Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Sylvia Walby's Theorizing Patriarchy (1990) with TL;DR

Transcript

Sylvia Walby's Theorizing Patriarchy (1990) with TL;DR · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: All right, hello everybody, and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: My name is Brian. I'm here with Alison, our special guest,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: heal dear, and we're gonna be talking about, uh like,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking about the theology of feminism essentially.
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: No, I don't know if it's theology. I think it's theory. Right,
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: it's theorizing patriarchy.
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: So we're going right theorizing patriarchy. But there's I believe
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: there's a religious it's always component here, so only vertical. No,
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: what why aren't we live? What the fuck? Hold on
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: a second? We should be live on? Uh oh, it
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: created a new instance. But YouTube, I'm sorry, I can't.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: I gotta just We'll just grab the link and I'll
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: just share it with the people.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: There in the Yeah, I'm still trying to get this,
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: so you guys can watch some kind of visual going out.
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: I have a visual. Oh you too, don't image up,
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: it's a static image. Yeah, it's image So.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Okay, So if you're listening, the very best way for
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: you to send us a message is not super chat.
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: It is super chow. It feed Thebadger dot Com slash
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: just the tip we get the full benefit of whatever
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: funds you send, and you get the benefit of sending
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: your message, not through YouTube comment enhancement system, and that
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: is a euphemism for censorship. So feed the Badger dot
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: com slash just the tip, send those comments there and
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: we will respond to them. The monthly fundraiser is not up,
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: but when it is up, it will be at feed
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: the Badger dot com slash support. So go there and
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: if you want to join us in our community that's
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: Badger Nation dot online. Okay, let me see if I
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: can get Ninja to start showing. I can only get
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: entire screen.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: What do you do? What are you trying to share?
• 2:02
  Speaker 3: O the beata that we're gonna do that?
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Oh okay, okay, Well if we're gonna do that, then
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: I don't need this placeholder. Well I guess I could.
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: No, No, you could keep the placeholder until I'm actually
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: doing something.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: I'm not all right, Well, why are there two? Who's this?
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: What's this other person? Why is it the beat saver?
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: And there's something else? What's that other thing?
• 2:21
  Speaker 3: That's me as me talking?
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Right? No, there's Look, I'm you know what, I'm just
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: gonna put the link in. I'm not I'm not gonna
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sweat it. We gotta we got a
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: lot to get to. So yeah, it's yeah, there, it
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: just seems to be an extra entity in here with us.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: It's no, no, it's not. It's it's something else because
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: there's like you and Tieal Deer and my image and
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: me and then your beat Saber and then you know
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Exhibit E. Watcher. The Watcher is here.
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: Backstage.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: I got right off the bat. We got a super chat.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: Thank you to easy E for three two nine says
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: for five dollars. YouTube was generous enough to actually push
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: the thirty minute notification to me. This time, I have
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: had time to warm up my kindness muscle for Teal Deer. Well,
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: there you go, there you go.
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: All right, that is an old, old meme. It's not
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: so live. Remember the stream that that came from.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we're excavating the deep floor.
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, okay, let's uh, let's get into this. So
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: first of all, let me let Teal Deer set it up.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: Since you're the person who basically made this sacrifice, what
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: is it that we're talking about? An excerpt? We're going
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: to be reading an excerpt from a book right, So
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: tell us a little bit about the context.
• 4:08
  Speaker 4: Yeah. So this is a textbook which I've got, Theorizing
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: Patriarchy by Sylvia Wallby. So I discovered this on my lengthy,
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: lengthy readings which I'm doing for this thing which I'm writing,
• 4:24
  Speaker 4: which I don't know what to call about the theological
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: history of feminism and the women's rights movement more broadly,
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: and I wanted to have some examples of the sort
• 4:38
  Speaker 4: of references to system theory that they use. They like
• 4:40
  Speaker 4: to talk about systems quite a lot, and I discovered
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: duel system theory and triple system theory in some of
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: the papers that they published on that, and one of
• 4:51
  Speaker 4: the citations of that led me onto this because, well,
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: the duel and triple system theory, I think we've already
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: discussed before is the gender capitalism or Marxism and race,
• 5:03
  Speaker 4: and that sort of led me on to this sort
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: of explaining that the patriarchy, the gender archy bit of it,
• 5:09
  Speaker 4: by this well be woman. So I found this book,
• 5:12
  Speaker 4: Theorizing Patriarchy, which she wrote, and I got it because
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: it provides a fairly solid idea of what feminists consider
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: the patriarchy to be. Because we are constantly told that
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: we need to educate ourselves and read a book, so
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: I do that quite a lot, and this is one
• 5:35
  Speaker 4: of those books that I've decided to educate myself with.
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: It also ties in quite nicely with the fact that
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: every so often, non HBI, I'll hear the position that
• 5:46
  Speaker 4: patriarchy has never been stated in a way that can
• 5:49
  Speaker 4: be scientifically tested, which is true. The goalposts keep moving
• 5:52
  Speaker 4: all of that time. But I thought it would just
• 5:55
  Speaker 4: be nice to actually give people a solid idea of
• 6:01
  Speaker 4: what this patriarchy thing is that feminists keep talking about.
• 6:07
  Speaker 4: As it turns out, it is exactly what we keep
• 6:09
  Speaker 4: saying it is, which is this gendered system in which
• 6:13
  Speaker 4: men extract everything and exploit everything from women, you know,
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: having arranged society for their own benefit at women's expense,
• 6:22
  Speaker 4: tying in Marxism and racism and all that sort of stuff,
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: you know, the things that when confronted with that feminists
• 6:30
  Speaker 4: will deny being part of their canon. But here it is.
• 6:34
  Speaker 4: And this is another one of those books which is
• 6:36
  Speaker 4: used by people at the university level. It was first
• 6:39
  Speaker 4: published in nineteen ninety, so it's teaching the people who
• 6:44
  Speaker 4: are well taught to the people who are currently teaching
• 6:47
  Speaker 4: this new crop of people that we're getting now. It
• 6:52
  Speaker 4: is the basis for what we deal with now, and
• 6:56
  Speaker 4: it is illuminate, I'm going to say politely going through it.
• 7:04
  Speaker 4: So I thought we'd go through a bit of the introduction,
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: specifically just the sections on epistemology and then patriarchy, because
• 7:13
  Speaker 4: that basically explains sort of the basis for most of
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: what the rest of the book is going to do.
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: You'll find out throughout this that is, she mentions six
• 7:24
  Speaker 4: different forms of patriarchy, or the six different elements of it,
• 7:28
  Speaker 4: and the rest of the chapters in the book are
• 7:29
  Speaker 4: basically just going into those in more detail in their
• 7:34
  Speaker 4: own individual chapters. But I think that this is a
• 7:38
  Speaker 4: fairly decent way of just getting It's sort of a
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: short enough idea for people watching as to what they're
• 7:50
  Speaker 4: actually going to going to mean when they say these things,
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: when they talk about things like the patriarchy.
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: Even though they will refuse to acknowledge that this is
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: indeed what they mean, they want the effect of it
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: without having to take responsibility for the implications of it.
• 8:11
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it's very frequent that you find when you deal
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: with feminists like that you can cite their own canon
• 8:16
  Speaker 4: of literature, and they will just immediately you say, Nope,
• 8:19
  Speaker 4: that's not it. That's not what it is, that's not
• 8:21
  Speaker 4: what it does. You can pile and pile and pile
• 8:25
  Speaker 4: their own books in front of them until they're on
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: the other side of a wall of books, and they'll
• 8:30
  Speaker 4: just keep denying that those books exist. And if they
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: eventually reach a point where they can't deny that those
• 8:35
  Speaker 4: books exist, they'll just help constantly assert that you're reading
• 8:40
  Speaker 4: them wrong and you don't understand them, and then refuse
• 8:43
  Speaker 4: to elaborate any further.
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because you're reading criticism, you're not reading belief and agreement.
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: You're reading these books and you have criticisms of the
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: things that they say.
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: That's the point.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: You shouldn't have these criticisms. You shouldn't have the wrong
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: feelings about these things that are being asserted. It's not
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: about it right or wrong. It's about how it makes
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: you feel. And if it doesn't make you feel that
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: it's a good thing to say, then there's something wrong
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: with you.
• 9:12
  Speaker 4: But as we are going to find out going through
• 9:15
  Speaker 4: this book, Allison, I have been informed that you are
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: in fact a woman and if you have feelings about things.
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: Those feelings are science, according to this book. We'll find
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: out when we get there and see if that is true.
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: I don't think I'm not allowed to like women like me.
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: Our feelings are not science.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: They are.
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: They are anti science.
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: They are there.
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: They are the demonic.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: That yes, both the other wearing the familiar face, the
• 9:50
  Speaker 2: most the most horrible apparition possible, the traitor, the.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Okay, okay, so oh let's yeah, let's look at this thing.
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: I'll start reading it. So epistemology, that's the epistemology. Feminist
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: challenges to mainstream social science have invoked a variety of
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: approaches to knowledge. Some have argued that orthodox accounts are
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: empirically incorrect on their own terms, while others have claimed
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: that the very way that men have constructed what counts
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: as authoritative knowledge itself. So whatever counts as authoritative knowledge itself,
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: it is itself patriarchally constructed. So the way that men
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: have constructed or what they consider to be authoritative, is
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: itself patriarchal. That's what it's saying, right. Some have argued this,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: they've made this claim.
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: There's no objective reality, there's only incorrect and correct emotions,
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: and then that asks me, it would invite the question
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: who's the most are correct? Right? Whose emotions are the
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: thing the substrate upon which we all rest. But I
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: guess we're not supposed to look at the logical implications of.
• 11:11
  Speaker 4: That, well not yet. But yeah, this is basically the
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: starting point of them being able to dismantle the scientific
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: method and the very concept of like science and objective
• 11:22
  Speaker 4: reality in itself. The yeare how you are doing things
• 11:27
  Speaker 4: is already biased, and therefore everything has to be thrown
• 11:31
  Speaker 4: out as a result of that. This is just the
• 11:34
  Speaker 4: setup for the two different schools that they try to
• 11:38
  Speaker 4: use to justify that. And of course when we get
• 11:40
  Speaker 4: to that different bit, well, with the benefit of thirty
• 11:43
  Speaker 4: odd years of hindsight, we know which one one.
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, next paragraph, I'm not going to read
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: the citations, Okay, So.
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: That's fine, I just transcribe everything.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I know. Yeah, I just figure it's going
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: to sound awkward. It's like Oakley nineteen seventy four or
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: Smith whatever. The more basic critique is that mainstream social
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: science is simply empirically incorrect in relation to gender and
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: those aspects of society that gender affects. So right off
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: the bat, the way we do things is.
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: Wrong typically when it comes to gender, which means men
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: and women in the relationship between them, So we can't
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: look at this empirically well. This actually explains the source
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: of something that I found out recently that the I
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: think I might have mentioned this last time, that the
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: endocrinology like looking at the actual situation for men and
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: women on the level of endocrine biology. The e Empire
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: was destroying careers of scientists who did that in the
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: nineties and probably prior, like literally destroying their careers and
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: hounding them out of academia because they had the audacity
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: to look at men and women as biological organisms and
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: try to figure out what they were on the level
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: of empirical science well or through empirical science is a methodology,
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: and feminists we're having none of that. Everything has to
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: be struggle, session and ideology and politics when it comes
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: to men and women.
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: It can't be.
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: Biology reproduction into crinology, and that's why we have a
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: gigantic whole when it comes to certain aspects of human
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: experience and their biology. Thank you, we've decided to embark
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: on a path of complete lack of knowledge of ourselves
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: because of the fempire. And it's an assertion right here
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: that you can't apply empirical science to issues of men
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: and women and their relationship.
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 13:53
  Speaker 4: And it was basically the publication of a Sociobiology and
• 13:57
  Speaker 4: New Synthesis by EO. Wilson that started that entire fur
• 14:01
  Speaker 4: are back in nineteen seventy something. Rather, that was when
• 14:04
  Speaker 4: this massive split happened within the social sciences programs, and
• 14:10
  Speaker 4: you ended up with sociobiology on one side and social
• 14:12
  Speaker 4: constructionists on the other, and unfortunately the social constructionists one
• 14:18
  Speaker 4: like when it came to capturing the institutions. The sociobiology
• 14:23
  Speaker 4: side still exists, but it's just you get into it
• 14:27
  Speaker 4: via all of the other things, Like you just kind
• 14:30
  Speaker 4: of drift into it through like psychology, or through biology,
• 14:35
  Speaker 4: or through neurology or something like you just kind of
• 14:38
  Speaker 4: find your way into it or through like animal behavior
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: or something along those lines. And God help you if
• 14:44
  Speaker 4: you ever try to apply any of it to humans,
• 14:46
  Speaker 4: because the exact same thing that happens in animals obviously
• 14:51
  Speaker 4: can't happen in humans. They're totally different. People get a
• 14:54
  Speaker 4: very you know, sort of strange human dignity stick up
• 15:00
  Speaker 4: there wherever they put sticks when issues like this come up.
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: And yet what they've replaced it with is a hard
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: is a very fundamentally undignified narrative about how men and
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: women relate, like through oppression, through conflict. I guess, I
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: guess they think it has an ideological dignity to it.
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: Or whatever.
• 15:22
  Speaker 4: The ideological dignity is that we're all the same, we're
• 15:25
  Speaker 4: all equal, there's no such thing as different.
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah, except that men always have this emergent property of patriarchy,
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: regardless of who they are, what religion they have, what culture,
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: they're always creating patriarchy even though it's socialized. So obviously
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: there's a biological I mean, let's put it this way.
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: What feminists assert about men has to be biologically driven.
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: Actually it's even it's even more absolute than something that's
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: biologically driven, because it was biologically driven, there would be
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: outliers or exceptions. But what feminists assert about men is categorical,
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: so it operates in the same explanatory power as biology.
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: And yet they don't want to admit it to or
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: submit it to actual empirical science, which is which is
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: like ethically vacuous.
• 16:17
  Speaker 4: Okay, sciences patriarchy, as we will very soon find.
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: Out, objective reality is patriarchy. Okay. For instance, conventional views
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: that the source of the wages gap between men and
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: women is largely due to women having less skill and
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: experience than men can be shown to be untrue using
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: economic data. Conventional views that there is little violence against
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: women can be shown to be empirically untrue by new
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: methods of collecting such information. That is, mainstream social science
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: has a patriarchal bias which can be remedied by more
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: accurate and thorough social research. Did you know is that
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: sociology is patriarchal?
• 17:01
  Speaker 3: Can I just point to the out this.
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: It's asserting that empiricism is a patriarchal and then asserting
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: that women's ways of knowing creates more empirically sound data,
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: even though they don't have to submit themselves to any
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: kind of empirical soundness.
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 17:22
  Speaker 4: The other thing of notice that these assertions of theirs have,
• 17:25
  Speaker 4: of course since then been proven to be wrong. Again
• 17:29
  Speaker 4: they say obviously here that oh, the wage gap thing
• 17:32
  Speaker 4: being untrue is I know, we know that it's true
• 17:34
  Speaker 4: now because of looking at things like six time hours worked.
• 17:38
  Speaker 4: It's they basically debunked the wage gap, and then it
• 17:41
  Speaker 4: was rebunked and then debunked and rebunked, and we just
• 17:43
  Speaker 4: keep going through this cycle as they think of something
• 17:46
  Speaker 4: else that could explain it, and then that gets knocked
• 17:49
  Speaker 4: off the table and it becomes a sexism of the
• 17:51
  Speaker 4: gaps thing. It's kind of the same with violence and
• 17:54
  Speaker 4: the other problems with violence skains women is normally that
• 17:57
  Speaker 4: the actual keeping tally of it what affects men and women,
• 18:02
  Speaker 4: one of those gets counted a lot more than the outbu.
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: But yeah, well that's because the conclusion is that men
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: are more violent towards women, and anything that doesn't land
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: on that conclusion because it makes feminists feel good is
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: obviously wrong and empirically unsound.
• 18:29
  Speaker 3: Okay, go ahead, Brian.
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Let us continue. Harding labels this approach to knowledge that
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: of feminist empiricists. They use established methods of research to
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: argue that previous assumptions about women are unfounded, an approach
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: which argues for a really scientific attitude to knowledge, rather
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: than relying on the existing patriarchally biased knowledge which falsely
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: passes and science. I think it's a reality. Yeah, sorry,
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: as scientist, So it's all right, it's okay. I was
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: I think I understand what it was trying to what
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: you were trying to say. So anyway, yeah, any thoughts
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: on that sentence or should I read it again?
• 19:12
  Speaker 4: Patriarchy bias knowledge that falsely passes itself as science. Well,
• 19:16
  Speaker 4: there we go it. Science is just patriarchal everything, all
• 19:20
  Speaker 4: the knowledge that has been produced, as they would say,
• 19:23
  Speaker 4: more likely uncovered because there are certain underlying truths of reality. Nope,
• 19:27
  Speaker 4: that's actually just bias, and it falsely passes as science
• 19:31
  Speaker 4: and it is false knowledge. So once again, even the
• 19:35
  Speaker 4: people trying to be empirical about it land on the
• 19:37
  Speaker 4: same point. Tear it all down. We need to rebuild it.
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah. The limitations of this critique are that they assume
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: that the methods of research and the way knowledge is
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: put together are themselves scientifically neutral. A far more I'm sorry,
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: a more far reaching critique argues that the very way
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: that men have typically constructed what counts as authoritative knowledge
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: is itself patriarchal. The way that men have constructed what
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: counts as authoritative knowledge is patriarchal. This is why we
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: can't know anything guys, because it's patriarchal. Okay, let's keep going.
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: The second school, or this second school, labeled the feminist
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: standpoint epistemologist by Harding, argues that the only basis of
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: unbiased knowledge of the world is women's own direct experience.
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: These writers contend that it is the standpoint of the
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: oppressed woman which provides the clearest vision of social relations.
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: The position was initially articulated via the slogan the personal
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: is political, and is today developed into a critique of
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: abstract theorizing because it is considered to be the form
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: of knowledge that is furthest removed from a woman's experience.
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: So when when was this way? When when was this written?
• 21:03
  Speaker 4: This was first published in nineteen ninety, this book.
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: So nineteen ninety they were talking about this stuff, the
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: personal is I mean, that's old, but they were. They
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: were laying the groundwork probably before.
• 21:13
  Speaker 4: This or from the seventies eighties.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, this kind of postmodern like whatever. My
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: And of course, this personal is political thing only applies
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: to feminists, not even feminist women specifically, right, Like, if
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: you're a man, your personal experience doesn't matter because it's patriarchal.
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: If you're a woman who isn't feminist, your position, your
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: experience doesn't matter. So this is only being used as
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: a tool for ideologues to basically like push forward whatever
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: like they're they want to. They they're like, they're like
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: the I'm sorry, we're gonna make a warhammer thing. They're
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: like orcs that think that they can, like, you know,
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: make things real because they believe it enough. Isn't that
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: like how orcs go far that right?
• 22:01
  Speaker 4: How the gnostic spark of the divine inside you works
• 22:05
  Speaker 4: as well? So yeah, yes, it's an apt comparison, but
• 22:09
  Speaker 4: I think it just needs to be highlighted again. The
• 22:12
  Speaker 4: only basis of unbiased knowledge of the world is women's
• 22:15
  Speaker 4: own direct experience. This is of course why thirty years
• 22:20
  Speaker 4: later they well not thirty years later for this, but
• 22:23
  Speaker 4: over the thirty years that followed this, they had to
• 22:25
  Speaker 4: start talking about internalized sexism and internalized patriarchy because they
• 22:31
  Speaker 4: basically realized the fundamental flaw of saying women's opinion is
• 22:35
  Speaker 4: reality is that some women disagree with this particular whatever
• 22:41
  Speaker 4: this is that they're trying to construct. So they had
• 22:43
  Speaker 4: to of course come up with a way of invalidating
• 22:45
  Speaker 4: those women which was to say, you've internalized the misogyny
• 22:49
  Speaker 4: of the patriarchy, you have internalized sexism, you're being a
• 22:53
  Speaker 4: handmaiden of the patriarchy, and all of these sorts of things.
• 22:57
  Speaker 4: So that's what they used later to start removing the
• 23:01
  Speaker 4: opinions of women that don't line up with them.
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: Which is really ironic because my research is uncovering that
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: these women are basically handmaidens for Robert barons who want
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: to neutralize any kind of what you might consider, well,
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: what is functionally men's boundary setting and policing in order
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: to be able to engage in widespread theft. So to
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: give an example with the big thing that I've been researching,
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: of course, is commodity markets. They've switched these kinds of
• 23:41
  Speaker 2: marketplaces from the free market system, which is no matter
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: how you look at it, it is constructed by what
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: men do. The free market system is a masculine imperative.
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: It is something that men are drawn to risk competition,
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: and they have basically pathologized it and replaced it with
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: a financialization model that removes risk by socializing it to
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: the tax payer. And this all of these women yapping
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: about women's ways of knowing they are fundament They are
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: functionally a mechanism that enables the removal of all of
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: the boundary setting that men naturally do, and the expectations
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: that men place on things like business and commerce. They
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: remove that all so that they can nowt these rapacious
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: and very powerful men ironically can operate completely free, can
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: steal completely without any oversight, and then you know, they
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: can make these ridiculous gambles and know that in this world,
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: risk and the expectation that men operate in a environment
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: of risk is you know, it's considered ideologically incorrect. So
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: it's all justified. Removing risk, socializing risk to the taxpayer
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: is all justified by saying that men don't are are wrong,
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: that men's desire to have a free market is wrong,
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: men's desire to keep a gold standard is wrong, any
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: kind of expectation that big entities eat their own risk
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: is wrong, And that all of the problems are resolved
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: by removing the free market and replacing it with a
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: controlled system that allows banks to capitalize their gains and
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: socialize their losses. And this woman is creating the preconditions
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: for all of that, while while talking about how I
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: don't know women's ways of knowing are superior. I don't
• 26:02
  Speaker 2: know if that made any sense, but it makes sense.
• 26:05
  Speaker 2: It's something that's really weighing on my mind because these
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: women aren't actually they are themselves handmaidens and their hand
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: and they and they're doing this because they get a
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: lot of money from it, because a complete instant it
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: is a complete graft culture, grift culture that they are
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: handmaidens of. Okay, I'll step off my soapbox.
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: All right, that's okay. I got a super chat from
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: easy e again for what is that five dollars and
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: easy says, let's see, he says, uh, I can't believe
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: Marie Curie was such a renowned patriarchal figure in her field.
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: Yes, you know, I actually really I really respect Marie Curry.
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: And the reason why I do is because she had
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: a more bile x ray unit that she used to
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: help diagnose injuries from World War One. So she she
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: was she was somebody who had at least court based
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: on that kind of information, had an you know, an
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: ethical drive to serve. So I appreciate that.
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: But go ahead, Brian, Well, I don't think he was
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: attacking her. I think he was literally saying.
• 27:26
  Speaker 2: No, no, But of course that would be considered patriarchy,
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: because God forbid a woman be concerned.
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: Well, when a woman is successful, feminists take credit for it,
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: like they're like, it's only because of them that this
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: was a possible. So that's why they talk about these
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: women in history that were probably just you know, hard
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: working women that just what, for whatever reason, became an anomaly.
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: Of course, the fact that we I mean, I guess it,
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: you know, like Mary Carey is probably an exception of that.
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: But like, if a woman just did something that men
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: do all the time, I don't think that it should
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: necessarily be pedestalized or like engraved into the you know,
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: halls of history. But it does happen because we just
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: like to celebrate women doing stuff that men don't do
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: all the time. So but if it's exceptional, it's worthy.
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: But feminists want to take credit for whatever women do
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: if it's good, but not when it's bad.
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: Right, So, well, they don't even want to take responsibility
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: for the things that they say, Okay.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: Uh yeah, anyway, Oh, by.
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: The way, guys feed the badger dot com slash just
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: to take if you want to just the tip if
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: you want to send us a message. Go get those
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: super chows in. This is interesting stuff, all right?
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: Uh till dear, when you were trying to say something,
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: did you want to say something? I thought because I
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: saw your guy light up, So oh.
• 28:46
  Speaker 4: No, that might have just been because I moved my
• 28:48
  Speaker 4: chair to grab another book because I wanted to double
• 28:51
  Speaker 4: check a reference which I had in this one that
• 28:54
  Speaker 4: we're working on.
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: I see, I see. Okay, all right, then never mind. Okay,
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: so let us move on through the paper. Okay. That
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: is the very way that mainstream science and social science
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: construct knowledge is biased against women. Feminists standpoint. Epistemologists assert
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: that we need a new feminist methodology which is closer
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: to women's own experience. This is argued partly on the
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: basis that abstraction itself is problematic, and partly that the
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: social institutions within which abstraction takes place are run by
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: men and reflect their interests. Men. Kinnen argues that currently
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: men's thought is constituted as objective, which they put in quotes,
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: and women's as subjective, with the former being more authoritative
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: than the latter. Men objectify women. This objectification is simultaneously
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: both general and sexual resistance must be by embracing their
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: subjective experience. In this way, women can resist their objectification.
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: Wait wait, wait, so patriarchy.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Okay, we're me to read it again. You want me
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: to read it again?
• 30:18
  Speaker 2: No? No, okay no, So patriarchy says that men's experience
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: is objective and women's experience is subjective, and then they
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: argue that, yes.
• 30:29
  Speaker 3: That's the case.
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: So they agree that no, it's not patriarchy that does that.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: It's a thinker named man Kinnan who argues that currently
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: men's thought is constituted as objective and women's as subjective,
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: with the former being more authoritative than the latter. So
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: they're making the argument that because men and this is
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: making a claim by the way, about women too, like
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: this man kin in person is arguing that women their
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: thought is subjective. Therefore it because men's thought is objective,
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: and we live in a society that treats the objective
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: as more authoritative than the subjective. Therefore objective being objective
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: is basically patriarchy. So they're making the argument that you know,
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: observing reality and like recording that and then like operating
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: on that basis like water, if I go in there
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: and I try to breathe water, I'll drown because I
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: know that this is how water works. And feminists say, well,
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: how do you that's like a man thing to say,
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: how do you know you won't develop gills like or whatever?
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: I don't know, Like you see what I'm saying. So
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: they're basically making the argument that being objective that is
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: a male thing, therefore it's patriarchal. Being subjective is female,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: therefore its anti patriarch it's resistance. And that's because men
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: objectify women. You see, are you following or am I
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: not explaining it?
• 32:00
  Speaker 2: Well? But they're also saying they're also saying that patriarchy
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: enforces the idea that men's thought is objective and that
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: women's thought is subjective. That she's also appealing to that
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: in there that she's saying, Okay, so patriarchy says that
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: men are objective and more authoritative because they're objective, and
• 32:24
  Speaker 2: that women are subjective and therefore less authoritative.
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: So she's not.
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: Arguing the idea that women are more subjective and men
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: more objective. She's saying that this is true, and then
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: it follows that women are more accurate or actually should
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: be considered more authoritative in their assumptions. And another thing
• 32:45
  Speaker 2: that I noticed that's really interesting is that the process
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: by which she's arriving to that conclusion. Okay, so she's
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: saying that currently men's thought is constituted as objective in
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: women's subjective is that men objectify women and thus victimize them,
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: and then women resist that objectification, which gives them a
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: greater authority in terms of what's actually happening in reality.
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: So the the person who is subjective, who is subject
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: to victimization, has greater understanding than they're a pressure, which
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: is the slave dialectic. I think, unless i'm i'm, my
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: brain is not processing something or correctly right now, the
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: idea that the slave understands more than the master applied
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: to men and women, which makes absolutely no sense, but
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: there it is. She's saying that because men victimize women
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: with their objectification, women have more authority in their understand
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: of course, like why not, right.
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: Of course?
• 34:05
  Speaker 4: Oh yeah. It goes back to, you know, the women's
• 34:09
  Speaker 4: reality book and the male system and the female system thinking.
• 34:13
  Speaker 4: Men only operate in the male system, whereas women operate
• 34:16
  Speaker 4: in both the male system because they're forced to because
• 34:19
  Speaker 4: patriarchy and the female system, which is their own preferred system.
• 34:23
  Speaker 4: And you might remember from that book, you know, the chapbook,
• 34:27
  Speaker 4: when she was talking about her therapy section and what
• 34:31
  Speaker 4: she called reality testing, which meant testing things out within
• 34:36
  Speaker 4: the white male system frame, you know, within this objective frame,
• 34:40
  Speaker 4: whereas she preferred a more therapeutic process of basically whatever
• 34:45
  Speaker 4: you say is true. So within her practice, it would
• 34:49
  Speaker 4: be if someone came in and said I'm depressed, the
• 34:52
  Speaker 4: male system would say, okay, why what is causing this?
• 34:56
  Speaker 4: What are you feeling? Are there any triggers for it?
• 34:58
  Speaker 4: Can we treat it? Because those things are sort of
• 35:01
  Speaker 4: objectively measurable, where she would favor that female process, where
• 35:04
  Speaker 4: it's you know, it's not about the nail, it's about
• 35:06
  Speaker 4: how the nail makes me feel, you know, which is
• 35:10
  Speaker 4: why she says, you know, women should never buck, then
• 35:12
  Speaker 4: of course she is. If she feels she's married to
• 35:15
  Speaker 4: a chauvinist, then of course she is.
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: I just want to point out here that my work
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: into literature cognitive modalities has indicated to me that women
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: do not actually have access to men's cognitive modality, not
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: commonly anyway, there are some weirdos like Emily Bronte and
• 35:38
  Speaker 2: Anne Rand, but aside from them, both of whom probably
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: would be excommunicated by feminists, there is no indication that
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: women have the ability to understand how men think at all.
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: Now there is actually some indication that men come much
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: closer to understanding how women think, but based on again
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: my analysis of how cognition is rendered in literature, women
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: don't understand how men think, and honestly, it would probably
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: be beneficial if they did, because they would realize that
• 36:14
  Speaker 2: objectification is nonsense, that the way that men think is
• 36:19
  Speaker 2: not actively harmful, and when he's silent, he's not plotting
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: your demise or how to oppress you, and there would
• 36:26
  Speaker 2: be a lot more harmony between the sexes. But of course,
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: the other problem is that women have convinced themselves that
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: they have a priori access to all human cognition, and
• 36:38
  Speaker 2: the realize the reality is the reason why women have
• 36:42
  Speaker 2: convinced themselves that is because their syllopsism is so complete,
• 36:47
  Speaker 2: They are so in their own modality they can't even
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: understand that any other modality possibly could exist, whereas men do.
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: They do understand that women are sort of a separate
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: creature with its own drives, and appetites, but women don't.
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: And there are some really interesting findings as well from
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: from literature, but that that's one of the that's one
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: of the big ones. I have now tested something like
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: uh eighty five female authors.
• 37:22
  Speaker 3: And none of them.
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: None of them can operate in the masculine cognitive modality.
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: None of them really even come close. They can maybe
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: maybe the ones who are really open to observation can
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: create a model of how a man operates and what
• 37:44
  Speaker 2: he does, but they can't access the interiority at all, right,
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: I mean, and the thing is that you know Tolstoi
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: War and Peace, he comes very close to actually oku
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: payeing the interiority of a woman. And then there's Prouse
• 38:03
  Speaker 2: and Henry James, both of whom actually have a genuine
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: female typed cognitive modality. I don't know if there's just
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: employing it because it's native to them or because they've
• 38:17
  Speaker 2: cultivated it, but no woman can do it. And like
• 38:21
  Speaker 2: I said, Emily Bronte comes closest and Anne Rand, and
• 38:24
  Speaker 2: Ann Rand is very strange, a very strange person. She
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: actually doesn't really come in, she doesn't really have a
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: She has the same sort of modality as faust. It's
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: I've called it like psych philosophical weirdo modality. It's like
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: separate from both male and female. But anyway, I just.
• 38:44
  Speaker 5: Wanted to point that out that we are dealing with
• 38:47
  Speaker 5: ignorance upon ignorance, like self defensive ignorance, layers layers.
• 38:57
  Speaker 3: Exactly, all right.
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: Onion, Okay, back to this qualitative let me see if
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: there's any super chats or anything. No, nothing yet, Okay.
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: Qualitative techniques which allow women to speak for themselves are
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: considered to be moved in keeping more I think is
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: what it's supposed to say, more in keeping with a
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: feminist methodology by reducing the amount of distortion that a
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: patriarchally based science would introduce. In practice, this means a
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: methodological imperative to use qualitative rather than quantitative methods to
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: interview women and reports faithfully on their views. Oakley's research
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: on women's views of childbirth is a classic example of this.
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: The introduction of the experiences of women into social science
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: is considered an important corrective to distort it theories. This
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: approach goes along with the distrust of meta theorizing, since
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: this is considered to be more affected by patriarchal bias
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: than the words of women interviewees. So there, so like,
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: how would we rephrase this in Layman's terms?
• 40:05
  Speaker 4: They want more quantity than quality when they want.
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: To democratize the reality.
• 40:12
  Speaker 4: Basically, yeah, they want qualitative information not quantitative information. So
• 40:17
  Speaker 4: they basically want people talking about how they feel, how
• 40:21
  Speaker 4: they subjectively experience things, and less of the quantitative methods
• 40:26
  Speaker 4: as in literally objectively measuring things. So it's not like
• 40:33
  Speaker 4: what score did you get on the test? It was
• 40:35
  Speaker 4: how did taking the test make you feel?
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: How did you know that?
• 40:39
  Speaker 4: That is, according to them, more valuable than what was
• 40:42
  Speaker 4: the score you got on the test. This is why
• 40:46
  Speaker 4: you've seen increasingly in the social sciences more and more
• 40:48
  Speaker 4: pushes for qualitative data rather than quantitative data, because quantitative
• 40:53
  Speaker 4: data tends to just prove them wrong, like repeatedly, So
• 40:57
  Speaker 4: they like to just sort of try and hide time
• 40:59
  Speaker 4: people's gective experience. And it's annoying because quality of data
• 41:03
  Speaker 4: can be useful insofar as it can kind of give
• 41:06
  Speaker 4: you like a temperature gauge, I suppose on how some
• 41:09
  Speaker 4: people think or feel about things, and that can be useful,
• 41:13
  Speaker 4: but it's not something that you should be taking as
• 41:19
  Speaker 4: priority over. Okay, this is like objectively what is happening?
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, all right, alf do you want to
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: say anything or should I just keep going?
• 41:33
  Speaker 2: I'm telling you this is all comes out of the modality,
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: the cognitive modality of women versus men, and the sheer
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: arrogance that women have that they their modality comprises the
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: entire human expression, the entire human cogni like, psychological.
• 41:53
  Speaker 3: Being, cognition, self, whatever you want to call it.
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay.
• 42:00
  Speaker 4: And of course the point there about oh we should
• 42:02
  Speaker 4: distrust meta theorizing, well, that's basically if you've that's replicability
• 42:07
  Speaker 4: is what they're basically talking about. There is if you
• 42:10
  Speaker 4: have multiple studies and they all find the same thing, well,
• 42:12
  Speaker 4: that's you creating some sort of meta theory by taking
• 42:15
  Speaker 4: this study, this study, this study, they've all done the
• 42:17
  Speaker 4: same thing, they've all replicated it. They found the same
• 42:19
  Speaker 4: results over and over and over. That is even more skeptical.
• 42:23
  Speaker 4: You should be even more skeptical of that. That is
• 42:28
  Speaker 4: you being ultra uber mega patriarchal because you're really attempting
• 42:33
  Speaker 4: to de find things. And of course, when you get
• 42:35
  Speaker 4: more and more abstract in that sort of data, processing
• 42:39
  Speaker 4: means you move more and more away from mr fields,
• 42:43
  Speaker 4: which of course invalidates what you're doing.
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: Apparently, I wonder where that replicatability crisis came from. The mystery,
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: Ain't it mysterious? Just like that fifth person the room
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: with us?
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: So I'm gonna change because you're not playing the game.
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: So I'm gonna change the background to something else. Well,
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: on a second, I'll let me read a little bit
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: more and then I'll live.
• 43:17
  Speaker 3: And start playing.
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: No, No, I'm just saying it's your just t posing, So
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: I'll just put up an image. It's okay, I got something.
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: Qualitative techniques, which allow women to speak for themselves, is
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: considered No way. I already read that bit, didn't I Now.
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: The limits of this approach to feminist methodology are the
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: limits of the views of the women interviewed. Concepts and
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: notions of our structures outside their experience are ruled out.
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: I think this is very problematic, since it is not
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: clear why women's everyday experiences should be less contaminated by
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: patriarchal notions than other theories. All knowledge is mediated via
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: ideas and concepts, and those available are necessarily affected by
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: patriarchal relations. Systematic query and theoretical development are more likely
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: to elucidate the nature of patriarchal relations.
• 44:07
  Speaker 4: And that's how they justify you know, your internalized depression.
• 44:12
  Speaker 4: You've internalized the patriarchy there. It's any view that you
• 44:16
  Speaker 4: have as a woman in society, there is a concept
• 44:20
  Speaker 4: or an idea that that thing may have been contaminated
• 44:23
  Speaker 4: by some sort of patriarchal notion. Do you got to decolonize,
• 44:30
  Speaker 4: decolonize your.
• 44:31
  Speaker 2: Mind, decolonize my mind and just try to eject all
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: of my knowledge of this of the systemic implications of
• 44:40
  Speaker 2: all this nonsense I'm hearing. Okay, I think that that
• 44:43
  Speaker 2: would otherwise be termed as a lobotomy. I have to
• 44:47
  Speaker 2: lobotomize myself to become a feminist. Actually, you know what's
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: really funny is I'm not even talking metaphorically. Well, it's
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: some metaphorically somewhat. Feminists are pursuing some kind of soft botomy,
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: and because they they didn't, they are actively socializing or
• 45:09
  Speaker 2: conditioning themselves to decouple their actions from their consequences and
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: shove patriarchy between the two, which fundamentally reduces their their
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: sense of effectiveness over their lives.
• 45:23
  Speaker 3: Increases their learned.
• 45:24
  Speaker 2: Helplessness and makes them less functional beings, which.
• 45:29
  Speaker 3: Is why me and Brian watched that.
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: The Dating Panel and you have. But the thing is
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: the clearest counter example. The very thesis of the Dating
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: Panel was was just looking at one side. One side
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: is composed, dignified, they're they're prepared to step up, they're
• 45:52
  Speaker 2: prepared to work for a relationship and bring something to
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: the table. And the other side is a bunch of
• 45:58
  Speaker 2: disregulated chimpins. They get the impression if you threw a
• 46:01
  Speaker 2: dildo on the on the stage, they'd immediately start fighting
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: over it. And uh, I'll leave it as an exercise
• 46:09
  Speaker 2: the viewer. Now that I've described which was the male
• 46:12
  Speaker 2: side and which was the female side, And.
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: I've found another debate, by the way, on that same channel,
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: it's feminists versus men, so that one that one should be.
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: I mean, look, I'm not learning anything from those videos,
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: but it's fun to watch. Uh okay, So the.
• 46:33
  Speaker 2: Last one I did learn something.
• 46:36
  Speaker 3: I I saw.
• 46:38
  Speaker 2: The this this literal visual representation of the problem with
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: modern pair bonding. And the problem is not the men,
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: no matter what the conservatives say, It's not the ones
• 46:50
  Speaker 2: who are stepping up and bringing something to the equation
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: and expect themselves to bring something to equation, and expect
• 46:57
  Speaker 2: themselves to take responsibility if they don't go wrong. It's
• 47:02
  Speaker 2: the disregulated monkeys on the other side that are the problem.
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: That's why pair bonding isn't happening, because the women are
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: not in a position to be able to do this activity.
• 47:15
  Speaker 2: They are not fit. They are simply unfit for this activity.
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: They're like a six hundred pound couch potato. And then
• 47:26
  Speaker 2: you're like, oh, can you Are you gonna run a
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: marathon next Tuesday? And it's not gonna happen. They are
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: completely unfit for the activity of pair bonding. And that
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: was that was like something that just opened my eyes,
• 47:40
  Speaker 2: Like I'm like this that we can argue all of
• 47:43
  Speaker 2: the mechanics, all of the statistics, all of that, but
• 47:45
  Speaker 2: the han'st honest truth is right there right in front
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: of you, visually presented. You have one group composed, ready
• 47:54
  Speaker 2: and the other group disregulated, incoherent and self destructive. Nothing
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: can happen. There's nothing that can go forward from that.
• 48:05
  Speaker 2: All right, I will.
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: Step off, Okay, So Harding nineteen eighty six prove provides
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: a clear and errudite account of the problematic debate between
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: the feminist empiricists and the feminist standpoint positions, and treads
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: a delicate balance between the two. The fragmentation of the
• 48:24
  Speaker 1: scientific project, which is a consequence of postmodernist thought, is
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: both a strength and a weakness. She argues that while
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: the first group, the feminist empiricists, have made valuable contributions,
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: their best work is in fact done when they make
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: use of their standpoint as women to ask new questions,
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: not merely the old. That is, when they adopt some
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: aspects of the second school's approach. This is like, this
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: is a conversation of two absolute evil organizations deciding which
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: one is better suited to destroying society. Like that, And
• 49:04
  Speaker 1: that's what their argument is about, right. I mean, we
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: got the feminist empiricists, which I would argue doesn't exist,
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: and then we have the feminist standpoint position. That's why
• 49:15
  Speaker 1: the standpoint theorist won I mean, that's where we're living,
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: the paradigm we live under right now. Right because because
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: the empiricists they they they couldn't they couldn't be empirical.
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: They believe in a bullshit ideology or unless you know, yes, yes,
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: it was doomed from the start.
• 49:36
  Speaker 2: It was doomed from the start. It was a doomed
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: project from the start, completely doomed. You can't have empiricism
• 49:44
  Speaker 2: and standpoint theory in the same room. They have to
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: fight to the death, and standpoint theory always wins.
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: Okay, all right, special chats being a bit special today,
• 49:55
  Speaker 1: but okay, so or I think that special chat. Yeah.
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: Harding maintains that the most important issue is the setting
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: of the questions to be researched and allocation of resources
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: to do this, drawing upon a Postcoonian recognition of the
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: central issue of the social construction of the research questions themselves.
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: Science is a black box crucially structured by the political
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: context in which it operates. Women, and indeed, different groups
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: of women need to be able to set their own
• 50:31
  Speaker 1: research agendas. Well wait, wait, if you say that science
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: is a black box crucially structured by the political context
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: in which it operates, doesn't that make it subjective? I mean,
• 50:41
  Speaker 1: by your standard, because it's it changes depending on the
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: political context, and if the personal is political, like, just
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: roll with it, yeah, just roll on.
• 50:55
  Speaker 3: Let it happened to you, Brian, Uh.
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: All right, I don't know if you wanted to say
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: anything about this til deer.
• 51:05
  Speaker 4: Or well, it's regarding the science as a black box
• 51:09
  Speaker 4: structured by the crucial by the political context. It Well, no,
• 51:13
  Speaker 4: we know what the scientific method is, we know how
• 51:15
  Speaker 4: these things function. We've got literally centuries of data demonstrating
• 51:20
  Speaker 4: how the scientific method works and that it works. Now,
• 51:23
  Speaker 4: what this sort of seems to basically imply is, oh,
• 51:26
  Speaker 4: it's a black box. You don't really know what's going
• 51:28
  Speaker 4: on in there, but it's structured by the political context
• 51:31
  Speaker 4: in which it operates. This is going to be later on, well,
• 51:34
  Speaker 4: in later decades after this book was published, is going
• 51:38
  Speaker 4: to be used to say, ah, well, you see, we
• 51:40
  Speaker 4: live in a white supremacist society. Therefore white supremacy is
• 51:45
  Speaker 4: shaping science. Therefore, oh wider science. When you do things
• 51:51
  Speaker 4: like IQ testing by ethnicity, oh wider, Black people score
• 51:55
  Speaker 4: lower on average than white people. Ah well, you see,
• 51:57
  Speaker 4: that's because society is white supremacist, and it set up
• 52:01
  Speaker 4: the IQ tests to get those results because it is racist.
• 52:05
  Speaker 4: That's what you're getting at there. It's basically saying any
• 52:09
  Speaker 4: form of scientific method that is created by society is
• 52:12
  Speaker 4: going to be informed by what that society is. So
• 52:17
  Speaker 4: that was one example regarding the angle of race. They
• 52:19
  Speaker 4: can do the same thing where it's like, oh, science,
• 52:21
  Speaker 4: because we live in a capitalist society. Therefore science is
• 52:26
  Speaker 4: influenced by the concept of capital. It's influenced by money
• 52:32
  Speaker 4: and all of that stuff. So things that generate revenue
• 52:36
  Speaker 4: are going to be prioritized over things that do not,
• 52:41
  Speaker 4: and that that is going to be the only thing
• 52:43
  Speaker 4: that happens. Now we know that it can happen, but
• 52:46
  Speaker 4: it also doesn't happen, so this is just what they
• 52:49
  Speaker 4: rely on. It's basically saying science can't really be science
• 52:54
  Speaker 4: because science can't ever actually be neutral. It's always being
• 52:57
  Speaker 4: influenced by something.
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: Right, Okay. Harding is ambivalent to as to whether some
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: methods of seeking knowledge are better than others. Indeed, her
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: concept of science dissolves into a more general notion of
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: knowledge as she refuses to privilege one form of knowledge
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: creation over another knowledge creation. Okay, she slides towards a
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: relativism in which each social group each social group cites
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: its own knowledge, a postmodernist post structuralist position, but draws
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: back from its full implications. Ad was right, we should
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: have listened to add.
• 53:44
  Speaker 2: Oh man, that's some serious deep lore.
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 53:49
  Speaker 2: No, I actually.
• 53:52
  Speaker 3: Talked to Ad. He he makes sense. He made sense.
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: No, it's just a he's very foreign so it was
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: not his first language.
• 54:01
  Speaker 2: So yeah, used the by the bisexuals are coming to
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: get us or something. What was this thing that he said?
• 54:08
  Speaker 3: Oh man?
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: What?
• 54:11
  Speaker 2: Well? What he used to have a tagline?
• 54:13
  Speaker 5: Ad?
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 54:14
  Speaker 4: Did?
• 54:14
  Speaker 3: He'd come into the chat and he'd always be like saying.
• 54:17
  Speaker 2: Postmodernism, post modern Oh yes, post modern home.
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: A YouTube channel. I think it just was him saying
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: postmodernism with like a techno background beat.
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and that voice, that heavy German accent.
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, was it German? I think it was like
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: Swedish or something. I don't know. I don't know, I
• 54:41
  Speaker 1: don't know.
• 54:44
  Speaker 4: Okay, So anyway, I'm gonna get in there as well.
• 54:48
  Speaker 4: There So, of course we come back here to you know,
• 54:51
  Speaker 4: female feelings on knowledge and science. But a very interesting
• 54:55
  Speaker 4: thing to know here is, obviously it's different groups of
• 54:57
  Speaker 4: people have different things, and this for this harding person
• 55:01
  Speaker 4: is leading towards some sort of relativism. That's kind of
• 55:04
  Speaker 4: important because once again it's there is nothing objective. There's
• 55:08
  Speaker 4: no objective frame. It's it's the glass test with the
• 55:12
  Speaker 4: water line. If there's nothing octive, then you can't tell
• 55:18
  Speaker 4: where that water line should be. And so if everything's relative,
• 55:21
  Speaker 4: well then the water line won't change according to the horizon.
• 55:25
  Speaker 4: It's only relative to the glass.
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: Right, right, that's a great point, the water line test. Yes,
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: that's why women fail it. Okay. I don't know, man,
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: your ladies are not making the case to keep your rights.
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: I'm just saying you're not doing a good job, all right.
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: The strength the strength of Harding's work is her demonstration
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: of the greater significance of the construction of the questions.
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: Why are these sentences written this way? Listen? The strength
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: of Harding's work is her demonstration of the greater significance
• 56:02
  Speaker 1: of the construction of the questions to be asked and
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: how this has been patriarchally organized, rather than the narrower
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: question of whether specific methods of investigation are more feminist
• 56:16
  Speaker 1: than others. This method of investigation isn't feminist enough. We
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: needed we needed to be more feminist. Turn it to eleven.
• 56:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right. The nested quality of these sentences, oh
• 56:35
  Speaker 2: my god, Okay, the position undisciplined mind, I think, yes,
• 56:40
  Speaker 2: it's a mind that fails the water level test.
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: The position taken in this book is that the selection
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: of questions and the resources devoted to their research is
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: a social and political issue which is shaped by patriarchal institutions,
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: but that the answer to any given question is not
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: one which is social or politically relative. The position in
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: this book is that the selection of questions and the
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: resources devoted to their research is a social and political
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: issue shaped by patriarchal institutions. So the questions in devoted
• 57:18
  Speaker 1: to research is patriarchal, but the answer.
• 57:23
  Speaker 4: Questions that are being asked are patriarchally biased.
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: Yes, and but the answer is not one which is
• 57:33
  Speaker 1: socially or politically relative. So okay, I'm dying inside a
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: little bit. Okay. A weakness in Harding's work is her
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: ambivalence to the point of abandoning that aspect of the
• 57:52
  Speaker 1: project of science, which is to create universally what universe saalistically?
• 58:00
  Speaker 4: Yes, that is actually the word as written in the book.
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: Okay, universalistically, yeah, go ahead.
• 58:12
  Speaker 4: It's not the right word to use. It is technically
• 58:15
  Speaker 4: a word, but it is it's not the right word
• 58:20
  Speaker 4: to use in that sentence. Honestly, it falls into the
• 58:26
  Speaker 4: problem that I encounter with a lot of just feminist
• 58:29
  Speaker 4: academics in general. They bloviate, they over complicate everything that
• 58:35
  Speaker 4: they're saying. I think it is partially just because they're
• 58:37
  Speaker 4: desperate to be seen as being smart and they want
• 58:40
  Speaker 4: their stuff to be kind of impenetrable. It's something which
• 58:46
  Speaker 4: I've noticed a lot of time. Like you you just
• 58:47
  Speaker 4: go through feminist books or feminist the peer reviews stuff feminism,
• 58:53
  Speaker 4: and it's like you just need to have half a
• 58:55
  Speaker 4: dozen decoder rings to work out what they're actually getting at.
• 58:59
  Speaker 4: But then when you actually read hard science things, which
• 59:02
  Speaker 4: you think, well, these are very complicated, you know we're
• 59:04
  Speaker 4: going into like physics or medicine or something like that. No,
• 59:07
  Speaker 4: it's all written in like as clearer English as the
• 59:10
  Speaker 4: author can manage. Like she's just simple, easy to understand.
• 59:14
  Speaker 4: You can just plow through it and understand it all immediately.
• 59:16
  Speaker 4: And I think it's just by design that these people
• 59:19
  Speaker 4: structure their things terribly.
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Uh okay, huh. A weakness in Harding's work is
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: her ambivalence to the point of abandoning that aspect of
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: the product of the project of science which is to
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: create universalistically authoritative knowledge on the basis of systematic inquiry.
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: In focusing on the social construction of science, she denies
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: the possibility of this project. In this I think she
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: goes too far in that she intends to deny the
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: utility and validity of each body of science within its
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: own terms. There is one type of epistemology neglected by
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: Harding in her otherwise excellent and thorough review of the literature,
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 1: which does retain the scientific project, that of realism. The
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: realist approach maintains that there are deep structures which can
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 1: be discovered with systematic inquiry. Realists like boshcar bosscar I
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: Guess argue that there are deep social structures, the discovery
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: of which is key to our understanding of gender relations.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: These structures are not necessarily visible or immediately knowledgeable. This
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: approach contrasts with both positivists and standpoint epistemologies. Systematic study
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 1: and scientific analysis are necessary to uncover these structures, which
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: are emergent properties of social practices. They contain a duality
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: of both structure and action. The theoretical project in this
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: book is realist in the sense that it is engaged
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: in an identification of the underlying structures of social life. However,
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: I do not think we need to make Oh yeah, I'm.
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 2: Sorry, go ahead, Yeah, this is we need to have
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 2: a breath here and some response to this. So there
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 2: are underlying social structures of society and social life, underlying
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 2: social structures of social life in society, and we can
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 2: find these empirically. I just want to propose something, right,
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 2: So we're looking at social structures, are we so social
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 2: organization on a systemic level?
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 3: Okay?
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: Can we look at receipts, paper trails, you know, where
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 2: the money leads in discovering these social structures or are
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 2: they all just basically projected, Like you take the contents
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 2: of this woman's id and vomit them all over everything
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: in society, and that's that's the structure. You know, the
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 2: cheerios that she ate in the morning, That that's the
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 2: structure of society. Because because the thing is, if you
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: follow the money, if you follow the paperwork, yeah, there
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 2: are some pretty big social structures. They start with M,
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 2: sorry that they start with F and M with M,
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: and they are definitely organizing a lot of stuff. But
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: it's like the thing is that she talks about empirically
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 2: finding these social structures. But these social structures never deviate
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 2: from what they've decided they are when they started the
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: investigation into the social structures. I just wanted to point
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 2: that out because it was aggravating me.
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 4: I'm never going to find these structures because they were
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 4: invisible anyway.
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 2: So a patriarchy that has absolutely a sing, not a
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 2: single scent to its name. In other words, the system,
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 2: the systems of systems that creates this thing where men
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: are always trying to prioritize the benefit of other men
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 2: over over women get not a single scent to its name.
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 2: Really butts but no exists. But it definitely exists. And
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 2: also the effect of feminism definitely doesn't exist in society,
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 2: despite the fact it has probably a trillion dollar a
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 2: year paper trail.
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 4: Okay, because patriarchy is you see that duality of.
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 2: It.
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 4: It's the duality of structure and action. So it exists,
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 4: but it doesn't exist. It's invisible, but it's just a
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 4: product of everyone's actions. But you can't prove it that
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 4: is actually there. So you sort of see where they're
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 4: going against just basically the way of saying I'm right
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 4: no matter what, because I'm a woman and I have feelings,
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 4: and my feelings are science, as we just established.
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: And also I'm a victim, which makes me even more
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 2: right than that, right on a fundamental level that man
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: could never experience. And not right because I have a
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 2: cognitive about modality that excludes the male by definition, so
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 2: I don't even know.
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 3: I can't even be aware.
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 2: That there is another cognitive model that I don't have
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 2: access to. No, I'm right because I am absolutely, completely
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 2: and utterly right. And they call men egotistical. All right.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: However, I do not think we need to make the
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: distinction between necessary and contingent structures of a social system
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 1: in the way that Sayer suggests. Since patriarchy is an
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: open social system which can take a variety of form,
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: it is like the devil and God. At the same time,
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: it is invisible, it is ever present in fill us
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: all things.
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 4: That is kind of important. It's an open system which
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 4: can take a variety of forms, So you can't actually
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 4: properly fully define it because it could be anything, It
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 4: could be anywhere.
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 2: This is a freaking nightmare.
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 4: Oh, your definition of patriarchy has to be for the
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 4: moving goalposts.
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: Yep, I got a rumble rant from kit eight eight eight,
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: Thank you kit, and they give us five dollars and
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 1: says keep making a difference. Well, I appreciate that. I
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: every so often it's nice to hear people appreciate what
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 1: we do. Mm hmm, despite the fact that we're cartoons.
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: All right, So now we have a whole section on patriarchy.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: The variety of definitions of patriarchy has been a problem
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: in some early texts. However, it would be surprising if
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: developing theories of patriarchy did not use the term in
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: slightly different ways. So before I get into that, I
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 1: don't know how they're gonna say this, but when feminist
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: feminist definitions of patriarchy is not the same as what
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: patriarchy has meant historically, like you know, basically tracing the
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: line from the father, that's all I think that was
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: basically what it was. I mean, there is like a
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: religious context for patriarchy as well, and maybe that's like
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: why they're attacking it and calling it patriarchy. But their
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: definition of patriarchy is not the historically let's say, you know,
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: I don't know sensible definition that most people would use.
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 1: So Okay. Patriarchy is a concept. As a concept has
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: a history of usage among social scientists, such as Weber,
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: who used it to refer to a system of government
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: in which men rule societies through their position as heads
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: of households.
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 2: Okay, okay, try to point something out that is basically
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 2: saying that patriarchy is a society.
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 3: That's a society.
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Like, there is no society, not even the matre
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 2: linear ones where men don't occupy that role right of
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 2: protector and provider for their social group. There's no And
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: also for most social mammals this is also the case. Right,
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 2: So when they say society is a patriarchy, they're basically
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 2: saying society is a society. Well, thank you, that's that's great.
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 1: But it doesn't have to be a society, Allison. It
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: doesn't have to be if we break it. I mean,
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: what is smashing the patriarchy if it isn't smashed society?
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, And we're going to create a wonderful society
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: in which there is no control over a lesbian domestic
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 2: violence because there are no men controlling it.
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 3: So it's just gonna me.
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: Maybe we should create like a space for lesbians to
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: get engage in domestic violence and make it, you know,
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 1: make them wear kaiju suits and put them around a
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: bunch of like toy buildings like models. Yeah, destroy the
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 1: other up.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: That's right there.
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 3: Man thinking that's that's some serious.
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's thinking. Look, I mean we used to have
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: gladiatorial games, but we can like let the lesbians work
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: that out, well, turn them into gladiators and then yep,
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 1: all right, okay, uh okay in this use Well, I
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 1: don't tield deer wanted to say anything. I don't want
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 1: to like cut you off, you want to jump in.
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 4: No, it's that is basically, yes, patriarchy is in fact society.
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 4: Society is in fact a society. Yes, that is what
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 4: this person has fundamentally said. But it's basically just like
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 4: if men rule anything in a household, if they have
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 4: any sort of control over the household, then that is
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 4: then that is necessarily patriarchy. Now you can go sort
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 4: of into that and say like, well, okay, why do
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 4: men do that? Well, as it turns out, women want
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 4: them to do that. This has been confirmed literally hundreds
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 4: of times. I'm sick of people trying to deny this.
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 4: Women want men who like earn more than them and
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 4: pay for their men, keep them and all of this stuff.
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 4: But yeah, that's another reason why earlier they had to
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 4: try to find ways to dismiss women who speak against
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 4: this particular ideology because they've just internalized the patriarchy and
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 4: so on and so forth.
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna throw like a basic endochronology wrench into this.
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 2: This is this is something that women do on a
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 2: hormonal level.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 3: So men signal testosterone.
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 2: It's not itself because it's nonviolent, volatile, so it doesn't
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 2: become a smell, but the metabolites of testosterone are perceived
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 2: by women, which creates calm, alertness, and also interest in
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 2: in men, probably the man who's doing the signaling, but
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 2: men generally if there's more than one of them. So
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 2: it actually there's an actual hormonal component to the submission,
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: and that is men's biology creates calm and focus in women.
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 2: So it's like, yeah, on a fundamental level. And also
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 2: people orientate, and in particular, women orientate to what they
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 2: perceive to be the most dominant individual in the room.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: And guess what signals the most dominant individual in the room.
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 3: Testosterone.
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 2: So it's like this, this is all like, patriarchy is
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 2: fundamental to the animal, and it's not just fundamental to us,
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 2: it's fundamental to any social animal. If you have a
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 2: social animal, it's most likely arranging itself around dominant males,
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 2: just because because of the signaling and the fact that
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 2: the mammalian limbic architecture doesn't change that much. Right, it's conservative.
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 2: Evolution is conservative. So if prairie vols are doing it,
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 2: and wolves are doing it, and antelope are doing it,
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 2: we're probably doing it too, and nobody wants to actually
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 2: acknowledge that.
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 3: I mean, we're doing it at.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: A level of complexity that's probably significantly greater because of
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 2: our cortex, but we're still on a fundamental level arranging
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 2: ourselves socially on that same model. Who is the most
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 2: dominant individual, who is responsible for the security of the group,
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 2: the one with the most testosterone. Who's that going to be.
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 3: Anyway?
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: I just wanted to point that out. It's like, it's
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: not even a question. It's written right into how we
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 2: respond to each other hormonally. All right, I'll step off myrin.
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 4: It's it's fairly typical, I think. I mean, even if
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 4: you want to go into the pair bonding dynamic of
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 4: that or why men want to protect women and all
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 4: of that, Well, the answer is vasuppressing. Like we literally
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 4: know that if you up that in territorial animals, behaviors
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 4: like make guarding and what you would call jealousy and
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 4: envy increases. Well, as it turns out that when you
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 4: have that pair bond with someone in the human species
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 4: of vasuppression levels rise, which causes this protective desire like
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 4: what what do you expect? And as it turns out,
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 4: women are quite good at generating that in men, so
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 4: aready already dr men want to protect women because literally
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 4: on that or modal level again, you're getting that bump
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 4: in something that leads to that level of behavior or
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 4: that kind of behavior.
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you know something something we're not animals, something
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: something feminism, patriarchal dominance is better.
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 4: Becomes a really big hurdle for these sorts of people
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 4: when it comes to that.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but I don't even understand why this is less dignified.
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: All right, it's simple, Okay, it's not. It's not an absolute.
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 2: There are cortical factors going on. The Pair bonding is
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 2: a lot more complex than just a male and female
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 2: animal because there's kin groups and all kinds of other stuff.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 2: But that, to me seems more dignified recognizing that than
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 2: saying things like men inherently want to oppress women in
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 2: order to benefit themselves in some sort of undefined way,
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: which is another thing. How do men benefit from oppressing women?
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 2: How do men benefit from being dominant or constantly custodial
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: towards women?
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 4: Oh well, book, we'll tell you on the very next.
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 2: Plat, I have predicted the next twist in this twisty tail.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 4: It's not really much a twist. It's your woman staying
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 4: at home and pressing buttons on automated white goods is
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 4: what actually creates society, as opposed to the men going
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 4: out and doing things. That's just a spoiler though it
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 4: is actually that simple. But yeah, we'll get there and together.
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: All right, We're gonna try and get there. In this usage,
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: the denomination of younger men who were not household heads
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: was as important, if not more important, than the element
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: of men's domination over women via the household. The meaning
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: of the term has evolved since Weber, especially in the
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: writings by radical feminists who developed the element of the
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 1: domination of women by men and who paid less attention
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: to the issue of how men dominated each other and
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: by dual systems. Theorists who have sought to develop a
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: concept and theory of patriarchy as a system which exploits
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: alongside capitalism and sometimes racism, tootionality. Yeah, all the buzzwords.
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 1: Where's the homophobia and Islamophobia and anti semitism? Though, we
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: got to work those in there. I get Well, this
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: is the nineties.
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 4: Yeah, that doesn't exist yet. They haven't heard of.
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 1: That, they haven't found that there's use, there's utility for
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: that yet.
• 1:15:29
  Speaker 4: Well, yeah, this is before nine to eleven, and Muslims
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 4: didn't exist until that happened.
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, So Alse do you want to say
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: anything about that? Or should I just keep going.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 2: In the interest of getting through this.
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's painful, I know, all right. Yet, the practice
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: of incorporating a generational element into the definition of patriarchy
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 1: has been continued by some of the major contemporary writers
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 1: on this question, most importantly by Hartman. I think that
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 1: the incorporation of a generational element into the definition is
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: a mistake. So like the idea that what patriarchy used
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 1: to mean, which is like, you know, the essentially tracing
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: the family through the father, which is why wives take
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: their husband's last names and that name continues. It's like
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: why we have these ideas of you know, like if
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: you are a nice to say this, Like if you're
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: a warrior on the battlefield and you're announcing yourself, you
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: will say what family you belong to? Right? That is
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 1: supposed to come with something. It means something to sort
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: of like announce your genealogy, and that comes from the
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: name that you take. So like if you have a
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 1: last name like Taylor or whatever, it's it's not it's
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: like your name. Like my name, my last name is Martinez,
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: which means son of Martin, So it's somewhere in my
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 1: line there was someone named Martin who was of some importance,
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: and that's why we pass the last name. That's what
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: patriarchy is. It's like, connects you to your own ancestry, right,
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: and they want to we're just eliminating that. It doesn't
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: even mean that anymore. We're cutting that out. Haven't you
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 1: heard women hyphenate their last names now, which means they
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 1: take the last names of two men.
• 1:17:24
  Speaker 4: The generational element is a mistake, but yeah, this is
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 4: it's actually that is actually a very important thing though,
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 4: Like that, it is about removing the connection from the parent.
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 4: I actually think that is a very important part of it. Ye,
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 4: because they want to remove that connection. They want to
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 4: isolate people from that.
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah exactly, Yeah, that's what. They want to remove the
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: connection to your own your own history. So, like, why
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 1: is it there are so many people right now who,
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: especially young people who don't have fathers, Like, so we've
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: removed the father from home for about in some you know,
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: parts of the population. It could be like three or
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 1: four generations removed. So there's no connection. You don't know
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 1: anything about your own history. You don't know. It takes
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: away part of your meaning as a person, right, So this.
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 4: Is paternity assurance, which the big part of that patrilineal
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 4: line of following like that, it was basically a sort
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 4: of on your honor for the woman you're only with
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 4: one guy, yes, which is something they want to get
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 4: rid of because that holds women to standards as well.
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: True that, but okay, okay, it implies a theory of
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 1: gender inequality in which this aspect of men's domination over
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: each other is central to men's domination of women. So okay,
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: Yet in practice, few contemporary theories of gender inequality established
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: that this is the case. For instance, Well Hartman uses
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 1: the definition which incorporates generational hierarchy among men. This is
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: not central to her theory of patriarchy, which focuses upon
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 1: men's organizational ability to expropriate women's labor in paid work
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: and hence in the household. Thus, inclusion of generation in
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: the definition is confusing. It is a contingent element and
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 1: best omitted. So they're basically they want to remove what
• 1:19:28
  Speaker 1: could be the most important part of this definition, which
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: is that the degenerational aspect. Right, And of course they
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: don't like hierarchy of any kind, even though hierarchy is reality,
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: So they're trying to eliminate that. I mean, to me,
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: hierarchy is reality, Like there's no when I mean, there's
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: no I'm sorry, but there's just no such thing as equality,
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: Like there's just fairness, there's justice, that's it. But anyway,
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: before developing the details of its form, I shall define
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 1: patriarchy as a system of social structures and practices in
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women. Well, that's the
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 1: first honest thing that she has said, is basically like
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: the way feminists to find patriarchy.
• 1:20:14
  Speaker 4: And we need some and bozzos and stuff to go
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 4: off of. They did it. They actually finally provided a
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 4: definition which I can guarantee if you quote any single
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 4: feminist how then they will say, no, that's not it.
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well they'll probably disagree with this definition.
• 1:20:30
  Speaker 2: Well yeah, they'll say it's not it because they don't
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 2: want to be held to it. They want to continue
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 2: to move the goalposts and whatever arrangement allows them to
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 2: win in the moment.
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 3: But yes, this is it.
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 2: And I also reversed engineered this based on what how
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 2: much times I've talked to feminists. But here's the other thing.
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 2: If they don't have a definition for their foundational premise
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 2: that can actually be tested, then they got nothing except
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 2: you know, women's ways of knowing and women's feelings is
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 2: scientific evidence. But this this premise is one false like
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 2: it's it's not just hasn't, but it's false. There is
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 2: no indication that men have constructed patriarchy to benefit themselves,
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 2: and every indication that they have not like they that
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 2: it doesn't benefit And then the other thing is that
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 2: they make this framework and then they regard counter evidence
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 2: to the framework as somehow evidence of the framework by saying, well,
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 2: patriarchy hurts men too, No, bitch, no, that's counter evidence
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 2: to the assertion of feminist patriarchy. You can't just dismiss
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 2: it by saying, oh, no, that also is. No, it
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 2: doesn't work like that, right you You've asserted that zebras
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 2: are are red and red and green. Well, no, and
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 2: every single zebra that you found isn't right. So every
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 2: time we look at this, every time we say, okay,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 2: do men actually arraigne structures to benefit themselves? The answer
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 2: is no. In fact, they're much more likely to arrange
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 2: structures to benefit women and then expect men to make
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 2: the sacrifices for that to happen. That's the that is,
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 2: And there's no indication that people generally want to benefit
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 2: men over women when they've ever, when they've tested this,
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 2: they have never found a situation where people would prefer
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 2: to benefit men over women. Never, So, how where where
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 2: are the where is the substrate upon which society has
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 2: built all these things to benefit men? The answer is
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: is that men seem to derive a benefit from protecting
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 2: and providing women, And I don't mean like a personal benefit.
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 2: It's like a like a somatic, like an endocrim benefit,
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 2: and it's I don't know how to define that as
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: a benefit. It's like an instinct. And that's what they
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 2: do over and over and over again. And once you
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 2: recognize that, all of this feminist posturing becomes less an
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 2: observation of reality or truth and more something that they
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 2: developed that triggers the very thing that they deny exists.
• 1:23:14
  Speaker 2: It's like the perfect super stimulus for men's desire to
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 2: protect women and feminism. How coincidental?
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 4: All right, all the feminism is just the politicization of
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 4: female nature. Use I'm pretty sure.
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: That before in this channel. Yeah, you probably said it first,
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: but yes, we've been saying this for a long time.
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 4: Yeah, it's almost like it's completely true, isn't it almost?
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 2: Yes, question, But at the same time, it's also like
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: feminists hate women wanting men, women wanting to be protected
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 2: by men, provided for by men. And I don't mean
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 2: that in the context of this current society where women
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 2: can adequately provide for themselves but don't feel like they
• 1:24:10
  Speaker 2: have to. I mean that more in the context of
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 2: like a mutuality or a complementarianism. But yeah, they feminists
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 2: don't like that about women. They are at war with
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 2: that in women. And this is where I will push
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 2: back against the female nature thing. Female nature is to
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 2: orientate towards men as a source of protection. It is
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 2: to not complete helplessness, because throughout all of human history,
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 2: and probably since the original origins of hominids, women have
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 2: had or females have had the ability to maintain some
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 2: level of resource acquisitions themselves. So it's not complete helplessness.
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 2: It's complementarianism. But women do have an instinct to orientate
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: towards men in the presence of threat. They have an
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 2: instinct to want to be provided for because gestation and
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 2: lactation are extremely calorically expensive and can kill her if
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 2: she doesn't have some a group of people helping out
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 2: with that. So all is this, All of this is
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 2: inherent to the beast, and feminism hates all of it.
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 2: Like some of the most physically satisfying things that women experience,
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 2: and feminism hates them all and wants to eradicate them.
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 2: So it's like it's it is politicization of female nature
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 2: at the same time as it is corruption and condemnation.
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 3: And I think.
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 2: It's probably also a lot of female intersexual competition. Feminists
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 2: are taking absolute glee and destroying the reproductive and sexual
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 2: potential of other women. Let's be frank, Yes, this is
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 2: yeah and they and that is that is female biology.
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 2: But then also, you know, the receptivity, the desire to
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 2: be pretted, the desire to you know, have children with
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 2: the male, all of that other stuff not allowed.
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 3: That is the wrong female biology.
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 2: That is the female biology that feminists want to destroy,
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 2: you know, the desire to be taken roughly destroyed, not allowed,
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 2: you know, that kind of stuff. And so it's it's
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 2: it's like the politicization of the worst parts of female nature.
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 6: The the resentment, the envy, the insecurity, the selopsism, uh,
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 6: the the intersexual aggression, the fact that women just can't
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 6: handle the fact that another woman might be getting something that.
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 2: They're not getting and they don't control. Like, all of
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 2: that is politicized. But that essential, like there's a big
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 2: component of the essential female animal that's completely i want
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 2: to say castrated, that's the wrong word, but just like
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 2: destroyed in female in the feminist narrative, and not allowed
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 2: to express itself or even assert itself. And there is
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 2: more evidence than just what I'm saying here. It's it's
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 2: in how feminists arrange, Like have you noticed, Brian, that
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 2: there's a lot of women who are now starting to
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 2: talk up up about the feminist bullshit, Like if you
• 1:27:24
  Speaker 2: take this, you take this, it's in a specific area.
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 2: You take what we're reading now, and this is starfeet, sorry,
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 2: Starfleet Academy, I call it starfeet. So this is this
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 2: is starfeet. Is the entertainment manifestation of what we are
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 2: reading right now, right and there we're seeing. What I'm
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 2: seeing is more and more women want to see men
• 1:27:55
  Speaker 2: who are competent. They want to see men who can
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 2: navigate obstacles. They want to see heroes. They don't want
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 2: to see boss babes as much as they want to
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 2: see heroes, like male heroes, competent men making competent choices
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 2: and having moral dilemmas. That's the other thing, you know,
• 1:28:14
  Speaker 2: you know, what is this man going to decide what.
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 3: Is his ethical system?
• 1:28:17
  Speaker 2: That's completely That is now the competent male hero dealing
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 2: with a moral ethical like a thorny morac ethical problem
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 2: is now something we don't see anymore in fiction. And
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 2: there are women saying we want this and speaking out
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 2: against it, and then of course they're feminist sing oh
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 2: pick me, pick me, handmaiden, you know, despite the fact
• 1:28:40
  Speaker 2: that they are the real handmaidens of the real evil,
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 2: and you know, and there's used to I'm seeing this
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 2: more and more. And then the other thing is that
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 2: this is literally what romance very in many cases, very badly.
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: I'm not going to say that romance is a medium
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 2: that has it has serious craft issues, and a lot
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 2: of the times the stuff that the publishing industry pumps
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 2: out is absolute crap, ideological crap. But this is literally
• 1:29:13
  Speaker 2: the experience that romance delivers to a woman, and it
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 2: is the biggest, the biggest genre in fiction, like bodies,
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 2: every other single genre, and yet feminists hate it, like
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 2: the feminist publishing industry hates it. It's constantly trying to
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 2: corrupt it into something that is ideologically palatable, which is
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 2: where all of this, like this seething crap comes from.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 2: And admittedly it is horrible, but I'm just saying it's
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 2: like this is there is another aspect to all of this,
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 2: and it's not just men who are being condemned, but
• 1:29:53
  Speaker 2: it's anything in women that likes men that's being condemned.
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 2: And there is a lot in women that's biologically, hormonally,
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 2: socially primed to get this want to be around their
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 2: evolutionary partner. Okay, I'll get off my pedestal here.
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 3: No, it's fine, pedestal podium.
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 2: Sorry, I don't think anyone's pedestalizing.
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 1: No, you're not on anybody's pedestal. You could just say
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: never mind, let's just keep going. Okay. So, yeah, they
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 1: finally admit what patriarchy is. Give us a definition. I
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: don't think it'll stick because of the feminists will reject it.
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 1: But anyway, the use of the term social structure is
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 1: important here since it clearly implies rejection both of biological
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: determinism and the notion that every individual man is in
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: a dominant position and every woman in a subordinate one.
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 1: Oh so, wait a minute, we're gonna get nuanced with men? Now,
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: whoa dude, that's wild? Is this heresy? I mean.
• 1:30:59
  Speaker 4: That not actually going to do that.
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 1: No, of course not.
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 4: They just have to check the bases where they can say,
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 4: oh see see we didn't say all hashtag.
• 1:31:08
  Speaker 1: Not all laws. Yeah, okay, patriarchy needs to be conceptualized
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 1: at different levels of abstraction. At the most abstract level,
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: it exists as a system of social relations in contemporary Britain.
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 1: This is present in articulation with capitalism and with racism. However,
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 1: I do not wish to imply that this is homogulous
• 1:31:38
  Speaker 1: in internal structure with capitalism. At a less abstract level,
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 1: patriarchy is composed of six structures. The patriarchal mode of production,
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 1: the patriarchal relations in paid work, patriarchal relations in state
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 1: male violence, patriarchal relations and sexuality, and patriarchal relations in
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 1: cultural institutions. So there's different patriarchies, right, There's different structures.
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 1: There's you're producing relations paid work in really in the government,
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 1: male violence, which is just by itself. I guess it's
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: not that there's only the patriarchy and male violence. Don't
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 1: need to be separate. Things are the same thing. Patriarchal
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 1: relations in sexuality and in cultural institutions. More concretely, in
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: relation to each of these structures, it is possible to
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: identify sets of patriarchal practices which are less deeply sedimented.
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: Structures are emergent properties of practices. Any specific empirical instances
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: will embody the FX not only of patriarchal structures, but
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: also of capitalism and racism. Are you following or is
• 1:32:48
  Speaker 1: this too high? IQ? You guys?
• 1:32:51
  Speaker 4: I would like to bring up on little point about
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 4: male violence, and this is actually also from this book.
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 4: Later on they have the chapter on violence. They very
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 4: specifically when they talk about just male violence in general,
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 4: the things that they talk about, you know, using violence
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 4: to uphold society. Male violence. I'm just going to quote,
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 4: male violence exists in a myriad forms which may be
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 4: placed when they continue them with rape, wife beating, and
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 4: child sexual abuse on one and sexual harassment and wolf
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 4: whistles on the other. So men rape children to keep
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 4: society going, you know, a patriarchy and all that. That's
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 4: what she's getting at when she puts that in there,
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 4: then goes on to bring up the nonsense about how
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 4: in Britain it's like, oh, you're well legally allowed to
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 4: rape your wife up until sometime, and we know that's
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 4: not true, but it's just one of those woozles that
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 4: they like to try to bring up every so often.
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 2: Alison, Yeah, I'm just like, I don't know how anybody
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 2: tolerated this this crap, like a bunch of herodins asserting
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 2: that men use raping children in order to uphold society. Like,
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 2: at what point did people look at this and say, no, oh,
• 1:34:15
  Speaker 2: obviously they didn't.
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 3: That's what really baffles me.
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 2: Like the the in the insanity, like the insane people,
• 1:34:22
  Speaker 2: the people in the insane asylum saying insane things, that's
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 2: one thing. But the fact that society was like, yeah,
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 2: that makes a lot of sense. Why don't we allow
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 2: you to make policy? I know how it happened. I'm
• 1:34:34
  Speaker 2: just I'm boggling at it. I'm just like this, this
• 1:34:38
  Speaker 2: is a series of errors. This is a series of
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 2: very profound errors that I'm seeing that is cascaded into
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 2: something civilization ending. Yeah, okay, that's it.
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I assume that it that it passed because nobody,
• 1:34:56
  Speaker 1: like nobody put a spotlight on it, and and maybe
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: when they did, they were they dismissed it, like well,
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 1: those crazy feminists, Oh, they're just they're just out you know,
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 1: this is happening right now, you know, like right now,
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 1: there are people when you know, when I sometimes I'll
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 1: see them that come into the chat or run into
• 1:35:15
  Speaker 1: them online and they'll still be like why are you
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 1: still doing this, like, you know, refuting feminism thing that's
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 1: so two thousand and seven. We're like past that, we're
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 1: talking about you know whatever, like the whatever the new
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 1: thing is. And it's like, guys, if we don't address this,
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: none of that other shit matters. But they keep they
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 1: keep acting like it's not important. And I think it's
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 1: because they they really underestimate not just how much power
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: this ideology has, not just how influential, you know, like
• 1:35:49
  Speaker 1: how easily influencers sort of like moved by this women
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: are and a lot of men and that's like the
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 1: main thing too, And how many men get behind this
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent and like you know, they they all
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: alter law and policy, and they they basically just don't
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 1: want to look at it. They don't want to talk
• 1:36:05
  Speaker 1: about it. It's like no matter. Like all these like
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: kind of brave kind of you know, they would call
• 1:36:10
  Speaker 1: themselves brave or you know, these like wig nats online
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: that are like, oh, I'm gonna I'm gonna you know,
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 1: name the Jew, I'm gonna go after the whatever whatever
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 1: the enemy is. And and they but they won't they
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: won't go after women. Like that's the thing that they
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 1: will not criticize. It's like, but none of this other
• 1:36:27
  Speaker 1: shit matters, guys, Like it doesn't. It doesn't matter, like
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: how much influence this you know, Middle Eastern government has,
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: or or this organization over here, none of that matters
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 1: if you haven't gotten like the situation with women figured out,
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 1: because they will be your largest obstacle, Like this is
• 1:36:46
  Speaker 1: the thing, Like they don't get and there's.
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 2: People understanding this more and more.
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that they're starting to. I think that
• 1:36:52
  Speaker 1: they're starting to.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 2: As one gold always calling out the usual suspects. I
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 2: want to point out, like it's frustrating because what happens
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 2: is they'll fixate on this, that or the other thing.
• 1:37:05
  Speaker 2: And it's directly downstream of feminism's condemnation of masculinity and
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 2: our society's decision to deconstruct the ethical toolkit that men
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 2: have so free market, you know, policing, policing internally, so
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 2: criminal behavior, policing, immigration, everything becomes this horrible imposition of
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 2: the patriarchy onto society. But these are the things that
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 2: society needs to do in order to maintain itself and
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 2: police the behavior within it to survive. And so everybody's
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 2: like pointing out to all of these new political manifestations
• 1:37:45
  Speaker 2: of the same problem.
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 3: Over and over again.
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 2: We have marginalized masculinity. We have constructed a system in
• 1:37:51
  Speaker 2: which men are saturated with cortisol and can't even really
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 2: conceptualize that their ethical system needs to be brought online
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 2: or our society is going to implode and that ethical
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 2: system remains dormant. And we see the downstream effects of
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 2: not having the benefit of it, not having the policing,
• 1:38:11
  Speaker 2: not having the immigration control, not having the sensible, you know,
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 2: military response, not having the criminal policing, not having the audits,
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 2: not having the free market allowing for price control, which
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 2: enables actual investment in commodities and the things that are
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 2: needed by society. Like, we're arguing over all of the
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 2: downstream effects of this, and it is.
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 3: Sorry, I just heard something crash.
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 2: I'm wondering if a cat just tips something off of something,
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 2: you know how it is with cats? No, you probably don't, Yeah, allergic,
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 2: I mean I do in the sense I know that
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 2: they're agents of chaos. Yeah, I'm just wondering if there's
• 1:39:02
  Speaker 2: just been a moment of chaos somewhere. Okay, But anyway,
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 2: so we're looking at they're looking at the downstream effects
• 1:39:09
  Speaker 2: of the removal of specifically the way that men see
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 2: ethical principles from society. I mean, you're like, but the
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 2: problem is that that toolkit, that ethical toolkit, has been
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 2: removed because feminism has turned it into some kind of
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 2: existential threat to everybody, right, And then you're seeing the
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 2: downstream effects of that. But you're never going to resolve
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 2: those effects until you deal with the where they are
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 2: coming from, which is the marginalization of masculinity. And where
• 1:39:46
  Speaker 2: is that coming from. It's coming from feminism. It's like
• 1:39:49
  Speaker 2: all the people are complaining about Starfleet Academy. If you
• 1:39:53
  Speaker 2: took what we're talking about now and turned it into
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 2: a TV show, it would be star our Fleet Academy.
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 2: That's where this is coming from. All of the crap
• 1:40:05
  Speaker 2: in the gaming industry is coming from this, the thing
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 2: we're reading right now. All of the crap and the TV,
• 1:40:11
  Speaker 2: all of the crap in the movie, all the crap
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 2: in the animation, it's coming from what we're reading right now.
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 2: It is downstream of what we're reading right now. Every
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 2: political thing that people are arguing about is downstream of
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 2: what we are reading right now. So yes, we're going
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 2: to continue to talk about it, yes, and to some people,
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 2: we are going to continue to make a difference.
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 1: Uh yeah, I mean I think that there's like it's
• 1:40:37
  Speaker 1: a slow going thing, but I think there is a
• 1:40:39
  Speaker 1: change at least in terms of people being aware of it.
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 1: But all right, so I'm we're two forty four, so
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 1: I got about fifteen minutes. I think we're getting close
• 1:40:51
  Speaker 1: to the end here, so we can probably finish it.
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 1: All right. I got a rumble rant from Novavan twenty
• 1:40:56
  Speaker 1: one who gives us a dollar and says, I wonder
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 1: if the real feminist goal was suppressure men into creating
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 1: the patriarchy they feared as a Machiavelian tactic to create
• 1:41:05
  Speaker 1: their society in their image. See we're right about men. Well, yes,
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 1: if men, I think that if they get a reaction,
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 1: it is sort of like baiting them so that they
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 1: can point to it and use it. But I don't
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 1: know that they're gonna it's doesn't it's not necessarily the
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 1: reaction that they that would be real oppression, because if
• 1:41:28
  Speaker 1: it was, they wouldn't be able to complain. So you know,
• 1:41:33
  Speaker 1: it's Oh, so I'm sorry, Taley, were you gonna say something.
• 1:41:36
  Speaker 4: No, I was just shifting. Okay, I just want I
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 4: want to get through it. There's only the six structures
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 4: of patriarchy, like, yeah, yeah, let's do it like it's tiny,
• 1:41:45
  Speaker 4: and then we can discuss and you can go and
• 1:41:48
  Speaker 4: do whatever it is.
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. The six structures have casual effects upon each other,
• 1:41:55
  Speaker 1: both reinforcing and blocking, but are relatively autonomous. The specification
• 1:42:00
  Speaker 1: and of several rather than simply one base is necessary
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 1: in order to avoid reductionism and essentialism. The presence of
• 1:42:08
  Speaker 1: only one base, for instance reproduction for Firestone and rape
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 1: Brown Miller, is the reason for their difficulty with historical
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 1: change and cultural variation. It is not necessary to go
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 1: to the other extreme of denying significant social structures to
• 1:42:24
  Speaker 1: overcome the change of essentialism, as some of the postmodernist
• 1:42:29
  Speaker 1: post structuralists have done. The signs identified are real deep
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: Oh as sorry. The signs identified are real, deep structures
• 1:42:38
  Speaker 1: and necessary to capture the variation in gender relations in
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 1: westernized societies. Patriarchal production relations in the household are my
• 1:42:48
  Speaker 1: first structure. It is through these that women's household labor
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 1: is expropriated by their husbands or cohabits, the woman may
• 1:42:56
  Speaker 1: receive her maintenance in exchange for the labor, especially when
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 1: she is not engaged in wage labor. Housewives are the
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 1: producing class, while husbands are the expropriating class. So wait, wait,
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 1: husbands don't work.
• 1:43:10
  Speaker 4: Don't produce Women putting clothes in the washer and pushing
• 1:43:15
  Speaker 4: the button on the dish washer, yah, will actually produces things.
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: Putting on the TV dinner.
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 2: Isn't it interesting how this particular narrative about women's labor
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 2: coincides with the least amount of household labor and human history?
• 1:43:30
  Speaker 3: You notice that, like, now we.
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 2: Live in an era where men can be bachelors because
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 2: they don't need housekeepers, because the amount of labor that
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 2: to run a household a single person can manage now
• 1:43:44
  Speaker 2: even if they have a job. That wasn't the case,
• 1:43:48
  Speaker 2: you know, one hundred years ago, right, so, But but
• 1:43:52
  Speaker 2: suddenly now is the time that women are being exploited
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 2: by men when household labor was has never been less.
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 2: Isn't that funny? Like maybe maybe we should maybe men
• 1:44:07
  Speaker 2: should have just kept the household labor high, Like does
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 2: not even talk about getting rid of women's rights, Just
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 2: get rid of the dishwashers, the indoor. Yeah, get rid
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 2: of the the laundry machine, right, get rid of get
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 2: rid of the refrigerators. So she has to actually know
• 1:44:28
  Speaker 2: how to can and jar and uh and process food
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 2: into something that will last over the winter. Just get
• 1:44:35
  Speaker 2: rid of all of that, get rid of it, and
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 2: then she will go back to being like, oh, no,
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 2: household labor is just what I do, okay, in exchange
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 2: for whatever my husband does fixing fences and and you.
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 3: Know, plowing the fields.
• 1:44:52
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 2: But apparently the big mistake that men made was taking
• 1:44:59
  Speaker 2: the household from a six day a week, twelve hour
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 2: day job and making it a five day week, three
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: hour a day job. This is the biggest mistake you
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 2: guys made. So what you really need to do not
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 2: take away women's rights. Just take away their appliances and
• 1:45:18
  Speaker 2: then they'll shore, yeah right, put them.
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 1: In survival mode and they'll just do that, like you know, okay,
• 1:45:27
  Speaker 1: So men don't produce. Women do by virtue of having
• 1:45:31
  Speaker 1: appliances that they have to use every so often. The
• 1:45:34
  Speaker 1: second patriarchal structure within the economic level is that of
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 1: patriarchal relations within paid work. A complex of forms of
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 1: patriarchal closure within waged labor exclude women from the better
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 1: forms of work and segregate them into the worst jobs,
• 1:45:49
  Speaker 1: which are deemed less skilled. What how do you define
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 1: better or worse? What about you mean like, like, okay,
• 1:45:56
  Speaker 1: by this definition, if you are I don't know, like
• 1:46:00
  Speaker 1: working in lumber, that's a better job because it's dominated
• 1:46:05
  Speaker 1: by men.
• 1:46:06
  Speaker 4: Or better job if you go out and you have
• 1:46:08
  Speaker 4: to wield the chainsaws and potentially get you know, mutilated
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 4: and murdered by falling trees. That's obviously better than working
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 4: in the air conditioned office with all the women. Yeah, right,
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 4: because it just is okay.
• 1:46:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, even if you are like to stay you know,
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 1: like I don't know, like even if we got away
• 1:46:27
  Speaker 1: from the typical sort of adult day care jobs and
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 1: you put women in something that's lower I guess lower
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 1: let's say status, like retail. You know, even then it's
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 1: still like a lot safer or better than working in
• 1:46:47
  Speaker 1: like construction or some just like day labor job, even
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 1: like in agriculture, you know, where you're like farming and shit.
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 1: But of course, like when they talk about better jobs,
• 1:47:02
  Speaker 1: they're I think they're falling into the apex fallacy. Where
• 1:47:05
  Speaker 1: they just see like the fat CEO burning his money,
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 1: and they don't they don't see the men that, you know,
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 1: the men in particular, the men that are working on
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 1: essentially like gathering the raw baseline materials that allow all
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 1: of the other jobs to function, you know, like mining,
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 1: like like energy like things like that.
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 4: Yeah, that's all it is is. You know, it's within
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 4: lage work exclude. It's just better forms of segregating them
• 1:47:32
  Speaker 4: to worst jobs. Okay, well, what's the worst job the
• 1:47:35
  Speaker 4: woman gets segregated to. Oh, she has to answer the
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 4: phone in the office, while the guy has to go
• 1:47:40
  Speaker 4: down into the sewers with a rod and break up
• 1:47:45
  Speaker 4: the fat bugs and chisel used condoms and tampons off
• 1:47:49
  Speaker 4: the wall of the Yeah. Oh, her life is awful.
• 1:47:52
  Speaker 4: It's just terrible sitting in that chair in that air
• 1:47:56
  Speaker 4: conditioned office answering the phone. Terrible, terrible, hopeful.
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sounds like a nightmare.
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
• 1:48:06
  Speaker 1: All those female garbage collectors.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Inland, I watched I watched What Women Want, and
• 1:48:14
  Speaker 2: I found definitively that all of those women working in
• 1:48:18
  Speaker 2: an office who had infinite amount of time to sit
• 1:48:22
  Speaker 2: around gossiping, filing their nails and eating avocado toast. All
• 1:48:26
  Speaker 2: those wealthy, sorry, affluent white urban liberal women or liberal
• 1:48:36
  Speaker 2: females in in uh What you Want? Uh, they were
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 2: the ones who were the most depressed because they constantly
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 2: said how they weren't getting the jobs that men got
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 2: because they were women, and yet their jobs they weren't
• 1:48:54
  Speaker 2: even doing them. What Women Want is the movie. It's
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 2: absolutely forgettable and also horrible and a watershed moment in cinema.
• 1:49:04
  Speaker 2: I think, don't watch it, just just know that you
• 1:49:08
  Speaker 2: watch what's his face, clooney, I think.
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 1: Have a movie. It's about the movie What Women Want? Yes,
• 1:49:18
  Speaker 1: that was that was mel Gibson. That was I've never
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: seen it. No, it was mel Gibson.
• 1:49:24
  Speaker 2: Oh, okay, so it was mel Gibson. And he basically
• 1:49:28
  Speaker 2: plays an incoherent character that learns gains the ability, for
• 1:49:34
  Speaker 2: no apparent reason, to read women's minds.
• 1:49:37
  Speaker 3: And yeah, it's it's really bad.
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: Oh I'm sure it is, and that it is so
• 1:49:44
  Speaker 2: mediocre and boring.
• 1:49:45
  Speaker 1: He owed somebody a favor to do that movie.
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 2: I bet also ideological, probably maybe maybe with some manifestation
• 1:49:52
  Speaker 2: of his own guilt over some of his behavior, perhaps,
• 1:49:56
  Speaker 2: but anyway, that was.
• 1:49:57
  Speaker 1: After that, but I to apologize for anything. Yeah, yeah, that.
• 1:50:00
  Speaker 2: Was maybe maybe it spurred him to it.
• 1:50:03
  Speaker 3: He's like it.
• 1:50:04
  Speaker 1: I think the entire Hollywood culture is spurred into that house.
• 1:50:09
  Speaker 1: But anyway, okay, so let's let's get to the next
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 1: one because we're running out of time here. So the state,
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 1: So that was the second one that was work. The
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 1: state is patriarchal as well as being capitalist and racist.
• 1:50:25
  Speaker 1: While being a site of struggle and not a monolithic entity,
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 1: the state has a systemic bias towards patriarchal interests in
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 1: its policies and actions. Uh okay, I mean fine. I
• 1:50:41
  Speaker 1: guess if the system that we use in Western society
• 1:50:45
  Speaker 1: was built by white men and it just so happens
• 1:50:48
  Speaker 1: to work, then I guess that's the system I'm going
• 1:50:51
  Speaker 1: to live under. And I'm okay with that. I don't
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 1: think that just because white guys built it, it's racist.
• 1:50:57
  Speaker 1: But of course this is what they will claim. It's
• 1:50:59
  Speaker 1: like the concept of trade and property rights is also
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 1: something that they hate. So the fact that they don't
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 1: want those things to exist is just okay.
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 4: Whatever, trade is racist, bored as a racist. Everything is
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 4: racist because that's how men construct things. At the best
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 4: of women. But you know, because men did it, it
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 4: has to be undone.
• 1:51:21
  Speaker 1: Yes, of course, male violence constitutes a further structure. Despite
• 1:51:27
  Speaker 1: its apparently individualistic and diverse form, it is behavior routinely
• 1:51:32
  Speaker 1: experienced by women from men, which standard effect upon the
• 1:51:36
  Speaker 1: actions of most women. Male violence against women is systematically
• 1:51:40
  Speaker 1: condoned and legitimated by the sites of the State's refusal
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 1: to intervene against is excerpt in exceptional instances, though the
• 1:51:51
  Speaker 1: practices of rape, wife beating, sexual harassment, et cetera. Are
• 1:51:55
  Speaker 1: too decentralized in their practice to be part of the
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 1: state itself. So it's essentially a whole lot of lies.
• 1:52:02
  Speaker 1: We've already trubled.
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 4: Violence against women are male aggressive presumed all of these.
• 1:52:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah, why, it's just lies about violence in general, which
• 1:52:12
  Speaker 1: we have already debunked on the channel by looking at
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: the actual statistics of you know, women's violence, which is
• 1:52:17
  Speaker 1: often not even measured as violence and not considered to
• 1:52:20
  Speaker 1: be violence, which is really convenience, you know, okay.
• 1:52:25
  Speaker 4: And the fact that you can be charged for things
• 1:52:27
  Speaker 4: like you know, sexual abuse and sexual harassment by just
• 1:52:30
  Speaker 4: like talking to women or looking at them in your
• 1:52:33
  Speaker 4: workplace and they'll just lodge complaints so that to get
• 1:52:36
  Speaker 4: you fired. If you're inconvenient to them and they don't
• 1:52:38
  Speaker 4: like you, you know, you failed their vibe check. When
• 1:52:41
  Speaker 4: they know I've had some meeting with you on teams
• 1:52:45
  Speaker 4: or whatever, they just didn't like you.
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, patriarchal relations and sexuality constitute a fifth structure. Compulsory
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 1: heterosexuality and sexual double standards are two of the key
• 1:52:58
  Speaker 1: forms of this structure or compulsory compulsory on sexuality. Hey,
• 1:53:07
  Speaker 1: being gay is illegal? Did you know that? Oh?
• 1:53:12
  Speaker 4: Yeah, things like this have never I mean even in
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 4: so far as like there have been times when homosexuality
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 4: has been illegal. Let's be honest, it was gay men
• 1:53:22
  Speaker 4: that was upheld.
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 1: Again, like they were the ones targetmen.
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 4: Yeah, like, no, nobody cares about gay women. I mean
• 1:53:29
  Speaker 4: we see this even when they talk about, oh, the
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 4: hard patriarchies of the Middle East. Yeah, okay, lesbian women,
• 1:53:35
  Speaker 4: they don't like them. Go and marry this man. He
• 1:53:38
  Speaker 4: will make you right by the will of a lot.
• 1:53:39
  Speaker 4: Oh you're a gay man. Let's go to the top
• 1:53:41
  Speaker 4: of that rooftop, buddy.
• 1:53:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, uh okay. And I also want to point
• 1:53:51
  Speaker 1: out that it with resarves to the sexuality stuff and
• 1:53:54
  Speaker 1: also the rape stuff. Uh. We did a story on
• 1:53:58
  Speaker 1: HBr News this week where there is a study that
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 1: revealed and again this is a study that is there
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 1: could be some challenging of it because it was essentially
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 1: what do you call it, where you do interviews with
• 1:54:10
  Speaker 1: people and you use that data to collect your data,
• 1:54:13
  Speaker 1: so if somebody's claimed something, that's become part of the data. Well,
• 1:54:17
  Speaker 1: they interviewed k through twelve students and found that seventeen
• 1:54:22
  Speaker 1: percent of them have been either had to experience sexual
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 1: comments right up to grooming and sexual assault in schools.
• 1:54:31
  Speaker 1: Seventeen percent of students were found to have experienced this
• 1:54:36
  Speaker 1: and this was by school faculty and staff, not students,
• 1:54:42
  Speaker 1: So we're talking teachers, and who make up the majority
• 1:54:46
  Speaker 1: of teachers in public schools. It's women. So there is
• 1:54:50
  Speaker 1: a and we've covered on the New show countless stories
• 1:54:55
  Speaker 1: of teachers grooming and having you know, and raping boys
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 1: all the time. And of course we don't call it
• 1:55:05
  Speaker 1: that because it's a boy and it's a but it's
• 1:55:07
  Speaker 1: a grown ass woman and somehow this is in pedophilia.
• 1:55:10
  Speaker 1: This is not something that calls for the Wood chipper,
• 1:55:13
  Speaker 1: at least not in the mainstream, And so I put
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 1: a highlight on it to say this is happening. But
• 1:55:19
  Speaker 1: because we don't use the appropriate words to describe it,
• 1:55:23
  Speaker 1: then it doesn't appear to exist. And this is why
• 1:55:26
  Speaker 1: language matters. So okay, anyway, Patriarchal cultural institutions completes the
• 1:55:35
  Speaker 1: array of structures. These are significant for the generation of
• 1:55:39
  Speaker 1: a variety of gender differentiated forms of subjectivity. This structure
• 1:55:43
  Speaker 1: is composed of a set of institutions which create the
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 1: representation of women within a patriarchal gaze in a variety
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 1: of arenas such as religious, education, and media. So this
• 1:55:55
  Speaker 1: is like a bunch of cultural institutions that are patriarchal.
• 1:55:59
  Speaker 1: They're just going to say all these things are patriarchal.
• 1:56:02
  Speaker 1: And when they say education, really, I guess because there
• 1:56:08
  Speaker 1: is facts in that, you know, like mathematical equations and
• 1:56:12
  Speaker 1: history media, Like this is a ridiculous claim, Like all
• 1:56:17
  Speaker 1: this stuff is dominated by women. Now, even religion, even Christianity,
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 1: is seeing like a massive increase in female pastors. I mean,
• 1:56:27
  Speaker 1: i'd argue it's not Christian at all, but but they
• 1:56:30
  Speaker 1: have basically taken over and and made it all feminist
• 1:56:34
  Speaker 1: friendly and ship.
• 1:56:35
  Speaker 4: So well, remember that Feminist and Religion book that we
• 1:56:41
  Speaker 4: talked about most last week that literally their main concern
• 1:56:44
  Speaker 4: was how amenable religions are to feminists change. Yep, we
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 4: can actually skip the last paragraph entirely. It's just the AUPA.
• 1:56:53
  Speaker 1: Saying this is what we're going to get into, all right,
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 1: so we can that's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, go ahead.
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 1: I don't know you guys want to say anything about that? Yes,
• 1:57:05
  Speaker 1: the Church of England disappointed their first female archbishop. Yeah
• 1:57:09
  Speaker 1: that you guys are cooked. That church is done. Sorry,
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 1: well do you connect?
• 1:57:16
  Speaker 2: Like the thing is that it doesn't connect masculinity to
• 1:57:19
  Speaker 2: a moral framework in an exclusive sense, which again it
• 1:57:25
  Speaker 2: just it. It starts to deconstruct like that what I've
• 1:57:28
  Speaker 2: been talking about, which is masculine ethics and the necessity
• 1:57:32
  Speaker 2: of them, which you know, if you have men representing
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 2: them and the men only men can.
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 3: Represent it, that emphasizes it. It's like.
• 1:57:44
  Speaker 2: We need to have some concession to our biology, and
• 1:57:48
  Speaker 2: our society has decided that there will be none, none,
• 1:57:51
  Speaker 2: whatsoever never. Yeah, So I did you want to say
• 1:58:00
  Speaker 2: anything further, Tiel Deeer.
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 4: Not particularly. I just wanted to go through this and
• 1:58:08
  Speaker 4: just say like, yeah, this is literally what feminists are.
• 1:58:11
  Speaker 4: What a feminist author is writing in a feminist textbook
• 1:58:14
  Speaker 4: that is used to teach feminist courses, women studies courses,
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 4: gender studies courses from a basically degree to postdoc. You
• 1:58:23
  Speaker 4: can find this book being used. This is what they
• 1:58:27
  Speaker 4: officially think patriarchy is. This is the theory of patriarchy, which,
• 1:58:32
  Speaker 4: to give it its full name, is actually just the
• 1:58:35
  Speaker 4: conspiracy theory, that is the patriarchy assertion, but they like
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 4: to call it a theory because they just like to
• 1:58:41
  Speaker 4: sound important. It is fundamentally just men and the masculine
• 1:58:46
  Speaker 4: frame and any degree of male system thinking, as they
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 4: call it, is wrong and needs to be destroyed. Unfortunately,
• 1:58:52
  Speaker 4: the things that they call the male system, male system theory,
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 4: and male system thinking, et cetera, just happens to be
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 4: the stuff that literally creates society because it is the
• 1:59:01
  Speaker 4: thing that basically defines. Okay, here is this, this thing exists.
• 1:59:06
  Speaker 4: This thing is objective. Nope, we've got to get rid
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 4: of that, because you can't have things that are objective.
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 4: Everything is relative, nothing is actually absolute, nothing is empirical. Okay, well,
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 4: we still have this thing. It is exists here. We
• 1:59:16
  Speaker 4: need to have borders around these things that we can
• 1:59:18
  Speaker 4: protect this thing. Where you can't do that because you're
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 4: excluding other people, and that means you're being racist and
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 4: islamophobic and homophobic in all of these other things, you know,
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 4: and capitalist and blah blah blah, because you're separating your
• 1:59:29
  Speaker 4: thing from that thing over there. It's just it is
• 1:59:34
  Speaker 4: entirely aimed at the destruction of a society. And the
• 1:59:38
  Speaker 4: reason for that comes back to, yes, the spiritual underpinnings
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 4: of this, which is the socialism thing, it's the left
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 4: Hegelian thing, which is that gnostic thing, the entire thing,
• 1:59:49
  Speaker 4: everything from the ground up. This entire movement has only
• 1:59:51
  Speaker 4: ever been about the revolution. It is about destroying what
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 4: currently exists so that humans can move into the next phase,
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 4: which in the socialist thing is the new socialist man,
• 2:00:03
  Speaker 4: the society post the capitalists collapse. And in the Left
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 4: to Gailia gnostic thing which inspired all of that, it's
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 4: everyone is dead and the spirit of the divine that's
• 2:00:15
  Speaker 4: in them has returned to God. But they don't know that,
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 4: and they these people who write these things, they don't
• 2:00:20
  Speaker 4: know that. That's the underlying principle of it. But once
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 4: you know that it's there, you can see that this
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 4: is what it's about. Every single thing that they ever
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 4: talk about is only ever about being critical, it's only
• 2:00:32
  Speaker 4: ever about deconstruction. They never define anything as and this
• 2:00:38
  Speaker 4: is what we're going to build to replace it.
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 1: No, they just act on the assumption that something. I mean,
• 2:00:45
  Speaker 1: some of them they basically just say, well, something will
• 2:00:48
  Speaker 1: rise from the ashes, like the phoenix. We just don't
• 2:00:51
  Speaker 1: know what it's going to look like.
• 2:00:52
  Speaker 4: You know, it's just the new socialist man. He will
• 2:00:54
  Speaker 4: just happen and everyone will do everything for everyone whenever
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 4: they want, because they're totally free from everything. Somehow, people
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 4: will just volunteer to go into the lithium minds and
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 4: the volunteer to go and farm sulfur because their comrades
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 4: need matches. But they won't. But that's what they think
• 2:01:15
  Speaker 4: is going to happen.
• 2:01:18
  Speaker 2: And what we actually ended up with is a financialization
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 2: nightmare that's abstracting off of the actual creation of stuff. Right,
• 2:01:28
  Speaker 2: So they're abstracting and abstracting and destroying the actual creation,
• 2:01:32
  Speaker 2: the actual productive layer of society, the actual productive and
• 2:01:35
  Speaker 2: protective layers of society.
• 2:01:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, person.
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 4: They are masculine, they must go.
• 2:01:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and they're illegitimate because reasons. And we can't actually
• 2:01:46
  Speaker 2: arrange things so that they have what they need to
• 2:01:48
  Speaker 2: function because that would be patriarchy. Good lord. Oh, so
• 2:01:56
  Speaker 2: we've constracted a perfect system to destroy itself. All right,
• 2:01:59
  Speaker 2: that's that's a positive thing to conclude on.
• 2:02:03
  Speaker 4: Yeah. I everyone feels suitably educated. We have educated ourselves.
• 2:02:08
  Speaker 4: We have read a book.
• 2:02:11
  Speaker 2: So while we could continue.
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 1: And you haven't changed your mind, read another book.
• 2:02:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well we could continue on this path if you wish.
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 2: Steelder next, next, uh Friday.
• 2:02:27
  Speaker 4: I don't know. There's all the different sections of the book.
• 2:02:31
  Speaker 4: I guess if you wanted to do any of them,
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 4: you could. You could name some or just pick them.
• 2:02:36
  Speaker 4: I don't know.
• 2:02:38
  Speaker 2: That feminist ted talk that I sent you, whatever the
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 2: hell it is.
• 2:02:43
  Speaker 4: Yeah, we can do we can do anything whenever. Wherever
• 2:02:46
  Speaker 4: I bring this people's attention because I thought it was funny.
• 2:02:50
  Speaker 4: What I do? I have no idea.
• 2:02:53
  Speaker 2: It is.
• 2:02:53
  Speaker 1: It is.
• 2:02:56
  Speaker 2: Absolutely central to everything we're dealing with. I hope people
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 2: notice that.
• 2:03:01
  Speaker 4: Well they won't because as people keep saying, oh, we're
• 2:03:04
  Speaker 4: not talking about feminism anymore, we're talking about race. Now,
• 2:03:07
  Speaker 4: we're talking about Islam, now, we're talking about these things. Yeah.
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 4: The reason that this stuff is a problem is because
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 4: this shit existed. I've been telling you this for years,
• 2:03:14
  Speaker 4: Like that, if this didn't, if you snapped your fingers tomorrow,
• 2:03:18
  Speaker 4: and all the people that are too dark for you
• 2:03:21
  Speaker 4: to want them in society or too Muslim or too
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 4: Jewish or whatever for your particular taste, your particular brand
• 2:03:27
  Speaker 4: or whatever, if you snap your finger and all of
• 2:03:29
  Speaker 4: those people vanished, everything is still fucked. Yeah, because you
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 4: don't actually have a functioning relationship between men and women
• 2:03:37
  Speaker 4: in society. That relationship is still under attack. It's still
• 2:03:41
  Speaker 4: falling apart, even if all of those other things go away,
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 4: because all of those other things being there are just
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 4: a symptom of that underlying collapse. Like getting retreating the
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 4: symptoms of the collapse may help, like ameliorate some things somewhere,
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 4: but if you don't address that collapse, it's it's not
• 2:04:01
  Speaker 4: going to happen.
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, come back anyways, if you can re emerge over time.
• 2:04:07
  Speaker 2: So if you get rid of all of the diversity urge,
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 2: all of the diversity initiatives that are excusing the financialization
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 2: that's destroying the commodities and the productivity that we rely on.
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 3: You're still going to have the destruction.
• 2:04:28
  Speaker 2: You might you might not have the shield that's excusing it,
• 2:04:31
  Speaker 2: because literally they said, okay, free market is why there's problems,
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 2: why there's problems in economic problems. That's what they said.
• 2:04:40
  Speaker 2: Free market is masculine. It's why we have economic problems.
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 2: Let's replace everybody with a rainbow, and then we won't
• 2:04:47
  Speaker 2: have those problems. But if you got rid of the rainbow,
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 2: you'd still have the excuse for the destruction of the
• 2:04:53
  Speaker 2: free market, right, it would still be there, it's still operating,
• 2:04:58
  Speaker 2: and it would just be women. Now we just need
• 2:05:01
  Speaker 2: to get rid of men for women, but it's still
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 2: the same destruction. And I know I'm taking this too
• 2:05:08
  Speaker 2: like the economic but that's where I've been for a while.
• 2:05:11
  Speaker 2: So yeah, okay, So if you guys enjoyed this show,
• 2:05:14
  Speaker 2: please send us a message feedbadger dot com slash just
• 2:05:17
  Speaker 2: the tip very best way for you to send us
• 2:05:19
  Speaker 2: a whatever funds you want to send us, and best
• 2:05:21
  Speaker 2: way for you to send us a message with those funds.
• 2:05:23
  Speaker 2: Been quiet this uh this episode, but maybe afterwards you
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 2: guys will have some we have.
• 2:05:28
  Speaker 1: A decent number of people watching.
• 2:05:30
  Speaker 3: Yeah that's good.
• 2:05:31
  Speaker 2: But yeah, I guess we're that's our niche more is
• 2:05:35
  Speaker 2: just directly going into the feminist bullshit and analyzing the fundamentals.
• 2:05:42
  Speaker 2: But yeah, okay, So feed the Badger dot com slash
• 2:05:44
  Speaker 2: just the tip if you want to send a tip
• 2:05:47
  Speaker 2: Badger Nation, do online. If you want to join our
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 2: community and feed Badger dot com slash support, I don't
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 2: have it up yet, but it will be eventually if
• 2:05:54
  Speaker 2: you want to support the show, so I'll hand this
• 2:05:56
  Speaker 2: back to you.
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 3: Brian.
• 2:05:58
  Speaker 1: All right, Well, uh, if you guys liked this video,
• 2:06:01
  Speaker 1: please hit like, subscribe if you're not already subscribed, hit
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 1: the ball flilifications, leave as a comment, let us know
• 2:06:06
  Speaker 1: what you guys thinking about what we talked about on the
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 1: show today, and share this video because sharing is caring.
• 2:06:10
  Speaker 1: Thank you to Tiel Dear for supplying us with this
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 1: content that allows us to bring this to you. And
• 2:06:18
  Speaker 1: thank you guys of course most of all for showing
• 2:06:20
  Speaker 1: up for watching this video. And we will see you
• 2:06:23
  Speaker 1: guys in the next one.