I’ve been seeing more and more of this “feminine energy” pseudo-empowering stuff online and it always rubbed me the wrong way. Nice to finally see someone talk about it
Omg thank you for mentioning the divine feminine/masculine movement, you could make an entire video about it… I was at a new age retreat and was completely shocked in what they were teaching (women teaching women-retreat), basically that we women need to step down (both in society and in relationships) so that we don’t get too much in our masculine energy and to not make men feel less masculine by our power…. (!!)
OMG, that's disgusting! :( But then again... New Age sprititualism is also just some religious bullshit. And we already have a bunch of other religions that tell women to be meek. So, it's not really surprising.
@@CarolaTesla Exactly !!! At firsthand I don’t like dividing people into masculine and feminine…It just feels like a sleazy stereotypical technique to unnecessarily categorise people.. but then when some women are naturally masculine and men who are naturally feminine are shamed to the sidelines and are characterised as ‘negative’…that’s where I lose my mind..
That's weird though isn't it? If we look at it through the spiritual lens, the soul has no gender but it embodies both feminine and masculine energies. In some people one can be more prevalent than the other for whatever reason. Be it previous life experiences, the choice our soul made etc. I was listening to a Russian guy(Zor Alef) that was talking about Hermeticism and the Kabalah. And while many things he said made sense, he suddenly went to say how gay people are sick and they are the karmic result of people who don't embrace their femininity/masculinity in the previous lifetime. Lol. Absolutely nonsense. They claim that we shouldn't disrupt the balance. Yin/Yang, feminine/masculine etc. Well don't we embody both? Also I believe no thing is random. Everything serves a purpose and is part of the human experience. I can see how some women might have not embraced their femininity due to feeling inferior because they grew up in such environment. And I am all for reinforcing and reaching our best potential. But for the love of God,stop putting people into boxes😂. We are complex beings. You can't possibly know how someone else feels and why they want to express as they do..If you claim to be so spiritual and loving, accept people as they come. No matter the form and expression. I feel like people fear anything they don't understand and makes them feel uncomfortable or even makes them slightly question them selves. It's as if they are afraid their fixed idea of reality will be shattered.
Weird that this video came out only a few days before Andrew Tate tried to take on a prominent figure in the climate movement and ended up getting arrested for his trouble
Dang Tate got the biggest L ever in the history of the internet from a four foot tall autistic female environmentalist. And then got locked up over his own self snitching!!!!
The main issue is that these movements often revolve around idealism. They do not take into account the material relations and contradictions of the world in a dialectical way.
Biological essentialism is particularly weird but any essentialism is problematic and limits our understanding of the world. That includes class essentialism on the left.
Thinking men will be made better towards women by isolating themselves from them is akin to thinking a man/woman will be able to be better at relationships by being single. It's profoundly stupid. 😂
Alice, I always find these videos thoroughly engaging. The nuance in what's being spoken about makes me re-evaluate how I feel about things so frequently. Thanks for always posting such great content !
the thing about splitting human potential into two categories, one that pushes ppl who were AFAB into some interpersonal expert (interconnectivity, tolerating social ambiguity, etc) by virtue of their bodies, and pushes AMAB into being personal experts (autonomy, overcoming social ambiguity, etc), an economy based on individual overcoming will always overvalue the second, while the split isn't justified in the first place. no one can really cooperate, or even just delegate, if they're artificially lobotomized by arbitrary limits of fake categories. it's a convenient barrier to solidarity that just reinforces codependence. And not learning interpersonal skills bc you're too fixated on autonomy, makes it so your autonomy only succeeds if you're lucky and ruthless and outsource social skills to others. So it doesn't even teach autonomy well. And being interpersonally fixated with no sense of autonomy (outside the workplace where it's sort of forced), your interpersonal life suffers too. So nobody actually achieves healthy agency, only feel healthy while ignoring codependence or exploiting others.
I'm a very progressive person, but even I sometimes fall for some of the new rhetoric the manosphere is spewing. Thanks Alice, for making remembering why most of the arguments of those guys are mostly just unintellectual rubbish made to superficially debate.
Well, just because it comes out of the "manosphere" doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong or bad Unless you think that men's experiences are only valuable if they fit into a feminist vision
I meant that it's not so strange that you "fall for some of the new rhetoric the manosphere is spewing"... In what is described as "manosphere" there's certainly a lot of BS.. but also real experiences of ordinary men ... (ordinary .. that's why most of the criticism against "manospherians" is actually snobish classism by the way)
I just wanted to congratulate you, your titles are done in such a precise way to induce clicking that I find myself getting a bit uncomfortable almost angry even though I agree with you in almost everything. Good job, hope the channel keeps growing.
There is always a "crisis of masculinity" because what it means to be a man is directly related to the society around us and how we interact with it, and the society around us is always changing. I would imagine this concept comes up a lot more in times when there are big shifts in economics and politics, such as during the rise of capitalism or the subsequent rise of Nationalism and Liberalism. We look at men who were part of the feudal aristocracy as being very feminine with their flamboyant dress and generally hedonistic and lazy lifestyle but they were considered to be paragons of masculinity at the time. The bourgeois class prioritized concepts like industriousness and ambition as masculine virtues while the aristocracy prioritized honor. Masculinity is no different than anything else within the superstructure in that it is subordinate to the material base of society and changes with material changes.
i think part off the issue is just dividing people up into little groups and figuring out how to perform in a soceity as part off the IN-group. People are just people and i realise the way we all look at things within our culture is through a conditioned view from hundreds off years worth off normative behaviour. I firmly believe gender and sexuality in our nature is a thing that is not carved in stone for the majority off people. We just tell people how to feel and it's really difficult to shake that foundation off our reality
Alice Cappelle, I realize this video is from years past, however I have a comment to contribute on the subject of men's groups. Listening to your description of these cult-like groups I have a suggestion about why they become toxic and how a men's group should actually operate. First of all not all men should be invited but only those who have demonstrated a sincere devotion to serve other people. I have seen this work well in the Order of the Arrow, which is a service organization which has an initiation rite. It does not aggravate or increase toxic masculinity. The trick is to select the best and help the best people, so that they can help other people. You cannot grab all men and treat us the same way and expect us to become a wholesome group, as if we would all respond the same way in a group setting.
Yeah, the patriarchy needs to be put to bed already. It irritates me when I hear that caring about the environment is considered more of a feminine issue by society. I'm a cis dude in my 30s, and I've always been concerned about the environment since I was a little kid, and first heard about global warming, and later climate change/crisis. Hell, climate anxiety is the reason I initially went veggie, and eventually vegan a few months later over 5 years ago. Why I've switched to a ebike as my mode of transportation this year. I know my individual actions will not fix these issues, and what we really need is systemic change like ending capitalism, and moving towards library socialism, but the environment is definitely something I care about as a guy. At the end of the day, we all live on this planet, and there's no planet B. That should just be considered common sense.
Please tell me if anyone know any creators like Alice who make video essays in French! I always wish I could use your videos for discussion in my French high school class!
I have quite a few for you! - Le roi des rats (video essays about the problems with new technologies/the dangers of internet, his videos are always extremely well written/researched, he did a few about going to countries that are currently under dictatorships, he went to North Korea and Belarus) - Clara DFX (social commentaries, kind of life Alice's but more focused on movies/tv shows/books) - Bolchegeek (deep dives into movies/movie franchises, I really recommend his videos La haine des riches and Le syndrome Magneto). If you like documentaries about the food/leasure industries you can try Tout compte fait (the videos are between 5 and 25 min talking about one subject/industry) and if you want something more political there is Blast (it explains the political controversies/the political landscape in France). I hope it helps!
Hi Alice! I'm not sure I understand your points in this video. Can you (or anyone else) help me understand them a bit better? This is my understanding: 1, There is a group of people, who believe there are masculine and feminine qualities, like aggression vs nurturing, and that each individual is a mix of both. They also believe that there needs to be a mix between those values both on an individual and a societal level. Let's call them cultural feminists. (I'm taking this from around 6:00.) I mostly put this here so we have a working definition of cultural feminist at hand. Let me know if I misunderstood. 2, A goal of cultural feminism is to have people's qualities more aligned with their birth sex. (6:34) I'm really not quite sure where did this come from. Yes, you show new age hacks from yt, but why exactly does this belief follows the idea that there are masculine and feminine properties (which *are* social constructs, don't get me wrong) which may or may not be present in any individual who is a man or a woman or anything else? 3, According to cultural feminists, in order to improve society we need to take a step back from party politics and change the whole culture (8:51) Again, where did this come from? According to 5:50 early Suffragettes used this rhetoric to campaign for votes for women (which is by definition party politics)! 4, When talking about the mythopoetic men's movement you say that the mpmm, like cultural feminists understands gender in a very essentialist way (12:00) I really don't follow now, since when is it essentialist to say that there are qualities which are typically viewed as masculine and feminine and that people may or may not have them? 5, In the conclusion you bring up 2 self-help groups which are not very helpful at all, then conclude that "this is what happens when women are not part of the conversation". A few sentences later you criticize the second coming of Che Guevera (loved that picture btw) for saying that men and women need to talk abt stuff and come to agreements urgently bc of the climate. Do you...not want to have discourse around gender roles and wage gap and stuff? You did just say that those (and other) self-help groups went really off the rails when it was just men there, wouldn't that imply that there needs to be women who are part of that conversation? Ngl, this video had a bit too many topics in it, which I feel like weren't developed enough, instead of having the substance of the title (eg talking abt climate fascism, overpopulation myths, etc). I'm almost certain I misunderstand something very early, but still, would love to hear back from you or somebody who can address my concerns : ) Have a good one!
I think this is just my personal interpretation, but it goes something like this. First, lemme just preface by saying I definitely agree that Alice does go to a bit too much topic in this video, and the title reflect a rather small part of the whole (thesis?) she has here. 1 & 2. I think there is another important part of cultural feminism that Alice didn't mention specifically: while cultural feminist believe that most have a mix of both, they also believe in the 'intrinsic feminine value' in 'female nature' and vice versa for men. It's like what Alice said in 6:00, cultural feminism doesn't really...subvert patriarchy, they rather find a place within the patriarchy instead. Personally according to me, this made sense as by tying up 'feminine' with 'the female', cultural feminist does not really see femininity and masculinity as a social construct unlike us? Those hacks video argue for the return of value that assigned with your birth sex, with implied that they see 'women' and 'femininity' as something that is tied together by nature (hence the gaia image that a lot of terf aspire to be), not something to be subverted. 3. Imma be honest this point Alice made is really muddled and I'm literally just guessing at this point but in 5:46, you can see the poster with the captioned something like 'Isn't it a funny thing that father cannot see why mother have ought to have a vote on how thing should be'. The argument here probably is that: a) Women have feminine value b) Feminine value include nurturing (food, health, home, school) c) These value are currently being managed by men, which does not share said value (as they are men) -> By allowing women to vote, we can managed said value effectively, as women are naturally better at nurturing. Is it regressive? yes. Did it work back then? absolutely. 4. Same thing as 1 & 2. The essentialist idea here is not about recognizing the feminine and the masculine, but rather how cultural feminist tied said idea to gender and portrayed a return to said value as 'morally good'. In 12:00, Alice mentioned a return to state of nature. And if I have to make a guess, the state of nature where men and women live in 'harmony' is probably something like men go hunt and women take cares of babies. Don't quote me on this though as again, Alice didn't really expand on this idea. 5. The 2 self-help group group, and Mr. Tofu-eating Che Guevera, while good intentioned (?) [citation heavily needed], essentially promote the same idea as those hack video, terf-group and suffragette. They don't really see masculine, feminine, men and women as a social construct but operate in a very binary set of masculinity for men. By shunning women out, they also risk associating femininity as inferior, or helping the world view that men and women are inherently different. Here is an article written by the same author in the book Alice mentioned: theconversation.com/the-bogus-crisis-of-masculinity-96558. I personally have a slightly different perspective on men's group than Alice though. I think the reason why these group doesn't work is because said group doesn't really focus on the systemic issue? Looking at it, those group care more about how masculinity affect men and themselves, not how masculinity (and gender roles in general) work in a systemic and societal framework (which also involves women and NB, and men's relation to them). While I think it's good to have a place to discuss men's issue, it might nottt be the best idea to discuss only that issue, and only through one perspective.
_"[Cultural Femininists] believe that there needs to be a mix between [Masculine and Feminine values]"_ I think that's the opposite of their belief. They believe in natural, strict gender roles *which the modern world has corrupted* so that people are now have a mix of values. Cultural Feminists want to reverse this and make people return to their strict roles. Of course, it's not Gender Essentialist to admit that men and women have differences. It's Essentialist when: - You demand that people _should_ only follow their gender role - You assign basic human traits to a gender, like "Only women cooperate, only men compete" - all humans do those! - It makes you transphobic towards people who don't fit in the strict roles, like the TERF Dora Moutot And like the Cultural Feminists, Men's Groups end up becoming Gender Essentialist (according to Francis Dupuis-Déri). I'm guessing the reason is that the men start to identify with their maleness (because they're discussing how they act as men towards women). But that strong Male identity means that it's hard to criticize sexist men because that's also criticizing you as a man. And with no women in the room, it's easier to blame your problems on women and make men the victim. So the solution is to have that discourse without building an identity around a gender role, because it often turns anti-feminist. [That's just my interpretation, I feel that Alice skipped some steps here.]
@@koifish4345 i dont think shunning women out in itself make it seem like its female oriented, because there are absolutely discuss that women shun men out of within feminism, does this imply the risk that masculinity is inferior , also men and women are different, they fundamentally have different life experiences , there things that only men can understand and things that only women can understand , while there are some cases that bridge the gap , you cant deny the difference do exist then i have a question , if men did discuss systematic issues, they would require chnages that might indirectly negatively affect women , would you be willing to accept that women might push back on these changes , and that men would required to put the needs of men first
Hello friend Alice, thanks, as usual, for the lively and engaging analysis. I wish your channel was more popular as there aren't too many healthy alternatives going through the algorithm pipeline. What I find interesting about all the various examples you provided on Manosphere groups and Alternative Masculinity clubs is that none of them provide anything even remotely resembles a material and or class analysis. Certainly not a rigorous one anyway. I believe that's an important distinction because the rise in popularity of these groups is at the core of the Marxist notion of alienation. When the society these boys inhabit fails to provide for them and offer them any true meaning they reach for the levers that do provide meaning and as we've seen what comes out the other end isn't always pleasant. There's even been a rise in femme/female presenting folks who identify as INCELS but our society doesn't take them seriously because they haven't been socialized to lash out violently. That doesn't mean they won't at some point. People fundamentally want two things: safety and connection and our current digital era is shortening the list of people who are able to have both. Thus far the only people who have been able to provide answers as to why are the Far Right and we on the Left mustn't lose this battle. We can and should be responding to these crises strategically. Anyways, that's all she wrote folks! Happy Holidays to everyone a part of this community and of course you as well Alice! Note: I'm currently drawing up a thesis on this exact subject, so I take it quite seriously. I was pleasantly surprised to have this be your end-of-the-year topic. Cheers mate!
as I am non-binary it is very nice seeing people talk about this, how they divide personality traits into masculine and feminine ones. I always feel like this leaves out the most important part - the human underneath all the cultural layers. thanks for the video and keep doing what u want
I like to think of it as like anyone can be masc or fem doesnt matter the gender and we all have both within us which can combine and create new identities.
More than working toward positive masculinity we need to move toward pro empathy, pro regeneration, and away from destructive extraction and aggressive displacement. Those at the top that make decision about how this all works need to be disempowered from this.
I already knew about the origins of the phrase Toxic Masculinity, but it's cursed and I wish it never existed. Nearly everything men do or don't do is attributed to it. It's cited as the reason we don't recycle, it's the reason we don't eat vegetables, and the reason we play violent games with high difficulty settings. It's just...it's too much. For the record, I'm no MRA or anything like that, but I get why a lot of guys think like that, they're afraid. They aren't scared of women, LGBT people, or minorities coming into prominence, they're afraid of not having a place in the world at all. The right wants to give men a place by turning back the clock, whereas the left...just throws some self help books at you, says some vague platitudes about being your authentic self, and then poof, gone. I'm not saying women have to do anything, but it's a little hard being on this team sometimes. Sometimes it feels like I really don't belong here, but I know I would hate it over there.
Thinking about what the future would look like when you're trying to do something new is scary. I guess those feelings can be doubly so when one group is no longer centred.
A lot of women and lgbt people felt that they have no place in this world before. We made our own place. That's how you should look at it for yourself as well
they still are studies that say that men eat more meat, and tend to recycle less (if we're only talking about the environment) I understand that it is a bit tiring to hear "toxic masculinity" in every feminist discourse but it is so engrained in society that it is impossible not to mention. i like your sentiment of trying to be better and to understand and wish you the best.
Hi Alice, Hi everybody, So I had a pretty heated interaction that lasted a couple of days, on twitter, with a couple of scientists buddies, acquaintances, shall we say, over (CW dom. violence) accusations of dom.vio. by a woman against her husband. Those guys could not fathom the fact that they are indeed behaving and thinking in the exact same manner as the very men they decry, as agressive, dismissive, as toxic men, because they represent facts. The gaslighting attemps were numerous, the insults on my intelligence and comprehension skills too, but the fact remains that, when it comes to politics, we have a toxic masculinity problem in the left too. It is not a left or right problem (although, of course it is, as toxic masculinity and the manosphere do protect the status quo, aka conservatism) per se, it is a power dynamics problem. As we operate in a system built on power dynamics, a system we inherited and didn't build, the problems existing within the system are remaining unchanged. Male hegemony in STEM is still a real thing (it is less prevalent in Humanities, albeit as toxic). Anyways, I verbally sparred with those men, exchanging blows on an unequal plainfield, trying to explain that fact checking what the itw in which that women spoke about her dom. vio. was not something to do, as it is insanely violent a method, I couldn't reach the guys who were saying, in essence, "no but it's not her words we're fact checking at all, it's other stuff she was saying in the interview, it's not the subject of our discourse", then they added "she's lying anyway, and it's bad optics for all women and feminism", then "she's crazy, other women who said the same thing as you are anti vaxxers and fake feminists portraying as researchers and political scientists". They just don't want to see that they're fully using the b*tches be crazy narrative, coupled with the "all women are the same* narrative. I was the one being wrong, obviously, they were protecting feminists, obviously, and I didn't know what I was talking about by saying that they were behaving as anti feminists at that moment, with those arguments, obviously. It is so far, probably one of the hardest fights I have had to take on. I have no idea how to convince without burning the few bridges between us. It is so pervasive in our societal construct, I have no clue how to properly address that.
I thought it was proven that working in mixed group makes both men and women perform better? Just like it is good for group dynamics to have some young and/or new people and som old and/or experienced persons in the same group. The obession with your own gender, race, nation, wahtever often leads to more conflicts than it solves. It is good to know yourself and other groups but knowedle does not require ranking how opressed you are or how bad another group is compared to your own.
to me it's hilarious that she badmouths men's groups when we know that women's support groups tend to make them incredible hostile towards men too. So many divorces are started by women listening to their toxic female group friend. It's like this girls feel the need to find any imperfection in men trying something while ignoring women's flaws (or absolving them of that blame by attributing it to a subjective concept like the patriarchy that means essentially men or men in the past).
I see patriarchy as the cause of climate devastation and war. By patriarchy, I mean exclusion of women and of gender non-conforming males from power. It's not that men innately have traits that destroy and abuse, whereas women innately have traits that nurture and care. It's that exclusion that creates the evils. To me, androgynous feminism means acknowledging our humanness first. I don't want to see the movement break down into overcategorization or polemic squabbling over terfs vs. trans, or into these thinly veiled anti-woman and anti-gay all male retreats. And I certainly agree that feminism is for the betterment of men, because it is against the macho attitudes that cause males to be constantly bullied and excluded they way many of us were while growing up. The growing awareness of the need to stop bullying is a direct result of the feminist movement.
The thing about men changing men. Most men I know want to respect other peoples opinions, wouldn't hurt a fly and want their partners dreams to come true. Everyday I work with women, all my bosses are women. In the real world women are kicking ass. Feminism is an amazing movement and if your not against violence then no one can help you, but I'm not a feminist, most men I know are non-feminists. What feminism imagines a good man is, may never be what most men imagine a good man is............cause we're men, and most of us strive to be good men already and we are good men already. Feminists don't hate men they're just pissed men won't do what they want but I support their efforts.
In the Spanish ecological movement right now there is a lot of controversy about collapsism and, more broadly, about the political rhetoric that should be used to mobilize the general population. As you say, the Spanish collapse apostles are basically men who wrongly "predict" catastrophes and who contribute little in terms of organization and concrete plans to mitigate or prevent the effects of climate change, and see collapse as a irreversible and almost unstoppable single event. It seems to be a general trend, and the text that made me realize it was "Home is Always Worth It" by Mary Annaïse Heglar, which I recommend to everyone to understand that as bad as the future seems, the real fight is for save as much as possible, by avoiding each extra degree of warming, that it will never be "now or never" (meaning that if we lose we should simply give up), but multiple fights worth fighting.
And For the Record.......if men are not supposed to listen to Peterson or Tate .....who are we supposed to listen to? Is their anyone worth listening to ? Oh you said something? Huh? You said Women? *NO*. We would listen to Someone who understand us, who recognises our problems, and who is that Creature? *MEN* and Empathetic Women who can Understand us, even Though They don't find our Experience relatable.... Is this going to save the World? Probably not.....is this going to Save Relationships? Marriages? Maybe.........Is this going to help both parties understand eachother, By sharing things with eachother without unnecessary judgment? I Hope.
In the United States feminism is a supremacy movement. Started after the Civil War when Black men were fighting alongside Black women and Black children for the right to vote, white women were afraid that if Black people got the right to vote that white women would become lower on the racial/social hierarchy and thus be treated the same way Black people were treated. In that sense the goal of feminism was to maintain oppressive power alongside white men and the patriarchy was simply the system of ws and oppression against minorites that white women feared being becoming out of favor with. That being said, feminism never cared about men's issues, as it was created to address white women's racial insecurity.
@@d.2618 Yeah, not for white women though. Feminism in the US was pushed by wealthy white women for the reasons I meanted. That being said there have always been equality movements here specifically for labor, abolition, and other things.
@@d.2618 Like I said. I doubt that's true for everyone, as it was a known white supremacist group that actively fought against Black woman's right to vote. Sojourner telling a bunch of white women "Ain't I a woman?" Is akin to a Jewish person asking a prison guard "Ain't I a German". That shit was pathetic. Again. Black women wanting to be white supremacists doesn't change the fact that they were white supremacists.
I'm really surprised you didn't get flamed for this. Feminists talk like they're interested in equality but I have never heard a feminist bring up how many POC were lynched for false accusations during Jim Crow, and then suddenly 10 yrs later 1970s feminists are all about civil rights but not interested in the material history?
I've noticed that many of these new age gurus I see here on the internet and manosphere pickup artists give off the exact same vibes. Right-wing straight men looking to sell you self-development and teach you how to be "truly masculine." They often think they are embodying divine masculine energy but they are just aren't.
Amazing video! Have your read man enough by Justin Baldoni? It is an interesting look at masculinity, I does still look at people from a more male or female lense, but it has a great deep theme of being vulnerable which had helped me, and kicked me out of a few though ruts I got stuck in. Thank you! ❤
When I was young some of my friends and I were outdoorsmen. Every Spring and every Fall school break we would go backpacking in the Ozarks. One guy had been backpacking high up in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. We were intoxicated by the beauty of nature, and we wanted to preserve it. One time I was hitchhiking with one of these guys, and we got picked up by this guy who was a mountain climber. He'd made six first ascents in the Canadian Rockies. We all discussed the possibility of becoming "ecology commandos". We weren't going to harm any people, but construction equipment was fair game. There are a number of ways you can disable heavy construction machinery. Nothing ever came of all our talk, but there was this group in California who was doing just that. They were hammering spikes into giant redwood trees, so that the chain saws would break when they hit the spikes. They were doing a lot of other things too. Now I am living in a fairly sparsely settled area, in the foothills of the Ozarks. There are a couple of officially designated wilderness areas nearby. There is also this guy who is running a lumber operation. He is cutting down trees by the truckload. I guess those wilderness areas are going to go. At least they're not cutting down the giant redwood forests. Those trees are the largest living things on earth. Some of them are 2,000 years old. God knows what they are doing to the Amazon Rain Forest. They call it the "Lungs of the World", because the Amazon River basin supplies 15% of the world's oxygen. They've cut down one fifth of the Amazon Rain Forest. They say that if they cut down another fifth of the rain forest it will be impossible to revive that ecosystem. I noticed a program on tv about how Russia is agriculturalizing Siberia, which as far as I know is positive. But I also noticed that they were cutting down the taiga. Seventy percent of the world's trees are in the taiga, and they're cutting it down by the train load. Those trees must emit a lot of the world's oxygen too. ..... I saw on the internet that they were touting nuclear fusion as an unlimited source of clean energy. It probably would be that, but there is no way they can bring that online in ten years, like one of their technicians said they could. They were hailing it as a milestone that they had contained a fusion reaction for a billionth of a second. ... They've made major strides in solar energy lately. Solar has become cost effective. They are making some very attractive offers in Arkansas of placing solar panels on the roofs of houses. I hope this works out as well as they say it will. They said on the internet that a lot of the houses in German Bavaria had solar panels on their roofs, but I haven't seen much more about that. I hope solar works for them. ...... We probably need to keep pursuing nuclear fusion energy, because that can give us clean and unlimited energy, but there is no way they can bring that online in ten years.
Talking about ecofeminism always makes me want to talk about posthuman feminism. Would love to hear your thoughts on that theory. It seems to go well with your line of thinking
Thank you so much for sharing this! I've been reading about cultural feminism in Daring to be Bad too, so it's really a funny coincidence to see you mentioning it here haha. I think you're totally right that we should reclaim the original definition of radical feminism (ala Shulamith Firestone) as deconstructing and dismantling the gender binary rather than let cultural feminists and male leftists control the conversation on these issues. Hope we can continue this conversation and bring proper radical feminism back!
you can try as hard as you can to deconstruct gender binary. But gender binary has some biological validity behind it. It's not like society made all of this gender rules out of thin air. Yeah I agree that most are made up bullshit, but they are just an exaggeration of a small reality that exists. Femininity is associated with care and tenderness because they are biologically more close to a child than a father. So they have to be like that. It's traits evolution favors in women. While men have higher levels of testosterone which we know it increases confidence and the want to risk or protect. None of this are inherent to each gender, but there's a biological pressure we can't pretend it doesn't exist.
@@paulogaspar8295 i know you're probably just trolling me, but have you considered that men's and women's differences might have more to do with social conditioning in a highly gendered, patriarchal society that exerts its own pressure to act in different and particular ways rather than "biological pressure"? Evolutionary psychology has a long history of being used to promote gender essentialism and misogyny and elide the political and economic reality of women's oppression, so I hope you can understand my reticence to agree with your claim here. Particularly given the existence of queer, trans, intersex, and gender-non-conforming people, who complicate the mainstream, binary notion of gender as rooted strictly in biological sex.
If you're going to compare Jordan Peterson's idea of enforced monogamy to what Iran is doing, you should actually listen to what his opinion is. He was simply saying enforced monogamy is when a culture discourages men from cheating on their partners. In fact, Peterson has even clarified (because leftists such as yourself make this mischaracterization) that he did not mean forcing women into marriage. Either you took other leftist's representation of Peterson's argument for granted (which means you were just being lazy in your research) OR you actually listened to Peterson explain his point and STILL chose to make that ridiculous association between him and Iran (which means you're being dishonest). "I don't mean taking innocent women at gun point and handing them over to useless men."-Peterson on his position on enforced monogamy. Source: ua-cam.com/video/gNwIYOBpvLg/v-deo.html There's no way you can watch this^ video, hear Peterson's explanation, and still call yourself a good faith leftist without correcting your statement.
Peterson regularly alludes to the regulation of female sexuality as a method to control society, no lipstick in the work place, removing anything that might arouse men, regularly referring to enforced monogamy in a neutral/positive way or at least an effective way to control men…. Peterson is really good at implying things and then stop right when it would sound like he went too far. If you stop at what he’s saying and don’t try to look further than, to be critical and see what he is doing. I mean he’s now part of the daily wire, his political beliefs are very clear to me, he’s very conservative and toxically obsessed with evolutionary biology. I’m not the only one saying it, centrists like Reeves say it too. So yes he’s on the same spectrum as Iran on the question of the regulation of female sexuality, he doesn’t go as far, but that’s a spectrum
@@AliceCappelle A lot to unpack here. And I say this, although aggressively, as feedback that could improve your content. 1. “Peterson regularly alludes to the regulation of female sexuality” U use the word “allude” so u can draw loose connections between what he says and what u think he means. He encourages social regulation of both male and female sexuality. In fact, he’s more critical about the sexual proclivities of men far more than he is of women. You keep vaguely (and conveniently) wording his “references” to enforced monogamy without including his very specific and precise definition of it which is not at all controversial. It literally is just the social stigmatization around infidelity. How is a culture that discourages cheating on your partner a bad thing? 2. “No lipstick…Removing anything that might arouse men” He’s explicitly said that he isn’t saying women shouldn’t wear makeup, only that work places don’t know what to do about it. He has never said women should not wear anything. He was breaking down the thought process of how businesses regulate clothing for men and women, and people freaked out when he included makeup as part of that question, even though he included men’s clothing too.
“I’m not saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup in the workplace” Source: @2:00 ua-cam.com/video/uU6pHBs5rNY/v-deo.html Here’s the thing, you are correct in saying that Peterson ambivalently implies things and avoids clarifying their logical conclusions (although leftists abuse this talking point to justify wild misinterpretations of their opponents). A good example of this is when he is asked if men and women can work together and he says “I don’t know.” One can reasonably draw sexist undertones from that, but they still can’t automatically connect it to an Islamic patriarchy. His opinion on enforced monogamy is not an example of this subliminal messaging. He’s qualified the hell out of a concept that has an alarming title but is nonetheless harmless and completely uncontroversial. Only if you’ve been programmed to aggressively psychoanalyze non-leftist perspectives as necessarily sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. can you possibly associate Peterson with Iran through his views on enforced monogamy. And leftists call this ideologically driven way of interpreting neutral language “critical thinking.” It’s not. It’s childishly cynical criticism. 3. "I mean he’s now part of the daily wire..." Yes, he is a conservative and he won’t admit it. And I was very discouraged to see him partner with the Daily Wire because now he’s creating a financially incentivized echo chamber. This point is irrelevant to your misrepresentation of him. There is so much to criticize about Jordan Peterson in a constructive and (actually) critical way without making overwrought links between him and truly tyrannical patriarchies. I watch your videos to expose myself to left-wing thought but it makes it hard when you needlessly mischaracterize people. This only hurts you, as neutral listeners who can be persuaded into progressive thinking may be repelled when you make these unjustified comparisons. It’s very suspicious when someone who constantly refers to an individual they criticize NEVER cites a single verbatim quote and only resorts to paraphrasing. You do this with Peterson and it unnecessarily weakens your credibility to those who don’t already subscribe to your ideology. And if you don’t care about that, then all you’re doing is creating another echo chamber like Peterson is. 4. “So yes he’s on the same spectrum as Iran on the question of the regulation of female sexuality" Again, he’s been more focused on the regulation of male sexuality, why are you suggesting he’s only been concerned about the female side? You’ve invented this “spectrum” to loosely associate him with reprehensible perspectives. Ironically, you’re not the one going far enough to infer what he’s trying to say, because if you did, you would realize he was having a nuanced discussion on how businesses regulate clothing in the workplace. I can play this immature game of spectrums with your viewpoint too: simply being on the left puts you on the spectrum that will eventually lead to the support of violent insurgency where those in privileged positions must be killed. Therefore, Alice Cappelle is on the same ideological side that enables the hatred of police, white people, straight people, men, etc., right? Funny enough you’re using the same logic that anti-feminists use when they say feminists don’t care about men. They see someone take one reasonable step in the direction toward feminism and associate them with far-left radical feminists who genuinely have a disgust toward men (and, yes, they exist).
I understand where Alice is coming from…In the Starting Dr.Jordan Peterson seemed pretty libral and sensible in his approaches towards the concepts of feminism and LGBT+.. And I loved god content but with time my trust shattered in him all the way to his Elliot Page incident Then there are feminists who exclude trans people and shame naturally masculine women ( like myself ) for being who we are and brand us as negative …. It’s just increasingly becoming difficult for me to trust MRM and feminist activists as fore-bringers of ‘Change’.
Gender essentialism is one of those problems which deeply resists nuanced discussion. And unfortunately, as you have shown, it has been walking hand-in-hand with feminism for a long time. This is deeply ironic because the conditions which feminism is fighting *also* have their roots in gender essentialism. It's the kind of thing which makes me feel like "feminism" is quite possibly the wrong way to describe what we're trying to achieve.
As usual, this analysis is way to smart for a Neanderthal like me, so I will simply continue to be blown away by Alice's intelligence, eloquence, poise, voice, and beauty. So smart for The Guardian to tap her as ambassador!
Appreciate you mentioning how the idea of binaries being enforced in New Age Spirituality circles. It's an ick in those communities. The amount of gaslighting and misinformation as well.
10:19 Idk if you mentioned this but I had heard that the person who made the term TERF a legit term suggested we use TES (Trans-Exclusionary Separatists) instead.
Very interesting, explains why I always had a negative itch when it came to men groups and never felt like joining. And indeed, the real steps must be toward the climate crisis (or pollution crisis for the climate deniers) in a way to include as many people as possible and the very diverse qualities needed.
my issue with this take is that in almost every discussion on masculinity and yes this includes within feminism, the idea isnt to help men per say ( by this i mean better themselves for themselves as individuals and not a group ), the idea is almost framed as men arent doing their duty and that wrong and they should follow these steps to do with well, even in the idea of a progressive male movement from a feminist lens on how the overraching effect of the steps affect women or society, and not whether or not it is helping men, and i think that is the main issue with all male movements of today, the idea should be simple, it shouldnt have some overraching purpsose but simple , this requires them to share ideas from all perspective of maleness, i dont think having male only groups or movement in itself is bad, it just depends on how well regulated they are , and this doesnt actually require women, i think you are under the impression that some of these movements cannot make mistakes or have periods where they have to address an method they used was wrong, because this exact things happens to feminism, e.g girl boss movement , i
On the topic of climate and sustainability - ever watch Nate Hagens channel? I find his chats with both Daniel Schmachtenberger and Simon Micheaux particularly interesting.
This was a great well-informed video! As a cis guy it personally validates some of my beliefs about the "toxic masculinity-new masculinity" discourse which I used to and in some ways still believe in. Unfortunately this is still a very appealing way to get center-left leaning men to talk more about feminism, but it is worth keeping in mind that if we want to build a "new masculinity" this has to include the perspectives of cis, trans and non-binary people (not just a select elite of white progressive men). And that the final goal of this reinventing masculinity project must be to free us from gender binaries in general.
I think a lot of these masculine and feminine videos are popping up because many people are struggling with modern dating and are seeking ways to optimize attraction from the opposite sex. Also if you or someone could write a script/boot camp etc… for men to talk about feminism in an attractive and honest way during a date then I’m sure a revolution would take place. A lot of women are still wary of men who play the feminist ally angle and wonder if they are genuine.
I think all of this stems from lack of sexual access and sexual competition among men. One of the most common ideas that underpins masculine identity is the idea of masculine competition. Which, evolutionary and anthropologically is very correct. However masculine competition is not something men value in and of itself. Masculine competion is only a means to an end for sexual selection. Which is why monogomy was invented-it was a way to solve the game theoretical statement ever present among tribes, where too much competition among men for mates rendered everyone else worse off in the end. Once monogomy was invented, and most men were more or less guaranteed access to at least SOME sex, male on male violence dropped rapidly. (Of course there are other aspects of social and historical context that are responsible for this but bear with me.) And so I think it logically follows that if access to sex declines, the competion instinct within men will begin to kick itsel back up. The first part is already happening-30% of men haven't had sex within the past year. The average guy is liked by LESS than 1% of women on Tinder. This is also in combination with things like the metoo movement (which made finding a partner at work far less viable, which was where a significant percentage of men met women) and a cultural conscisouenss among women that makes them less cooperative with men in general. Which is on top of women being naturally hpyrgamous and therefore also being potentially interested in high status men around the world, which social media facilitates. These men, who already have very little access to sex, have to compete with these men for the few women they do have access to. The issue though is that outright violence is a taboo in the age of modernity, espeically in first world, western countries. And so this anger that men are feeling from lack of sexual access has no real outlet. They can't just fight other men for access to women. And in fact, the forms of competition that are reward the most today are things like entrpenruship, and social media fame, which are about being prosocial. Heck, the male beauty standard in Korea today are men that look like women. This, I think, is what explains the manosphere opposition to the climate movement. Mans ability to conquer nature is what makes it the apex predator of the animal kingdom. Our species has built cities, irrigation an plumbing, electric power grids, highways and roads, and we have even sequestered off huge swaths of the natural world as parks for human recreational use. We are a species that has conquered nature. We are dominant in that way. And so it makes sense that a group of men with declining sexual access-and therefore an unconscious desire to dominate and agress others (that their evolutionary brain believes is the solution since at one point it was)-would not like a political movement that deemphasizes human dominance over nature. Nature has become, in some weird way, the punching bag for these men's frustration and anger. It's a form of psychoanalytic submlation-where the desire to commit violence against others to gain access to sex is transferred onto the natural world. Nature doesn't deserve to be cherished, or loved, or protized, it deserves to be dominated and forced to submit to the will of humans. Hmm, I wonder why that sounds familiar? Simply put-when men don't get laid, and they become angry about it, they become more conservative. Plain and simple. But make no mistake-this is not something to joke about or laugh at. It has very real and serious consequences of civilization, and could ruin everything we've built so far when it's all said and done. You guys better be careful with those incel insults-you are very much playing with fire. Just my two cents! God speed.
The problem with this take is the “conquer nature” types actually tend to be the more normal conservative types who aren’t really the “incel” demographic. Most of the modern, young right are actually quite environmentalist, at least in aesthetics and messaging, and aren’t openly about “conquering nature”. Just look at any of the symbology of like “hyperborea”.
@@keemstarkreamstar7069 I think the first part of what you said is correct, although I don't know about the second half. I am primarily giving this take on this whole thing as a relatively new phenomenon. I think there is an emerging convergence among the mansopshere and the anti-climate movement that hasn't reached the mainstream of the mansophere. It seems to mostly be a fledgling, but still very valid, thing. This is why Andrew Tate attacked Greta Thunberg. Tate is a very smart man. I have no doubt that his unconscious intellectual instincts have made this connection already and he therefore knew that his followers would like that sort of thing.
@@marcmoore4069 Tate attacked Greta Thunberg because she is like a liberal that many on the right find vaguely annoying/preachy. Its not really a super dedicated anti-climate stance, again that is a far older ideological strain, look up “coal rolling” and you’ll see this is an old thing not a new one. If you look at the modern right among these “incel” types you will see a disdain for modernity and hints of anarcho-primitivist thought, indeed Ted K. Is held in high regard in these communities. The new right is broadly pro-nuclear (which I personally agree with), and isn’t really anti-climate as much as anti-“whiny liberal”. Specific anti-climate sentiment is only really held by some libertarians, conservative boomers, and of course the elite.
You’d think even from the ownership class perspective, specifically in regards to the eminent loss of coastal and water-side properties, that there would be nuanced ideology dictating their talking points. At least something more substantive than, “environmentalism is gay!”
The other issue that gets little to no attention is how women are still culturally conditioned to embrace toxic masculinity and make excuses to protect toxic men.
@@Just_some_guy_1 an interesting point in favor of a biological view, however you are not taking into consideration the fact that we now have a global culture that is largely shaped by western entertainment. It is, therefore, global conditioning.
@@NelsonGuedes I highly doubt a Bushman woman will find a soft man attractive. Women like bad men because bad me were more likely to end up on top throughout most of human history.
@@NelsonGuedes No idea what was the naughty word, but UA-cam delated the comment, so I'll write again. Female preference for bad males is biological. Female mammals pick a mate based on how big and strong they are. There is no preference for males possessing female traits.
@@NelsonGuedes Third attempt at writing a comment. The censorship is unreal. F mammals chose M mammals based on how big and strong they are. M mammals with F traits, are less likely to reproduce. This is biology, not culture.
A thought-provoking video from Alice as usual. Joyce does use femininity as a metaphor for the land, not necessarily in a positive way, describing Ireland as “the old sow who eats her farrow” (although Molly Bloom’s soliloquy does go some way towards redressing the balance!) While the Guardian does have some fine writers (Marina Hyde being particularly brilliant) I do think followers of this channel would find it somewhat of an echo chamber. Better to read the Daily Mail - almost no chance of agreeing with anytime it but a useful insight into how other people can have such a wildly different worldview. Keep up the good work Alice!👏
As someone who tries to keep up with the climate movement as much as I can, I've never heard of this guy (the dollar store Che Guevara 😂). Most of the climate people I follow are way more informed by the social ecologist, Murray Bookchin, who to me provides the true roadmap to building a better, more sustainable, and more equal world through acknowledging that the ways we exploit the planets are in tandem to the ways we exploit each other through rigid, oppressive hierarchies (white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, homophobia/transphobia, etc.). I would strongly encourage you to check out some of his work!
I don't think all feminists share the aim of equality for men too. I'm at uni and the misandry from self-proclaimed feminists is so detached from reality its scary. In some of these online feminist spaces you hear nothing positive about men, and they do they're basically encouraging 'pick me' culture within men.
@@Lisa-dv1xn most I’ve heard is about the group as a whole… anyway. I’d say the internet has a tendacy to radicalise people to extremes, and there is feminist circles which are anything but helpful for those who legitimately want to improve women’s and men’s quality of life. Making out every man is a potential rapist because an area is poor and working-class does nothing for nobody. Most have their own lives and objectives, and therefore don’t care what a large geeky girl is doing (I’m thinking of someone I actually know when saying this).
Environmental issues are issues of the concern of nature, and nature has masculine, feminine, both together, and neither forces, all simultaneously - please do not eradicate the “binary” (or as I would put it the trinary or quadranary) for the reason you suggest, since as the universal environment ever goes through its processes of synthesis, it will paradoxically coexist with oppositional forces that we will always recognize as forms of masculine and feminine and where they overlap in the middle with both?
I wish the folks emotionally invested in the climate movement would stop talking about saving the world. It gives the speaker a false sense of moral virtue. The world will be fine without us. It is ancient and is born of geologic cataclysms. You can't save the world?
Salut Alice, Encore une super vidéo ! J’ai lu un des livres de Pablo Servigne « Comment tout va s’effondrer » et ça a été une claque énorme sur l’écologie. Je ne suis pas collapsologue pour autant (malheureusement, je pense qu’on est assez doué pour tirer sur la corde indéfiniment) mais j’ai appris énormément. Je n’ai pas très bien compris en quoi tes amis ont trouvé Pablo « bizarre » : trop extrême dans ses idées ? Sinon le raisonnement sur le lien entre survivalisme et conservatisme (déclin de la société) est super nouveau et intéressant pour moi. Effectivement, même si le mouvement sur le climat a l’air assez féminin (beaucoup plus de filles sont végétariennes que des garçons et je les trouve de manière générale plus sensible à la cause), ça s’inverse dans certains contextes. Je suis dans un milieu très scientifique et des qu’on touche aux questions d’énergie, de ressources, de technologies pour le futur ça devient très masculin. Les nouvelles figures qui émergent actuellement (Jancovici, Thomas Wagner de Bon Pote et Julien Bayou même si on espère pas le revoir de si tôt) bénéficient d’une crédibilité, voire d’une quasi adoration que les femmes ne connaissent pas. Je trouve ça dommage mais pas surprenant. Voilà, merci encore pour cette super vidéo !
Sur le lien entre survivalisme et conservatisme : le survivalisme trouve ses racines essentiellement aux états-unis chez des proches des nationaux-socialistes américains, on est donc même bien au-delà du conservatisme. Le survivalisme n'est pas spécifiquement écologiste à l'origine mais cela a évolué d'une part, et d'autre part une certaine extrême-droite ésotérique / völkisch / vitaliste / anti-moderne, s'est très tôt intéressée à l'écologie. Cela étant les choses sont très ambivalentes, et on est plutôt sur une forme d'écologie très obscurantiste ici, quant on peut encore parler d'écologie. Le problème de Servigne est le même que celui de Rabhi ou Dion je pense. Dans le cas de Rabhi ses liens avec les courants anthroposophique, new-age, ultra conservateurs, vychiste, etc. sont aujourd'hui très clairs. Pourtant vu de loin les petits colibris, planter des arbres etc. c'est sûr ça parait mignon... Les liens des autres, dont Servigne sont beaucoup moins clairs en revanche. Dion par exemple a toujours été très évasifs quand certains ont tentés de lui poser la question. Pablo j'ignore ce qu'il en est mais ce que je comprends de la thèse d'Alice, c'est qu'au fond, au vu de ce qu'il dit, il ne serait pas étonnant que de tels liens existent. Donc, malgré l'apparence sympa du personnage, et son discours qui se veut pleinement scientifique, sa potentielle perméabilité à des pensées douteuses doit inciter à s'en méfier. Pour aller plus loin, j'ai bien peur qu'en réalité le culte de gaïa et autre salades new-age soit bel et bien un gros problème du courant écologiste d'aujourd'hui comme de celui l'hier, et qui ne se limite pas à quelques figures... de fait cette "rencontre manosphere / climate movement" ne doit surement rien au hasard...
such as any religion or mythology, the concept of feminine/ masculine energy is created by people; as we scholars (lol) know, there's nothing really natural about being human. these concepts are an attempt to explain how things work, like any religion. they can work for some people, they can't work for some others. they work for me, but i see them as energies, nothing related to actually being a man or a woman - actually i see both genders as impoverished experiences because of gender roles and performances. think about how much time we lose to attend these instead of doing what we actually want. but i find it very interesting when i see men talking about the enviromental cause, because it's always so pessimistic. and i think that has something to do with masculinity and the male performance. to "save the world" and have hope we have to be willing to change, as a society and probably as individuals. are men willing to do that? or they just rather die instead of seeing themselves as themselves, not men. i don't think women are interested in the environmental cause just because we are seen as caregivers, but also because we see the nature exploitation like ours. to exploit the other you cannot see them as the same as you. but in fact, aren't we nature as well?
Wow, that was dense (as in a lot of ideas and content - Jordan Peterson would have got 3 hours out of that and mentioned Solzhenitsyn 100 times!). Thank you for your videos this year. We need hope moving into 2023 for sure.
Yeah, because Peterson would have gone into a lot more depth (admittedly, with some excessive verbosity in there, too, and probably with him breaking down in tears at least once). This video touched on a bunch of things, but only scratched the surface of each. As a consequence, she didn’t have to question her own preconceived notions about anything.
Concordo - o que vejo ser o grande problema é que estamos no ponto que Nietzche disse em sua filosofia onde devemos criar uma nova maneira de enxergar o mundo, sermos os "übermensch", ou cairemos nos mesmos dogmas, ou perderemos a razão de viver.
I noticed right at the start Alice claims that feminism has always sought to help men. Then she gives not one single example to back up that claim. At that point I reflected on my life experience for a moment then stopped watching thinking her comment was arrogant and superficial.
You can infer and research on your own, feminism is anti patriarchy and inherently, that will help men as it eventually tackles the core of patriarchy, misogyny and when men unlearn misogyny they help themselves cuz they know its not a bad thing to be seen as "girly" and that they dont need to fit into masculine standards. Men are not the target for feminism as most men already have rights afforded to them that women dont and not everything needs to centre men for it to help men, and its a historically women focused movement. You just sound petty and want to be spoonfed things it doesnt hurt to do some research in the time u spent writing this comment or do inference.
Have you considered actually reading about feminism rather than relying on your assumption that your personal experience has not shown you that? Because that seems like arrogance to me, to not recognise that personal experience is not universal and draw conclusions about feminism that way, from biased personal opinion vs that of someone who clearly puts a lot of work into her essays and has done the reading to back up her conjectures. You don’t have to agree with her positions but I think it’s worth recognising that your logic that feminism is not for men is severely flawed and that it makes more sense to find your own way to critique the dominant ideology of patriarchy than just make a lazy “feminism bad for men” response.
Have you considered actually reading about feminism rather than relying on your assumption that your personal experience has not shown you that? Because that seems like arrogance to me, to not recognise that personal experience is not universal and draw conclusions about feminism that way, from biased personal opinion vs that of someone who clearly puts a lot of work into her essays and has done the reading to back up her conjectures. You don’t have to agree with her positions but I think it’s worth recognising that your logic that feminism is not for men is severely flawed and that it makes more sense to find your own way to critique the dominant ideology of patriarchy than just make a lazy “feminism bad for men” response.
Salut Alice! I'm sorry to say it but I didn't much like this video when compared to many of your others. I think what really bothers me is something a friend said to me regarding feminism assisting men: what movement includes the opressor class? This has been sitting with me for some time now, and I think that's very true. Around the time Roe was overturned another quote (paraphrased) stuck with me: men will never incite discourse for women, and women are socialized far too docile to ever bring about change more violently, a la Stonewall or The Black Panthers movements. The thing about "mens rights" activists is they're purely reactionary. Of course the dissolution of the patriarchy will benefit them, but their issues are of their own design. Nobody actually cares about the "problems" men face when they advocate for men's rights (that they already have, this is a matter of CULTURE), it is entirely intended to discredit feminism. So... I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere. Tackling toxic masculinity seems like an issue for a post-gender society, and when men are too afraid of the color green (look it up, they're more likely to harm the environment with INTENT to push their notion of masculinity. Everything is a performance to them) to help avoid a climate catastrophe, discussing this is almost meaningless. To be quite frank, this is not, and for a long time, WILL not be the most pressing issue on the books.
I think it's because Feminists are not trying to fight men but Patriarchy, the system. It is the system that puts men above women, gives them power over women. And the misogyny and oppression women face is a result of men having power over women. Because men have more power than women in all spheres of life, I don't think that women can achieve equality without involving men anyway.
@@person1420 I think you're conflating aiding the oppressor class with getting aid from the oppressor class. Things like Marilyn Monroe being an ally in not only being Ella Fitzgerald's friend but helping her share her music is different from, say, the civil rights movement asking for more rights for white people. This is what's astonishing. Imagine if LGBTQA+ movements lobbied for straight people to have healthy relationships. The fact of the matter is that this is not the intended purpose of a movement. Yes, men will have to write their silly little laws and delegate power to women that had been previously withheld, but we shouldn't have to get them to care about feminism by saying "look, we're fighting for you too!"
I disagree with the use of the acronym TERF. I think it distracts from the actual issue. Men and women whether feminist or not can be transphobic. I highly doubt there are proportionately more feminists that are transphobic. The term attacks a movement which essentially just wants to promote equality/equity. To start detailing what clothes to look out for that a TERF will be wearing is frankly ridiculous. What is a transgender woman wants to wear a long skirt? Is she also a TERF?
I’ve been seeing more and more of this “feminine energy” pseudo-empowering stuff online and it always rubbed me the wrong way. Nice to finally see someone talk about it
This "New Age" bullshit never deceived me - ""ThE mAsCuLinE aNd FeMiNiNe eNerGy..." shut up! This don't exist!
Omg thank you for mentioning the divine feminine/masculine movement, you could make an entire video about it… I was at a new age retreat and was completely shocked in what they were teaching (women teaching women-retreat), basically that we women need to step down (both in society and in relationships) so that we don’t get too much in our masculine energy and to not make men feel less masculine by our power…. (!!)
OMG, that's disgusting! :(
But then again... New Age sprititualism is also just some religious bullshit. And we already have a bunch of other religions that tell women to be meek. So, it's not really surprising.
You High or something?
Argh i don't understand that energy thing, i mean, i kinda do but the problem is that they fall into the same stereotypes about gender
@@CarolaTesla Exactly !!! At firsthand I don’t like dividing people into masculine and feminine…It just feels like a sleazy stereotypical technique to unnecessarily categorise people.. but then when some women are naturally masculine and men who are naturally feminine are shamed to the sidelines and are characterised as ‘negative’…that’s where I lose my mind..
That's weird though isn't it? If we look at it through the spiritual lens, the soul has no gender but it embodies both feminine and masculine energies. In some people one can be more prevalent than the other for whatever reason. Be it previous life experiences, the choice our soul made etc.
I was listening to a Russian guy(Zor Alef) that was talking about Hermeticism and the Kabalah. And while many things he said made sense, he suddenly went to say how gay people are sick and they are the karmic result of people who don't embrace their femininity/masculinity in the previous lifetime. Lol. Absolutely nonsense. They claim that we shouldn't disrupt the balance. Yin/Yang, feminine/masculine etc. Well don't we embody both? Also I believe no thing is random. Everything serves a purpose and is part of the human experience.
I can see how some women might have not embraced their femininity due to feeling inferior because they grew up in such environment. And I am all for reinforcing and reaching our best potential. But for the love of God,stop putting people into boxes😂. We are complex beings. You can't possibly know how someone else feels and why they want to express as they do..If you claim to be so spiritual and loving, accept people as they come. No matter the form and expression.
I feel like people fear anything they don't understand and makes them feel uncomfortable or even makes them slightly question them selves. It's as if they are afraid their fixed idea of reality will be shattered.
Weird that this video came out only a few days before Andrew Tate tried to take on a prominent figure in the climate movement and ended up getting arrested for his trouble
He should have done something which would've prevented him from getting arrested. It sucks to suck.
Dang Tate got the biggest L ever in the history of the internet from a four foot tall autistic female environmentalist. And then got locked up over his own self snitching!!!!
😂
That was a highlight to me, so happy
The main issue is that these movements often revolve around idealism. They do not take into account the material relations and contradictions of the world in a dialectical way.
Biological essentialism is particularly weird but any essentialism is problematic and limits our understanding of the world. That includes class essentialism on the left.
Thinking men will be made better towards women by isolating themselves from them is akin to thinking a man/woman will be able to be better at relationships by being single. It's profoundly stupid. 😂
Thank you Alice, Please never stop what you are doing. You give me hope for the future
There is no hope. We're in exponential irreversible climate change.
💩
Alice, I always find these videos thoroughly engaging. The nuance in what's being spoken about makes me re-evaluate how I feel about things so frequently. Thanks for always posting such great content !
Wtf are you talking about. Go learn about our future on my channel.
the thing about splitting human potential into two categories, one that pushes ppl who were AFAB into some interpersonal expert (interconnectivity, tolerating social ambiguity, etc) by virtue of their bodies, and pushes AMAB into being personal experts (autonomy, overcoming social ambiguity, etc), an economy based on individual overcoming will always overvalue the second, while the split isn't justified in the first place.
no one can really cooperate, or even just delegate, if they're artificially lobotomized by arbitrary limits of fake categories.
it's a convenient barrier to solidarity that just reinforces codependence. And not learning interpersonal skills bc you're too fixated on autonomy, makes it so your autonomy only succeeds if you're lucky and ruthless and outsource social skills to others. So it doesn't even teach autonomy well. And being interpersonally fixated with no sense of autonomy (outside the workplace where it's sort of forced), your interpersonal life suffers too.
So nobody actually achieves healthy agency, only feel healthy while ignoring codependence or exploiting others.
I love the phrase, "outsource social skills to others." Succinct summation.
I'm a very progressive person, but even I sometimes fall for some of the new rhetoric the manosphere is spewing.
Thanks Alice, for making remembering why most of the arguments of those guys are mostly just unintellectual rubbish made to superficially debate.
Holy W
Well, just because it comes out of the "manosphere" doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong or bad
Unless you think that men's experiences are only valuable if they fit into a feminist vision
@@samyd5410 I said "most" for a reason. A broken clock is right twice a day. But is not worth for much more
I meant that it's not so strange that you "fall for some of the new rhetoric the manosphere is spewing"... In what is described as "manosphere" there's certainly a lot of BS.. but also real experiences of ordinary men ... (ordinary .. that's why most of the criticism against "manospherians" is actually snobish classism by the way)
simp
I just wanted to congratulate you, your titles are done in such a precise way to induce clicking that I find myself getting a bit uncomfortable almost angry even though I agree with you in almost everything. Good job, hope the channel keeps growing.
There is always a "crisis of masculinity" because what it means to be a man is directly related to the society around us and how we interact with it, and the society around us is always changing. I would imagine this concept comes up a lot more in times when there are big shifts in economics and politics, such as during the rise of capitalism or the subsequent rise of Nationalism and Liberalism. We look at men who were part of the feudal aristocracy as being very feminine with their flamboyant dress and generally hedonistic and lazy lifestyle but they were considered to be paragons of masculinity at the time. The bourgeois class prioritized concepts like industriousness and ambition as masculine virtues while the aristocracy prioritized honor. Masculinity is no different than anything else within the superstructure in that it is subordinate to the material base of society and changes with material changes.
A pleasure to watch a video from you just before Christmas 😊
5:09 well literally "Mother Nature"
i think part off the issue is just dividing people up into little groups and figuring out how to perform in a soceity as part off the IN-group. People are just people and i realise the way we all look at things within our culture is through a conditioned view from hundreds off years worth off normative behaviour. I firmly believe gender and sexuality in our nature is a thing that is not carved in stone for the majority off people. We just tell people how to feel and it's really difficult to shake that foundation off our reality
Congrats in such a great sponsorship!
Alice Cappelle, I realize this video is from years past, however I have a comment to contribute on the subject of men's groups. Listening to your description of these cult-like groups I have a suggestion about why they become toxic and how a men's group should actually operate. First of all not all men should be invited but only those who have demonstrated a sincere devotion to serve other people. I have seen this work well in the Order of the Arrow, which is a service organization which has an initiation rite. It does not aggravate or increase toxic masculinity. The trick is to select the best and help the best people, so that they can help other people. You cannot grab all men and treat us the same way and expect us to become a wholesome group, as if we would all respond the same way in a group setting.
love ur videos. u r so well spoken!
I only got to this today and it's one of your most fascinating videos to me. I hope you touch on some of these issues again.
Yeah, the patriarchy needs to be put to bed already. It irritates me when I hear that caring about the environment is considered more of a feminine issue by society. I'm a cis dude in my 30s, and I've always been concerned about the environment since I was a little kid, and first heard about global warming, and later climate change/crisis. Hell, climate anxiety is the reason I initially went veggie, and eventually vegan a few months later over 5 years ago. Why I've switched to a ebike as my mode of transportation this year. I know my individual actions will not fix these issues, and what we really need is systemic change like ending capitalism, and moving towards library socialism, but the environment is definitely something I care about as a guy. At the end of the day, we all live on this planet, and there's no planet B. That should just be considered common sense.
Please tell me if anyone know any creators like Alice who make video essays in French! I always wish I could use your videos for discussion in my French high school class!
Would love to know as well! love Alice’s videos but I’m looking for some in french!
I'm very interested in that too
I'd love that too!! Learning French would be less of a dread....
I have quite a few for you!
- Le roi des rats (video essays about the problems with new technologies/the dangers of internet, his videos are always extremely well written/researched, he did a few about going to countries that are currently under dictatorships, he went to North Korea and Belarus)
- Clara DFX (social commentaries, kind of life Alice's but more focused on movies/tv shows/books)
- Bolchegeek (deep dives into movies/movie franchises, I really recommend his videos La haine des riches and Le syndrome Magneto).
If you like documentaries about the food/leasure industries you can try Tout compte fait (the videos are between 5 and 25 min talking about one subject/industry) and if you want something more political there is Blast (it explains the political controversies/the political landscape in France).
I hope it helps!
@@Melissa-sx9vh thankk you so unbelievably mucchhh
I like your new setup , so cute . Great video as usual !
Alice has returned with a beautiful brunette Bob. It’s giving ‘60s Nouvelle Vague and I’m here for it 👏🏽
bro this is your tenth comment on the same video 💀
@@RicochetAQW Right? He's the archetypical attention seeking reply guy.
@@RicochetAQW So? It’s not aimed at you or meant to irritate you.
@@mc1352 That’s exactly what I write on my Business Card.
@@RicochetAQW See any other Alice comment section lmao
Hi Alice!
I'm not sure I understand your points in this video. Can you (or anyone else) help me understand them a bit better? This is my understanding:
1, There is a group of people, who believe there are masculine and feminine qualities, like aggression vs nurturing, and that each individual is a mix of both. They also believe that there needs to be a mix between those values both on an individual and a societal level. Let's call them cultural feminists. (I'm taking this from around 6:00.)
I mostly put this here so we have a working definition of cultural feminist at hand. Let me know if I misunderstood.
2, A goal of cultural feminism is to have people's qualities more aligned with their birth sex. (6:34)
I'm really not quite sure where did this come from. Yes, you show new age hacks from yt, but why exactly does this belief follows the idea that there are masculine and feminine properties (which *are* social constructs, don't get me wrong) which may or may not be present in any individual who is a man or a woman or anything else?
3, According to cultural feminists, in order to improve society we need to take a step back from party politics and change the whole culture (8:51)
Again, where did this come from? According to 5:50 early Suffragettes used this rhetoric to campaign for votes for women (which is by definition party politics)!
4, When talking about the mythopoetic men's movement you say that the mpmm, like cultural feminists understands gender in a very essentialist way (12:00)
I really don't follow now, since when is it essentialist to say that there are qualities which are typically viewed as masculine and feminine and that people may or may not have them?
5, In the conclusion you bring up 2 self-help groups which are not very helpful at all, then conclude that "this is what happens when women are not part of the conversation". A few sentences later you criticize the second coming of Che Guevera (loved that picture btw) for saying that men and women need to talk abt stuff and come to agreements urgently bc of the climate.
Do you...not want to have discourse around gender roles and wage gap and stuff? You did just say that those (and other) self-help groups went really off the rails when it was just men there, wouldn't that imply that there needs to be women who are part of that conversation?
Ngl, this video had a bit too many topics in it, which I feel like weren't developed enough, instead of having the substance of the title (eg talking abt climate fascism, overpopulation myths, etc). I'm almost certain I misunderstand something very early, but still, would love to hear back from you or somebody who can address my concerns : )
Have a good one!
I think this is just my personal interpretation, but it goes something like this.
First, lemme just preface by saying I definitely agree that Alice does go to a bit too much topic in this video, and the title reflect a rather small part of the whole (thesis?) she has here.
1 & 2. I think there is another important part of cultural feminism that Alice didn't mention specifically: while cultural feminist believe that most have a mix of both, they also believe in the 'intrinsic feminine value' in 'female nature' and vice versa for men. It's like what Alice said in 6:00, cultural feminism doesn't really...subvert patriarchy, they rather find a place within the patriarchy instead.
Personally according to me, this made sense as by tying up 'feminine' with 'the female', cultural feminist does not really see femininity and masculinity as a social construct unlike us? Those hacks video argue for the return of value that assigned with your birth sex, with implied that they see 'women' and 'femininity' as something that is tied together by nature (hence the gaia image that a lot of terf aspire to be), not something to be subverted.
3. Imma be honest this point Alice made is really muddled and I'm literally just guessing at this point but in 5:46, you can see the poster with the captioned something like 'Isn't it a funny thing that father cannot see why mother have ought to have a vote on how thing should be'. The argument here probably is that:
a) Women have feminine value
b) Feminine value include nurturing (food, health, home, school)
c) These value are currently being managed by men, which does not share said value (as they are men)
-> By allowing women to vote, we can managed said value effectively, as women are naturally better at nurturing.
Is it regressive? yes. Did it work back then? absolutely.
4. Same thing as 1 & 2. The essentialist idea here is not about recognizing the feminine and the masculine, but rather how cultural feminist tied said idea to gender and portrayed a return to said value as 'morally good'. In 12:00, Alice mentioned a return to state of nature. And if I have to make a guess, the state of nature where men and women live in 'harmony' is probably something like men go hunt and women take cares of babies. Don't quote me on this though as again, Alice didn't really expand on this idea.
5. The 2 self-help group group, and Mr. Tofu-eating Che Guevera, while good intentioned (?) [citation heavily needed], essentially promote the same idea as those hack video, terf-group and suffragette. They don't really see masculine, feminine, men and women as a social construct but operate in a very binary set of masculinity for men.
By shunning women out, they also risk associating femininity as inferior, or helping the world view that men and women are inherently different.
Here is an article written by the same author in the book Alice mentioned: theconversation.com/the-bogus-crisis-of-masculinity-96558.
I personally have a slightly different perspective on men's group than Alice though. I think the reason why these group doesn't work is because said group doesn't really focus on the systemic issue? Looking at it, those group care more about how masculinity affect men and themselves, not how masculinity (and gender roles in general) work in a systemic and societal framework (which also involves women and NB, and men's relation to them). While I think it's good to have a place to discuss men's issue, it might nottt be the best idea to discuss only that issue, and only through one perspective.
_"[Cultural Femininists] believe that there needs to be a mix between [Masculine and Feminine values]"_
I think that's the opposite of their belief. They believe in natural, strict gender roles *which the modern world has corrupted* so that people are now have a mix of values. Cultural Feminists want to reverse this and make people return to their strict roles.
Of course, it's not Gender Essentialist to admit that men and women have differences. It's Essentialist when:
- You demand that people _should_ only follow their gender role
- You assign basic human traits to a gender, like "Only women cooperate, only men compete" - all humans do those!
- It makes you transphobic towards people who don't fit in the strict roles, like the TERF Dora Moutot
And like the Cultural Feminists, Men's Groups end up becoming Gender Essentialist (according to Francis Dupuis-Déri).
I'm guessing the reason is that the men start to identify with their maleness (because they're discussing how they act as men towards women).
But that strong Male identity means that it's hard to criticize sexist men because that's also criticizing you as a man. And with no women in the room, it's easier to blame your problems on women and make men the victim.
So the solution is to have that discourse without building an identity around a gender role, because it often turns anti-feminist.
[That's just my interpretation, I feel that Alice skipped some steps here.]
@@koifish4345 i dont think shunning women out in itself make it seem like its female oriented, because there are absolutely discuss that women shun men out of within feminism, does this imply the risk that masculinity is inferior , also men and women are different, they fundamentally have different life experiences , there things that only men can understand and things that only women can understand , while there are some cases that bridge the gap , you cant deny the difference do exist
then i have a question , if men did discuss systematic issues, they would require chnages that might indirectly negatively affect women , would you be willing to accept that women might push back on these changes , and that men would required to put the needs of men first
Ahhh. Uhmmm.
The dark brown hair looks good Alice.
4:21 Alice giving me a flashback to my Sociology of Environment days where we dabbled in Post-Structualism.
Bonjour, Alice! Je suis ravi que vous publiiez une nouvelle vidéo. J’espère que vous allez s’amuser bien. Bonne chance!
14:00 how is that different from the female safe spaces?
Fascinating! You articulate issues so well
Pablo is giving ‘Gold Bars in specialised basement and probably has a Survivalist Camp’ Energy.
Hello friend Alice, thanks, as usual, for the lively and engaging analysis. I wish your channel was more popular as there aren't too many healthy alternatives going through the algorithm pipeline. What I find interesting about all the various examples you provided on Manosphere groups and Alternative Masculinity clubs is that none of them provide anything even remotely resembles a material and or class analysis. Certainly not a rigorous one anyway. I believe that's an important distinction because the rise in popularity of these groups is at the core of the Marxist notion of alienation. When the society these boys inhabit fails to provide for them and offer them any true meaning they reach for the levers that do provide meaning and as we've seen what comes out the other end isn't always pleasant. There's even been a rise in femme/female presenting folks who identify as INCELS but our society doesn't take them seriously because they haven't been socialized to lash out violently. That doesn't mean they won't at some point. People fundamentally want two things: safety and connection and our current digital era is shortening the list of people who are able to have both. Thus far the only people who have been able to provide answers as to why are the Far Right and we on the Left mustn't lose this battle. We can and should be responding to these crises strategically. Anyways, that's all she wrote folks! Happy Holidays to everyone a part of this community and of course you as well Alice!
Note: I'm currently drawing up a thesis on this exact subject, so I take it quite seriously. I was pleasantly surprised to have this be your end-of-the-year topic. Cheers mate!
as I am non-binary it is very nice seeing people talk about this, how they divide personality traits into masculine and feminine ones. I always feel like this leaves out the most important part - the human underneath all the cultural layers. thanks for the video and keep doing what u want
I like to think of it as like anyone can be masc or fem doesnt matter the gender and we all have both within us which can combine and create new identities.
Yeps agreed
As soon as you group people together with categories like Turf you have stopped thinking and struggle to add value to real discourse.
More than working toward positive masculinity we need to move toward pro empathy, pro regeneration, and away from destructive extraction and aggressive displacement. Those at the top that make decision about how this all works need to be disempowered from this.
I already knew about the origins of the phrase Toxic Masculinity, but it's cursed and I wish it never existed. Nearly everything men do or don't do is attributed to it. It's cited as the reason we don't recycle, it's the reason we don't eat vegetables, and the reason we play violent games with high difficulty settings.
It's just...it's too much.
For the record, I'm no MRA or anything like that, but I get why a lot of guys think like that, they're afraid. They aren't scared of women, LGBT people, or minorities coming into prominence, they're afraid of not having a place in the world at all.
The right wants to give men a place by turning back the clock, whereas the left...just throws some self help books at you, says some vague platitudes about being your authentic self, and then poof, gone.
I'm not saying women have to do anything, but it's a little hard being on this team sometimes. Sometimes it feels like I really don't belong here, but I know I would hate it over there.
Thinking about what the future would look like when you're trying to do something new is scary. I guess those feelings can be doubly so when one group is no longer centred.
A lot of women and lgbt people felt that they have no place in this world before.
We made our own place. That's how you should look at it for yourself as well
they still are studies that say that men eat more meat, and tend to recycle less (if we're only talking about the environment) I understand that it is a bit tiring to hear "toxic masculinity" in every feminist discourse but it is so engrained in society that it is impossible not to mention. i like your sentiment of trying to be better and to understand and wish you the best.
@@Lisa-dv1xn So you do accept that women want to replace men.
@@alienkishorekumar Can you read?
Hi Alice, Hi everybody,
So I had a pretty heated interaction that lasted a couple of days, on twitter, with a couple of scientists buddies, acquaintances, shall we say, over (CW dom. violence) accusations of dom.vio. by a woman against her husband.
Those guys could not fathom the fact that they are indeed behaving and thinking in the exact same manner as the very men they decry, as agressive, dismissive, as toxic men, because they represent facts.
The gaslighting attemps were numerous, the insults on my intelligence and comprehension skills too, but the fact remains that, when it comes to politics, we have a toxic masculinity problem in the left too.
It is not a left or right problem (although, of course it is, as toxic masculinity and the manosphere do protect the status quo, aka conservatism) per se, it is a power dynamics problem.
As we operate in a system built on power dynamics, a system we inherited and didn't build, the problems existing within the system are remaining unchanged. Male hegemony in STEM is still a real thing (it is less prevalent in Humanities, albeit as toxic).
Anyways,
I verbally sparred with those men, exchanging blows on an unequal plainfield, trying to explain that fact checking what the itw in which that women spoke about her dom. vio. was not something to do, as it is insanely violent a method, I couldn't reach the guys who were saying, in essence, "no but it's not her words we're fact checking at all, it's other stuff she was saying in the interview, it's not the subject of our discourse", then they added "she's lying anyway, and it's bad optics for all women and feminism", then "she's crazy, other women who said the same thing as you are anti vaxxers and fake feminists portraying as researchers and political scientists".
They just don't want to see that they're fully using the b*tches be crazy narrative, coupled with the "all women are the same* narrative.
I was the one being wrong, obviously, they were protecting feminists, obviously, and I didn't know what I was talking about by saying that they were behaving as anti feminists at that moment, with those arguments, obviously.
It is so far, probably one of the hardest fights I have had to take on. I have no idea how to convince without burning the few bridges between us. It is so pervasive in our societal construct, I have no clue how to properly address that.
I thought it was proven that working in mixed group makes both men and women perform better?
Just like it is good for group dynamics to have some young and/or new people and som old and/or experienced persons in the same group.
The obession with your own gender, race, nation, wahtever often leads to more conflicts than it solves. It is good to know yourself and other groups but knowedle does not require ranking how opressed you are or how bad another group is compared to your own.
to me it's hilarious that she badmouths men's groups when we know that women's support groups tend to make them incredible hostile towards men too. So many divorces are started by women listening to their toxic female group friend. It's like this girls feel the need to find any imperfection in men trying something while ignoring women's flaws (or absolving them of that blame by attributing it to a subjective concept like the patriarchy that means essentially men or men in the past).
@@paulogaspar8295 that is always how it works with these people
Biggest takeaway from this video is The Guardian putting out an advert on video essayist's channel ❤
I love the delivery of these videos! Alice is really good at what she does.
People talking about how to get more masculine and feminine energy, while me being constantly tired so any kind is fine.
Merry Christmas ⛄🎄 into watching video now!
I see patriarchy as the cause of climate devastation and war. By patriarchy, I mean exclusion of women and of gender non-conforming males from power.
It's not that men innately have traits that destroy and abuse, whereas women innately have traits that nurture and care. It's that exclusion that creates the evils.
To me, androgynous feminism means acknowledging our humanness first. I don't want to see the movement break down into overcategorization or polemic squabbling over terfs vs. trans, or into these thinly veiled anti-woman and anti-gay all male retreats. And I certainly agree that feminism is for the betterment of men, because it is against the macho attitudes that cause males to be constantly bullied and excluded they way many of us were while growing up.
The growing awareness of the need to stop bullying is a direct result of the feminist movement.
Really needed to read this, thanks
@@juliusbeutler7090 Glad you found it worthy of reading. Thanks.
Amazing, insightful, love how you always keep a critical mind on issue. Keep on that track ! you give me hope
The thing about men changing men. Most men I know want to respect other peoples opinions, wouldn't hurt a fly and want their partners dreams to come true. Everyday I work with women, all my bosses are women. In the real world women are kicking ass. Feminism is an amazing movement and if your not against violence then no one can help you, but I'm not a feminist, most men I know are non-feminists. What feminism imagines a good man is, may never be what most men imagine a good man is............cause we're men, and most of us strive to be good men already and we are good men already. Feminists don't hate men they're just pissed men won't do what they want but I support their efforts.
In the Spanish ecological movement right now there is a lot of controversy about collapsism and, more broadly, about the political rhetoric that should be used to mobilize the general population. As you say, the Spanish collapse apostles are basically men who wrongly "predict" catastrophes and who contribute little in terms of organization and concrete plans to mitigate or prevent the effects of climate change, and see collapse as a irreversible and almost unstoppable single event.
It seems to be a general trend, and the text that made me realize it was "Home is Always Worth It" by Mary Annaïse Heglar, which I recommend to everyone to understand that as bad as the future seems, the real fight is for save as much as possible, by avoiding each extra degree of warming, that it will never be "now or never" (meaning that if we lose we should simply give up), but multiple fights worth fighting.
And For the Record.......if men are not supposed to listen to Peterson or Tate .....who are we supposed to listen to? Is their anyone worth listening to ?
Oh you said something? Huh? You said Women? *NO*. We would listen to Someone who understand us, who recognises our problems, and who is that Creature? *MEN* and Empathetic Women who can Understand us, even Though They don't find our Experience relatable....
Is this going to save the World? Probably not.....is this going to Save Relationships? Marriages? Maybe.........Is this going to help both parties understand eachother, By sharing things with eachother without unnecessary judgment? I Hope.
In the United States feminism is a supremacy movement. Started after the Civil War when Black men were fighting alongside Black women and Black children for the right to vote, white women were afraid that if Black people got the right to vote that white women would become lower on the racial/social hierarchy and thus be treated the same way Black people were treated.
In that sense the goal of feminism was to maintain oppressive power alongside white men and the patriarchy was simply the system of ws and oppression against minorites that white women feared being becoming out of favor with.
That being said, feminism never cared about men's issues, as it was created to address white women's racial insecurity.
@@d.2618 Yeah, not for white women though.
Feminism in the US was pushed by wealthy white women for the reasons I meanted. That being said there have always been equality movements here specifically for labor, abolition, and other things.
@@d.2618 I doubt that, but if she was we call those people. 🦝🦝s
@@d.2618 Like I said. I doubt that's true for everyone, as it was a known white supremacist group that actively fought against Black woman's right to vote. Sojourner telling a bunch of white women "Ain't I a woman?" Is akin to a Jewish person asking a prison guard "Ain't I a German". That shit was pathetic.
Again. Black women wanting to be white supremacists doesn't change the fact that they were white supremacists.
I'm really surprised you didn't get flamed for this. Feminists talk like they're interested in equality but I have never heard a feminist bring up how many POC were lynched for false accusations during Jim Crow, and then suddenly 10 yrs later 1970s feminists are all about civil rights but not interested in the material history?
@@jjoohhhnn they only get away with that with people who want to see Black men as evil and are willing to obscure historical fact to prove that.
I've noticed that many of these new age gurus I see here on the internet and manosphere pickup artists give off the exact same vibes. Right-wing straight men looking to sell you self-development and teach you how to be "truly masculine." They often think they are embodying divine masculine energy but they are just aren't.
bonjour Alice!
Bonjour :)
Amazing video! Have your read man enough by Justin Baldoni? It is an interesting look at masculinity, I does still look at people from a more male or female lense, but it has a great deep theme of being vulnerable which had helped me, and kicked me out of a few though ruts I got stuck in. Thank you! ❤
Proud to be a Masculine Man.
When I was young some of my friends and I were outdoorsmen. Every Spring and every Fall school break we would go backpacking in the Ozarks. One guy had been backpacking high up in the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. We were intoxicated by the beauty of nature, and we wanted to preserve it. One time I was hitchhiking with one of these guys, and we got picked up by this guy who was a mountain climber. He'd made six first ascents in the Canadian Rockies. We all discussed the possibility of becoming "ecology commandos". We weren't going to harm any people, but construction equipment was fair game. There are a number of ways you can disable heavy construction machinery. Nothing ever came of all our talk, but there was this group in California who was doing just that. They were hammering spikes into giant redwood trees, so that the chain saws would break when they hit the spikes. They were doing a lot of other things too. Now I am living in a fairly sparsely settled area, in the foothills of the Ozarks. There are a couple of officially designated wilderness areas nearby. There is also this guy who is running a lumber operation. He is cutting down trees by the truckload. I guess those wilderness areas are going to go. At least they're not cutting down the giant redwood forests. Those trees are the largest living things on earth. Some of them are 2,000 years old. God knows what they are doing to the Amazon Rain Forest. They call it the "Lungs of the World", because the Amazon River basin supplies 15% of the world's oxygen. They've cut down one fifth of the Amazon Rain Forest. They say that if they cut down another fifth of the rain forest it will be impossible to revive that ecosystem. I noticed a program on tv about how Russia is agriculturalizing Siberia, which as far as I know is positive. But I also noticed that they were cutting down the taiga. Seventy percent of the world's trees are in the taiga, and they're cutting it down by the train load. Those trees must emit a lot of the world's oxygen too. ..... I saw on the internet that they were touting nuclear fusion as an unlimited source of clean energy. It probably would be that, but there is no way they can bring that online in ten years, like one of their technicians said they could. They were hailing it as a milestone that they had contained a fusion reaction for a billionth of a second. ... They've made major strides in solar energy lately. Solar has become cost effective. They are making some very attractive offers in Arkansas of placing solar panels on the roofs of houses. I hope this works out as well as they say it will. They said on the internet that a lot of the houses in German Bavaria had solar panels on their roofs, but I haven't seen much more about that. I hope solar works for them. ...... We probably need to keep pursuing nuclear fusion energy, because that can give us clean and unlimited energy, but there is no way they can bring that online in ten years.
Trees grow back. They use C02 and release oxygen.
Talking about ecofeminism always makes me want to talk about posthuman feminism. Would love to hear your thoughts on that theory. It seems to go well with your line of thinking
Yup predicting the end of the world and then being wrong really does put a stain on your career
Thank you so much for sharing this! I've been reading about cultural feminism in Daring to be Bad too, so it's really a funny coincidence to see you mentioning it here haha.
I think you're totally right that we should reclaim the original definition of radical feminism (ala Shulamith Firestone) as deconstructing and dismantling the gender binary rather than let cultural feminists and male leftists control the conversation on these issues. Hope we can continue this conversation and bring proper radical feminism back!
you can try as hard as you can to deconstruct gender binary. But gender binary has some biological validity behind it. It's not like society made all of this gender rules out of thin air. Yeah I agree that most are made up bullshit, but they are just an exaggeration of a small reality that exists. Femininity is associated with care and tenderness because they are biologically more close to a child than a father. So they have to be like that. It's traits evolution favors in women. While men have higher levels of testosterone which we know it increases confidence and the want to risk or protect. None of this are inherent to each gender, but there's a biological pressure we can't pretend it doesn't exist.
@@paulogaspar8295 i know you're probably just trolling me, but have you considered that men's and women's differences might have more to do with social conditioning in a highly gendered, patriarchal society that exerts its own pressure to act in different and particular ways rather than "biological pressure"?
Evolutionary psychology has a long history of being used to promote gender essentialism and misogyny and elide the political and economic reality of women's oppression, so I hope you can understand my reticence to agree with your claim here. Particularly given the existence of queer, trans, intersex, and gender-non-conforming people, who complicate the mainstream, binary notion of gender as rooted strictly in biological sex.
As a radically anti dogmatic woman I appreciate you.
J'étais super inquiète quand tu as drop le nom de Pablo servigne au début de vidéo, mais ouf, tout va bien, c'était intéressant.
Thank you for your work!
If you're going to compare Jordan Peterson's idea of enforced monogamy to what Iran is doing, you should actually listen to what his opinion is. He was simply saying enforced monogamy is when a culture discourages men from cheating on their partners. In fact, Peterson has even clarified (because leftists such as yourself make this mischaracterization) that he did not mean forcing women into marriage. Either you took other leftist's representation of Peterson's argument for granted (which means you were just being lazy in your research) OR you actually listened to Peterson explain his point and STILL chose to make that ridiculous association between him and Iran (which means you're being dishonest).
"I don't mean taking innocent women at gun point and handing them over to useless men."-Peterson on his position on enforced monogamy.
Source: ua-cam.com/video/gNwIYOBpvLg/v-deo.html
There's no way you can watch this^ video, hear Peterson's explanation, and still call yourself a good faith leftist without correcting your statement.
Peterson regularly alludes to the regulation of female sexuality as a method to control society, no lipstick in the work place, removing anything that might arouse men, regularly referring to enforced monogamy in a neutral/positive way or at least an effective way to control men…. Peterson is really good at implying things and then stop right when it would sound like he went too far. If you stop at what he’s saying and don’t try to look further than, to be critical and see what he is doing. I mean he’s now part of the daily wire, his political beliefs are very clear to me, he’s very conservative and toxically obsessed with evolutionary biology. I’m not the only one saying it, centrists like Reeves say it too.
So yes he’s on the same spectrum as Iran on the question of the regulation of female sexuality, he doesn’t go as far, but that’s a spectrum
@@AliceCappelle A lot to unpack here. And I say this, although aggressively, as feedback that could improve your content.
1. “Peterson regularly alludes to the regulation of female sexuality”
U use the word “allude” so u can draw loose connections between what he says and what u think he means. He encourages social regulation of both male and female sexuality. In fact, he’s more critical about the sexual proclivities of men far more than he is of women. You keep vaguely (and conveniently) wording his “references” to enforced monogamy without including his very specific and precise definition of it which is not at all controversial. It literally is just the social stigmatization around infidelity. How is a culture that discourages cheating on your partner a bad thing?
2. “No lipstick…Removing anything that might arouse men”
He’s explicitly said that he isn’t saying women shouldn’t wear makeup, only that work places don’t know what to do about it. He has never said women should not wear anything. He was breaking down the thought process of how businesses regulate clothing for men and women, and people freaked out when he included makeup as part of that question, even though he included men’s clothing too.
“I’m not saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup in the workplace”
Source: @2:00 ua-cam.com/video/uU6pHBs5rNY/v-deo.html
Here’s the thing, you are correct in saying that Peterson ambivalently implies things and avoids clarifying their logical conclusions (although leftists abuse this talking point to justify wild misinterpretations of their opponents). A good example of this is when he is asked if men and women can work together and he says “I don’t know.” One can reasonably draw sexist undertones from that, but they still can’t automatically connect it to an Islamic patriarchy. His opinion on enforced monogamy is not an example of this subliminal messaging. He’s qualified the hell out of a concept that has an alarming title but is nonetheless harmless and completely uncontroversial. Only if you’ve been programmed to aggressively psychoanalyze non-leftist perspectives as necessarily sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. can you possibly associate Peterson with Iran through his views on enforced monogamy. And leftists call this ideologically driven way of interpreting neutral language “critical thinking.” It’s not. It’s childishly cynical criticism.
3. "I mean he’s now part of the daily wire..."
Yes, he is a conservative and he won’t admit it. And I was very discouraged to see him partner with the Daily Wire because now he’s creating a financially incentivized echo chamber. This point is irrelevant to your misrepresentation of him.
There is so much to criticize about Jordan Peterson in a constructive and (actually) critical way without making overwrought links between him and truly tyrannical patriarchies. I watch your videos to expose myself to left-wing thought but it makes it hard when you needlessly mischaracterize people. This only hurts you, as neutral listeners who can be persuaded into progressive thinking may be repelled when you make these unjustified comparisons.
It’s very suspicious when someone who constantly refers to an individual they criticize NEVER cites a single verbatim quote and only resorts to paraphrasing. You do this with Peterson and it unnecessarily weakens your credibility to those who don’t already subscribe to your ideology. And if you don’t care about that, then all you’re doing is creating another echo chamber like Peterson is.
4. “So yes he’s on the same spectrum as Iran on the question of the regulation of female sexuality"
Again, he’s been more focused on the regulation of male sexuality, why are you suggesting he’s only been concerned about the female side? You’ve invented this “spectrum” to loosely associate him with reprehensible perspectives. Ironically, you’re not the one going far enough to infer what he’s trying to say, because if you did, you would realize he was having a nuanced discussion on how businesses regulate clothing in the workplace. I can play this immature game of spectrums with your viewpoint too: simply being on the left puts you on the spectrum that will eventually lead to the support of violent insurgency where those in privileged positions must be killed. Therefore, Alice Cappelle is on the same ideological side that enables the hatred of police, white people, straight people, men, etc., right? Funny enough you’re using the same logic that anti-feminists use when they say feminists don’t care about men. They see someone take one reasonable step in the direction toward feminism and associate them with far-left radical feminists who genuinely have a disgust toward men (and, yes, they exist).
She is a progressive leftist. She really will never admit to lying or willfully misrepresenting those with views she doesn’t like.
@@nicholasnguyen9780 Jordan potty is misogynistic sexist. He promotes patriarchy.
@@hatersrmotivators6477 what exactly does he promote that is bad? Id like to hear it because the only thing I hear from leftists are buzzwords.
2:20 Timothée Chalamet is my favourite scientist too! #Samesies
you're a future serial killer
@@neila6340 This applies to most people lmao
@@PokhrajRoy. nah youre seriously a creep
For further reading:
Combatting cult mind controll by S.Hassan
I understand where Alice is coming from…In the Starting Dr.Jordan Peterson seemed pretty libral and sensible in his approaches towards the concepts of feminism and LGBT+.. And I loved god content but with time my trust shattered in him all the way to his Elliot Page incident Then there are feminists who exclude trans people and shame naturally masculine women ( like myself ) for being who we are and brand us as negative …. It’s just increasingly becoming difficult for me to trust MRM and feminist activists as fore-bringers of ‘Change’.
Gender essentialism is one of those problems which deeply resists nuanced discussion. And unfortunately, as you have shown, it has been walking hand-in-hand with feminism for a long time. This is deeply ironic because the conditions which feminism is fighting *also* have their roots in gender essentialism. It's the kind of thing which makes me feel like "feminism" is quite possibly the wrong way to describe what we're trying to achieve.
As usual, this analysis is way to smart for a Neanderthal like me, so I will simply continue to be blown away by Alice's intelligence, eloquence, poise, voice, and beauty. So smart for The Guardian to tap her as ambassador!
if you don't understand something, it's really okay to ask
simp
Appreciate you mentioning how the idea of binaries being enforced in New Age Spirituality circles. It's an ick in those communities. The amount of gaslighting and misinformation as well.
Love the videos but I would love it if they were a little bit longer
You are a really wise and insightful person. It is always very interresting to hear your opinion.
when guys in the manosphere join the climate movement you end up with the Ted Pilled community lol
10:19 Idk if you mentioned this but I had heard that the person who made the term TERF a legit term suggested we use TES (Trans-Exclusionary Separatists) instead.
Very interesting, explains why I always had a negative itch when it came to men groups and never felt like joining.
And indeed, the real steps must be toward the climate crisis (or pollution crisis for the climate deniers) in a way to include as many people as possible and the very diverse qualities needed.
Great video Alice!! I think this is the type of content that will make real change in the world, as it already has in mine
my issue with this take is that in almost every discussion on masculinity and yes this includes within feminism, the idea isnt to help men per say ( by this i mean better themselves for themselves as individuals and not a group ), the idea is almost framed as men arent doing their duty and that wrong and they should follow these steps to do with well, even in the idea of a progressive male movement from a feminist lens on how the overraching effect of the steps affect women or society, and not whether or not it is helping men, and i think that is the main issue with all male movements of today, the idea should be simple, it shouldnt have some overraching purpsose but simple , this requires them to share ideas from all perspective of maleness, i dont think having male only groups or movement in itself is bad, it just depends on how well regulated they are , and this doesnt actually require women, i think you are under the impression that some of these movements cannot make mistakes or have periods where they have to address an method they used was wrong, because this exact things happens to feminism, e.g girl boss movement , i
On the topic of climate and sustainability - ever watch Nate Hagens channel? I find his chats with both Daniel Schmachtenberger and Simon Micheaux particularly interesting.
I believe there is a fundamental confusion about what a man is and what a woman is.
This was a great well-informed video! As a cis guy it personally validates some of my beliefs about the "toxic masculinity-new masculinity" discourse which I used to and in some ways still believe in.
Unfortunately this is still a very appealing way to get center-left leaning men to talk more about feminism, but it is worth keeping in mind that if we want to build a "new masculinity" this has to include the perspectives of cis, trans and non-binary people (not just a select elite of white progressive men). And that the final goal of this reinventing masculinity project must be to free us from gender binaries in general.
Speaking as a cis white man, no.
I think a lot of these masculine and feminine videos are popping up because many people are struggling with modern dating and are seeking ways to optimize attraction from the opposite sex.
Also if you or someone could write a script/boot camp etc… for men to talk about feminism in an attractive and honest way during a date then I’m sure a revolution would take place. A lot of women are still wary of men who play the feminist ally angle and wonder if they are genuine.
the revolution might force some changes both sides wont like thou
the only way you can make feminism attractive to men is by lying judging by current behaviour
I think all of this stems from lack of sexual access and sexual competition among men. One of the most common ideas that underpins masculine identity is the idea of masculine competition. Which, evolutionary and anthropologically is very correct. However masculine competition is not something men value in and of itself. Masculine competion is only a means to an end for sexual selection. Which is why monogomy was invented-it was a way to solve the game theoretical statement ever present among tribes, where too much competition among men for mates rendered everyone else worse off in the end. Once monogomy was invented, and most men were more or less guaranteed access to at least SOME sex, male on male violence dropped rapidly. (Of course there are other aspects of social and historical context that are responsible for this but bear with me.)
And so I think it logically follows that if access to sex declines, the competion instinct within men will begin to kick itsel back up. The first part is already happening-30% of men haven't had sex within the past year. The average guy is liked by LESS than 1% of women on Tinder. This is also in combination with things like the metoo movement (which made finding a partner at work far less viable, which was where a significant percentage of men met women) and a cultural conscisouenss among women that makes them less cooperative with men in general. Which is on top of women being naturally hpyrgamous and therefore also being potentially interested in high status men around the world, which social media facilitates. These men, who already have very little access to sex, have to compete with these men for the few women they do have access to.
The issue though is that outright violence is a taboo in the age of modernity, espeically in first world, western countries. And so this anger that men are feeling from lack of sexual access has no real outlet. They can't just fight other men for access to women. And in fact, the forms of competition that are reward the most today are things like entrpenruship, and social media fame, which are about being prosocial. Heck, the male beauty standard in Korea today are men that look like women.
This, I think, is what explains the manosphere opposition to the climate movement. Mans ability to conquer nature is what makes it the apex predator of the animal kingdom. Our species has built cities, irrigation an plumbing, electric power grids, highways and roads, and we have even sequestered off huge swaths of the natural world as parks for human recreational use. We are a species that has conquered nature. We are dominant in that way. And so it makes sense that a group of men with declining sexual access-and therefore an unconscious desire to dominate and agress others (that their evolutionary brain believes is the solution since at one point it was)-would not like a political movement that deemphasizes human dominance over nature. Nature has become, in some weird way, the punching bag for these men's frustration and anger. It's a form of psychoanalytic submlation-where the desire to commit violence against others to gain access to sex is transferred onto the natural world. Nature doesn't deserve to be cherished, or loved, or protized, it deserves to be dominated and forced to submit to the will of humans.
Hmm, I wonder why that sounds familiar?
Simply put-when men don't get laid, and they become angry about it, they become more conservative. Plain and simple. But make no mistake-this is not something to joke about or laugh at. It has very real and serious consequences of civilization, and could ruin everything we've built so far when it's all said and done. You guys better be careful with those incel insults-you are very much playing with fire. Just my two cents!
God speed.
The problem with this take is the “conquer nature” types actually tend to be the more normal conservative types who aren’t really the “incel” demographic. Most of the modern, young right are actually quite environmentalist, at least in aesthetics and messaging, and aren’t openly about “conquering nature”. Just look at any of the symbology of like “hyperborea”.
@@keemstarkreamstar7069 I think the first part of what you said is correct, although I don't know about the second half. I am primarily giving this take on this whole thing as a relatively new phenomenon. I think there is an emerging convergence among the mansopshere and the anti-climate movement that hasn't reached the mainstream of the mansophere. It seems to mostly be a fledgling, but still very valid, thing.
This is why Andrew Tate attacked Greta Thunberg. Tate is a very smart man. I have no doubt that his unconscious intellectual instincts have made this connection already and he therefore knew that his followers would like that sort of thing.
@@marcmoore4069 Tate attacked Greta Thunberg because she is like a liberal that many on the right find vaguely annoying/preachy. Its not really a super dedicated anti-climate stance, again that is a far older ideological strain, look up “coal rolling” and you’ll see this is an old thing not a new one. If you look at the modern right among these “incel” types you will see a disdain for modernity and hints of anarcho-primitivist thought, indeed Ted K. Is held in high regard in these communities. The new right is broadly pro-nuclear (which I personally agree with), and isn’t really anti-climate as much as anti-“whiny liberal”. Specific anti-climate sentiment is only really held by some libertarians, conservative boomers, and of course the elite.
@@marcmoore4069 I don't care none of them at the end of the day celebrities don't care about you.
Healthier forms of responsibility? There is only 1 form of masculinity and it's healthy AF, it's called personal responsibility.
This is even more interesting with the Tate and Greta Thornburg thing
Dr. Jordan Peterson sounds like Doctor’s Handwriting: One set of people get it, the rest of us don’t know what it means.
He is misogynist sexist
You need a brain to understand Dr. Peterson.
You’d think even from the ownership class perspective, specifically in regards to the eminent loss of coastal and water-side properties, that there would be nuanced ideology dictating their talking points. At least something more substantive than, “environmentalism is gay!”
you bring me calm
The other issue that gets little to no attention is how women are still culturally conditioned to embrace toxic masculinity and make excuses to protect toxic men.
That's a funny way of saying women find assholes attractive. When something is true across cultures on different continents, it's not conditioning.
@@Just_some_guy_1 an interesting point in favor of a biological view, however you are not taking into consideration the fact that we now have a global culture that is largely shaped by western entertainment. It is, therefore, global conditioning.
@@NelsonGuedes I highly doubt a Bushman woman will find a soft man attractive. Women like bad men because bad me were more likely to end up on top throughout most of human history.
@@NelsonGuedes No idea what was the naughty word, but UA-cam delated the comment, so I'll write again.
Female preference for bad males is biological. Female mammals pick a mate based on how big and strong they are. There is no preference for males possessing female traits.
@@NelsonGuedes Third attempt at writing a comment. The censorship is unreal.
F mammals chose M mammals based on how big and strong they are. M mammals with F traits, are less likely to reproduce. This is biology, not culture.
A thought-provoking video from Alice as usual. Joyce does use femininity as a metaphor for the land, not necessarily in a positive way, describing Ireland as “the old sow who eats her farrow” (although Molly Bloom’s soliloquy does go some way towards redressing the balance!)
While the Guardian does have some fine writers (Marina Hyde being particularly brilliant) I do think followers of this channel would find it somewhat of an echo chamber. Better to read the Daily Mail - almost no chance of agreeing with anytime it but a useful insight into how other people can have such a wildly different worldview.
Keep up the good work Alice!👏
Love your videos Alice, just noticed your audio had been consistently low or soft to the ears. Room for improvement in the audio quality.
Your world view is driving both women and men insane and will only ever lead to death and misery.
As someone who tries to keep up with the climate movement as much as I can, I've never heard of this guy (the dollar store Che Guevara 😂).
Most of the climate people I follow are way more informed by the social ecologist, Murray Bookchin, who to me provides the true roadmap to building a better, more sustainable, and more equal world through acknowledging that the ways we exploit the planets are in tandem to the ways we exploit each other through rigid, oppressive hierarchies (white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, homophobia/transphobia, etc.).
I would strongly encourage you to check out some of his work!
I don't think all feminists share the aim of equality for men too. I'm at uni and the misandry from self-proclaimed feminists is so detached from reality its scary. In some of these online feminist spaces you hear nothing positive about men, and they do they're basically encouraging 'pick me' culture within men.
OK? No group is a hive mind or a monolith.
@@Lisa-dv1xn no one says that about incels though
@@JohnDeBrazen Uhh yes they do
@@Lisa-dv1xn most I’ve heard is about the group as a whole… anyway. I’d say the internet has a tendacy to radicalise people to extremes, and there is feminist circles which are anything but helpful for those who legitimately want to improve women’s and men’s quality of life. Making out every man is a potential rapist because an area is poor and working-class does nothing for nobody. Most have their own lives and objectives, and therefore don’t care what a large geeky girl is doing (I’m thinking of someone I actually know when saying this).
@@JohnDeBrazen This says more about you, your biases and the algorithm tailored to your tastes than any group of people.
Maybe he was right and the world did end in 2020..
certainly in some non-material way it did.
Environmental issues are issues of the concern of nature, and nature has masculine, feminine, both together, and neither forces, all simultaneously - please do not eradicate the “binary” (or as I would put it the trinary or quadranary) for the reason you suggest, since as the universal environment ever goes through its processes of synthesis, it will paradoxically coexist with oppositional forces that we will always recognize as forms of masculine and feminine and where they overlap in the middle with both?
I wish the folks emotionally invested in the climate movement would stop talking about saving the world. It gives the speaker a false sense of moral virtue. The world will be fine without us. It is ancient and is born of geologic cataclysms. You can't save the world?
Salut Alice,
Encore une super vidéo !
J’ai lu un des livres de Pablo Servigne « Comment tout va s’effondrer » et ça a été une claque énorme sur l’écologie. Je ne suis pas collapsologue pour autant (malheureusement, je pense qu’on est assez doué pour tirer sur la corde indéfiniment) mais j’ai appris énormément.
Je n’ai pas très bien compris en quoi tes amis ont trouvé Pablo « bizarre » : trop extrême dans ses idées ?
Sinon le raisonnement sur le lien entre survivalisme et conservatisme (déclin de la société) est super nouveau et intéressant pour moi. Effectivement, même si le mouvement sur le climat a l’air assez féminin (beaucoup plus de filles sont végétariennes que des garçons et je les trouve de manière générale plus sensible à la cause), ça s’inverse dans certains contextes. Je suis dans un milieu très scientifique et des qu’on touche aux questions d’énergie, de ressources, de technologies pour le futur ça devient très masculin. Les nouvelles figures qui émergent actuellement (Jancovici, Thomas Wagner de Bon Pote et Julien Bayou même si on espère pas le revoir de si tôt) bénéficient d’une crédibilité, voire d’une quasi adoration que les femmes ne connaissent pas. Je trouve ça dommage mais pas surprenant.
Voilà, merci encore pour cette super vidéo !
Sur le lien entre survivalisme et conservatisme : le survivalisme trouve ses racines essentiellement aux états-unis chez des proches des nationaux-socialistes américains, on est donc même bien au-delà du conservatisme. Le survivalisme n'est pas spécifiquement écologiste à l'origine mais cela a évolué d'une part, et d'autre part une certaine extrême-droite ésotérique / völkisch / vitaliste / anti-moderne, s'est très tôt intéressée à l'écologie. Cela étant les choses sont très ambivalentes, et on est plutôt sur une forme d'écologie très obscurantiste ici, quant on peut encore parler d'écologie.
Le problème de Servigne est le même que celui de Rabhi ou Dion je pense. Dans le cas de Rabhi ses liens avec les courants anthroposophique, new-age, ultra conservateurs, vychiste, etc. sont aujourd'hui très clairs. Pourtant vu de loin les petits colibris, planter des arbres etc. c'est sûr ça parait mignon...
Les liens des autres, dont Servigne sont beaucoup moins clairs en revanche. Dion par exemple a toujours été très évasifs quand certains ont tentés de lui poser la question. Pablo j'ignore ce qu'il en est mais ce que je comprends de la thèse d'Alice, c'est qu'au fond, au vu de ce qu'il dit, il ne serait pas étonnant que de tels liens existent. Donc, malgré l'apparence sympa du personnage, et son discours qui se veut pleinement scientifique, sa potentielle perméabilité à des pensées douteuses doit inciter à s'en méfier.
Pour aller plus loin, j'ai bien peur qu'en réalité le culte de gaïa et autre salades new-age soit bel et bien un gros problème du courant écologiste d'aujourd'hui comme de celui l'hier, et qui ne se limite pas à quelques figures... de fait cette "rencontre manosphere / climate movement" ne doit surement rien au hasard...
This chick should debate Undead chronic.
such as any religion or mythology, the concept of feminine/ masculine energy is created by people; as we scholars (lol) know, there's nothing really natural about being human. these concepts are an attempt to explain how things work, like any religion. they can work for some people, they can't work for some others. they work for me, but i see them as energies, nothing related to actually being a man or a woman - actually i see both genders as impoverished experiences because of gender roles and performances. think about how much time we lose to attend these instead of doing what we actually want.
but i find it very interesting when i see men talking about the enviromental cause, because it's always so pessimistic. and i think that has something to do with masculinity and the male performance. to "save the world" and have hope we have to be willing to change, as a society and probably as individuals. are men willing to do that? or they just rather die instead of seeing themselves as themselves, not men. i don't think women are interested in the environmental cause just because we are seen as caregivers, but also because we see the nature exploitation like ours. to exploit the other you cannot see them as the same as you. but in fact, aren't we nature as well?
Wow, that was dense (as in a lot of ideas and content - Jordan Peterson would have got 3 hours out of that and mentioned Solzhenitsyn 100 times!). Thank you for your videos this year. We need hope moving into 2023 for sure.
Yeah, because Peterson would have gone into a lot more depth (admittedly, with some excessive verbosity in there, too, and probably with him breaking down in tears at least once). This video touched on a bunch of things, but only scratched the surface of each. As a consequence, she didn’t have to question her own preconceived notions about anything.
Excelente! Totalmente de acuerdo. Para construir una nueva sociedad sana se necesita una colaboración entre mujeres y hombres.
Concordo - o que vejo ser o grande problema é que estamos no ponto que Nietzche disse em sua filosofia onde devemos criar uma nova maneira de enxergar o mundo, sermos os "übermensch", ou cairemos nos mesmos dogmas, ou perderemos a razão de viver.
I'm not worrying about the climate for as long as monogamous relationships are legal.
I noticed right at the start Alice claims that feminism has always sought to help men. Then she gives not one single example to back up that claim. At that point I reflected on my life experience for a moment then stopped watching thinking her comment was arrogant and superficial.
You can infer and research on your own, feminism is anti patriarchy and inherently, that will help men as it eventually tackles the core of patriarchy, misogyny and when men unlearn misogyny they help themselves cuz they know its not a bad thing to be seen as "girly" and that they dont need to fit into masculine standards. Men are not the target for feminism as most men already have rights afforded to them that women dont and not everything needs to centre men for it to help men, and its a historically women focused movement. You just sound petty and want to be spoonfed things it doesnt hurt to do some research in the time u spent writing this comment or do inference.
Many people agree with you- she speaks from feelings and emotions, she shys away from facts
Have you considered actually reading about feminism rather than relying on your assumption that your personal experience has not shown you that? Because that seems like arrogance to me, to not recognise that personal experience is not universal and draw conclusions about feminism that way, from biased personal opinion vs that of someone who clearly puts a lot of work into her essays and has done the reading to back up her conjectures. You don’t have to agree with her positions but I think it’s worth recognising that your logic that feminism is not for men is severely flawed and that it makes more sense to find your own way to critique the dominant ideology of patriarchy than just make a lazy “feminism bad for men” response.
Have you considered actually reading about feminism rather than relying on your assumption that your personal experience has not shown you that? Because that seems like arrogance to me, to not recognise that personal experience is not universal and draw conclusions about feminism that way, from biased personal opinion vs that of someone who clearly puts a lot of work into her essays and has done the reading to back up her conjectures. You don’t have to agree with her positions but I think it’s worth recognising that your logic that feminism is not for men is severely flawed and that it makes more sense to find your own way to critique the dominant ideology of patriarchy than just make a lazy “feminism bad for men” response.
@@Pliokt Have you condidered that my life experienxe might include reafing loads of feminism over decades.....nope. Facepalm.
Salut Alice! I'm sorry to say it but I didn't much like this video when compared to many of your others. I think what really bothers me is something a friend said to me regarding feminism assisting men: what movement includes the opressor class? This has been sitting with me for some time now, and I think that's very true. Around the time Roe was overturned another quote (paraphrased) stuck with me: men will never incite discourse for women, and women are socialized far too docile to ever bring about change more violently, a la Stonewall or The Black Panthers movements. The thing about "mens rights" activists is they're purely reactionary. Of course the dissolution of the patriarchy will benefit them, but their issues are of their own design. Nobody actually cares about the "problems" men face when they advocate for men's rights (that they already have, this is a matter of CULTURE), it is entirely intended to discredit feminism. So... I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere. Tackling toxic masculinity seems like an issue for a post-gender society, and when men are too afraid of the color green (look it up, they're more likely to harm the environment with INTENT to push their notion of masculinity. Everything is a performance to them) to help avoid a climate catastrophe, discussing this is almost meaningless. To be quite frank, this is not, and for a long time, WILL not be the most pressing issue on the books.
I think it's because Feminists are not trying to fight men but Patriarchy, the system. It is the system that puts men above women, gives them power over women. And the misogyny and oppression women face is a result of men having power over women.
Because men have more power than women in all spheres of life, I don't think that women can achieve equality without involving men anyway.
@@person1420 I think you're conflating aiding the oppressor class with getting aid from the oppressor class. Things like Marilyn Monroe being an ally in not only being Ella Fitzgerald's friend but helping her share her music is different from, say, the civil rights movement asking for more rights for white people. This is what's astonishing. Imagine if LGBTQA+ movements lobbied for straight people to have healthy relationships. The fact of the matter is that this is not the intended purpose of a movement. Yes, men will have to write their silly little laws and delegate power to women that had been previously withheld, but we shouldn't have to get them to care about feminism by saying "look, we're fighting for you too!"
I disagree with the use of the acronym TERF. I think it distracts from the actual issue. Men and women whether feminist or not can be transphobic. I highly doubt there are proportionately more feminists that are transphobic. The term attacks a movement which essentially just wants to promote equality/equity. To start detailing what clothes to look out for that a TERF will be wearing is frankly ridiculous. What is a transgender woman wants to wear a long skirt? Is she also a TERF?