It didn't begin in slavery. It began when Asiatic tried to infiltrate the nile 6000 years ago using black women as demeaned wives to infiltrate African institutions. If her words that is a sharp oversight in an ignorant bias and if the vid posters fault something well worth correcting as if disregards the global impact that destruction of black foundation has been the main drive in misogyny.
Ngl as soon as I see anyone who has analysed the world and all of its complex systems and come to the conclusion: "What we really need is more love", I'm totally engaged. In modern society we've been conditioned to think that 'love' is a magical, airy fairy, insubstantial emotion, as opposed to things like Economics, Progress or Authority, which are 'real' and 'serious'. Sometimes we forget that we're just the same as any other animal that evolved on this planet, we just have a bigger vocabulary, and the things we need are fairly simple and instinctive- safety, nourishment, community and connection. From my perspective, if you're a serious academic and you're seriously putting forward an idea that Love is something to take seriously and with intellectual diligence, then you're probably on the right track. It's just a shame that many other people don't see it that way, yet.
@@Cryros_sphere Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t. Love is in action, not in your feelings and not a gift from Jesus, it is both your strength and your burden.
@@Cryros_sphere why has western society been shaped so much by love if it’s some dumb feel good concept? Is everything that has deep emotional meaning also worthless? Is everything in general worthless?
My personal favorite feminist quote: "Anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo." ~ Knuckles (2017)
Love her book "The Will to Change", not only it is a great to introduction to feminism and but also an eye opener to humanizing masculinity to something more real.
the most important thing to solving a problem, is transitioning from a "us vs them" mentality to "all of us vs the problem" one, division and polarization only keeps us fighting, but coming together to adress the problem itself responsibly is the path to positive change
During my studies, I had the rare opportunity to speak with bell and listen in on her conversations. She lived in town, and took a vested interest in the students and college I attended (Berea College). Feminism is for Everybody really lit a fire in me, and gave voice to a lot of thoughts I'd long had about what I would come to understand as intersectionality. Thank you for this video!
I been long time entrap in the redpill ideology, even to some extend mgtow and incel. My love hate relationship w/ woman. reading Bell Hooks book was the final key to unlock the trap that I had willingly put myself in. I am still learning more about this and myself, so I hope eventually any man who are in this cycle can find peace and love that we all long to have.
For me, the red pill (ideology?) and feminism doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. They coincide in ways that mem and women should think for themselves and be able to do whats best for themselves, as well as having a choice and fighting for equality in some points. Its just those extremists are the problem of both sides, which devalue the main purpose of those ideologies (?)
@@lottolearn6658 no. You arent being honest or you havent been able to fully understand how insidious redpill culture is. Maybe you're just young and dont understand the dog whistles but redpill to mgtow to incel is a path that leads to abuse, rape, murder, and in some confimed cases, mass shootings. Feminism has never ever been cited as a reason for a mass shooter. Nor any other violent oppressive acts against men. You cannot "both sides" this. They will never ever be equal.
9:45 interesting how even the "not like other girls" movement also seeks patriarchal approval despite rejecting the need to form relationships with men.
@@amal-_-8670 tea: this guy commented on a video on my channel, asking about my political beliefs, and after some back and forth, he got upset because I didnt want to boil my beliefs down into the 2x2 square offered by The Political Compass website. He obviously was unaware that The Political Compass is one of MANY political tests, and is one of the most simple tests around. It seems he thought it is THE definitive political test or something. He was unable to understand that people's beliefs can extend beyond the scope of a 2x2 square, but there also seemed to be a slight language barrier, so I dont wanna be to hard on him. That was it lol 😂
We all seek approval from something. If you don't want that you can always be a buddhist. Ofcourse, you only care if people are seeking approval from men which makes you feel disgusted for some reason.
her book "The Will to Change" was the first time it clicked completely for me, because of the class analysis within it, and its insistence that the patriarchy oppresses men as well as women, just in different ways (Men must be the backbone, and show no emotion etc) . Much like Marx's points on the bourgeoisie being under the thumb of capitalism as much as the proletariat. Which, even though I considered myself a feminist before reading it, I came to a fuller understanding of its integration into my total politics afterwards.
Yeah, so quick question: Why is it bad that men are expected to be the backbone of society? We've done that for 300.000 years at this point and this is all of a sudden a bad thing now?
@@Finkelfunk one of the reasons men have such high suicide rates is because they are unable to share their emotions with other people so they isolate themselves and end up hurting either themselves or other people.
@@aetzo1202 No, one of the reasons men have such high suicide rates is because their psychological profile and character traits make it far more likely to actually follow through on suicide attempts compared to females. Both genders are actually fairly equal when it comes to attempting suicide. And if you really care THAT much about suicide rates, how about we start talking about smartphones first, which caused the suicide rates of 8-13 year olds to nearly triple in the last 10 years? No? No takers? I assume that argument is off the table then.
@@Finkelfunk i assume you're talking about patriarchal societies, since this was not the rule everywhere, but saying it's about "expecting men to be on the backbone of society" is an oversimplification, men were the ONLY members of society, for most of it, women weren't considered intelligent enough to participate, so they were treated like properties of their fathers, and later their husbands. it was always a bad thing, but who was going to complain? the 'people' who were considered to be illogical and purely led by instinct or the people who benefitted the most from this """"deal""""?
@@guilhermeshiba3135 So no woman has participated in society for 300.000 years? No woman stayed at home raising children while men died in wars they didn't start? No woman in those 300.000 years has ever done anything significant according to you? Woman just weren't there until labor and voting laws? The pill wasn't invented to give women more freedom over their reproduction in a time when women were still far from equal in a legal sense? And obviously no great woman has ever furthered society which is why most monarchs were dependent on their wives? They were just a panumbra for all those thousands of years and suddenly popped into existence? Oh and up until the 1980s women all ran around naked because they didn't shape entire industries around fashion and make up or their past time activities, right? They weren't gatherers thousands of years ago contributing just as much to the survival of mankind as men did? They didn't also partake in grueling 16 hour field work, they just weren't existent and had not shaped society in any meaningful way or contributed anything. If you truly and honestly believe that women didn't "partake in society", there is no way around calling you misogynistic.
Your channel is literally the only thing that gives me hope for humanity. I really hope your channel goes far your content is brilliant, I’m so glad that there is someone out there as willing as you are to do the research necessary to explain your topics. This one, as well as many others, could GENUINELY Change peoples minds if they would listen. I hope you go far Sisyphus
Feminism is an integral part of our cultural progress and It sucks that people give it such a bad rep when in actuality it seeks to deconstruct and question all the cultural, social and legal precedents and practices that dehumanize men, women and those that identify as neither. Excited to see what you have to say.
What it does in theory and what the actual practicality behind it looks like are two very different things. Modern 3rd and 4th wave feminism has nothing to do with equality and is just another egalitarian political movement in the guise of "equality" because how are you gonna argue against that realistically? I'd respect feminists more if they would at least stand by their Marxist background ideology instead of trying to disguise this as something ultimately beneficial for me. It is not, you know this, I know this, so why not just call it what it is?
@@TinyBearTim Interview women you know and and ask them how many times they've been sexually harrased , cat called and abused at work, at school, outside and at home and then come and tell me what you find.
@@prajwaljayaraj5887 that has nothing to do with what I said ….. Ppl give it a bad rep because of the modern crazy ones that blame men for every thing and say things like “is it a girl or abortion “ when they having kids . Feminism is rejected by women in most of Asia ,it’s not integral to everyone ppl have changed its meaning and what it’s about the classic fems are mostly gone /drowned out by the new ones The ship has sailed a long time ago
bell hooks saved lives She articulated a system of oppressive forces : imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. And as a cultural critic how she links racism, sexism mass media and market forces is brilliant .A beautiful soul, a staggering intellect- her work continues to educate decolonize and liberate. Thank you Gloria Watkins 🙏🏾💗 Her books have saved my life.
Her works are a dramatic exercise in mental gymnastics and intellectual games of "six degrees of Kevin Bacon". You can link anything with anything if you write enough. How she ties things together is almost like the meme where people say the Franz Ferdinand's driver taking a wrong turn caused Japan to get nuked twice.
@@haydenvanmeeteren5127 Maybe her works are just not for you. And that is ok. Please save your energy from making hateful dismissive comments on a page that clearly is visited by people that DO value her intellectual contributions. Your comments added nothing to debate. Make your way to a Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro thread- you may be happier there.
A whole bunch of bullshit for pseudo intellectual puppets of the system such as yourself, who feel they are rebels by aligning themselves with corporations, governments and every level of power.
4:15 Calling us "lazy and unsophisticated" just because we don't know the specific terminology of a particular field of study really rubs me the wrong way. If you can't write a book that the general population can understand, it's not our fault; and if you do write a book for the general population, you're not calling us lazy, you just realize we have other things to do than look up niche vocabulary and dry scientific papers.
She is saying the audience is lazy and unsophisticated for supporting and listening to a book with no bibliography (cited sources). The audience should find a book that has been reviewed and is supported by facts. It is very possible to write a book that is both supported by facts and other studies and that is also understandable by the general population. Please pay more close attention before attacking someone. It really rubs me the wrong way.
@@alanarmstrong3186 And this comment right here is what's wrong with academia. Its superiority complex, and talking down to "the common people" instead of sharing knowledge freely. Please try and remember that everyone has a different skill set. Not everyone 100% understands something the first time they hear it. If you punish people for voicing their ignorance, you train people to hide it. For instance, you're obviously intelligent, but are very bad with social skills. If I was mean about it, you wouldn't learn anything. But since I've calmly explained it, you can look past your massive ego and see the truth in what I've said. Make sense?
@@dahat1992 If the audience doesn't want to read scholarly articles, good for them. If they want to, good for them. The problem is, an important chunk of the audience does want to read the bibliography when there's none to be found. I say important because they usually consist of people who know a lot about the topic and know a lot of people in the field, which enables them to spread it further and give it more actual validity. Accept it or not, relevant issues need a lot of thinking from people. Aside from that, writing for the common people incentivizes one to appeal to emotion and presupposed agenda (ex. jordan peterson). I get it, some academics do sound very elitist, and some of them are but this usually comes from a good place. It's important to know your audience and if you really want to show the thinkers what they're missing out one, then include them.
To me its about the option to see the research. Obviously not everyone looks up sources but its nice to be able to if only for furthering your personal research or to fact check!
lol and this is what's wrong with "the common people." Making big judgments with basically no support or consideration. One comment = intelligent + bad social skills. One sentence = calling unacademic people lazy and unsophisticated. Maybe if you stopped to consider if you were actually right before making critical comments/judgments I wouldn't be so eager to mock you. You are right that it is not good to incentivize people to hide their ignorance but there is also an argument to be made that some filtration is based on checking the source (in this case the video) for validity is a beneficial thing
excellent video!!! the importance of intersectionality within the feminist movement cannot be overstated: in order to build a world beyond sexism and patriarchal order, we must acknowledge the way gender roles interact and overlap with other forms of oppression, such as racism, queerphobia, class, and ability. Bell hooks was such a profound and insightful voice with regards to this subject, i would recommend her work to everyone interested in making the world a better place. thank you for your hard work exploring her ideas and sharing your thoughts
Bell Hooks has made me feel seen and understood in my experience of maleness more than even my own parents ever have. Her book The Will to Change seriously changed my perspective in a time when i felt rejected and alone.
@@sjege I have meet a lot more women that think of themselves as feminist, that understand the struggles men have, than men that think of themselves as progressive and who understand that female hygiene products should be no luxury. Modern feminism is about cleaning up. We get rid of misunderstandings and lies. Sometimes it is time consuming and you get angry. But ultimately men will benefit from it. If you ask a feminist, if they hate men, they will most definitely say no. Because that's not the point.
@@500ccRabbit From what recent event are you speaking? When did men gain something that feminist were against? Also: If you want to help men, then do so. Feminism is all for laying out a way for everyone to use. Because of that we have more male teachers, nurses and parents that stay home. Those are directly caused by feminism.
@@das8.kapitel260 you don't need to ask them if they hate men, if you have a working brain it's enough that you read 2 or 3 paragraphs of any "feminist".
@@hgwells1570 I'm a feminist. Please explain where you can read that I hate men. It will prove impossible. Because I don't hate men in general or in particular. Like I said. Most feminist don't hate men. Sure some extrem ones do. But tbh there are still more men that think that women are to blame for their loneliness and this believe system turns into hate. So you see there are horrible humans everywhere.
Henry Giroux said in his introduction to "Feminism, Postmodernism, and Cultural Politics" that he wanted to dedicate his book to bell hooks for her "commitment to true pedagogy".
@@egg4489 you must be miserable and ignorant, she talks about men mental health and she is very male rights activist and female rights activists. She criticises women also
Beautiful video about a very smart woman I would have loved to meet. Saddened to see a lot of folks in the comments who clearly don't understand the video or the writings of Bell Hooks but want to be mad about it anyway. After all, she understood and wrote about people like you.
there are people in these comments targeting feminism as a whole while not even finishing the video. people were already commenting misogynistic things 2-5 minutes after the video was posted. it's not that hard to tell the difference between someone who doesn't agree with sisyphus 55 and someone who just saw the word "feminism" in the vid title and started commenting misogynistic things!
@@katharine2282 Yes so in order to criticize feminism I need to watch an 11 minute UA-cam video, but the roughly 20 books I read from feminists or about feminism count for absolutely nothing and I am just a misogynist for disagreeing with feminism? Quick question: Is there any way in your world view that I could disagree with the basic premise of feminism and NOT end up as a misogynist?
@@Finkelfunk i was talking about comments saying that "feminism has gone too far", etc. these are comments made simply out of hate for people who are only standing up for themselves. there is no room for fruitful conversation when it comes to comments like these. they are less than disagreements that can be expanded and talked about. i believe that there is nothing wrong with criticizing feminism, as long as you are respectful and acknowledge and don't deny the obvious disadvantages women constantly have to deal with. and i'm not sure there is an exact answer to that quick question. if you disagree with the basic premise of feminism, and feminism's goal is to eradicate women's oppression, then that means you do not support the idea of women having the protection they need and the rights they deserve. doesn't that make you a misogynist? unless we follow different definitions of certain terms, we should be able to agree on this one.
@@katharine2282 "as long as you don't deny the obvious disadvantages women constantly have to deal with." But what about that specific part makes it misogynistic? "obvious disadvantages" is such a vague and unmarked term, you could practically fit anything into this magic box of definitions again. This imprecision is precisely what leftist intellectuals have been abusing for the past 80 years to get their teachings to become universally accepted. And how is that feminism related? Feminism HAS gone too far ever since the 3rd wave began. We have left the realm of legal actual injustice like labor and voting laws, and have entered a pseudo scientific social construction realm of perceived injustice. The wage gap is a beautiful example because that magic 21% floating around has been debunked so many times, it has stopped being funny even as a meme. Yet feminists STILL bring this up to justify actual injustice in hiring practices. Modern 4th wave feminism is even worse, some supposed Patriarchy that controls the entire globe and we just started to universally accept that without ever having had a conversation about it. Things like rape statistics are cited and it is completely overlooked that that is the only crime that actually affects more women than men, everything is suddenly turned into a race and gender issue. A woman that freely decides to become a housewife because she wants to care for her kids is now "succumbing to the propagandist views imprinted on her by a patriarchy", we need an equity quota for EVERYTHING completely ignoring that equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, we try our hardest to erase any significant difference between the sexes in ANY area, completely ignoring biology along the way. What feminism did ever since the third wave is make a mockery of the legitimate demand for equal opportunity. Instead feminism wants quotas for CEOs, yet I have never seen a feminist ask for female quotas for sewage workers. Ever since the third wave this has become politics of envy rather than of progress.
@@katharine2282 Oh yes please tell us more about how women in the first world, as I'm sure you are one, are so oppressed. When I have never in my life seen any of you worry about the women who actually go through horrible situations in the third world, to the point of suffering mutilation or similar awful things done to them in african and some asian countries. When every time I go outside, every single person I see sleeping in the middle of the street is a man, when the majority of suicides are men, or most of the highly dangerous jobs that are performed every single day by men to maintain the infrastructure of every city in the world which allows you to cry with your inferiority complex on the internet because the AC was a little too cold, or because some guy opened his legs when sitting on the bus. Please, oppressed female, name 1 (ONE) law that benefits men over women in your country. Please explain why your "oppressed" group can go to a court for a custody dispute having abused the husband and sometimes even the children and still get custody, or the fact that daddy government has to step in to force companies to hire women over men, even if the man was more qualified, or make false rape allegations which ruin men's lives while getting away with not serving jail time when you are discovered, or the fact that you can say absolutely anything about men without fear of repercussion. Name me ONE instance where men are favored in society over women. And I like how your original post was bashing people for coming to this video and leaving nasty comments, but you couldn't stop yourself from also doing that exact same thing. Isn't it funny how you feminists are the first to jump at somebodies throat and play the victim, just to later become the assailants yourselves? Your ideology is incredibly flawed, and you people are cowards. Keep playing the bully with your manipulative strategies, it just keeps showing your hypocrisy to everyone.
Great to just have finished her book 'Will to change' and hear Hooks be mentioned on the podcast with Olivia, Alica and now this vid. Synchronicity is working overtime
One barrier my odd male mind once hung up on, was understanding the origin of sex inequality. Of course, that was simplistic stubbornness on my part. The patriarchy is quite clearly the product of male violence, and the advantage that testosterone gives men in violent conflict. All oppression starts with violence. Women being less equipped for physical violence, were subject to oppression early on despite numeric equality. Other minorities have fallen to white heterosexual male violence, due to lower population numbers, and more powerful weaponry (guns), in the hands of European colonizers. This violence established the initial inequality, which is then sustained through, law, public policy, social norms, and of course, continued violence. Violence, which is also protected by the other three. Upending this systematic oppression, requires action from the people who benefit the most from the system. Those experiencing it will always do the largest part of that labor, suffering and even dying in the process. Those benefiting from the oppression, are the ones that have to change themselves for the oppression to actually end. This is a hard truth, but it also reveals the path to progress. We have to recognize our own privilege and fight the inequality it creates. We have to be the example that we want to see in this life, and trust that it will come, however distant it continues to be.
I believe the primary cause of patriarchy were men taking jobs like tending fields or herding livestock. Jobs that produced more wealth and power in Neolithic societies. Eventually, men had all the important and powerful positions in most societies, breeding a male dominated world
This was a dense video: at times I was rewatching sections as my mind wandered while processing what I'd heard. Learning about Bell Hooks and her analysis of feminism and patriarchal oppression was fascinating however it left me with more questions than were answered. Let that not be a reflection on the quality of your presentation- It's just a lot to think about!
I started a gender studies major last year largely because of bell hooks readings from my feminist theories class. I’ve always considered myself a feminist, but felt hooks’s ideas gave me a basis to help educate other people about what feminism can be and the kind of world we can create.
@@Lemoygarys Of course you can. I just asked why he is losing time doing it. If it's interesting, It still does not mean it's useful. I also like philosophy, but I would never spend 5 years at university to get a useless degree. It's not like you can find a job with that type of education.
@@marceelino I’ll let them answer the question if they want, but maybe people don’t consider learning for the sake of learning a waste of time. If we were all doing degrees for a job at the end of it we’d have a lot of civil engineers on our hands.
@@Lemoygarys I am just more practical. If we are talking about jobs that requires university level of education, I would prefer more engineers, scientists, doctors, even social work are better than gender studies. If he is studying for sake of learning what's the point in his later life? He has no skills, no experience, no useful education. I do not think that he will continue his career in this specific subject. If you want to study why not do it later on as a part time over the weekends? You can get the same education, but you already have a stable life.
Very few people want to turn the clock on women's rights today, although abortion rights is still opposed by many. Swxual harassment is still a problem. It's true that anti-male resentment is still rampant in some feminist circles, so Bell Hooks is correct in pointing this out.
Great vid, I certainly appreciate an approach to this subject that is so flattering but non confrontational. I have been trying to absorb more perspective from feminist mindsets that aren’t preaching to the choir or trying to pick a fight (mind you, feminism is not unique with this problem). In branching outside of my bubble I find this to be a very welcome video, I was pleased to see something from this subject posted by you as your videos are incredibly good and I have to say that this video delivered
awesome video about an amazing woman. a lot of intellectualism and and philosophy is dominated by white men, but there are so many women and people of color with extremely valuable perspectives, and I hope to see more content exploring figures like bell hooks!
@Best Montage But that is bell hooks for you right there. Her entire philosophy literally is "I am a black woman, so listen to me and stfu because I am right and you're wrong". Her pretentious deconstructionist writing and her ludicrous arguments and justifications are nothing short of the ramblings of a mad woman.
@@violettiaras It's almost like someone's position in society and how they're treated by other is determined by their race and sex. Just not how you think.
@@Finkelfunk @Finkel - Funk I'm quite certain you're addressing a strawman of Bell's "philosophy" as your statement appears to be quite contrary to sisyphus' video essay.
I'm really glad to see a youtube channel discussing philosophy and societal topics not go the way of reactionary """sceptic""" youtubers the likes of sargon of akkad. It seems for a long time unfortunately this area was dominated by this political group which really seeks only to appropriate the aesthetic of intellectualism to push a regressive societal message that aims to appeal to young white men who feel disenfranchised by the modern world, and rather than allowing them to explore these problems critically it pushes a regressive message that seeks to blame only progressivism for their issues. Great video.
Fair enough, but I personally also partly blame progressivism for many of the problems faced by disenfranchised "white" young men. The connection is hard to come by but my time in college has really helped me disentangle what some of those are, both via lessons and negative interactions with "progressive" students.
I gonna say that I disagree with Hooks that “oppression is bad” following the definition they use of “oppression is when your options are taken from you”. If I prevent you from stabbing someone, I am very much oppressing you but I damn well think that’s a good thing.
I think you're misunderstanding what she was trying to say. "Oppression is when your options are taken from you" here, the options are like when women can't go out at night. We can't walk outside with the fear of being raped. We don't have an option. Of course oppression and discipline sometimes can be for good, but that sentence doesn't imply that.
@@dedeadam9698 Ah, well, I have context blindness because of my autism. If taking choices away can be good if it’s for a good reason then I broadly agree.
I would have maybe liked to credit Kimberlé Crenshaw with Intersectionality, as my current understanding is that the concept started with her, but other wise the rest of the was so good. Thanks for keeping this work up :)
The next phase of feminism is spiritual and will replace aggressive words like "smashing" the patriarchy with simply "seeing" the patriarchal as tail-end extensions of a matriarchal origin. If we can see it, we can free it. "If you don't see it, you are it" - Eckhart Tolle Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchal wisdom can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God). Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle. As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8). Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process. In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld, her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle. Mary Magdalene's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as head to tail (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12:3) To carry the Ankh was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle. Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html "See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. When you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
I personally believe that feminism can be for everyone, but it has to be made into a movement which can first. Feminism has, historically, helped men nearly exclusively when they could also help women, and sometimes even actively hurt men, although always in ways conservatives would anyway. To fix this, there has to be more willingness to call out the historical feminist movement when they did something wrong, to be more willing to call out current individual feminists, and to be more willing to not try to make a mens issue someone else's problem. Just 3 day ago I saw a debate on whether judging a man for wearing a dress was homophobia or misogyny. And I understand the argument for the latter, as it's making fun of people for having feminine characteristics. But when, say, Shaun makes a video on JK Rowling, treating a woman with manish hands as ugly is also misogynist. What I think is happening is people are still uncomfortable with the idea of men having problems, even if they say and even logically believe otherwise.
Feminism never really helped anyone that wasn’t a white women, Bell was at least right about that, but yeah they still do not wish to help men unless it’s for the sake of women. This is why for example, many feminist take topics of male loninees, misandry, male abuse and 🍇 victims, and blame those issues back on men, saying that those issues are men’s fault or patrarchy’s fault that men built (notice how they are only strictly critical of men, any woman that contrubites to those issues is silently ignored, or seen as a small fraction of women unlike us men) or worse I’ve seen them say stuff like “I’m glad you see the issue as a man, hopefully this means you understand women more to help them better”. They seem to only want an issue fixed on their side, they don’t actually give a crap about people that aren’t the same sex as them, they see men as a class of privlaged and problems, not as humans. They tell other men to open up about their issues, then shame men for doing so. The reason why they tell men to be more emotionally open, is so they can have more women tell men about their issues, without returning the favor to men, otherwise feminist call those men toxic, fragile, inscure, gay, to shut up and listen, etc. They also assume that men will get violent to women if men don’t open up, about their struggles, but might not care about the male himself having that issue.
If anyone is looking for an amazing, challenging, brilliant, and uncomfortable book about modern feminism please look into The Right to Sex by Amia Srinivasan. She discusses feminism through a very intersectional lens and also dives into incel cultures response to sex centered feminism. One of my favorites and builds upon Bell hooks theories. I picked it up because the title was very jarring. I personally don't believe that anyone has the right to sex, but it is a gift that we are lucky to receive through the good treatment of people around us. The title immediately made me deeply uncomfortable as I recalled how many times I've heard men discuss women's bodies as something that they are automatically entitled to upon puberty. She purposely used this title because one of her foundational ideas about feminism is that it SHOULD be uncomfortable to discuss.
Nice video but the line about how misandrist discourse being the reason why a lot of men tend to turn away from feminism. Men turn away from feminism mainly because they’re privileged by patriarchy and are socialised into it, that so called “misandrist” discourse firstly makes up a very, small almost insignificant portion (since like you acknowledged, even women are socialised to be misogynistic). I also don’t think misandry is a legitimate issue that affects the material conditions of men in the way that patriarchy does because women don’t have any power to oppress men under the current systems.
I agree with everything you've said re: men turned away not through misandry, but through wanting to maintain power, and I think many men find a misandrist here and there to justify disliking movements that seek to flatten hierarchies of oppression or challenge their views of traditional gender roles. I think hooks would say something like in order for movements to actually get the critical mass of people on-board for systemic change to happen, men need to be brought in against patriarchy as even if it does grant men power, it is also the root of a lot of men's insecurities when they are not able to live up to what they believe a man should be and leads them to suppress many positive aspects like vulnerability or emotional connection in the name of stoicism and independence.
They are right. The main reason why I turn away from feminism is due to their bias, their sexist theories of men only wanting power and to kill and dominate, they see my identify as lesser or power hungry and women as only victim. Feminist refusal to humanize anyone that’s a male, and their refusal to see any male’s problems as valid such as misandry, which can go as far as women abusing, 🍇’ing, men without other women giving a care about it even when other men point it out, or even justfying it since many women, especially a lot of feminist women, do not equate those things and tell us that it’s “not as bad as” it happening to women, while other feminist will protest against male DV shelters or protest against equal 🍇 laws that legally can label and prosecute female perps. I and many men who turn away from feminism, have way less power or privlaged than the entire movement and other women, but am accused of defending my privilege for simply not siding with feminism. These are grown women who have been calling my sex as privlaged or as a class, while also ignoring their own, saying misandry or any male issue isn’t a big problem, or see my sex as a flawed conditioned class that’s all been raised to hate, and calling ME privlaged ever since I was a kid/teen, while also treating other people like shit and being encouraged to, but anyone who calls them out is deemed wrong or ‘privlaged’. Feminist don’t see misandry as an issue, because it doesn’t effect them and they think women cannot do any wrong to men, and rely on theory to justify why women cannot oppress others, or why men are all a sort of negative, or why all of us men are selfish and that’s why we do not agree with a movement that doesn’t actually practice equality and slanders others. Even at 20, these are grown people who have more power than I could ever have, but accuse me of having such, despite them having way more power than most men as a movement or over other individuals, but also socially shame anyone who doesn’t join their movement.
Feminist need to actually see us men as human beings, and understand that many of us legit don’t like movements justifying being sexist towards us or forming negetive assumptions about our identity, that we are all raised to want power, and to see everyone as lesser, which ironically enough, sees men as lesser. I don’t turn away from feminism because I’m privlaged and trying to keep my apparent privilege and power, I genuinely have issue with how the movement sees men as lesser and all taught to be cartoonishly evil and privlaged (while also glossing over any privlaged that other , and women as only oppressed. It’s not the “patrarchy” that makes me or other men turn away from feminism, it’s the movement itself. The very fact that feminist think that all men that doesn’t side with feminism is because they are trying to keep power, instead of because of the rampment misandry within the movement, verbal, or other, shows that feminist cannot see men as human with their own emotions and thoughts that have reason to not side with a movement, the same way feminist and women don’t side with movements that see them as lesser, regardless of that movement talks about actual issues. Even today there are always feminist men who do side with feminism, and others that don’t, but belivie in equality anyways, some men have genuine reason to not side with a movement.
Making this argument is flawed because the "existence" of the patriarchy was frequently the driving force behind many vile actions committed both by individual feminists and organizations both at a systemic level giving the argument practically no weight whatsoever. To refute the belief that the "patriarchy hurts men too," it is essential to understand that some problems men face are not caused by feminists directly but rather heavily exasperated by feminists and feminist organizations. One of these many issues is the struggles of education that men and boys have in education. The struggles of education that men face are not caused by feminism, but the movement has offered nothing to help; as a matter of fact, it deliberately cripples men and boys more. For example, The Swedish government abolished affirmative action and gender quota laws in university admission because men were benefitting in specific courses; this would not have been a problem but Tobias Krantz, who was the minister of higher education at the time abolished the laws due to protest from women's groups at the time stating "The education system should open doors - not slam them in the face of motivated young women," indicating that this would change would not have occurred if it was women benefitting from these laws. Again in Sweden, the liberal feminist party tried pushing for a "man tax," which is a way for men to compensate for all the male-on-female violence in Sweden. However, it should be noted that the leader of the feminist party got convicted of tax evasion before making that statement. Similarly, Mary Curnock is the founder of UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) in England. Has expressed concern about the lack of men in post-secondary education and the disappointing figures of men enrolling in universities. Mary Curnock cited after overseeing UCAS studies that confirmed her initial concerns. Curnock observed an increasing normalization in the failure of boys and men in all age groups and stated that "Quite often initiatives to support men do meet derision from feminists." Her disquiet was very much granted because a month before coming out with these findings, the University of West England attempted to instill the first (and only) men's officer by the name of James Knight; however, the role was unceremoniously scraped after James, who was the only candidate, faced harassment and disapproving resistance from feminists students and the NUS women's officer at the time by the name of Sarah Lasoye who said: "The role of a men's officer is entirely obsolete and the attempt to implement one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of liberation and almost always an unearned sense of entitlement." The opposition to James Knight was enough, and he stepped down from the position. As a result, no University in England has had any men's officers since 2018. This was not the last time this has happened; however in, Ryerson University, an attempt by men to submit their group named "The Ryerson Men's Issues Awareness Society (MIAS)" was denied on the bases that it is anti-feminist and violates the union's core equity values.' The patriarchy also wasn't the one thing that managed to get Feminist staff and alums signed a letter objecting to an event catering to International men's day at the University of York. The letter in question has poor reasoning as to why they support banning the day, Stating that "We recognize that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men's health. However, we do not believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding." Despite the so-called concern about men's issues from the letter, the day was effectively shut down. Any attempts to discuss men's issues at the University of York have dissipated afterward. These examples are simply the beginning of an insidious pipeline of transgressions against men and their rights in the name of "equality." One of these rights was the right to safety and support from Domestic violence rights that feminists have not spared a battle fighting against. Another huge issue that men face is domestic violence, an issue that feminists were all too well-complicit in. In the early 70s, Suzzane K Steinmetz, Murray A Straus, and Richard J Gelles were among the first to study family violence with research that concluded with their groundbreaking research at the time published under the name of Battered Husband Syndrome. The study was one of the earliest discussing male victimization in marriages. Unsurprisingly, the trio and their families were harassed relentlessly, with Suzzane being subject to the majority of the abuse, with her family getting harassment and threats as well as bomb threats in events she was supposed to speak in, not to mention threatening her career by feminists. On the other side of the planet, Erin Pizzey started the first Domestic Violence shelter in the world in 1971 Chiswick, London, facing heavy opposition from authorities; she managed to start a series of shelters as well. Meanwhile in her first shelter, she interviewed the first 100 women to seek Refuge; in her shelter, she discovered that 60 of the 100 women who entered her shelter were just as violent as the men, if not more violent, concluding that women were just as violent as men. This, however, caused her to actively get harassed by militant feminists after publishing her conclusions in a book titled prone to violence and receiving bomb threats to the point of getting exiled from the UK and having her first shelter rebranded as Refuge, where she was banned from subsequently. This is simple to highlight that it was not that patriarchy that prevented men from talking and expressing their issues in academia; it was not the patriarchy that prevented a dialogue into men's issues with higher education by deeming such a discussion as an "unearned sense of entitlement." It was most certainly not the patriarchy that harassed and concealed or used intimidation tactics on early researchers of domestic violence. Most importantly, it was not the patriarchy that succeeded in fighting against gender-neutral rape laws in India and Israel. It most certainly was not the patriarchy but the National organization of women (NOW) and their corresponding legal team who fought to replace the gender-neutral 1984 Federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with the one-sided Violence Against Women Act in 1994, cutting men from any federal aid or funds despite the pre-existing knowledge and studies about family violence. It was not the patriarchy that harassed Erin Pizzey into exile for suggesting that women can be as violent as men. You can sit here and cite me a book by a woman making observations based completely on her own life experiences. Even the book has a passive aggressive nature that ultimately isn't founded in any practical concern for men's issues.
Your argument is centered on the assertion that the concept of patriarchy, often cited in feminist discourse, has been used as a rationale for actions and policies that have negatively impacted men. You've provided several examples to support your claim, including instances in Sweden where affirmative action laws were abolished and the proposal of a "man tax," as well as cases of opposition to men's officers at universities and resistance to discussions about International Men's Day. Additionally, you've highlighted controversies around early research on male victimization in domestic violence situations. Your perspective emphasizes that these actions were not directly driven by patriarchy but rather by certain feminist individuals and organizations. You contend that the consequences have been detrimental to men's rights and issues. It's important to note that discussions about gender issues, including patriarchy and its effects, are complex and often involve differing viewpoints within the feminist movement and society as a whole. This conversation highlights the need for open and respectful dialogue to address issues that affect all genders. If you'd like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of this argument or have further questions, please feel free to ask, and I'll provide additional information or engage in discussion as needed.
@@runningbetweenspaces Well thanks for your attempt but I will decline I don't care neither am I concerned with the views feminists have of how "patriarchy hurts men too" since sexism like this is seen as punching up so all is fair apparently. But feminists have not made an honest attempt at discussing men's issues and as I shown from the fraction of times they were detrimental have contributed to it greatly enforcing harmful gender roles or stereotypes on men. Is feminism a useful tool for women absolutely it is and its strides for women's rights can not be understated but is the movement unfair and have pushed for sexism against men systemically it absolutely did and mind you it could have been easily avoided if feminists cared to abide by their own standards of egalitarianism . At best it doesn't care to have conversations about men's issues extend deeper than "it's okay to cry" or "toxic masculinity" both of which are both patronizing and insulting but often times are used to obfuscate the discussion around actual male centered discussions to how men can be better advocates for women.
@@thestarchgod8663 I would say you should read bell hooks Willingness To Change. She is critical of the form of feminism you talk about. But I understand where you are coming from.
@@runningbetweenspaces I have read that book and if you are a man and find value in what Bell Hooks (may her soul rest in peace) then kudos to you but even her book “will to change” has passive aggressive tone towards men and still treats patriarchy as something men do to women erasing any idea of men being victims of abuse at the hands of not just other men but women i agree with feminism on a number of things pro choice, right to independence and self determination for women but men’s issues is a conversation to be had by men for men. Black men experience extreme of men’s issues abuse, drugs, incarceration and lagging behind in virtually all phases of education is seen the most in Black men yet Bell hooks never addressed that and don’t get me started on her book We real cool if I didn’t know any better I would have thought it was something written by a white nationalists demonising black men and pinning their issues on “black masculinity” I was livid reading that book it was so tone deaf to black men’s needs. Then again I appreciate you taking the time to indulge me and I’m glad her work helps but it isn’t for me.
@@thestarchgod8663 "I appreciate your perspective and the time you've taken to share your thoughts on Bell Hooks' work. It's crucial to recognize that feminist literature can vary in its approach and may not resonate with everyone, especially concerning men's issues, and that's perfectly valid. While Hooks' work has made significant contributions to feminist theory, I understand your concerns about the portrayal of men and the specific challenges faced by Black men. It's true that there are unique issues faced by Black men, such as abuse, incarceration, and educational disparities, which deserve thoughtful consideration. I also appreciate your insights in acknowledging that not all portrayals of Black masculinity should be perceived as demonizing. In fact, it's important to recognize that none of us are perfect, and patriarchy, in its various forms, can influence our actions and behaviors in ways we might not even realize. It's a complex interplay, and self-reflection can help us understand how societal norms and expectations affect our lives. Regarding the perception of passive-aggressiveness, I would disagree with you that Hooks is not acting in that manner. She's stating her observations of how patriarchy affects both men and women. Sometimes, when these observations challenge our preconceived notions, it can be uncomfortable. It's worth considering whether there are aspects of patriarchy that we may unconsciously benefit from and whether it's those aspects that we're afraid of losing. Open dialogue and self-reflection are essential for addressing these complex issues. Ultimately, the goal is to foster a society where everyone can discuss and address their specific concerns, regardless of gender or race. I respect your perspective and your choice to seek alternative viewpoints that resonate more with your experiences.
2:31 men also experience sexism. There is a reason why women spend less time in jail for the same actions (including but not limited to being charged with less crimes)
NOW helped with a court case to make women enlist. To be clear, they only joined the cause after other organizations, mainly a mens organization, had made it reach a point it looked like it was going to win anyway. But there have been attempts.
@@jfs5873 why not? All conservative male politicians or political commentators do is complain about women in defense of men, why don’t they do something?
You should do another video on Carl Jung, or do a video on Terence McKenna, just a suggestion. Thanks for making these videos. When I found them they got me started on psychology, appreciate it!
if feminism is not inclusive, it's not feminism. If we do not include the men oppressed by patriarchal ideals then nothing can be done. "stop crying, be a man, you're supposed to do that" makes a person who is not validated at a base level. they feel like a failure. even if they have achieved that, there is no push for growth other than "manly" hobbies. I could go on and on. If feminism is not inclusive, it's not feminism bc feminism is for everyone!
idk maybe don’t start the video on misconceptions of feminism. start with the definition and its real stance. ofc it has a negative connotation, people hate when women want to be heard. lets not keep perpetuating these harmful views by not letting go of its hateful connotation
There's a couple of underlying assumptions that need careful examination for when thinking about and engaging with this attempt of liberal democratic feminism and this has to do solely with grasping at the notion of freedom, freedom of choice, freedom of body, and so on. One of the biggest stones which is left unexamined is how there never becomes a sort groundwork framework as to what occurs next from said liberation, and that groundwork and how a liberal democratic feminist world becomes is quite troubling. Take for example how in this video there's a discussion to the concern that our societal systems and how these foundations are created become inherently oppressive, with racism being the principle of creating barriers of racial and sexual class, modest white upper class women versus for example, hard working and impoverished sexually promiscuous black woman, and that dynamic being explored and broken down into pieces to show that these systems in place aren't actually there for a good reason at all. Its a fair critique right? and i am in agreement that when it comes to analyzing the world, its important to be critical of the world of who has, and who does not have and why. And how, and what are the actors at play, etc. That's all very good and it is a great lens of analysis in this world. However, and i am not advocating for this truly patriarchal and racial view, i do believe we can have a balanced life out there, I think its always underplayed what becomes the structure of the family unit and thus by extension the very social and philosophic fabric of a country and its people. Once it becomes acceptable that women and men have fluid systems and roles with no hierarchical goal in mind, life gets very weird. Men become resilient to responsibility when it comes to parental guidance and fatherhood with respect to children, promiscuity and guiding moral principles start to gray as the ability for freedoms means a lack of responsibility when it comes to themselves and their communities around them, and thus a moral gray of, hey do what you want, more and more shreds our fabric of nationhood, ethnicity and culture. And I believe we are in a late phase of this which affects not just our mental state, but even down to the societal level, with urban areas looking more bland and community being individualized. People need to think a lot more harder at this. Freedom being an answer to our woes doesn't seem to really solve as to whether x or y is bad. One can say for example, people should have the right to an abortion, but that does not mean that an abortion is good, it simply pushes that question of morality to the personal sphere for the individual to decide. Is this the right moral and cultural framework to run a country where we live by moral grays and guidelines? Freedom is not an answer to our problems, it simply in my view sidesteps the issue, and i think we need to have a realignment of our values and how we are to construct a moral, political, sociological, and philosophic underpinnings in our society
You're probably among the cleverest of commenters here. And I don't think most people in this comment section WANT to read or think about what you just said. In fact, they'll get bitter and flag your comment to get it removed, typical free-thinking 'liberal' style.
"Is this the right moral and cultural framework to run a country where we live by moral grays and guidelines?" Yes, obviously. People should be able to decide for themselves what is right for them. I would like not to impose into people my ideas on how life should be lived.
@@of5606 I understand you are trying to mean well here, and so I want to respond with the full intent possible to clarify what I am saying. I want to introduce the trolley example and include it in this discussion. For background, the trolley example is a philosophic thought example where you have a train that is driving down the tracks and, attached to the tracks is a diverter that a person can pull with a lever. On the 1 side of the track where you can divert there is 1 person that is tied to the tracks which will be run over. On the other side of the track there are 5 people on the track, again tied, which will be run over. You however need to then make this decision of which side of the tracks do I divert and who should get the news. So here’s the problem because, when you say ‘Yes, obviously. People should be able to decide for themselves what is right for them’, it creates an issue where that response doesn’t solve moral or philosophical questions. This is the equivalent of, in the example above, you go to the man with the choice of the lever and say ‘well, i’m glad it's up to you to choose what’s right or wrong because that’s what i believe in’. But as you can see, that doesn’t really answer anything unfortunately. The freedom to choose is not a moral response, and it doesn’t serve as a guiding principle for life and how to live. The man with the lever doesn’t receive any new advice for what should be chosen. And this is a problem because we make active choices in our lives all the time about what to do. Our lives are a constant myriad of decisions that, oftentimes, we must make. Life is always about choosing what are the right decisions to be made and why, and it is very good to reflect on our choices and remember that life takes us down very difficult paths if we make the wrong decision. Freedom of choice and expression is not a moral compass to live by as you sidestep the question of what is good. And I think it is important to be reflective and ask, pertaining to women and men, if it's even fair to give some individuals that freedom to choose, given the sheer amount of responsibility required to make good decisions. Remember that freedom of choice does mean the freedom to act in bad faith, and to choose ill wills such as child abandonment, narcotics and substances, and more. We need to always question our principles if we are to develop who we are, and what society we need to live in. I question the underpinnings outlined in this video, and this broad view of freedom being the ultimate value in life.
I wouldn't describe bell hooks as a 'liberal democrat' who was solely focused on personal choice. She actually called for a new and distinct form of manhood to strive for and often emphasized the importance of strong fathers and male role models for boys. I think you hold a cynical view of the present and a romantacized view of the past. What past conception of fatherhood in recent history is better than what's currently on offer given that raising children was almost entirely the responsibility of mothers? It was also normal and expected that men remain promiscous while married (their wives weren't given the same allowance). More the point about freedom and values, you say that 'fluid systems' and 'no heirarchy' make life weird, but what if our current values are something we've actively thought on and are happy with? Perhaps this isn't some hedonicstic orgy of freedom and is actually just a new and specific criteria to live by. In your abortion example, you assume that we have sidestepped its morality when we're actually considering a different moral criteria, that women should control their bodies. Most importantly, so what? Life is weird and always will be. I think we'll be fine tbh.
Can someone please explain to me what all of that means. The language used by Hooks was pretty heavy and even the narrator used some heavy words points that I wasn't able to make sense of. I wanna learn more about 4th wave feminism which Bell Hooks is a big part of. But the narrator just quoted her without actually going into details and explaining all the shenanigans. I'd appreciate it if someone could ease it down into simpler terms for me to understand.
This is a year ago, but I will try. hooks argued that feminism, and especially feminism as advocated for by white women did not actually seek to liberate all women from all forms of oppression (sexism, racism classism ableism etc.) or overturn the systems within which these forms of oppression exist (patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism etc.) but instead focussed on allowing white women to enter into positions of power within the systems mentioned above (think "girlboss" feminism). The effects of this, she argues is that women of colour and poor women have not been the focus the mainstream feminist movement and their lives have generally not been improved by the gains made over the years. She would argue instead for a version of feminism that wants to rid us of all those isms mentioned above and to bring in men to the movement as active partners in working towards a better world. She has also argued that this white woman version of feminism has also not addressed the fact that men are also harmed by patriarchy, as we all grow up in a patriarchal society and many of men's mental health/self-esteem issues stem from how they do not live up to the ideals of what it is to be a traditionally masculine man (strong, stoic, breadwinner etc.) and instead suppress parts of themselves to better fit into the mold of what they think an ideal man is. These are just some of her ideas and I would suggest reading The Will to Change for more details. Hope this explains it a bit!
The fact that feminism has made many man to actually believe that thry have some kind of invisible advantage over woman just for being born that way is incredibly sad, these man not only believe this lies, but feel bad for something that is not even true in the first place, just like religion, and it shows how mental health for man is a real important topic to talk about
But they do have invisible advantage under the patriarchy. And just cuz the system was made to make you the superior you shouldn’t “feel sad” You should just educate yourself, try to help those in a disadvantage.
Tell me why grown women, white women, black women, etc, are have calling me privlaged ever since I was a teen, or say that as a black men I am more privlaged than grown ‘educated’ black women who seem to also slander my sex or race along with the rest of the feminist movement.
@@eypu999The problem that feminist have is assuming the life style of every single man, thinking that we constantly feel superior to everyone and that we are, that we are constantly hateful and have privilege over everyone despite feminist also not being critical of women who have their own ‘privlage’, as if all of us men were a rich poltical figure standing on a flow of cash and women are completely poor and homeless with no money or sucsess. Men don’t feel bad about being ‘superior’ they feel bad that you accuse and demonize them of having privilege, assume the average male has life on easy and privileged, have no life issues of their own, and never worked for anything or did anything to help themselves and others, while demanding that those men help feminist women who don’t care for any sex that isn’t their own, sees men as lesser, and have just as much ‘privlage’ as those men, despite not being critical of other women or assume the life style of every women being that they are super privileged, live and easy life, and evil. No, that would be RedPill thinking.
@@dragonbeardable Feminist don’t see men as human, only as a molith or a class, and they don’t talk about or even think about male issues unless it’s to blame men for said issue, they only care IF thar issue somehow affects women, while they proceed to demonize men, so of course feminst think men are all privlaged.
I actually find radical individualism in Feminism as a good thing for women to break free from labels that keep them subdued to men and the Patriarchy.
How much land is there there is over 295 billion 1/8 acres of land on this world, In canada and united states there are 23 billion 1/8 acres of land, so all the 8 billion people in the world could all go to canada and united states, all get 1/8 acre of land totally free that another is not using, away from any resources people need to live, there would still be an extra 15 billion 1/8 acres of public land left over, there would not be a human body anywhere else in the world, non in africa, south america, europe, china, russia etc... yet we are being lied to there is NOT enough land? oil? gas? electricity? food? water? etc... 1/8 acre of land is 5445 sq ft, an average 2 bedroom condo is less than a 1000 sq ft, that can be built on 1/8 acre of land, people build on swamps, mountains, snow etc... add a 2000 sq. ft. greenhouse for nutrition, grow plants for free! let food be your medicine. There is still 2445 sq. ft. Left over, chickens, goat etc...? they can build anything their hearts desire. If people want they can move together, 1/8 acre next to another one or far away. free thermal heat, self-sufficient hydro, people can help each other create anything for free again. humans never have to act as a slave to something else. It’s better to show someone how to help themselves, then forced to act as a slave to another. look at all the homeless people dying, murder? when woman have a home for the child, they can have for free, with electricity, water and nutrition. children in abusive family can go live on their own 1/8 acre of land with help from friends. all land and its resources is the gift that keeps on giving, to all children, that must always be free from debt illusion. its only on your own land you have liberty and justice, live by your own laws, not a slave to an others laws. all 1/8 acres of land can be tracked on the written world map also with computer. in a town there is a piece of land that for over 20 yrs has had a fence/border/debt illusion around it, destroying anything that could have creatively used it, so retarded. having what they need people naturally help each other! for free. buddha stated; think it you become it, bible states ask and ye shall receive, jesus said knock and the door will be opened. what are you thinking? asking for? what door are you knocking on? all are free to think, ask, knock on any door why do most people do what they do? politicians, artists, athletes, police, army, navy, air force, accountants, bankers, lawyers, drug dealers(legal and illegal) psychologists, criminals, doctors, strippers, secretaries, builders, thieves etc... for shelter and nutrition, especially for their child. man and woman in condo(apartment)jail or with nature? in a apartment/condo; mortgage, condo fees, condo rules, hydro bills, gas bills, water bills, air bills? food bills, fear from bills/debt, hatred etc… corporate jail privilege to live. communism. living with nature; land, fresh air, water, plants, fruit, vegetables, animals, shelter, sun light, water, hydro, fire, feelings, love etc… all free, the land of the free. right too live. did debters finance woman’s lib? debters want to tax everything, attach a debt too everything, total corruption and slavery, debt’s you will have nothing! and be happy! they where not able to attach a debt/tax too woman, her home and child. debtors thought how much extra debt they could extort, millions, billions of woman, their homes and child. debters used propaganda/lies to make the woman think she should get paid for being a mother, charge a debt illusion, not to help her but to legally employ/pimp her as a worker, into their debt/tax employment system, separating her from her home and child, her love, now forced too pay the pimp/debtors taxes, not legally a mother, so debters could legally extort her property, her home, her child into their debt system, tax/rape them all, legally steal her child and its property with the birth certificate, if its legal its good? illegal bad? take the mother and child’s right to its equal share of earths land and resources, now she is only a paid whore, treated as a retard, dumb, ignorant, not fit to be a mother. is this how any woman should think and feel? yet they use debt against men and men allow it? why? ignorant and retarded. the children have no shelter and nutrition, indebted, forced into the debters education system, trained into the financial system, yet not shown where debt comes from, what money is, legal civil departments are, forced to pay for and protect debt's financial hierarchy. all woman must have 1/8 acre of land(not more or less) with shelter, nutrition, all amenities for free, so the mother has a home where her child can always go if needed, anything that denies this is a attempted murderer.
Visit brilliant.org/Sisyphus55/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Ok
What’s love?
You fell off. A damn shame you became another leftist hugbox.
It didn't begin in slavery. It began when Asiatic tried to infiltrate the nile 6000 years ago using black women as demeaned wives to infiltrate African institutions. If her words that is a sharp oversight in an ignorant bias and if the vid posters fault something well worth correcting as if disregards the global impact that destruction of black foundation has been the main drive in misogyny.
Ngl as soon as I see anyone who has analysed the world and all of its complex systems and come to the conclusion: "What we really need is more love", I'm totally engaged. In modern society we've been conditioned to think that 'love' is a magical, airy fairy, insubstantial emotion, as opposed to things like Economics, Progress or Authority, which are 'real' and 'serious'. Sometimes we forget that we're just the same as any other animal that evolved on this planet, we just have a bigger vocabulary, and the things we need are fairly simple and instinctive- safety, nourishment, community and connection. From my perspective, if you're a serious academic and you're seriously putting forward an idea that Love is something to take seriously and with intellectual diligence, then you're probably on the right track. It's just a shame that many other people don't see it that way, yet.
Facts
you should so read All About Love by bell hook, i think you'd love it! :)
I see love as the answer but my faith in humans to be able to sustainably live on the path of love is not high.
No one is free until everyone is free.
We can not love too much, so ling as we do not confuse love with desire.
love is just a feel good term invented by hippies lmao. It means nothing especially without Christ, which is obviously what hooks promotes.
@@Cryros_sphere Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t. Love is in action, not in your feelings and not a gift from Jesus, it is both your strength and your burden.
@@Cryros_sphere why has western society been shaped so much by love if it’s some dumb feel good concept? Is everything that has deep emotional meaning also worthless? Is everything in general worthless?
Beautifully said
@@Cryros_spherenot everyone believes in a magic man like you do.
My personal favorite feminist quote: "Anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo." ~ Knuckles (2017)
ah yes the wise jhett
@@conely2463 this is actual official dialog, not jhett
i aint joking
Honestly Knuckles was spittin facts
@@teratoma. Correct. Also, what is a "jhett"?
@@FluffyEmmy1116 jhett is the guy who makes the vid where knuckles makes his surprisingly deep understanding of feminism known
Love her book "The Will to Change", not only it is a great to introduction to feminism and but also an eye opener to humanizing masculinity to something more real.
I definitely think it has some weird takes. If you want a book that explores masculinity in the current age, I recommend Way of the Superior Man
I just woke up and read the title as ‘hell books’ and was just like “yeah, sure why not”
At least I wasn't the only one who read "hell books" haha
DEMONOLOGY IS FOR EVERYBODY: a guide to hell books 😂
that would have been more interesting.
Highway to Hell, Baby!
More accurate
the most important thing to solving a problem, is transitioning from a "us vs them" mentality to "all of us vs the problem" one, division and polarization only keeps us fighting, but coming together to adress the problem itself responsibly is the path to positive change
During my studies, I had the rare opportunity to speak with bell and listen in on her conversations. She lived in town, and took a vested interest in the students and college I attended (Berea College).
Feminism is for Everybody really lit a fire in me, and gave voice to a lot of thoughts I'd long had about what I would come to understand as intersectionality.
Thank you for this video!
I been long time entrap in the redpill ideology, even to some extend mgtow and incel. My love hate relationship w/ woman. reading Bell Hooks book was the final key to unlock the trap that I had willingly put myself in. I am still learning more about this and myself, so I hope eventually any man who are in this cycle can find peace and love that we all long to have.
Redpill is fun mgtow and incel are hilarious
For me, the red pill (ideology?) and feminism doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. They coincide in ways that mem and women should think for themselves and be able to do whats best for themselves, as well as having a choice and fighting for equality in some points. Its just those extremists are the problem of both sides, which devalue the main purpose of those ideologies (?)
@@lottolearn6658 red pill often refers to conservatism.
That is such a hard conditioning to break. You have done an exceptional job so far.
@@lottolearn6658 no. You arent being honest or you havent been able to fully understand how insidious redpill culture is. Maybe you're just young and dont understand the dog whistles but redpill to mgtow to incel is a path that leads to abuse, rape, murder, and in some confimed cases, mass shootings. Feminism has never ever been cited as a reason for a mass shooter. Nor any other violent oppressive acts against men. You cannot "both sides" this. They will never ever be equal.
9:45 interesting how even the "not like other girls" movement also seeks patriarchal approval despite rejecting the need to form relationships with men.
@@thotslayer9914 lol this guy again? Remember when you tried to boil down people's political beliefs into a 2x2 square?
@@TJ-wt9op damn. you got me craving context to that :0.
@@amal-_-8670 tea: this guy commented on a video on my channel, asking about my political beliefs, and after some back and forth, he got upset because I didnt want to boil my beliefs down into the 2x2 square offered by The Political Compass website. He obviously was unaware that The Political Compass is one of MANY political tests, and is one of the most simple tests around. It seems he thought it is THE definitive political test or something.
He was unable to understand that people's beliefs can extend beyond the scope of a 2x2 square, but there also seemed to be a slight language barrier, so I dont wanna be to hard on him.
That was it lol 😂
We all seek approval from something. If you don't want that you can always be a buddhist. Ofcourse, you only care if people are seeking approval from men which makes you feel disgusted for some reason.
her book "The Will to Change" was the first time it clicked completely for me, because of the class analysis within it, and its insistence that the patriarchy oppresses men as well as women, just in different ways (Men must be the backbone, and show no emotion etc) . Much like Marx's points on the bourgeoisie being under the thumb of capitalism as much as the proletariat.
Which, even though I considered myself a feminist before reading it, I came to a fuller understanding of its integration into my total politics afterwards.
Yeah, so quick question: Why is it bad that men are expected to be the backbone of society? We've done that for 300.000 years at this point and this is all of a sudden a bad thing now?
@@Finkelfunk one of the reasons men have such high suicide rates is because they are unable to share their emotions with other people so they isolate themselves and end up hurting either themselves or other people.
@@aetzo1202 No, one of the reasons men have such high suicide rates is because their psychological profile and character traits make it far more likely to actually follow through on suicide attempts compared to females. Both genders are actually fairly equal when it comes to attempting suicide. And if you really care THAT much about suicide rates, how about we start talking about smartphones first, which caused the suicide rates of 8-13 year olds to nearly triple in the last 10 years? No? No takers? I assume that argument is off the table then.
@@Finkelfunk i assume you're talking about patriarchal societies, since this was not the rule everywhere, but saying it's about "expecting men to be on the backbone of society" is an oversimplification, men were the ONLY members of society, for most of it, women weren't considered intelligent enough to participate, so they were treated like properties of their fathers, and later their husbands. it was always a bad thing, but who was going to complain? the 'people' who were considered to be illogical and purely led by instinct or the people who benefitted the most from this """"deal""""?
@@guilhermeshiba3135 So no woman has participated in society for 300.000 years? No woman stayed at home raising children while men died in wars they didn't start? No woman in those 300.000 years has ever done anything significant according to you? Woman just weren't there until labor and voting laws? The pill wasn't invented to give women more freedom over their reproduction in a time when women were still far from equal in a legal sense? And obviously no great woman has ever furthered society which is why most monarchs were dependent on their wives? They were just a panumbra for all those thousands of years and suddenly popped into existence? Oh and up until the 1980s women all ran around naked because they didn't shape entire industries around fashion and make up or their past time activities, right? They weren't gatherers thousands of years ago contributing just as much to the survival of mankind as men did? They didn't also partake in grueling 16 hour field work, they just weren't existent and had not shaped society in any meaningful way or contributed anything.
If you truly and honestly believe that women didn't "partake in society", there is no way around calling you misogynistic.
Your channel is literally the only thing that gives me hope for humanity. I really hope your channel goes far your content is brilliant, I’m so glad that there is someone out there as willing as you are to do the research necessary to explain your topics. This one, as well as many others, could GENUINELY Change peoples minds if they would listen. I hope you go far Sisyphus
Ik, he's one of the most understated channels on UA-cam. Deserves at least one million subscribers
Meow
@@500ccRabbit how so
@@500ccRabbit biased with no i
@@500ccRabbit everyone is
Feminism is an integral part of our cultural progress and It sucks that people give it such a bad rep when in actuality it seeks to deconstruct and question all the cultural, social and legal precedents and practices that dehumanize men, women and those that identify as neither. Excited to see what you have to say.
That ship has long sailed we past that point
What it does in theory and what the actual practicality behind it looks like are two very different things. Modern 3rd and 4th wave feminism has nothing to do with equality and is just another egalitarian political movement in the guise of "equality" because how are you gonna argue against that realistically?
I'd respect feminists more if they would at least stand by their Marxist background ideology instead of trying to disguise this as something ultimately beneficial for me. It is not, you know this, I know this, so why not just call it what it is?
but feminists want conversion therapy the fembois 😥
@@TinyBearTim Interview women you know and and ask them how many times they've been sexually harrased , cat called and abused at work, at school, outside and at home and then come and tell me what you find.
@@prajwaljayaraj5887 that has nothing to do with what I said …..
Ppl give it a bad rep because of the modern crazy ones that blame men for every thing and say things like “is it a girl or abortion “ when they having kids .
Feminism is rejected by women in most of Asia ,it’s not integral to everyone
ppl have changed its meaning and what it’s about
the classic fems are mostly gone /drowned out by the new ones
The ship has sailed a long time ago
bell hooks saved lives
She articulated a system of oppressive forces : imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.
And as a cultural critic how she links racism, sexism mass media and market forces is brilliant
.A beautiful soul, a staggering intellect- her work continues to educate decolonize and liberate.
Thank you Gloria Watkins
🙏🏾💗
Her books have saved my life.
Her works are a dramatic exercise in mental gymnastics and intellectual games of "six degrees of Kevin Bacon". You can link anything with anything if you write enough. How she ties things together is almost like the meme where people say the Franz Ferdinand's driver taking a wrong turn caused Japan to get nuked twice.
@@haydenvanmeeteren5127 Maybe her works are just not for you. And that is ok. Please save your energy from making hateful dismissive comments on a page that clearly is visited by people that DO value her intellectual contributions. Your comments added nothing to debate.
Make your way to a Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro thread- you may be happier there.
A whole bunch of bullshit for pseudo intellectual puppets of the system such as yourself, who feel they are rebels by aligning themselves with corporations, governments and every level of power.
Given that capitalism has saved more lives than everything else in history put together. At best, she might have had a neutral impact.
4:15 Calling us "lazy and unsophisticated" just because we don't know the specific terminology of a particular field of study really rubs me the wrong way. If you can't write a book that the general population can understand, it's not our fault; and if you do write a book for the general population, you're not calling us lazy, you just realize we have other things to do than look up niche vocabulary and dry scientific papers.
She is saying the audience is lazy and unsophisticated for supporting and listening to a book with no bibliography (cited sources). The audience should find a book that has been reviewed and is supported by facts. It is very possible to write a book that is both supported by facts and other studies and that is also understandable by the general population. Please pay more close attention before attacking someone. It really rubs me the wrong way.
@@alanarmstrong3186 And this comment right here is what's wrong with academia. Its superiority complex, and talking down to "the common people" instead of sharing knowledge freely. Please try and remember that everyone has a different skill set. Not everyone 100% understands something the first time they hear it. If you punish people for voicing their ignorance, you train people to hide it.
For instance, you're obviously intelligent, but are very bad with social skills. If I was mean about it, you wouldn't learn anything. But since I've calmly explained it, you can look past your massive ego and see the truth in what I've said. Make sense?
@@dahat1992 If the audience doesn't want to read scholarly articles, good for them. If they want to, good for them. The problem is, an important chunk of the audience does want to read the bibliography when there's none to be found. I say important because they usually consist of people who know a lot about the topic and know a lot of people in the field, which enables them to spread it further and give it more actual validity. Accept it or not, relevant issues need a lot of thinking from people. Aside from that, writing for the common people incentivizes one to appeal to emotion and presupposed agenda (ex. jordan peterson). I get it, some academics do sound very elitist, and some of them are but this usually comes from a good place. It's important to know your audience and if you really want to show the thinkers what they're missing out one, then include them.
To me its about the option to see the research. Obviously not everyone looks up sources but its nice to be able to if only for furthering your personal research or to fact check!
lol and this is what's wrong with "the common people." Making big judgments with basically no support or consideration. One comment = intelligent + bad social skills. One sentence = calling unacademic people lazy and unsophisticated. Maybe if you stopped to consider if you were actually right before making critical comments/judgments I wouldn't be so eager to mock you. You are right that it is not good to incentivize people to hide their ignorance but there is also an argument to be made that some filtration is based on checking the source (in this case the video) for validity is a beneficial thing
excellent video!!! the importance of intersectionality within the feminist movement cannot be overstated: in order to build a world beyond sexism and patriarchal order, we must acknowledge the way gender roles interact and overlap with other forms of oppression, such as racism, queerphobia, class, and ability. Bell hooks was such a profound and insightful voice with regards to this subject, i would recommend her work to everyone interested in making the world a better place. thank you for your hard work exploring her ideas and sharing your thoughts
Bell Hooks has made me feel seen and understood in my experience of maleness more than even my own parents ever have. Her book The Will to Change seriously changed my perspective in a time when i felt rejected and alone.
Great video, more people need to understand feminism and what it’s really about
You mean, more people should adhere to her definition of feminism, right?
Because modern 4th wave feminism is not about love, it's about hate.
@@sjege
I have meet a lot more women that think of themselves as feminist, that understand the struggles men have, than men that think of themselves as progressive and who understand that female hygiene products should be no luxury.
Modern feminism is about cleaning up.
We get rid of misunderstandings and lies.
Sometimes it is time consuming and you get angry.
But ultimately men will benefit from it.
If you ask a feminist, if they hate men, they will most definitely say no.
Because that's not the point.
@@500ccRabbit
From what recent event are you speaking?
When did men gain something that feminist were against?
Also:
If you want to help men, then do so.
Feminism is all for laying out a way for everyone to use.
Because of that we have more male teachers, nurses and parents that stay home.
Those are directly caused by feminism.
@@das8.kapitel260 you don't need to ask them if they hate men, if you have a working brain it's enough that you read 2 or 3 paragraphs of any "feminist".
@@hgwells1570
I'm a feminist.
Please explain where you can read that I hate men. It will prove impossible.
Because I don't hate men in general or in particular.
Like I said.
Most feminist don't hate men.
Sure some extrem ones do.
But tbh there are still more men that think that women are to blame for their loneliness and this believe system turns into hate.
So you see there are horrible humans everywhere.
Henry Giroux said in his introduction to "Feminism, Postmodernism, and Cultural Politics" that he wanted to dedicate his book to bell hooks for her "commitment to true pedagogy".
Rest in Power Bell Hooks you have touched many ❤
@@500ccRabbit honestly the cringiest people are the ones who unironically say cringe to others for no damn good reason
She's dead ??? Horrayyy im so happy now she's gone she's shouting kill all men in her grave now LOL 😆
"You have touched many" loll
@@egg4489 you must be miserable and ignorant, she talks about men mental health and she is very male rights activist and female rights activists.
She criticises women also
Beautiful video about a very smart woman I would have loved to meet. Saddened to see a lot of folks in the comments who clearly don't understand the video or the writings of Bell Hooks but want to be mad about it anyway. After all, she understood and wrote about people like you.
it's only been a few minutes since u posted this and there are already several misogynists commenting T-T great job with the video!! love ur content
there are people in these comments targeting feminism as a whole while not even finishing the video. people were already commenting misogynistic things 2-5 minutes after the video was posted. it's not that hard to tell the difference between someone who doesn't agree with sisyphus 55 and someone who just saw the word "feminism" in the vid title and started commenting misogynistic things!
@@katharine2282 Yes so in order to criticize feminism I need to watch an 11 minute UA-cam video, but the roughly 20 books I read from feminists or about feminism count for absolutely nothing and I am just a misogynist for disagreeing with feminism?
Quick question: Is there any way in your world view that I could disagree with the basic premise of feminism and NOT end up as a misogynist?
@@Finkelfunk i was talking about comments saying that "feminism has gone too far", etc. these are comments made simply out of hate for people who are only standing up for themselves. there is no room for fruitful conversation when it comes to comments like these. they are less than disagreements that can be expanded and talked about. i believe that there is nothing wrong with criticizing feminism, as long as you are respectful and acknowledge and don't deny the obvious disadvantages women constantly have to deal with.
and i'm not sure there is an exact answer to that quick question. if you disagree with the basic premise of feminism, and feminism's goal is to eradicate women's oppression, then that means you do not support the idea of women having the protection they need and the rights they deserve. doesn't that make you a misogynist?
unless we follow different definitions of certain terms, we should be able to agree on this one.
@@katharine2282 "as long as you don't deny the obvious disadvantages women constantly have to deal with."
But what about that specific part makes it misogynistic? "obvious disadvantages" is such a vague and unmarked term, you could practically fit anything into this magic box of definitions again. This imprecision is precisely what leftist intellectuals have been abusing for the past 80 years to get their teachings to become universally accepted.
And how is that feminism related? Feminism HAS gone too far ever since the 3rd wave began. We have left the realm of legal actual injustice like labor and voting laws, and have entered a pseudo scientific social construction realm of perceived injustice. The wage gap is a beautiful example because that magic 21% floating around has been debunked so many times, it has stopped being funny even as a meme. Yet feminists STILL bring this up to justify actual injustice in hiring practices. Modern 4th wave feminism is even worse, some supposed Patriarchy that controls the entire globe and we just started to universally accept that without ever having had a conversation about it. Things like rape statistics are cited and it is completely overlooked that that is the only crime that actually affects more women than men, everything is suddenly turned into a race and gender issue. A woman that freely decides to become a housewife because she wants to care for her kids is now "succumbing to the propagandist views imprinted on her by a patriarchy", we need an equity quota for EVERYTHING completely ignoring that equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, we try our hardest to erase any significant difference between the sexes in ANY area, completely ignoring biology along the way.
What feminism did ever since the third wave is make a mockery of the legitimate demand for equal opportunity. Instead feminism wants quotas for CEOs, yet I have never seen a feminist ask for female quotas for sewage workers. Ever since the third wave this has become politics of envy rather than of progress.
@@katharine2282 Oh yes please tell us more about how women in the first world, as I'm sure you are one, are so oppressed. When I have never in my life seen any of you worry about the women who actually go through horrible situations in the third world, to the point of suffering mutilation or similar awful things done to them in african and some asian countries. When every time I go outside, every single person I see sleeping in the middle of the street is a man, when the majority of suicides are men, or most of the highly dangerous jobs that are performed every single day by men to maintain the infrastructure of every city in the world which allows you to cry with your inferiority complex on the internet because the AC was a little too cold, or because some guy opened his legs when sitting on the bus. Please, oppressed female, name 1 (ONE) law that benefits men over women in your country. Please explain why your "oppressed" group can go to a court for a custody dispute having abused the husband and sometimes even the children and still get custody, or the fact that daddy government has to step in to force companies to hire women over men, even if the man was more qualified, or make false rape allegations which ruin men's lives while getting away with not serving jail time when you are discovered, or the fact that you can say absolutely anything about men without fear of repercussion. Name me ONE instance where men are favored in society over women.
And I like how your original post was bashing people for coming to this video and leaving nasty comments, but you couldn't stop yourself from also doing that exact same thing. Isn't it funny how you feminists are the first to jump at somebodies throat and play the victim, just to later become the assailants yourselves? Your ideology is incredibly flawed, and you people are cowards. Keep playing the bully with your manipulative strategies, it just keeps showing your hypocrisy to everyone.
Great to just have finished her book 'Will to change' and hear Hooks be mentioned on the podcast with Olivia, Alica and now this vid.
Synchronicity is working overtime
I love your channel. Thank you so much for this ❤
One barrier my odd male mind once hung up on, was understanding the origin of sex inequality. Of course, that was simplistic stubbornness on my part.
The patriarchy is quite clearly the product of male violence, and the advantage that testosterone gives men in violent conflict. All oppression starts with violence. Women being less equipped for physical violence, were subject to oppression early on despite numeric equality. Other minorities have fallen to white heterosexual male violence, due to lower population numbers, and more powerful weaponry (guns), in the hands of European colonizers. This violence established the initial inequality, which is then sustained through, law, public policy, social norms, and of course, continued violence. Violence, which is also protected by the other three.
Upending this systematic oppression, requires action from the people who benefit the most from the system.
Those experiencing it will always do the largest part of that labor, suffering and even dying in the process. Those benefiting from the oppression, are the ones that have to change themselves for the oppression to actually end.
This is a hard truth, but it also reveals the path to progress. We have to recognize our own privilege and fight the inequality it creates. We have to be the example that we want to see in this life, and trust that it will come, however distant it continues to be.
Spot on! Thank you.
I believe the primary cause of patriarchy were men taking jobs like tending fields or herding livestock. Jobs that produced more wealth and power in Neolithic societies. Eventually, men had all the important and powerful positions in most societies, breeding a male dominated world
This was a dense video: at times I was rewatching sections as my mind wandered while processing what I'd heard. Learning about Bell Hooks and her analysis of feminism and patriarchal oppression was fascinating however it left me with more questions than were answered. Let that not be a reflection on the quality of your presentation- It's just a lot to think about!
Your videos are like little mental vacations, they’re so wonderful
This is a great introduction. Keep up the great work!
this is your best video yet imo! i love the inclusion of the love ethic and mlk. :)
YESSSSS! I was waiting for ur video on Hooks!
I started a gender studies major last year largely because of bell hooks readings from my feminist theories class. I’ve always considered myself a feminist, but felt hooks’s ideas gave me a basis to help educate other people about what feminism can be and the kind of world we can create.
Why don't you study something that will be useful for your future career or just useful in general?
@@marceelino why can't people study something just because they find it interesting?
@@Lemoygarys Of course you can. I just asked why he is losing time doing it. If it's interesting, It still does not mean it's useful.
I also like philosophy, but I would never spend 5 years at university to get a useless degree. It's not like you can find a job with that type of education.
@@marceelino I’ll let them answer the question if they want, but maybe people don’t consider learning for the sake of learning a waste of time. If we were all doing degrees for a job at the end of it we’d have a lot of civil engineers on our hands.
@@Lemoygarys I am just more practical. If we are talking about jobs that requires university level of education, I would prefer more engineers, scientists, doctors, even social work are better than gender studies.
If he is studying for sake of learning what's the point in his later life? He has no skills, no experience, no useful education. I do not think that he will continue his career in this specific subject.
If you want to study why not do it later on as a part time over the weekends? You can get the same education, but you already have a stable life.
Very few people want to turn the clock on women's rights today, although abortion rights is still opposed by many. Swxual harassment is still a problem. It's true that anti-male resentment is still rampant in some feminist circles, so Bell Hooks is correct in pointing this out.
Man if I could time travel and teleport. I'd go to her and give her a hug, too bad I was born too late.
you were born in 2021???
Great vid, I certainly appreciate an approach to this subject that is so flattering but non confrontational. I have been trying to absorb more perspective from feminist mindsets that aren’t preaching to the choir or trying to pick a fight (mind you, feminism is not unique with this problem).
In branching outside of my bubble I find this to be a very welcome video, I was pleased to see something from this subject posted by you as your videos are incredibly good and I have to say that this video delivered
This video was really well done
I love bell hooks so much I could almost cry idk why
Thank you for making this video :)
awesome video about an amazing woman. a lot of intellectualism and and philosophy is dominated by white men, but there are so many women and people of color with extremely valuable perspectives, and I hope to see more content exploring figures like bell hooks!
@Best Montage But that is bell hooks for you right there. Her entire philosophy literally is "I am a black woman, so listen to me and stfu because I am right and you're wrong". Her pretentious deconstructionist writing and her ludicrous arguments and justifications are nothing short of the ramblings of a mad woman.
@Best Montage it's almost like someone's position in society and how they're treated by others is going to affect how they experience the world 😱
@Best Montage how is the race or gender not important to philosophy AT ALL when this whole video is about racism and sexism?
@@violettiaras It's almost like someone's position in society and how they're treated by other is determined by their race and sex. Just not how you think.
@@Finkelfunk @Finkel - Funk I'm quite certain you're addressing a strawman of Bell's "philosophy" as your statement appears to be quite contrary to sisyphus' video essay.
Props on the video of thee heroïne
Great content de-radicalizing young viewers one at a time!
I'm really glad to see a youtube channel discussing philosophy and societal topics not go the way of reactionary """sceptic""" youtubers the likes of sargon of akkad. It seems for a long time unfortunately this area was dominated by this political group which really seeks only to appropriate the aesthetic of intellectualism to push a regressive societal message that aims to appeal to young white men who feel disenfranchised by the modern world, and rather than allowing them to explore these problems critically it pushes a regressive message that seeks to blame only progressivism for their issues.
Great video.
Fair enough, but I personally also partly blame progressivism for many of the problems faced by disenfranchised "white" young men. The connection is hard to come by but my time in college has really helped me disentangle what some of those are, both via lessons and negative interactions with "progressive" students.
Real
this was beautiful, thanks for putting your time and energy into creating this
yay! thank you for this video, more people should know about bell hooks
The quote shown at 9:50 is from her book "Communion: the Female Search for Love."
Fear of loving too much: the DSM just flashed before my eyes, I can almost see the page number.
Hell yeah doofenshmirtz's tower
'Postfeminism man' by Barbar sums up everything that happened in last couple of decades. When rules change, people adapt.
I love the editing.
spot on bro
4:14 SOURCES ARE OPPRESSION. ALL MY HOMIES HATE SOURCES.
Incredibly based
wow this video was amazing so much better then hearing my ap english teacher drone on about bell
Such a great video. Thanks for this!
Sounds like a more realistic form of feminism to me.
BELL HOOKS✨✨
I gonna say that I disagree with Hooks that “oppression is bad” following the definition they use of “oppression is when your options are taken from you”.
If I prevent you from stabbing someone, I am very much oppressing you but I damn well think that’s a good thing.
I think you're misunderstanding what she was trying to say.
"Oppression is when your options are taken from you" here, the options are like when women can't go out at night. We can't walk outside with the fear of being raped. We don't have an option.
Of course oppression and discipline sometimes can be for good, but that sentence doesn't imply that.
@@dedeadam9698 Ah, well, I have context blindness because of my autism. If taking choices away can be good if it’s for a good reason then I broadly agree.
really dope video, intersectionality was explained beautifully
I see Sisyphus 55 posted, I click, I watch, I feel enlightened. Nice.
I would have maybe liked to credit Kimberlé Crenshaw with Intersectionality, as my current understanding is that the concept started with her, but other wise the rest of the was so good. Thanks for keeping this work up :)
The next phase of feminism is spiritual and will replace aggressive words like "smashing" the patriarchy with simply "seeing" the patriarchal as tail-end extensions of a matriarchal origin. If we can see it, we can free it.
"If you don't see it, you are it" - Eckhart Tolle
Spiritually speaking (gender aside), matriarchal wisdom can begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).
Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.
As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).
Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.
In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld, her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.
Mary Magdalene's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as head to tail (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12:3)
To carry the Ankh was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.
Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society.
A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html
"See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. When you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
Love how you start off with a strawman, just to point out how you either need to be ignorant or an insider to criticize the movement.
great vid
holy shit, I would have loved to be friends with her
Thank you for making this video
Bruh the comment section is so fucked, please grab a hazmat suit before entering or else the replies will give you radiation damage
It's too late I am now the epicenter of a radioactive fallout localized entirely within my body
True far too many braindeads supporting and defending feminism absolutely disgusting
I personally believe that feminism can be for everyone, but it has to be made into a movement which can first. Feminism has, historically, helped men nearly exclusively when they could also help women, and sometimes even actively hurt men, although always in ways conservatives would anyway. To fix this, there has to be more willingness to call out the historical feminist movement when they did something wrong, to be more willing to call out current individual feminists, and to be more willing to not try to make a mens issue someone else's problem. Just 3 day ago I saw a debate on whether judging a man for wearing a dress was homophobia or misogyny. And I understand the argument for the latter, as it's making fun of people for having feminine characteristics. But when, say, Shaun makes a video on JK Rowling, treating a woman with manish hands as ugly is also misogynist. What I think is happening is people are still uncomfortable with the idea of men having problems, even if they say and even logically believe otherwise.
I think it stems from the same misogynistic idea yk.
Feminism hasn't done anything for men. I have yet to see organizations or charities for men's issues and rights like male genital mutilation.
Feminism never really helped anyone that wasn’t a white women, Bell was at least right about that, but yeah they still do not wish to help men unless it’s for the sake of women.
This is why for example, many feminist take topics of male loninees, misandry, male abuse and 🍇 victims, and blame those issues back on men, saying that those issues are men’s fault or patrarchy’s fault that men built (notice how they are only strictly critical of men, any woman that contrubites to those issues is silently ignored, or seen as a small fraction of women unlike us men) or worse I’ve seen them say stuff like “I’m glad you see the issue as a man, hopefully this means you understand women more to help them better”.
They seem to only want an issue fixed on their side, they don’t actually give a crap about people that aren’t the same sex as them, they see men as a class of privlaged and problems, not as humans. They tell other men to open up about their issues, then shame men for doing so.
The reason why they tell men to be more emotionally open, is so they can have more women tell men about their issues, without returning the favor to men, otherwise feminist call those men toxic, fragile, inscure, gay, to shut up and listen, etc.
They also assume that men will get violent to women if men don’t open up, about their struggles, but might not care about the male himself having that issue.
If anyone is looking for an amazing, challenging, brilliant, and uncomfortable book about modern feminism please look into The Right to Sex by Amia Srinivasan. She discusses feminism through a very intersectional lens and also dives into incel cultures response to sex centered feminism. One of my favorites and builds upon Bell hooks theories.
I picked it up because the title was very jarring. I personally don't believe that anyone has the right to sex, but it is a gift that we are lucky to receive through the good treatment of people around us. The title immediately made me deeply uncomfortable as I recalled how many times I've heard men discuss women's bodies as something that they are automatically entitled to upon puberty. She purposely used this title because one of her foundational ideas about feminism is that it SHOULD be uncomfortable to discuss.
If you’re not uncomfortable, you don’t have a problem. If you’re looking to _be_ uncomfortable, you’re manufacturing a crisis and are mentally ill.
Very feminist throwing the word "incel" around, huh!
Bell hooks is awesome
Hey amazing video lead me to buying a will to change by her and it’s really good thank you🤝🏼
great video, learned quite a bit
Thank you ❤❤❤
Nice video, and very informative
We are all just mud turned sentient, be kind to each other.
There is no real reason not to be.
Yes, there is. Understanding that is very important if you want to reduce suffering in the world.
Nice video but the line about how misandrist discourse being the reason why a lot of men tend to turn away from feminism. Men turn away from feminism mainly because they’re privileged by patriarchy and are socialised into it, that so called “misandrist” discourse firstly makes up a very, small almost insignificant portion (since like you acknowledged, even women are socialised to be misogynistic). I also don’t think misandry is a legitimate issue that affects the material conditions of men in the way that patriarchy does because women don’t have any power to oppress men under the current systems.
I agree with everything you've said re: men turned away not through misandry, but through wanting to maintain power, and I think many men find a misandrist here and there to justify disliking movements that seek to flatten hierarchies of oppression or challenge their views of traditional gender roles. I think hooks would say something like in order for movements to actually get the critical mass of people on-board for systemic change to happen, men need to be brought in against patriarchy as even if it does grant men power, it is also the root of a lot of men's insecurities when they are not able to live up to what they believe a man should be and leads them to suppress many positive aspects like vulnerability or emotional connection in the name of stoicism and independence.
They are right. The main reason why I turn away from feminism is due to their bias, their sexist theories of men only wanting power and to kill and dominate, they see my identify as lesser or power hungry and women as only victim.
Feminist refusal to humanize anyone that’s a male, and their refusal to see any male’s problems as valid such as misandry, which can go as far as women abusing, 🍇’ing, men without other women giving a care about it even when other men point it out, or even justfying it since many women, especially a lot of feminist women, do not equate those things and tell us that it’s “not as bad as” it happening to women, while other feminist will protest against male DV shelters or protest against equal 🍇 laws that legally can label and prosecute female perps.
I and many men who turn away from feminism, have way less power or privlaged than the entire movement and other women, but am accused of defending my privilege for simply not siding with feminism.
These are grown women who have been calling my sex as privlaged or as a class, while also ignoring their own, saying misandry or any male issue isn’t a big problem, or see my sex as a flawed conditioned class that’s all been raised to hate, and calling ME privlaged ever since I was a kid/teen, while also treating other people like shit and being encouraged to, but anyone who calls them out is deemed wrong or ‘privlaged’.
Feminist don’t see misandry as an issue, because it doesn’t effect them and they think women cannot do any wrong to men, and rely on theory to justify why women cannot oppress others, or why men are all a sort of negative, or why all of us men are selfish and that’s why we do not agree with a movement that doesn’t actually practice equality and slanders others.
Even at 20, these are grown people who have more power than I could ever have, but accuse me of having such, despite them having way more power than most men as a movement or over other individuals, but also socially shame anyone who doesn’t join their movement.
Feminist need to actually see us men as human beings, and understand that many of us legit don’t like movements justifying being sexist towards us or forming negetive assumptions about our identity, that we are all raised to want power, and to see everyone as lesser, which ironically enough, sees men as lesser.
I don’t turn away from feminism because I’m privlaged and trying to keep my apparent privilege and power, I genuinely have issue with how the movement sees men as lesser and all taught to be cartoonishly evil and privlaged (while also glossing over any privlaged that other , and women as only oppressed.
It’s not the “patrarchy” that makes me or other men turn away from feminism, it’s the movement itself.
The very fact that feminist think that all men that doesn’t side with feminism is because they are trying to keep power, instead of because of the rampment misandry within the movement, verbal, or other, shows that feminist cannot see men as human with their own emotions and thoughts that have reason to not side with a movement, the same way feminist and women don’t side with movements that see them as lesser, regardless of that movement talks about actual issues.
Even today there are always feminist men who do side with feminism, and others that don’t, but belivie in equality anyways, some men have genuine reason to not side with a movement.
Her understanding of MLK's ideology was limited I see. But salute to her efforts to forward the fight for equality
Making this argument is flawed because the "existence" of the patriarchy was frequently the driving force behind many vile actions committed both by individual feminists and organizations both at a systemic level giving the argument practically no weight whatsoever.
To refute the belief that the "patriarchy hurts men too," it is essential to understand that some problems men face are not caused by feminists directly but rather heavily exasperated by feminists and feminist organizations. One of these many issues is the struggles of education that men and boys have in education. The struggles of education that men face are not caused by feminism, but the movement has offered nothing to help; as a matter of fact, it deliberately cripples men and boys more. For example, The Swedish government abolished affirmative action and gender quota laws in university admission because men were benefitting in specific courses; this would not have been a problem but Tobias Krantz, who was the minister of higher education at the time abolished the laws due to protest from women's groups at the time stating "The education system should open doors - not slam them in the face of motivated young women," indicating that this would change would not have occurred if it was women benefitting from these laws.
Again in Sweden, the liberal feminist party tried pushing for a "man tax," which is a way for men to compensate for all the male-on-female violence in Sweden. However, it should be noted that the leader of the feminist party got convicted of tax evasion before making that statement.
Similarly, Mary Curnock is the founder of UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) in England. Has expressed concern about the lack of men in post-secondary education and the disappointing figures of men enrolling in universities. Mary Curnock cited after overseeing UCAS studies that confirmed her initial concerns. Curnock observed an increasing normalization in the failure of boys and men in all age groups and stated that "Quite often initiatives to support men do meet derision from feminists."
Her disquiet was very much granted because a month before coming out with these findings, the University of West England attempted to instill the first (and only) men's officer by the name of James Knight; however, the role was unceremoniously scraped after James, who was the only candidate, faced harassment and disapproving resistance from feminists students and the NUS women's officer at the time by the name of Sarah Lasoye who said: "The role of a men's officer is entirely obsolete and the attempt to implement one stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of liberation and almost always an unearned sense of entitlement." The opposition to James Knight was enough, and he stepped down from the position. As a result, no University in England has had any men's officers since 2018.
This was not the last time this has happened; however in, Ryerson University, an attempt by men to submit their group named "The Ryerson Men's Issues Awareness Society (MIAS)" was denied on the bases that it is anti-feminist and violates the union's core equity values.'
The patriarchy also wasn't the one thing that managed to get Feminist staff and alums signed a letter objecting to an event catering to International men's day at the University of York. The letter in question has poor reasoning as to why they support banning the day, Stating that "We recognize that patriarchy is damaging to both men and women, and we are in support of a discussion concerning this, as well as increased attention to specific issues surrounding men's health. However, we do not believe that the university statement engages with these complex issues with sufficient nuance or understanding." Despite the so-called concern about men's issues from the letter, the day was effectively shut down. Any attempts to discuss men's issues at the University of York have dissipated afterward.
These examples are simply the beginning of an insidious pipeline of transgressions against men and their rights in the name of "equality." One of these rights was the right to safety and support from Domestic violence rights that feminists have not spared a battle fighting against.
Another huge issue that men face is domestic violence, an issue that feminists were all too well-complicit in. In the early 70s, Suzzane K Steinmetz, Murray A Straus, and Richard J Gelles were among the first to study family violence with research that concluded with their groundbreaking research at the time published under the name of Battered Husband Syndrome. The study was one of the earliest discussing male victimization in marriages. Unsurprisingly, the trio and their families were harassed relentlessly, with Suzzane being subject to the majority of the abuse, with her family getting harassment and threats as well as bomb threats in events she was supposed to speak in, not to mention threatening her career by feminists.
On the other side of the planet, Erin Pizzey started the first Domestic Violence shelter in the world in 1971 Chiswick, London, facing heavy opposition from authorities; she managed to start a series of shelters as well.
Meanwhile in her first shelter, she interviewed the first 100 women to seek Refuge; in her shelter, she discovered that 60 of the 100 women who entered her shelter were just as violent as the men, if not more violent, concluding that women were just as violent as men. This, however, caused her to actively get harassed by militant feminists after publishing her conclusions in a book titled prone to violence and receiving bomb threats to the point of getting exiled from the UK and having her first shelter rebranded as Refuge, where she was banned from subsequently.
This is simple to highlight that it was not that patriarchy that prevented men from talking and expressing their issues in academia; it was not the patriarchy that prevented a dialogue into men's issues with higher education by deeming such a discussion as an "unearned sense of entitlement." It was most certainly not the patriarchy that harassed and concealed or used intimidation tactics on early researchers of domestic violence. Most importantly, it was not the patriarchy that succeeded in fighting against gender-neutral rape laws in India and Israel. It most certainly was not the patriarchy but the National organization of women (NOW) and their corresponding legal team who fought to replace the gender-neutral 1984 Federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with the one-sided Violence Against Women Act in 1994, cutting men from any federal aid or funds despite the pre-existing knowledge and studies about family violence. It was not the patriarchy that harassed Erin Pizzey into exile for suggesting that women can be as violent as men.
You can sit here and cite me a book by a woman making observations based completely on her own life experiences. Even the book has a passive aggressive nature that ultimately isn't founded in any practical concern for men's issues.
Your argument is centered on the assertion that the concept of patriarchy, often cited in feminist discourse, has been used as a rationale for actions and policies that have negatively impacted men. You've provided several examples to support your claim, including instances in Sweden where affirmative action laws were abolished and the proposal of a "man tax," as well as cases of opposition to men's officers at universities and resistance to discussions about International Men's Day. Additionally, you've highlighted controversies around early research on male victimization in domestic violence situations.
Your perspective emphasizes that these actions were not directly driven by patriarchy but rather by certain feminist individuals and organizations. You contend that the consequences have been detrimental to men's rights and issues.
It's important to note that discussions about gender issues, including patriarchy and its effects, are complex and often involve differing viewpoints within the feminist movement and society as a whole. This conversation highlights the need for open and respectful dialogue to address issues that affect all genders.
If you'd like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of this argument or have further questions, please feel free to ask, and I'll provide additional information or engage in discussion as needed.
@@runningbetweenspaces Well thanks for your attempt but I will decline I don't care neither am I concerned with the views feminists have of how "patriarchy hurts men too" since sexism like this is seen as punching up so all is fair apparently.
But feminists have not made an honest attempt at discussing men's issues and as I shown from the fraction of times they were detrimental have contributed to it greatly enforcing harmful gender roles or stereotypes on men.
Is feminism a useful tool for women absolutely it is and its strides for women's rights can not be understated but is the movement unfair and have pushed for sexism against men systemically it absolutely did and mind you it could have been easily avoided if feminists cared to abide by their own standards of egalitarianism .
At best it doesn't care to have conversations about men's issues extend deeper than "it's okay to cry" or "toxic masculinity" both of which are both patronizing and insulting but often times are used to obfuscate the discussion around actual male centered discussions to how men can be better advocates for women.
@@thestarchgod8663 I would say you should read bell hooks Willingness To Change. She is critical of the form of feminism you talk about.
But I understand where you are coming from.
@@runningbetweenspaces I have read that book and if you are a man and find value in what Bell Hooks (may her soul rest in peace) then kudos to you but even her book “will to change” has passive aggressive tone towards men and still treats patriarchy as something men do to women erasing any idea of men being victims of abuse at the hands of not just other men but women i agree with feminism on a number of things pro choice, right to independence and self determination for women but men’s issues is a conversation to be had by men for men. Black men experience extreme of men’s issues abuse, drugs, incarceration and lagging behind in virtually all phases of education is seen the most in Black men yet Bell hooks never addressed that and don’t get me started on her book We real cool if I didn’t know any better I would have thought it was something written by a white nationalists demonising black men and pinning their issues on “black masculinity” I was livid reading that book it was so tone deaf to black men’s needs. Then again I appreciate you taking the time to indulge me and I’m glad her work helps but it isn’t for me.
@@thestarchgod8663 "I appreciate your perspective and the time you've taken to share your thoughts on Bell Hooks' work. It's crucial to recognize that feminist literature can vary in its approach and may not resonate with everyone, especially concerning men's issues, and that's perfectly valid.
While Hooks' work has made significant contributions to feminist theory, I understand your concerns about the portrayal of men and the specific challenges faced by Black men. It's true that there are unique issues faced by Black men, such as abuse, incarceration, and educational disparities, which deserve thoughtful consideration.
I also appreciate your insights in acknowledging that not all portrayals of Black masculinity should be perceived as demonizing. In fact, it's important to recognize that none of us are perfect, and patriarchy, in its various forms, can influence our actions and behaviors in ways we might not even realize. It's a complex interplay, and self-reflection can help us understand how societal norms and expectations affect our lives.
Regarding the perception of passive-aggressiveness, I would disagree with you that Hooks is not acting in that manner. She's stating her observations of how patriarchy affects both men and women. Sometimes, when these observations challenge our preconceived notions, it can be uncomfortable. It's worth considering whether there are aspects of patriarchy that we may unconsciously benefit from and whether it's those aspects that we're afraid of losing. Open dialogue and self-reflection are essential for addressing these complex issues.
Ultimately, the goal is to foster a society where everyone can discuss and address their specific concerns, regardless of gender or race. I respect your perspective and your choice to seek alternative viewpoints that resonate more with your experiences.
The fact he spelled her name right
2:31 men also experience sexism. There is a reason why women spend less time in jail for the same actions (including but not limited to being charged with less crimes)
Theres a difference between experiencing prejudice and having the lowest status.
Yes
5:01 Nice.
Lmao do people just find and comment spam any video dealing with feminism? This comment section sucks
Have you thought about creating a video on Khrisnamurti?
Hey man, can you do a video about Hegel?
He defined the whole thing perfectly in 11 seconds, no need to continue :)
While I agreed on some points the massive amounts of Marxist ideology sprinkled in has definitely made me this woman’s biggest supporter and critique
Most feminists say they want to help men but I've never actually seen a feminist organization try to end selective servicing.
Many instead campaign for women to be included in the draft too
NOW helped with a court case to make women enlist. To be clear, they only joined the cause after other organizations, mainly a mens organization, had made it reach a point it looked like it was going to win anyway. But there have been attempts.
Have men done anything to stop it?
@@eypu999 no, there's almost no men's rights activists in high positions in politics
@@jfs5873 why not? All conservative male politicians or political commentators do is complain about women in defense of men, why don’t they do something?
You should do another video on Carl Jung, or do a video on Terence McKenna, just a suggestion. Thanks for making these videos. When I found them they got me started on psychology, appreciate it!
He has a video on Jung brah
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe “You should do ANOTHER video on Carl Jung”
@@JColdiron
He should
Agreed. Those are much more interesting
SHES MY FAVORITE !!!
i'm so sorry, but when you said she died at 69 and paused, my brain immediately reacted with "nice", followed by whiplash
for real tho, great video. I enjoyed the topic at hand and as always, your voice is really soothing!
Was this necessary to share?
Same 😅
Smart woman....this is a feminism that I ,a man, can get behind and support.
Are you Bosnian?
@@teteteteta2548 that's random..no I'm not why do you ask?
if feminism is not inclusive, it's not feminism. If we do not include the men oppressed by patriarchal ideals then nothing can be done.
"stop crying, be a man, you're supposed to do that" makes a person who is not validated at a base level. they feel like a failure. even if they have achieved that, there is no push for growth other than "manly" hobbies. I could go on and on.
If feminism is not inclusive, it's not feminism bc feminism is for everyone!
@@Kuwaitisnot_adeployment its a meme term, check out yugoslav nationalist memes
@@teteteteta2548 This one's a definite Slovenian.
nice
idk maybe don’t start the video on misconceptions of feminism. start with the definition and its real stance. ofc it has a negative connotation, people hate when women want to be heard. lets not keep perpetuating these harmful views by not letting go of its hateful connotation
There's a couple of underlying assumptions that need careful examination for when thinking about and engaging with this attempt of liberal democratic feminism and this has to do solely with grasping at the notion of freedom, freedom of choice, freedom of body, and so on.
One of the biggest stones which is left unexamined is how there never becomes a sort groundwork framework as to what occurs next from said liberation, and that groundwork and how a liberal democratic feminist world becomes is quite troubling.
Take for example how in this video there's a discussion to the concern that our societal systems and how these foundations are created become inherently oppressive, with racism being the principle of creating barriers of racial and sexual class, modest white upper class women versus for example, hard working and impoverished sexually promiscuous black woman, and that dynamic being explored and broken down into pieces to show that these systems in place aren't actually there for a good reason at all.
Its a fair critique right? and i am in agreement that when it comes to analyzing the world, its important to be critical of the world of who has, and who does not have and why. And how, and what are the actors at play, etc.
That's all very good and it is a great lens of analysis in this world. However, and i am not advocating for this truly patriarchal and racial view, i do believe we can have a balanced life out there, I think its always underplayed what becomes the structure of the family unit and thus by extension the very social and philosophic fabric of a country and its people.
Once it becomes acceptable that women and men have fluid systems and roles with no hierarchical goal in mind, life gets very weird.
Men become resilient to responsibility when it comes to parental guidance and fatherhood with respect to children, promiscuity and guiding moral principles start to gray as the
ability for freedoms means a lack of responsibility when it comes to themselves and their communities around them, and thus a moral gray of, hey do what you want, more and more
shreds our fabric of nationhood, ethnicity and culture. And I believe we are in a late phase of this which affects not just our mental state, but even down to the societal level, with urban
areas looking more bland and community being individualized.
People need to think a lot more harder at this. Freedom being an answer to our woes doesn't seem to really solve as to whether x or y is bad.
One can say for example, people should have the right to an abortion, but that does not mean that an abortion is good, it simply pushes that question
of morality to the personal sphere for the individual to decide.
Is this the right moral and cultural framework to run a country where we live by moral grays and guidelines?
Freedom is not an answer to our problems, it simply in my view sidesteps the issue, and i think we need to have a realignment of our values and how we are to construct a moral, political, sociological, and philosophic underpinnings in our society
You're probably among the cleverest of commenters here. And I don't think most people in this comment section WANT to read or think about what you just said. In fact, they'll get bitter and flag your comment to get it removed, typical free-thinking 'liberal' style.
"Is this the right moral and cultural framework to run a country where we live by moral grays and guidelines?"
Yes, obviously. People should be able to decide for themselves what is right for them. I would like not to impose into people my ideas on how life should be lived.
@@of5606
I understand you are trying to mean well here, and so I want to respond with the full intent possible to clarify what I am saying.
I want to introduce the trolley example and include it in this discussion.
For background, the trolley example is a philosophic thought example where you have a train that is driving down the tracks and, attached to the tracks is a diverter that a person can pull with a lever. On the 1 side of the track where you can divert there is 1 person that is tied to the tracks which will be run over. On the other side of the track there are 5 people on the track, again tied, which will be run over. You however need to then make this decision of which side of the tracks do I divert and who should get the news.
So here’s the problem because, when you say ‘Yes, obviously. People should be able to decide for themselves what is right for them’, it creates an issue where that response doesn’t solve moral or philosophical questions.
This is the equivalent of, in the example above, you go to the man with the choice of the lever and say ‘well, i’m glad it's up to you to choose what’s right or wrong because that’s what i believe in’.
But as you can see, that doesn’t really answer anything unfortunately. The freedom to choose is not a moral response, and it doesn’t serve as a guiding principle for life and how to live. The man with the lever doesn’t receive any new advice for what should be chosen.
And this is a problem because we make active choices in our lives all the time about what to do. Our lives are a constant myriad of decisions that, oftentimes, we must make. Life is always about choosing what are the right decisions to be made and why, and it is very good to reflect on our choices and remember that life takes us down very difficult paths if we make the wrong decision.
Freedom of choice and expression is not a moral compass to live by as you sidestep the question of what is good. And I think it is important to be reflective and ask, pertaining to women and men, if it's even fair to give some individuals that freedom to choose, given the sheer amount of responsibility required to make good decisions. Remember that freedom of choice does mean the freedom to act in bad faith, and to choose ill wills such as child abandonment, narcotics and substances, and more.
We need to always question our principles if we are to develop who we are, and what society we need to live in. I question the underpinnings outlined in this video, and this broad view of freedom being the ultimate value in life.
@@nukesploder based
I wouldn't describe bell hooks as a 'liberal democrat' who was solely focused on personal choice. She actually called for a new and distinct form of manhood to strive for and often emphasized the importance of strong fathers and male role models for boys.
I think you hold a cynical view of the present and a romantacized view of the past. What past conception of fatherhood in recent history is better than what's currently on offer given that raising children was almost entirely the responsibility of mothers? It was also normal and expected that men remain promiscous while married (their wives weren't given the same allowance).
More the point about freedom and values, you say that 'fluid systems' and 'no heirarchy' make life weird, but what if our current values are something we've actively thought on and are happy with? Perhaps this isn't some hedonicstic orgy of freedom and is actually just a new and specific criteria to live by. In your abortion example, you assume that we have sidestepped its morality when we're actually considering a different moral criteria, that women should control their bodies. Most importantly, so what? Life is weird and always will be. I think we'll be fine tbh.
Can someone please explain to me what all of that means. The language used by Hooks was pretty heavy and even the narrator used some heavy words points that I wasn't able to make sense of.
I wanna learn more about 4th wave feminism which Bell Hooks is a big part of. But the narrator just quoted her without actually going into details and explaining all the shenanigans.
I'd appreciate it if someone could ease it down into simpler terms for me to understand.
This is a year ago, but I will try. hooks argued that feminism, and especially feminism as advocated for by white women did not actually seek to liberate all women from all forms of oppression (sexism, racism classism ableism etc.) or overturn the systems within which these forms of oppression exist (patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism etc.) but instead focussed on allowing white women to enter into positions of power within the systems mentioned above (think "girlboss" feminism). The effects of this, she argues is that women of colour and poor women have not been the focus the mainstream feminist movement and their lives have generally not been improved by the gains made over the years. She would argue instead for a version of feminism that wants to rid us of all those isms mentioned above and to bring in men to the movement as active partners in working towards a better world.
She has also argued that this white woman version of feminism has also not addressed the fact that men are also harmed by patriarchy, as we all grow up in a patriarchal society and many of men's mental health/self-esteem issues stem from how they do not live up to the ideals of what it is to be a traditionally masculine man (strong, stoic, breadwinner etc.) and instead suppress parts of themselves to better fit into the mold of what they think an ideal man is.
These are just some of her ideas and I would suggest reading The Will to Change for more details. Hope this explains it a bit!
The fact that feminism has made many man to actually believe that thry have some kind of invisible advantage over woman just for being born that way is incredibly sad, these man not only believe this lies, but feel bad for something that is not even true in the first place, just like religion, and it shows how mental health for man is a real important topic to talk about
But they do have invisible advantage under the patriarchy. And just cuz the system was made to make you the superior you shouldn’t “feel sad”
You should just educate yourself, try to help those in a disadvantage.
@@eypu999 Like the advantage of most homeless being men?
Tell me why grown women, white women, black women, etc, are have calling me privlaged ever since I was a teen, or say that as a black men I am more privlaged than grown ‘educated’ black women who seem to also slander my sex or race along with the rest of the feminist movement.
@@eypu999The problem that feminist have is assuming the life style of every single man, thinking that we constantly feel superior to everyone and that we are, that we are constantly hateful and have privilege over everyone despite feminist also not being critical of women who have their own ‘privlage’, as if all of us men were a rich poltical figure standing on a flow of cash and women are completely poor and homeless with no money or sucsess.
Men don’t feel bad about being ‘superior’ they feel bad that you accuse and demonize them of having privilege, assume the average male has life on easy and privileged, have no life issues of their own, and never worked for anything or did anything to help themselves and others, while demanding that those men help feminist women who don’t care for any sex that isn’t their own, sees men as lesser, and have just as much ‘privlage’ as those men, despite not being critical of other women or assume the life style of every women being that they are super privileged, live and easy life, and evil. No, that would be RedPill thinking.
@@dragonbeardable Feminist don’t see men as human, only as a molith or a class, and they don’t talk about or even think about male issues unless it’s to blame men for said issue, they only care IF thar issue somehow affects women, while they proceed to demonize men, so of course feminst think men are all privlaged.
Hell Books. 🤘😎
I actually find radical individualism in Feminism as a good thing for women to break free from labels that keep them subdued to men and the Patriarchy.
How much land is there
there is over 295 billion 1/8 acres of land on this world, In canada and united states there are 23 billion 1/8 acres of land, so all the 8 billion people in the world could all go to canada and united states, all get 1/8 acre of land totally free that another is not using, away from any resources people need to live, there would still be an extra 15 billion 1/8 acres of public land left over, there would not be a human body anywhere else in the world, non in africa, south america, europe, china, russia etc... yet we are being lied to there is NOT enough land? oil? gas? electricity? food? water? etc...
1/8 acre of land is 5445 sq ft, an average 2 bedroom condo is less than a 1000 sq ft, that can be built on 1/8 acre of land, people build on swamps, mountains, snow etc... add a 2000 sq. ft. greenhouse for nutrition, grow plants for free! let food be your medicine. There is still 2445 sq. ft. Left over, chickens, goat etc...? they can build anything their hearts desire. If people want they can move together, 1/8 acre next to another one or far away. free thermal heat, self-sufficient hydro, people can help each other create anything for free again. humans never have to act as a slave to something else. It’s better to show someone how to help themselves, then forced to act as a slave to another. look at all the homeless people dying, murder? when woman have a home for the child, they can have for free, with electricity, water and nutrition. children in abusive family can go live on their own 1/8 acre of land with help from friends. all land and its resources is the gift that keeps on giving, to all children, that must always be free from debt illusion. its only on your own land you have liberty and justice, live by your own laws, not a slave to an others laws. all 1/8 acres of land can be tracked on the written world map also with computer.
in a town there is a piece of land that for over 20 yrs has had a fence/border/debt illusion around it, destroying anything that could have creatively used it, so retarded.
having what they need people naturally help each other! for free.
buddha stated; think it you become it, bible states ask and ye shall receive, jesus said knock and the door will be opened. what are you thinking? asking for? what door are you knocking on? all are free to think, ask, knock on any door
why do most people do what they do? politicians, artists, athletes, police, army, navy, air force, accountants, bankers, lawyers, drug dealers(legal and illegal) psychologists, criminals, doctors, strippers, secretaries, builders, thieves etc... for shelter and nutrition, especially for their child.
man and woman in condo(apartment)jail or with nature?
in a apartment/condo; mortgage, condo fees, condo rules, hydro bills, gas bills, water bills, air bills? food bills, fear from bills/debt, hatred etc… corporate jail privilege to live. communism.
living with nature; land, fresh air, water, plants, fruit, vegetables, animals, shelter, sun light, water, hydro, fire, feelings, love etc… all free, the land of the free. right too live.
did debters finance woman’s lib?
debters want to tax everything, attach a debt too everything, total corruption and slavery, debt’s you will have nothing! and be happy! they where not able to attach a debt/tax too woman, her home and child. debtors thought how much extra debt they could extort, millions, billions of woman, their homes and child. debters used propaganda/lies to make the woman think she should get paid for being a mother, charge a debt illusion, not to help her but to legally employ/pimp her as a worker, into their debt/tax employment system, separating her from her home and child, her love, now forced too pay the pimp/debtors taxes, not legally a mother, so debters could legally extort her property, her home, her child into their debt system, tax/rape them all, legally steal her child and its property with the birth certificate, if its legal its good? illegal bad? take the mother and child’s right to its equal share of earths land and resources, now she is only a paid whore, treated as a retard, dumb, ignorant, not fit to be a mother. is this how any woman should think and feel? yet they use debt against men and men allow it? why? ignorant and retarded. the children have no shelter and nutrition, indebted, forced into the debters education system, trained into the financial system, yet not shown where debt comes from, what money is, legal civil departments are, forced to pay for and protect debt's financial hierarchy.
all woman must have 1/8 acre of land(not more or less) with shelter, nutrition, all amenities for free, so the mother has a home where her child can always go if needed, anything that denies this is a attempted murderer.
Based
Not quite sure why you didn't capitalize "Bell Hooks" in the title seeing as it's a proper name.
Edit: Rad.
Her legal name was lowercased and All of her books have her name in lowercase.....
She spelt her name in all lowercase to take away the ego associated with names
She was celibate for 16 years than died at 69 years old. Moving on.