove an entire half of the population of their true history, and suggests that the effects of chauvanism are the cause.
This is truly pathetic. You are not a respected academic so your words mean nothing. This is why you should fuck off and bother a more subservient woman.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
nor buy and use a handgun, nor work in a building mostly built by men, some of whom died while building it, nor live in her house mostly bulit by men, some of whom may have died building, nor live in her country won on the deaths of men and fought for mostly by men. She claims that she is not willing to CONSUME THE WORDS OF MEN, BUT SHE IS WILLING TO CONSUME THE PRODUCTS OF MEN'S LABOR. Logically flawed much. Hold to your inability to consume male things and go homeless.
willmprise 2 years ago
I spend my entire formal education consuming the words of men so this claim is just ridiculous. You're grasping at straws.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Great video, looking forward to watching more of them.
TomislavRavenbane 2 years ago
you are fantastic well done my love <3
princessannikki 2 years ago
you can't force people into positions of power they don't want and with the lastest Expenses witch hut would you be suprised.
When MPs are questioned when and why they got into politics they tend to say something like to affect the world for good change. When i see people that don't get into politics that could i see people(women) that clearly didn't have it in them to affect the world for good change.
java501 2 years ago
This argument completely ignores the obvious role of socialisation to be gentle and caring, rather than effective and logical.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
head of home being the father? please acquaint yourself with women and Authority by Maxine Hanks where influential Authority is discussed. A social construct so you should like it.
democracy = patriachy
In what realm of existence is that true?
Apparently with the greater female population in the UK you still can't vote in more people. I see that as a deficient voting public.
Whenever you or one of your ilk is asked to list laws favouring men you come up blank time and time again.
java501 2 years ago
Women are human and thus susceptible to socialisation as men are. If the dominant discourse in socialising women is to believe they don't make good leaders, they are not as likely to vote for a woman. This also obviously impacts on the likelyhood of men to vote a woman.
I'm sure many more women would be both voted and successful in politics were they not taught from a young age that they are gentle, and not passionate in matters of politics, which is a 'men's' sphere because it is 4/5s male.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
it is interesting to see your slide with the definations of patriachy.
without listing them:
2.a i didn't realise that the PM was organised via oldest male decendent. Who is Margaret Thatcher the Male decendent of?(Argus addressed this already)
government or rule by a man or men?
So it isn't HER MAJESTY the QUEENS GOVERNMENT. I'll have to remember that.
3 You have failed to prove that rule favours men. I gave an example of the OLD Bailey 1820 favouring Women.
java501 2 years ago
I clearly claimed to be using the third definition of patriarchy so your attack on our society not meeting the qualification of the second is irrelevant.
I proved that government of the country is overwhelmingly male. That fits accurately with the third definition.
Furthermore, the prevalence of women taking men's surnames in marriage etc suggest that it is accurate to refer to dominant patriarchal values in our society.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
They don't have to take the males surname btw.
fairnessguy 2 years ago
If you're taking about my video, then I was clearly using the third definition of patriarchy which makes no mention of decent through male lines.
However is is debateable what makes someone HAVE to do something, such as fear of social disapproval, working against norms etc and an ingrained belief that descent IS somehow through male lineage despite women being the ones who actually give their bodies to the cause.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Comment removed
BlackLaval 2 years ago
Ur such a sweet liar.
xxShannonGreenxx 2 years ago 3
The fact I was born a man doesn't mean I have to hunt and conquer women.
If (as some of the youtubers here or as biolgists like Steven Goldberg say) Patriarchy necessarily followed from our nature, from our biological bagagge as a species and as individuals, then we should have to REBEL against nature. But there's a bias here, some scientist think nature is just made of facts, (a machista point of view) but Nature is also made of possibilities.
BlackLaval 2 years ago
I'd advise not using unverified online sources for your research then.
I'm hardly creating a conspiracy if it appears in the Oxford English dictionary.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
ArgusEyes has a girly voice.
yeahwotevaman 2 years ago
Did he just prove Godwins Law? Why yes, he did. Reducio ad Hitlerum.
GriffinPilgrim 2 years ago
Comment removed
TruTV 2 years ago
BoundlessEyes, I'm a 28yo man, I live in Mexico, here 7 of every 10 women have been physically abused by men, in my life I see everyday strong intelligent women being humiliated, repressed, raped; the legal authorities in my country are about to face a Trial for Human Rights Violations on Ciudad Juarez, women are killed and raped just for the pleasure of it, and then a moron comes and says Feminism is a conspiracy theory? Please, don't lower yourself debating such people.
BlackLaval 2 years ago
Isee what you're getting at, but someone has to and she's so very good at it.
GriffinPilgrim 2 years ago
Aw thanks lovely =)
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Thanks for the comment.
Such people need to be shown, at least to one or two of their subs, that they do not hold all of the answers as they purport to do. Some of the people watching his videos might not be sure, it is those people who it is worth trying to reach.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
"Such people"
:(
georg1984 2 years ago
patriarchy developed out of material conditions. The domestication of cattle and the agricultural revolution brought about massive changes in how humans distributed property, it became private and in the hands of the male, whereas before property was communal and matrilineal. You still see in certain cultures that lack private property a matriarchal structure and egalitarian relations between the sexes.
nuclearnight 2 years ago
People like philosopher John Zerzan and SciFi writer Robert Sawyer argue that agircultural civilization weren't a necessary develpment. but rather a praxis, a practice thougt thrugh and with a purpose, a wrong one.
There are other possibilties. Ivan Illich argues similar things, a radical change in our so called civilization: in our technology, politics in our relations with the natural world and in our spiritual life. That's Feminism, the most encompassing social theory and movement today.
BlackLaval 2 years ago
I think Feminism is a compex debate, some things called feminism are not it at all, and Feminism (and all Identity Polticis) becomes a new opium for the people when not grounded in a solid Political Economy Theory.
BlackLaval 2 years ago
Sexual politics are actively repressed in Political Economic theory because of the pervasive 'naturalness' of our stereotypical gender roles, and a refusal to recognise the substantial differencs in our socialisation of men and women. We are attributing as biological the effects of our creations, without any scientific reason to do so, despite the fact that men and women develop from something foetally identical in their early stages, etc., the only differences being in modes of reproduction.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Sometimes I don't know whether to feel sorry for your future husband, or to bow down to him for having the most classy intelligent woman in all of Europe. It's always a tough decision, and I lean more to the latter. :)
BayAreaLen 2 years ago
I don't think they are trying to... atleast not the smart ones.
You can split feminists into two groups - the ones that applaud a woman for choosing to raise her kids as a stay-at-home mum with the dad as a 'bread winner' and the ones who vilify her for it.
Note, the woman chooses that life, she is not forced into it.
The first bunch are fine and noble and I count myself among them. The second have missed the point.
AnonEyeMouse 2 years ago 8
I may give a Video response to this at a later date.
If anyone wants to know if behavior or anything else for that matter is Societal or Genetic based all one must do is simply find out if its (Local or Global). The basic Male/Female Dynamic ~ A.K.A. ~ Gender Roles are for the most part Universal with some minor differences of course which means it cant be Societal considering all of the different Socities involved.
Lastly I dont like the dishonest way you edited his speech at the end.
ConservativeAtheist 2 years ago
It's not dishonest if I don't claim anything by it. I simply edited his speech demonstrating the passionate hatred of his argument to dispel later claims that I was somehow cowed under a superior argument causing me to flee.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Are you really so blind as to write in one sentence that patriarchy evolved and then in the very next sentence(!) claim it is part of "human nature"?
If you really think that makes sense you are intellectually hopeless.
truefakeness 2 years ago
She just proved how our society is patriarchal as to the dictionary definition.
SolarJakee 2 years ago
Great, now I'm starting my day off with violence fantasies.
nuclearnight 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheLovePizza 2 years ago
lol, it was an analogy.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Hmmm... did you happen to notice the volume of comments ArgusEyes left here and elsewhere on Boundless videos? If you think it is possible to even begin to address what makes Argus a misogynist in 500 characters it is you who are divorced from reality. Aside from that I think his comments scream his bigotry on their own... It would be redundant for me to point it out. But bigots like you and he find comfort in your denial so... have it. The truth is women are not treated socially equal to men
mogulwraith 2 years ago
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that ArgusEyes is incapable of responding to her points because they're just a matter of opinion?
Maybe you didn't watch the videos all the way, but she made a number of points that weren't opinion, but obvious fact (and the consideration of said facts should have kept ArgusEyes from making many of the points he did.
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
It seems to me that a sense of victimization may become important somehow to those being victimized. Of course I could be completely off base with my reasoning there . I could not even begin to list mentally the positive social advancements that have arisen as a response to a sense of victimization.
preachingsin 2 years ago
Great video but I'm really confused. Why does ArgusEyes ignore points you have already made (such as the fact that gender roles are a result of societal pressures, and no one ), when your points obviously have a great deal of bearing upon his later replies?
Does ArgusEyes have a memory problem and simply can't focus long enough, or maybe he's just stupid, or maybe he's just dishonest?
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
"Does ArgusEyes have a memory problem and simply can't focus long enough, or maybe he's just stupid, or maybe he's just dishonest?"
I think he is intellectually dishonest, but he's lying to himself too. If he had to acknowledge reality he'd have to admit to himself that he's a bigot.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
My bad. I do forget sometimes that people can lie to themselves; even though I probably run into people who do that constantly.
boobmcnutt 2 years ago
so true he is a bigot...the thing about with die-hard bigots is that they don't realize their overly extreme bias against women. I'm bias against men true but I don't hate them. YES I DO HATE some of their terrible characteristics but hey! you deal.
missaquaboogie 2 years ago
Althought there is a distinct lack of women in parliment, the problem is the women in political power are useless at their job, whether this is through the fact that only people who can do very little else go into politics or some other reason. Wouldn't it be better to get the same number of women in parliment as there is now but employ those who could fulfill the criteria of the job. It would also be nice if all the male MPs followed suit in this
-TTF
TheTempusFugitive 2 years ago
Blocking jerks isn't censorship. Censorship is preventing someone from having their say. The other guy's right to speak his mind doesn't obligate you to provide him with yourself as an audience.
roentgen571 2 years ago
"he other guy's right to speak his mind doesn't obligate you to provide him with yourself as an audience."
She obligates herself. It's an intellectual war and she's put herself on the front lines. What's the point in pretending there aren't misogynists like ArgusEyes out there? What's the point in ignoring him when his ilk are the reason she speaks out in the first place? No, she doesn't deserve to hear such hateful speech... but that's the point.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
Quick history lesson MRAs formed as a result of the feminist movement as in after.
java501 2 years ago
That's true but its also irrelevant. Progressive Masculism is what I was referring to.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
history doesn't suppport that either. google something like "neolithic women" or "women of the stone age" or something like that and you might learn something. 10,000 BCE.
something like this gives good perceptive:
hhhh(.)org/maia/neolithic.html
java501 2 years ago
right to do so because of their victimhood, who think like you do that it's all about the socialisation they have suffered and that they have no say in it, people who had the absolute assurance that they were right. Needless to say, worthless individuals are the ones who are most susceptible to doing this, that would be you Jess.
ArgusEyes 2 years ago 2
"Needless to say, worthless individuals are the ones who are most susceptible to doing this, that would be you Jess."
Seriously man, you need to admit to yourself that you're a misogynist and get some counseling.
mogulwraith 2 years ago
Your socialization theory insinuates that ALL INVENTION then must be socialized. Where then does invention come from? Often invention is counter to socialization, scientific discovery works against the norm, the society, the socialization ... think of galileo, think of kepler. They INVENTED AGAINST THE NORM, They invented against the socialization. Your ONLY SOCIALIZATION THEORY IS tremendously flawed. At a time when record females are going to college, new billionaires, google, are male
willmprise 2 years ago
I am the first to claim and demonstrate that socialisation is by no means immuteable. I was showing Argus that the fact that you see tendencies doesn't necessarily demonstrate a biological link. It could just as possibly and more so in my opinion be the effect of a shared socialisation/
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Here's you logical flaw. You claim that nazi's are evil because their government taught them to be evil.
The nazi's gassed people. This was not taught because it was not EVER done before in large chambers. From where then did this ability to GAS come from. Independent intelligence? The nazi's had the free will to gas, not being taught, but being invented, thus they invented NEW evil forms that were SOCIALIZED BY them. Cheap poison gasses showed up only around 1930 by germans.
willmprise 2 years ago
Not at all, I claim the nazi's were acting under massive brainwashing. Let me now clarify that I mean ideological brainwashing. Actions and motives stem from ideology but are not ideology in themselves, they are actions.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Under your method of thinking The nazi's could not have been socialized because they performed actions outside of ANY SOCIALIZATION. The nazi's GASSED people in chambers, thus having never been done before you are assuming then that it could not be done, meaning the only way that they could gas people in chambers was by being taught to gas people in chambers "by their government" They were the first to do it, thus proving THEY INVENTED IT. You are claiming people can only do what is taught
willmprise 2 years ago
The Nazis have irrevocably been shown to be acting under brainwashing. I do not allow comments to educate me beyond the realms of my formal education. Sorry.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Cause it is biologically impossible?
In the same way it is biologically impossible to know everything no?
java501 2 years ago 2
I'm saying that yes, it is biologically impossible that the nazis were