This is so amazing! It is so frustrating that these popular books like Sapiens and even Dawn of everything in some sense pretend that patriarchy is just a mystical force or even natural.
yeah, dawn of everything really flubbed it with the patriarchy. the thing is that nowadays you can get a PhD in anthropology or gender studies and not have ever learned this basic simple stuff, it’s amazing. the education system is just not interested in teaching us how anything works
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think in some sense I lucked out getting a degree in mathematics and reading a lot of political theory, history and economics in my free time from varied sources and spending more time in original text than probably many undergrads in these subjects. Do you have some recommended reading list on many of the topics you cover here? Just found you out from the D Varn podcast - just absolutely sublime content!
@@AsirIset Varn! thanks! there’s a bibliography in the shownotes for every episode - they might be patreon links, but i make it point not to paywall any of my patreon content out of principle, so it’s all there! the bibliography for this one is on the transcript page: worldwidescrotes.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/pinkpilledxcript/
Yeah I read Sapiens thinking it was great. And then I read a critique of it and wow did that open my eyes. I always read critiques now before reading any books. Propaganda is rife out there
@@emmashield1085 Exactly this! Sapiens has a lot of interesting stuff and is very well written but you just have to be aware of the completely misguided sections (well, most sections) it has (especially the section about the birth of colonialism and industrial revolution is horrible. Check out Divide by Jason Hickle for a much better overview). Same with Dawn - it's super informative, but it's neccessary to have this critique in mind
love to hear that! if you have some extra money, i can use it, otherwise sharing the videos, but most importantly integrate these ideas into your mind and use them in your life and tell people around you
I have been living in Morocco for more than 30 years. It's a patriarchal patrilocale society and things are exactly as you said. I want to add women are completely submitted to their husband until the first son is able to eventually provide for the mother. Now the wife will feel much more stronger toward her husband but to be sure to get her son support she must do everything to please her son and she will be become his better ally against his bride.
yes exactly - morocco was originally pastoralist berbers and arabs - all pastoralist societies are patrilocal because you need to constantly fight off people stealing your animals. the wife with an adult son is a really interesting dynamic that gives women more power, excellent point!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 the son gives more power to the mother but this renforce only the hierarchy and helps keep the next generation of woman, the bride, well enslaved
@@cristinadeperfetti7566 When any land has few resources to spare, it is a man's obligation to go out and fight for those resources.This is practical division of labor. It is a woman's obligation to run and provide a home behind the firewall a man provides against the harsh conditions. Both men and women have strict obligations. But the woman's obligation is slavery. The man's obligation is power. Interesting.
@@ejtattersall156 If the man has power over his wife is that not power? If a woman's duty is subservience and to be controlled is that not slavery adjacent...
I tell everyone with half a brain that you are the best politics channel on UA-cam, and though I do not have a platform, i am part of the community of debate bro obsessed internet politics geeks. The platform is growing quickly and we have had destiny and a few other of the bigger political streamers on. I am debating tonight on the channel and just called politically provoked. Life posted on your channel before under a different account name and love everything you are doing. You are like the Thomas Paine of our day in my opinion and I'll do anything I can to help but being that I am visually impaired my financial situation is a very titan. Peace.
hey, i found the episode and have been watching it in parts - really interesting, i end up wavering between both your positions, but i think you’re doing a better job articulting them so far. makes me realize i should do an episode on “what are rights?”. good to know there are other gen x people besides me involved in this stuff!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I am very flattered that you are watching the debate. I assume you are watching the one on eugenics. That was a topic that he was passionate about, and he was trying to find other leftists to debate him, and I volunteered but admittedly that is not one of my topics of expertise. I've been a political activist musician for most of my adult life, but more musicians than activists until I went blind at 30 years old back in 2005 and began reading more anarchist literature and really upped my knowledge. I would love to see your episode on rights, and I am very curious to see if you think I was able to communicate about epigenetics and the crazy esoteric stuff I study as an eccentric jazz musician. Again, anything I can do to help you let me know. And yes it is great that there are more generation x people out there trying to guide a lot of these young people who are getting into politics hardcore. Peace
@@tachyonprince sadly, the community I was formerly a part of was not good at vetting the people they allowed on their show and unfortunately lost their channel.
This is great! Love this and really solid point about essentially dealing with immediate material conditions to improve things and how that feeds back into culture and cultural attitudes👍
I liked the video, however you mentioned that the raising of women in these culture are seen as a material drain of the daughter's family, with them getting nothing at all for the marriage. Which in some sense is true but to claim there is no material gain for the daughter's family is devoid of some context, especially around the prickly subject of "Bride Wealth/Dowry" as daughters are usually "sold" to these families with a type of exchange between the families, livestock, land or money. The poorer the family the more the marriage is seen as a transaction. Daughters are generally disregarded because of the daughter's family is usually on the losing side of that deal. The exchange amongst poorer more rural families is called Bride Wealth, where as richer more urban conclaves receive dowry, a lump sum of money.The economic/material issue around these cultures revolves around these concept so i was surprised to not see it mentioned.
you’re right, bride price is a big part of marriage in rural china (india has dowry - dowry is when the wife’s family gives wealth to the husband’s family, as insurance in case they divorce or abuse her - bride price is compensation for losing the woman). I didn’t get into it in this video because it added a lot of time to it, without really adding anything in terms of the basic point of where patriarchy comes from etc. but yes it is very important.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69given the breadth of topics you’ve covered, I’m sure you already know this… I only began to understand that there was a distinction between “bride price” and dowry when Graeber talked about what he wrote in “Debt: the first 5,000 years”
Thank you! "Material conditions generate culture and then culture often becomes part of the material conditions." This has been the unarticulated background to some theorizing of mine. The articulated theory being: the modern right has a tendency to conflate the social environment with the general environment (like how economic laws are akin to if not actual laws of nature to some), whereas the modern left tends to keep these things more separate. If anything, the left tends to root the causal background of the social environment in the general environment, which is anathema to many on the right as it undercuts large swathes of human agency (free will) and challenges tradition (-al values).
Hierarchy, while a material thing, is also kind of a social construct. IMO most right wingers believe in a constellation of social constructs related to hierarchy and this might be one of them? Like capitalism is an obvious law of nature rather than a man made system of social relations and resource distribution.
wow ur videos are so interesting. i have spent a lot of time at the edges of various internet circles, absorbing and learning in a haphazard way, and i have watched the occasional breadtube channel or whatever. but honestly your stuff is amazing? people toss around the term "video essay" a lot but the videos in question feel more like stream of consciousness. but you organize your thoughts well and always have relevant examples instead of speaking in generalizations. i discovered your channel thru a recommendation from a materialist feminist blog, and now i have to resist the temptation to stay up all night to watch your stuff :P
yes, each one is like writing a mini master’s thesis - and it takes me 6 weeks from writing to editing with the videos for the more complicated ones… so i’m glad you appreciate it! i need to find an easier format! I can’t imagine listening to them all at once, they’re too dense, give yourself a day to absorb each one at least!
Hmm Just one more thought on this because its very interesting.. Being probably the only/or one of the very few women listening to your great channel I can exactly tell how “looking for allies among my female friends/family” went several times I needed some help against a controlling ex partner. When I felt threatened - though it was my home!!! and all I had to do is to get the ex removed from my property - NO friend of mine took me seriously. In one case the man was the friend of my friends’ boyfriends and although they were more all less on my side they never stepped up publicly and eventually started not to be bothered by it at all. For me to get rid of the unpleasant partner would have meant losing a whole community because after I put him out everyone stayed friends with him too. I didnt want to lose everyone so I thought I do the right thing staying in the community - was the worst mistake but I can see why I did it. In another case when it was a man unknown by my family or friends, the girls I still had as kind of friend were more blaming me for why I am in that situation, and didnt show any concern. And when I asked my sister if I can “use” her husband if needed she started to shout with me “how evil!!” I am to cause her guilt because now she has to think about it and I should know she has got problems as well😵💫😵💫which was quite shocking because I knew she didnt have serious problems at all, but I was threatened to be harmed by a lunatic at the same time. From these cases I learnt a lot. In the latter case I then asked for my sister’s husband leaving out my sister completely and he helped. I could have asked some boys (but not many from one of my girlfriends’ circle because they knew me and liked) But my original friends never helped, girls and male friends of an abuser have always given shit about supporting in a case like that. Another question is the family. Many families are abusive even if you dont live with them any more, you cannot really turn to them in case of emergency. So for a woman to search for allies in certain places is not that easy even when you can “escape”, when u have your own home. There is NO close safety net by either families or friends, everyone is busy investing in their “love” life instead, and female friendships in general died out. I know there must be other examples. Or it is diferent in countries where feminism is more marketed…but in places where there are perhaps longer traditions of victim blaming you do not really have much choice , you have to solve it mostly alone. (But not with the help of police either….so its kind of scary🤔 and leaves only one option: to look for as many groups as you can and probably at least some boy would help) And Im talking about a modern, city environment where pretty much everyone considers themselves free and having normal lives. But thats culture!
Hey, I never got a notification for this and just saw it now. Wow, that’s really shitty that no one helped you besides you’re wife’s husband - i’m guessing that’s a consequence of some patriarchy hangover (not taking you seriously) plus overly polite pushover culture where everyone is afraid of confronting anyone? If seen that sort of pathetic passivity culture play out in other ways when intervention was needed which were really gross and shameful. In Canada people seem exceptionally pathetic in this way. The cultures I was talking about are hunter gatherers who can move around freely. The immediate return hunter gatherer societies I was referring to don’t have these sorts of inhibitions when it comes to defending your friends and relatives from aggression. People are very quick to defend slights and violations of autonomy. And they’re not stuck with a fixed home. The more stuck you are in one place and the less allies you have the less freedom you have to escape or defend yourself. If you have allies, but they’re pathetic selfish and afraid of confrontation, they’re not real allies!
I've been going through all these videos, and so far I love that each episode in this series seems to compound on the previous ones, pulling in references and connecting dots. The issue of "how exactly did class emerge out of forager societies?" has been an issue on my mind for a while. As far as I can tell, before your videos here existed, there hasn't really been a solid material analysis of the issue that also incorporates recent 21st century knowledge from the fields of anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc. From what I've read, there had previously been some assumptions about what "primitive communism" was like, but overall these concepts were based on logical assumptions based on modern-day hunter-gathers, and limited (often racially biased) 19th century knowledge. The narrative was sort of "primitive communism -> ??? -> agriculture -> ??? -> slaves -> the rest of history", and it wasn't really elaborated on much deeper than that. The transition from Feudalism to Capitalism is very well documented, but previous epochs not so much. The very concrete examples you've given here, like in particular, the link between patrilocal marital organization leading to gender hierarchies (aka, males essentially dominating wives as slaves, aka the arising of class distinction out of previously classless egalitarian foragers) makes human history seem much more... tangible, and less abstract. It really gets some of those neurons in my head firing in novel ways, connecting disparate dots that were previously unconnected. Its makes the issue of class much more salient, seeing you elaborate on how food/resource conditions and specific environmental factors can lead towards hierarchical organization (such as with the salmon), and how that can kind of ripple through the ages to become more institutionalized systems, like formalized property rights, slavery, etc. Its like the term "material conditions" finally fully clicked in place for me. Part of the issue, I think, is that the concept of "material conditions" can kind of feel abstract in contemporary capitalist society, because we don't live in small nomadic bands (there's nearly 8 billion of us on this planet now!), and most of us are so far removed from any sort of natural environment. I recall a memory of when I was a child, I found some wild berries in the woods and ate them. They were delicious (I used to know how to identify which ones were poisonous and safe, not sure I would be able to do that now). Other than that moment, I don't recall the last time I actually ate food that wasn't "manufactured" and packaged in plastic. Actually getting food from my environment, and being tied to seasonal fluctuations, has become an alien concept. Its sad, really. And since capitalism presents this commodified form of life as "natural", it inversely makes "natural" life seem foreign and alien -- very topsy turvy. Anyway, amazing work on this. You have a very solid skill of simultaneously presenting a concept in a clear and concise way, connecting multiple dots together, distilling complex concepts into digestible information, and (all the while) presenting all of this in a way that doesn't condescend or belittle the intelligence of viewers. That's a rare combo. Most other UA-camrs are pretty good at maybe 2 of the above things, but not all of them at once.
thank you so much, these kind of comments really make it worth it for me to keep doing this stuff! i think that political concepts should be easily understandible to people at a high school level. it’s not rocket science, and most political theory we learn is much to confusing and muddled for no reason, which helps keep people passive. there definitely have been authors who have put together ethnography and archaeology to explain the origins of hierarchies, and there’s usually a good deal of material analysis in those, but i do think i’m making certain things clear in ways that other people haven’t, and connecting certain dots that are sort of obvious but for some reason haven’t been connected yet or not very clearly at least. like ive never seen anyone try to explain hierarchy in terms of relative bargaining power, and i think what i’m doing that’s a bit original is putting all this stuff into a very ABC fundamentals of political theory framework.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I agree. You really are connecting some good dots here. Particularly the "bargaining power" aspect you mentioned. Not only is the "bargaining power" analysis put forth here very sound, but it appears to apply consistently. It also helps draw a clear line from pre-history to the modern day struggles: "What connects hunter-gatherers, gender relations, and modern workers unions? Bargaining power." That and, obviously, violent force. But "bargaining power" is the underlying "soft force" that permeates all different eras it seems. "Bargaining power" being the particular give-and-take social force between different classes or groups (whether that's productive material classes, gender hierarchies, or even the give-and-take between neighboring tribes vying/warring for the same hunting grounds -- sometimes they fight, sometimes one side "concedes" the land to the other to avoid conflict). You should probably convert your script for this series into a book when you're done. Personally, I love the video essay format, as the audio/visual synthesis can add a layer of "more than its sum parts" that make learning easier. But... Unfortunately it seems the academic types don't tend to take video essays as seriously as they do "formally published book" formats. So it might be worth considering, just to make it "official." Also, I'm sure there's some people who just prefer books, and probably don't spend any real time on youtube. So there's a chance to always reach more people that way too.
@@jameso2290 yes, i do plan on turning this into a book if i can generate enough interest in the channel. as it is i pour an insane amount of time into this for a small number of views a patreon subscribers, but hoping that will grow. written articles and book would definitely expand to a different audience, most people don’t have time for videos and prefer lighter audio podcast chat type shows. i also want to do a series of videos that are even more basic for people without college degrees, I think that’s the most important audience ultimately
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Understandable. I don't really have anything to add, since I have no idea the amount of work all that takes. But I feel you. I can only say "best of luck and I appreciate the work you've done so far." Other than that, I think what you have so far has been pretty solid and easy to understand, speaking for my own non-college smooth-brain. Very clear videos with plain-english terminology. I have no real complaints so far.
Huge thanks - you've successfully changed my mind. This thought experiment in particular was a really useful, it's logically consistent that changing ideology without changing material conditions prevents long term social change. Thank you! I FINALLY understand your critique of Graeber and Wengrow: like Mao, they place so much emphasis on the _ideological_ dimension that readers are tempted to believe material conditions are also entirely ideological. I didn't see it at first, as I take a materialist view for granted amongst leftists, forgetting that there is a huuuuuge postmodern push to abandon material analysis among fans of identity politics high on ingroup-outgroup tussles. Ironically, the ideological tool of analogy was what ultimately worked with me, backed up by the logical consistency and anthropological evidence, but still - yay materialism!!!
wow, thank you, it’s not often one gets to hear that they changed someone’s mind! to be fair to graeber he was definitely a critique of postmodernism, but at the same time he was clearly influenced by it. agency is real and important, and advanced industrial civilization gives us power to alter conditions in important ways, but the way we learn political and anthropological theory in our society almost completely ignores material and other factors that shape human ideas and beliefs. it’s crazy that we understand that politicians change their beliefs under the influence of money, or that landlords or bosses think differently than tenants and workers, and that people change ideas if they go from being a tenant to a landlord, but somehow we don’t apply this to traditional societies as if they’re magical space unicorns and not human beings. and the same the people who treat them like space unicorns accuse the people who treat them the same as everyone else like we’re infantilizing them!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 'The pink pill' story. I guess it was more of an allegory than analogy but it was really useful as a though experiment. It was so successful because, as a viewer, I get a lot of autonomy to use my imagination and reason in following the logic from the premise, regardless of whether this magical pill is possible or not. Doing that, I recognised the missing element that the pink pill effect could not correct for: ongoing material/structural conditions. As mentioned earlier, less successful rhetorical methods at changing my mind were hot takes and claims of offence, despite these being sincerely held and even laugh-out-loud funny. These would definitely work with an audience that already agrees with your position, like field experts or embattled anarchists, but for a general audience who have likely already developed some sympathy with the Davids' book, they came across as more of an in-group joke. What was really interesting were where you discuss why you think they avoided talking about it: this omission is telling and deserves a thorough examination that sympathises with their position without endorsing it. Something like, 'identity politics is awful I know, and people get fed up with leftists for pointing out how we're constantly working against our best interests, but that doesn't mean we get to abandon material analysis. Imagine you had a magic pill...' etc. That way, I also don't lose sight of where you agree. Your focus is on underlying material conditions, while theirs is on disproving particular assumptions such as 'small society = egalitarian, big society = hierarchical' with evidence to the contrary. I understand nobody in the academy is saying that anymore, but the popular discourse is another matter (hi UA-cam: fuck your algorithm). Although these positions are complementary rather than in competition, the Davids fail in taking the opportunity to define 'egalitarian' simply as meaning equality in decision making. Ride this train for all it's worth, my friend!
@@oliverhunter4427 well some people in academia are saying small society can be egalitarian but not a big one (like Peter Turchin) but Graeber and Wengrow pretend that all the revolutionary anthropologists who say the opposite don’t exist, and a lot of the other stuff they claim is in the standard narrative no longer is.
I feel like I've always known this, but never had it all collected in my head like this I don't really know how to articulate this. I spent my childhood in Saudi Arabia and my family came to the west for education. I suppose it's a near universal experience that being embedded in a different culture makes you rethink a lot of what you thought was normal (turns out I'm gay, who knew), but there was an edge to it being in the US, on some level I felt like I was able to think for the first time in my life because I wasn't surrounded by family members 24/7 who would notice everything you did and immediately enforce correct behavior. The US didn't seem to have those social structures and I think for a long time I figured it was due to the modern economy, that it was hard to keep tribes and large families as political units alive when a lot of people moved away from their tribes and where they grew up to chase job opportunities. I think now that's probably not quite correct or at least woefully incomplete. I remember telling a friend years ago that societal moral progress (the arc of history bends towards justice thing) seemed like a myth, and technology just happened to shape the world to be a bit kinder to our values than the old one, but I never had anything more than a hazy sense how that actually worked. This series has definitely given me a lot to think about
thanks for the really interesting comment! yes i believe your insights and observations are correct. one of the reasons for the differences in cultures is how the modern economy breaks up tribes and even families for economic reasons, and there is also no need for tribal social structure in a capitalist economy or in the feudal economy that preceded it in europe. The tribal structure in Saudi Arabia is an adaptation to the pastoralist economy of the Beduin. Because capitalism emerged in Saudi Arabia on a foundation of a tribal social structure, circumstances there are more adapted to maintaining those family structures, plus people already live close by etc. when you immigrate somewhere else it’s much harder to stay together. part of my family is from morocco so i see many of the same dynamics in my family as well.
i’ll take it! to toot my own horn, i didn’t make this all up out of nowhere, but i do really think i explained some aspects of it in a way no one has before and connected some as yet unconnected dots. working on another one about racism along the same lines
Thanks to listening to all your episodes up to this one I now know so much more about the basics!! I didn’t even realise I didn’t know this stuff. And importantly I now feel confident in knowing what materialist analysis is! Finally! I started with the Graeber critique and then went back to the beginning. Thanks so much.
This is the most informative piece of info ive gotten to explain patriachy ive been struggling trying to understanding it through biological evolution and everything hope just 100 million people listened to you ...wed literally have a better world.A lot of misinformation out there on gender issues leading to ever deteroriating gender relations.
thanks - yes, this is sadly neglected information. it used to be common knowledge in anthropology, but has been replaced with gibberish. spread the word!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 i will spread the word for sure but there is also to many competing ideas in the scientific community that can confuse ordinary people especially those not grounded in things like anthropology and genetics coupled with religious indoctrination.
@@lugaritzbrown2250 yes for sure - but this is stuff anyone can understand, we need to learn how to explain things simply. and the genetics stuff you can believe it or not, but this still applies
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 thats a big mistake intellectuals make, i can bet many if not most people will get tit bits but wont make much sense of it as its too technical maybe...were talking people who are constantly on instagram getting entertained.Intellect needs to be excercized.In this case quite substantial prerequisite knowledge on history is required.
I listen to your videos again from time to time and I can always hear some super new detail that catches my attention. The fact that culture is created to help adapt to the environment is the most appropriate statement I have ever heard. Because the definition of culture meaning the customs, art, behavioral norms, religion, etc. of certain individual peoples does not say anything about the WHY and HOW they were formed the way they did and it does not give any explanation for why all ”civilized” culture is very different yet almost the same if examining more closely. It is a shame we never studied about the still existing egalitarian communities in any school, however it would have been very interesting to explore why they dont have visual art for example. I certainly would have been even more interested in learning about their value system regarding equality too! But every nation teaches their “culture” as VALUE to their kids so in order to change a corrupted system, one needs to question their own culture first which is a painful process if ever get there. For this to happen it would be inevitable for everyone to learn about the WHYs which is rarely taught anywhere!
indeed! if you want to read more about egalitarian societies read Jerome Lewis’ Egaliarian Social Organization among Hunter Gatherers and then check out the bibliography
@@WHATISPOLITICS69thanks for the recommendation! I can see your channel is growing but I can see also some assholes arrived and commenting stupid stuff😂 I guess it is a sign of getting famous:) Keep up the good work, and I appreciate your answer all the time - even if I see the response a year later
@@mse5739 haha, the internet pests … all the kids whose parents did a really bad job of teaching them how to behave in society, pollute all the internet comments in the world
I'm a little bit late, but his made me feel very hopeful! Honestly since childhood I was upset being born as a woman. Not that I felt in the wrong body, but I definitely knew that men abuse men, and abused men abuse women. Sure, women could be abusive too, but on a smaller scale statistically. I never felt like there was a way for me to win in this world. I saw your video almost like a a Universe's birthday present! Definitely need to focus on building personal wealth and education. Only way out for the future generations of girls to stand a chance. I'm more determined and energized than ever, bless you and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
i’m really glad that this had such an impact on you. it is really empowering to understand how these dynamics work, and what we can do to change them and that it’s not just the human condition for women or other people to be in inferior positions!
Being realistic-as in neither valorizing or denigrating-about human nature and human(s) relationship with their material needs' scarcity or abundance really seems to be the key here, the magic tool with which one can rationally discover the truths contained in your videos. This clear-eyed realistic perceiving of human motivation-when and where mutual self-interest happens- is crucial to understanding where today's struggles are delineated, as well as to speculating whether solutions and new forms of conscious politics can be instantiated. Having this understanding would lead any intelligent sincere actor to eventually discover these truths, but thanks for the shortcuts so carefully laid out. NOT having aforementioned understanding means any specific clear glimpse as to the validity of one or the other of your points would be fleeting and impermanent. (I know I sound stuffy, but I'm a sandwich making wage slave without a degree, so, off to work here in a minute)
not 100% sure what you just said but the point of it all is that if you want to change things you need to know how they work and therefore what to change and how to change it good luck with your work day!
I was pointing out that: over and over, material circumstances interfacing with human responses-both positive and negative-being what cause the relative either hierarchical or egalitarian aspects of a given subject culture, and such analysis is fundamental in your presentation. sorry if I make that sound unnecessarily complicated@@WHATISPOLITICS69
At the end of the day people tend to respond to incentive structures or disincentive structures. This is why I think Caroll Quigley made such a big point about externalized control gaining increasing prominence in the American economy. People by and large relocate according to where the jobs are, rather than make their living in a city of their preference. And of course jobs in and of themselves are a form of external control over your life.
yes - and incentive structures can be natural or human-made - what’s interesting today is that we have to means to design incentives in an unprecedented way
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 its why I am fan of making things more democratic. if people find their opinion matters they are more likely to speak up. the more people contribute to the discussion the better the chances a good decision is reached. the problem in american history has always been the privileging of certain voices over others. from two sides democracy can improve, (1) leaders who embody that attitude and (2) large scale organization by those whose opinions aren't being heard. I worry when the masses dream of a benevolent dictator (1) rather than follow the greatest of american traditions (2)
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 There are a bunch of problems of human nature and practical reality that complicate the matter and make your statement seem overly optimistic. Mostly, even if people were all well-intentioned (and we are not), we have a wide array of different perspectives, making each of us acutely aware of the shortcomings of plans that others are devoted to and willfully blind to the failings of the solutions we champion. Then _politics_ comes into it, and we're all fighting over what actually gets done, resulting in a chaotic mishmash of activities and policies that trample on one another and create new problems through incompatibility, as well as compromises that reflect almost nobody's preference nor anything resembling a good idea. You mentioned in another post here how religion addresses behavior through both societal structure _and_ morality, training individuals to respond appropriately in advance of temptation _or_ hardship. I'd agree that its a good approach, in that respect. Religion works best when it is voluntary and convinces followers to govern themselves, as opposed to when it becomes a _legal_ authority (but, again, even when well-intentioned, people can't help but screw things up, and not all are well-intentioned).
@@crimsonmask3819 i think you misunderstand my point - a well-designed system incentivizes people to behave well, and disincentivized bad behaviour regardless of how good or bad peoples’ intentions are. and it fosters a culture with better intentions and values over time. if you look at super egalitarian hunter gatherer societies, people are as human and good and bad intentioned as people in our society, but the practical realities of life in their society makes it really hard to do bad thngs and rewarding to do good things. and about religion i say the opposite. religion emerges to stabilize any system, whether it’s wonderful or awful, to prevent people from challenging the current order and starting battles they can’t win. it’s not religion that leads to a social order, it’s the social order that shapes what religion will look like,
For the landlords not fixing things two factors, on reasonable repair costs (independent and not absurdly marked up) force automatic consent for those to be funded in lue of rent, essentially a lien against the rent, after a reasonable notice. For employment rights making dismissing employees without narrow cause expensive enough that it becomes cheaper to let them assert their rights. Some of these measures would be necessary even if you democratized or socialized workplaces to preserve the rights of those in the minority in any given situation. No one wanting to pitch in to fix the light in an elevator being an antocedot I had heard about it.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I just shared this episode with a couple of friends! This is by far the best leftist content on UA-cam in terms of quality, accessibility, and presentation. Thank you for making it. I'm glad the algorithm picked up, "Why Every Communist Country is a One-Party Dictatorship" so I could find your other stuff. The UA-cam Gods are fickle with quality vs quantity accounts now.
@@ShimmerBodyCream thank you! that’s what im aiming for! yeah, it’s shitty being at the mercy of this algorithm - this particular one didn’t blow up like some of the other, we can only guess why
hey, i usually add a bibliography - i forgot to link to it in this episode, but here it is, i’ll add it to the show notes now - was there something else you wanted sources on? i do a lot of the stuff from memory - it takes me 2-6 weeks full time to make these videos as it is, during which time i’m not working or earning money, so anything that adds more labour is gonna kill me - and a lot of the stuff, there’s no good single source on, you need to just read a whole bunch of anthro, and i can’t start making those kinds of lists. similar with the left right videos, it’s a lot of original synthesis of existing stuff worldwidescrotes.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/pinkpilledxcript/
It's funny you mention bans in certain subreddits. Not going to declare one side is objectively right or wrong here, but this is the first actual video I've seen exploring the ideas of whether we need to tackle racism, sexism, patriarchy, etc., directly, or if it's a byproduct of class struggle. The Menslib subreddit, as useful as I think it can be for men looking for healthy masculniity, will delete any comments suggesting some of these problems might be a side effect of class struggles, because that's "reductionist". On one hand I understand tightly moderating a community from bad actors, but it does nothing to convince someone who isn't as informed on the topic or on the fence why suggesting the biggest war we fight is a class war is faulty logic, they just say it is and assume anyone who wants to chill in their community already knows and agrees with that, with no room to discuss why they think that logic is faulty.
the idea that focusing on class conflict is somehow a bad thing is such a red flag (pun intended) that the people making that accusation are rich shits. you have the same garbage in feminism and anti-racism circles… see episode 9.2 for a whole rant about this. for me things like sexism, racism etc are like typhoid or other waterborne diseases. it’s important to treat the symptoms and get sick people medicine (analogous to dealing with racism and sexism etc) but unless you tackle the core of the problem - like cleaning up the water supply ( i.e. dealing with power and wealth inequality) then the problem will never end and you’ll waste 100x as many resources dealing with a never ending epidemic.
You work hard to Analyze complicated topics and still mantain a very open attitude when discussing them. You are also patient with many callous commenters 😂 Keep up your great work; Honest and Incisive!
haha thanks! i only have patience with people who are arguing respectfully, as soon as someone is condescending or insulting (or hasn’t watched the video!) i have zero patience and then just aim to teach them a lesson!
mix-up at 15:55 Fascinating example with the PRC, you gave there. Another example for patriarchy being caused by material conditions is the difference between chimpanzees and bonobos which came down to whether food had to be foraged in the canopy or was available on the ground. watch?v=Q_izpq0Ar-Y
zoops - thanks for catching that! I wish you could edit the sound in youtube videos after posting them... and yes amazing example with bonobos vs chimps! the link doesn’t work, is that video “PBS Evolution, Why Sex?"
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I will try to post the link to the UA-cam channel, and it can usually be found by searching politically provoked. Fair warning there is a lot of far right fascist kids on there, but the platform is trying to allow extreme views to be discussed. Forgive me if the link does not work because my visual impairment sometimes make sharing things difficult on some platforms, UA-cam being one of the more difficult ones ua-cam.com/users/PoliticallyProvoked
@@blindteo5808 thanks teo, yes the link works, i will check that out - which video has you in it? i dont mind seeing debates with right wingers, i think it’s important to be exposed to all point of view and to reach out broadly as well. by the way, if you’re visually impaired, you might prefer the audio version of this show! you can search for the term WORBS in your podcast app or click this link if you’re on a mobile device: www.podfollow.com/worbs
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I agree that it's important to debate right wingers and challenge them rather than stay in their own echo chambers. Here is a debate I did that was definitely inspired by the concise information you provided on the Left Right dichotomy and I'm arguing with what I think is a somewhat rational at times neoliberal Republican ua-cam.com/video/Ds84urMMJX4/v-deo.html
When you return to this subject please consider how male dominance must naturally lead to rapid and sustained population growth. Think what will naturally happen when male sexuality is the basis for population growth compared to female physical stamina. ( Not knocking male sexuality it evolved to be as it is.) I gestated three children in six years, gave birth without drugs, and breast fed each child for a year. I was totally into the whole experience and well supported. I will testify that it is physically draining none the less. My mother gave birth to eight children in 12 years, exhaustion was her middle name. I don't know the literature on the subject, but, even women living the highly active life of subsistence would have great incentive to keep conception to a minimum considering the vast effort involved. If women have the power to control when they conceive, population growth would surely slow to a level sustainable in the environment where they live. Population growth based only on male sexuality would out pace the production of any environment. The feedback loop of endless need for more resources and plenty of extra bodies seems like the perfect recipe for warfare and conquest, not just defense. Thank you for your huge efforts to put this podcast series together, it is very insightful and succinct, great combination, my husband did the patron thing:) the least we can do to get these ideas out there.
this is an interesting factor to consider - from what I know male domination affects a lot of things (usually for the worse) but population growth is more of a factor of what sort of economy you have. Nomadic hunter gathers tend to have about one kid every four years because having too many kids depletes your resources more quickly which is a net drain, while farmers are incentivized to have as many kids as possible because more kids is more farm labour. This is true for gender equal hunter gatherers as it is for more male dominated ones, so it would seem like the economic system is what’s more important there - BUT - most agricultural societies are male dominated. It would be interested to look at agricultural societies that have more gender equality (like traditional haudenosaunee) and compare their birth rates to societies with similar economies to see if women are deciding to have less kids or not. The big drain and vulnerability of mothers who are rearing and breastfeeding and caring for young infants is one of the factors that give men a bargaining power advantage in many societies - like in capitalism for example, you’re going to be dependant for big chunks of time several times over your life, and unless you’re wealthy enough to support yourself or unless you have a proper welfare state to support you, it usually makes you dependant on a man. You can really see the difference in women’s equality in countries with very strong welfare states for that reason.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 You make good points, as always. More farm labor is an incentive, however an acre of land can only feed so many mouths no matter how much labor is on hand. Yep, devaluing the care of children, d the elderly, sick and disabled, and enslaving women to do that work, (other than gestation it could all be done by males) gives women less bargaining power. But, perhaps the devaluation is a greater factor than the actual time spent. Further thought: A society that valued the work of caring for all people would not have random mass shootings - just short hand for how much more resilient such a society would be. In your podcast about the black lives matter movement you suggested lots of good steps in political bargaining. What if our social movements were social incubators practicing all the interpersonal caring and Contra hierarchy actions we might learn from highly egalitarian societies? What ever the bargaining with the powers that be gained, we'd gain stronger social networks making people feel stronger in their continued bargaining. Two for the price of one movement.
@@rainmako2841 the farm to children incentive is pretty well documented, but it does end up requiring more land, which is why farming societies tend to be very land hungry and engage in more warfare etc. agricultural societies that are closed off like in papua new guinea often do a lot of infanticide once you reach a certain point. hunter gatherers also do, at a much lower point, but they breastfeed until about 4 is a natural form of birth control. in gender egalitarian forager societies men do a lot of childcare - there’s some articles and maybe a book on this I think by Frank Marlowe you can find it online. But still woman are vulnerable during breastfeeding and pregnancy. But in those societies women have enormous power and are basically equal to men and can exile men who misbehave. i talk about it a bit in some of my episodes but i’ll talk about it more specifically in the future. practicing care is great, but you really need to shift bargaining power to have lasting changes and victories. but i think in the world today, it’s very possible. women in social welfare states have much more power than those without, and they get paid more and treated better, and have better sex and relationships too! there’s a book “sex under socialism” about that
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 So here's the question, why do Patrilocal farming societies not balance their birth rate to the carrying capacity of their land? We know other societies do attempt to balance birth rate to resources. But in those societies women have some or a lot of ability to refuse conception. I'm hypothesizing male dominated societies lead to over population because male sexuality is not balance by female ability to refuse conception. I met a Maassai man in Kenya in 2019, he had 16 children by two wives, his father had 20 children by 3 wives. How many hundred children in the third generation? They all know they only have a couple hundred acres of land. Dorothy Hodgson's, "Gender, Ethnicity and the cCultural politics of maasai development" describes several cultural methods to curb male sexuality that leads to conception if you look at them in that light. Also describes how British rule inadvertantly quashed these methods and unleashed exponential population growth. Other changes in medicine and food distribution in times of famine also played a part, of course. Male sexuality is a tender subject, but just like how our bodies evolved to save calories and now lead to obesity in the modern age, male sexuality evolved over millenia when female autonomy and environmental pressures could balance that sexual drive. Now it is out of balance and so is our population.
@@rainmako2841 that makes a lot of sense - both women not having input and men’s biology being unchecked going bananas, but you just said yourself that Hodgson’s book explains that the Maasai did have methods of curbing population growth until recently, no? i could be wrong, and can’t cite anything off hand, besides male dominated hunter gatherers, but I was under the impression that male dominated agricultural and pastoralist societies also curb their populations, depending on circumstances.
Been really enjoying your videos! I have a question I've been coming back when I watch your videos, one especially relevant to this episode: if patrilocality is the social form that gives rise to patriarchy, and since contemporary Western society as a whole is neither patrilocal nor matrilocal for the most part, then what is the social form that preserves it? I think you're right that a "pink pill" of cultural education won't change the material conditions that reproduce patriarchy. Maybe we're a) stuck on old, outmoded baggage and it's only a matter of time before patriarchy dissolves, or b) there is some less visible structure within modern society that punishes "rational" individualistic behavior, and patriarchy is the outcome of that thing, or c) some other explanation.
good question! to be clear, patrilocally is ONE set of conditions that leads to patriarchy, and it’s the one I always talk about because there are so many classic examples. But there can be all sorts of other conditions. so in the next episode I’ll be talking about how inuit patriarchy existed in the summer because people were separated into individual nuclear families (neolocal residence) living isolated from eachother, and men did the hunting and controlled access to hunting weapons and are physically stronger, and fighting back against that could result in everyone starving. in the US it was a bit similar in that you had farms that were just one nuclear family or a multigeneration family, isolated from eachother. today I think mostly the conditions have changed and it is getting washed away BUT there are still some factors that put women at a disadvantage - particularly that having babies lowers your workplace bargaining power, and makes you financially dependant unless you’re rich. So until that changes, like via better welfare benefits and equal pay laws like you see in scandinavia, you’ll still see more male dominance than in other places.
Your the 1st liberal left wing vibed channel ive subscribed too in months. So many of my old go to science,social science & psychology channels have skewed their information to fit an agenda. A huge problem with the liberal activist is they dismiss,ignore are unaware of the root factors you point to as causations of societal structures. Like China America today is teaching gender ideology & quasi crt cirruculums to children hoping it will create a positive change but they're ignoring the hardwired & environmentally ingrained aspects of gender & the deeply wooven causations of racism. This solves nothing & only is making society on the whole worse
@WHATISPOLITICS69 in your video you referenced China's government began teaching & pushing the message in their society that women are smart & capable & should be valued highly but this didn't stop Chinese parents from committing female infanticide. I believe you were referencing this to point out the fact their were deeper socio-cultural practices that evolved due to Chinese cultural environment & simply teaching Women are great wasn't enough to stop that practice ie: the Chinese government didn't address the root issue so this system wide pro-female propaganda failed where it needed to succeed the most. I'm saying the current liberal establishment is trying to achieve with the diversity equity & social justice agenda its pushing will & is failing for a similar reason. Part of what they are teaching triggers hardwired human instincts to protect off spring & they way they are teaching it doesn't address the causes of inequality & racism.
Gender exploitation seems to be minimized in matrilineal societies where the women own the land, houses and distribute inheritance. Some exist to this day and see peaceful cooperation. Physical violence is the main challenge to the whole system usually from the outside.
Gotdammit. I'll buy it. But there is a part of me that knows things will always go from good to bad to good to bad and if the response to bad times is always patriarchy, we also desperately need to work on that response (since there will always be bad times).
well if you look at immediate return hunting and gathering societies, patriarchy doesn’t emerge in bad times, though maybe in very very bad times that could happen, but it would likely lead to societal collapse. for an industrial civilization, it’s really about structuring your incentives and distribution of power so that hard times won’t advantage anyone in particular over other people.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 This strikes me as the "if you're really nice to him and make sure to X, he won't hit you" argument, while not having a better answer atm.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Also, I grapple with this shit like it's a giant black hole in my life. It's bad.... I always appreciate your contributions and hard work and would share on Reddit but I think I'm also shadowbanned and I have no idea why lol.
@@moeg.280 shadowbanned from breadtube also? wtf is with them? i put up a video that did well, and then the next video just would not show up on the feed and got no views. and i wrote to the mods and no response... i tried to get a friend to post it but it said “someone already posted this so you can’t do it” so now i’m afraid to post anything there anymore. such a shitshow.
I think there is a Western example: Communications Age. The productive means is turning to communications technology, cooperation, and collaboration. Communication, cooperation, and collaboration is not a traditionally heroic masculine success model and college graduation rates are showing it. Capitalism as a system is still based on dualistic winner and loser, and that will need to be addressed, but as long as we don't blow up the world, top production and prestige positions are going to those that can communicate, cooperate, and collaborate. This does inherently mean cis female, but it hasn't traditionally meant cis male, unless he was a Soldier.
I’m no expert but following from how Graeber speaks of to do with how governance worked in pirate societies, as generally collectively run, but final decision making power would sit with the captain during conflict or when doing raids. From what I’ve heard about various First Nations cultures, they oscilllated between matriarchal-collectivist-patriarchal depending on the conditions of the moment, more matriarchal during times of peace & harvest . And more patriarchal during times of conflict or clan migration. But this dynamism is often lost when we talk of only dichotomies. It is worth noting that most ‘hunter gatherers’ did actually ‘farm’ just not in ways that made sense to more ruralised cultures. This is a way of erasing the inter generational knowledge systems that were integral to the 60,000 year success story of indigenous Australians for example. We are only just starting to see these cultures in this positive intelligent light.
i don’t know about the pirates, but the rest of what you’re saying is either wrong, or half baked and not particularly relevant to what i’m trying to describe in these videos.
Like your work Would like to know you thought on mate selection and mating strategies use in the different groups you talke about, i think this may give a better understanding of the difference in lifestyles.
evolved mating strategies or preferences might explain why men might want to dominate and control women to some degree, but it doesn’t explain why they’re able to in some places and not in others - that’s why material analysis is so important
Hi, I've a bunch of questions since you're probably one of the most knowledgeable politics channel owners on UA-cam.. I don't expect you to answer everything since there's a ton and you're probably busy, but I'd appreciate it if you could answer parts the most important parts or just redirect me to read something, maybe recommend a book or an article, or two 😅 So what are the material conditions leading to patriarchy today? Also, are matriarchal societies naturally more egalitarian and less dominating just because of biological behavioural differences or are there other factors? I was thinking maybe men have the means to dominate because of a natural strength advantage so primitive, more tyrannical matriarchies wouldn't be able to withstand retaliation from physically stronger males. Does there really have to be a society where no one can hold more power for us women to be truly equal to men? Is there no other way? What I understood from this patriarchy video combo was that patrilocality created a lack of social support for women, resulting in a hierarchy, and that while women can support other women, this can't occur. Maybe this is dumb, I just started dabbling in this shit lol, but most mammal species have patriarchies without any of that, right? Meaning, the material conditions of sexual dimorphism, as in testosterone (amplifier for a desire for domination and aggression) and more physical strength would naturally result in patriarchies when the opportunity to dominate anyone is given? Lastly, and most importantly, what do I read to get rid of internalised misogyny? I've some beliefs rooted in evo psych that really fuck me over 😵Women, on average, have more naturally nurturing, maternal personalities beyond just social conditioning, and men are naturally more domineering, aggressive and status-seeking so I guess the oppression feels natural to some extent, based on sex hormones.. I still struggle to understand how male and female bodies could have evolved to be so different and suited to specific functions without some palaeolithic gender roles in place. I don't know if male and female brains are inherently different to the point of influencing behaviour or disposition,, the literature is conflicting on this topic, but if we have different bodies and hormones (which obviously influence behaviour) why wouldn't we adapt on a broader behavioural extent, to the point of different brains? I'd love to have all of these debunked btw
hey - material conditions for patriarchy: did you see episoide 7? there can be all sorts of situations that lead to patriarchy, but it’s basically anything that results in women being isolated from eachother. the most common example is when people get frequently attacked and then in order to defend themselves organize around related males, meaning women need to marry in from the outside, and local women move away to be marries, thus resulting in women being socially isolated, unable to easily form coalitions. to defend their rights and assert their will. for matriarchal societies, i think you mean matrilocal matrilineal societies, because with rare exceptions, the women usually don’t rule society the way men do in patriarchy, so it’s not considered “matriarchy” which means domination or rule by mothers. matrilocal societies are relatively egalitarian because to some extent because of a mix of biological differences and practical circumstance - the practical circumstance is that the reason matrilocal societies arise are because the men have to travel for long periods for war or hunting/fishing etc, so that it makes sense to organize local politics around women - but at the same time it also is practical for men to deal with external politics, trade with the outside, treaties with other groups, etc. So that gives men an extra source of power to counterbalance women’s local power. that’s why the clan mothers will elect a male chief, the chief is the leader of external politics, while the clan mothers rule local politics. the biological aspect is that men are the ones doing the long distance war or subsistence because they dont get pregnant or have to carry vulnerable infants, they’re on average stronger, etc. Does there really have to be a society where no one can hold more power for us women to be truly equal to men? No, because matrilocal societies have power differentials, clan mothers and elders have more power than young people, heads of families have more power than their kids, chiefs have more power than regular people, etc. See episode 8 And animals don’t just have male dominance because males are stronger, patrilocal vs matrilocal residence plays a big role as well. bonobo males are stronger than females, but females dominate because they’re matrilocal and women form coalitions. women and female nonhumans also exert power by sexual selection - if you’re a man and you want to have sex ever, you best behave and listen to the women and treat them properly or else no one will sleep with you and they might even chase you out of the camp. and women have the power to decide that because they can act in coalition. size and strength are more of an advantage for animals because they don’t have projectile weapons, whereas for humans the weakest pee wee herman can kill the strongest he-man with a poison dart from 30 feet away. and for yes there were palaeolithic gendered division of labour (we have clear evidence of it in archaeology vs neanderthals who didn’t have that division of labour for example) and yes i think humans naturally have on average personality differences based on hormones and sex, and naturally different dispositions (on average) - but that doesn’t have to mean dominance hierarchy. you can be different but also equal in terms of power. differences in traits don’t need to mean differences in power. in our society we have this overwhelming misconception that differences in talent by magic translate into differences of power. that’s just not true. in egalitarian forager societies you have all sorts of differences of talent, but without major power differences. Or think of this: Donald Trump is half way to being an imbecile, he has no physical strength, no artistic talent, no real skills, isn’t good at business, he has very limited abilities in almost every way, except for some talent at comedy - yet he was president for 4 years and one of the most powerful people in the world - that wasn’t because of any natural ability, it’s because he’s rich and well connected and popped up for election at the right time and got lucky. Circumstances determine power as much as ability.
You said that industralisation that helped women to become more independent and less likely to be exploited by the husband. I feel that could have been true in the past but nowadays capitalism equally opresses both male and female. In most instances, women get exploited more in capitalism as capitalism does not view giving birth and doing housework as real labour which is mostly done by women. Maybe i am misunderstanding your arguments. I feel the real empowerment of women will be achieved when we change how "work" operates in modern society that will cater to both men and women which allow both of them to have a career and also take care of the child equally without sacrificing the other. This is not possible under the current material conditions in capitalism where women mostly might need to scarifice a bit of their career in taking care of the child. I loved the video and gave me a new perspective.
oh yeah, i agree with this 100%. capitalism exploits women, and in patriarchal cultures takes advantage of their subservient position to squeeze more out of them for less than with men. but in a context like in rural china, many women are better off than they were because they have an option out of the patriarchal family structure, and patrilocal residence, and it increases their bargaining power with their families as well. it’s a step up, but we need better - like feudalism is better than slavery, but we need better.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 i feel this can be directly tied to the failure of the feminism movement where it only further divided the gender divide without advocating for liberation of men and women. Feminists only pandering to ideology without talking about material conditions of both men and women really alienated the male group. It has devolved to a culture of making fun of feminists which kinda reinforces the patriachy again.
@@Rihiz1 i think capitalism is way bigger than the feminist movement or any movement - almost every movement becomes idiotic in our society over time because you have all the incentives of capitalism, highlighting and promoting the stupidest most capitalist friendly voices, or voices that sound antagonistic, but are actually very ineffective (see ep 9.2) and then once it gets through the university system you have the rich kid versions of feminism, and every other ideology that turn it into a tool of the ruling class.
sure, that’s one solution - but it wouldn’t erase the power imbalance between tenants and landlords, even if there was a huge oversupply of houses (which would at least reduce it)
did you see episode 8? women have much higher bargaining power so they’re relatively equal, and when bargaining power is relatively equal you have less means of coercion in general. they might still have a lot of coercion if they’re highly stratified class societies, but that’d be class coercion vs gender coercion
haha, ok dr professor einstein - yes aboriginal australian foragers were largely patriarchal gerontocracies despite being immediate return foragers. why? because as opposed to the other immediate return foragers we know about, the australians were in more intense conflict with eachother over resources. and as i point out in this video and the previous one, that’s what incentivizes patrilocal residence and male dominance… so a very materialist explanation for this. also there’s interesting evidence in the really complicated descent structure of the australians that the patriarchy and gerontocracy are relatively recent innovations. i personally think that in the palaeolithic, immediate return foragers were switching between gender equality and male dominance as the climate fluctuated into hard times and easier times.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Lol...no they weren't. Aborigines were sparsely populated, especially in the interior outback and Western Australia. Most groups were relatively self contained, and resources were widely dispersed across the landscape, so fighting over resources provided little benefit. The reasons for war were social: i.e. to settle grievances between groups, to assert superiority over other groups, raids for women, as part of religious rituals, and also as revenge for previous raids. see the works of John Connor, and Haratio Hale.
The number of subs you have is criminally low. This is one of the best analysis Ive come across, with concrete examples that make your case bulletproof. Will be checking out the rest of your content and sharing acordinly. You do amazing work sir, keep it going. Hugs from Chile
You said around 4 minutes that in the immediate return hunting gathering society , the woman “can pick up and go live somewhere else.” I thought that even in those societies you would need to stay with your original group for safety. Is this not the case?
no, different hunter gatherer bands are not in conflict with eachother, so people can just pick up and go wherever they have friends. people will often choose to be with family, but most people in hunter gatherer bands are not related to eachother.
This got me thinking about anti domestic violence campaigns which only focuses on marital abuse against women in a new way. As in how to adress the critics of it not using more gender neutral perspective, and excluding male victims. Before this video I would say that it is meaningful to separate the two, becouse as a society we ignore and let them grow for two very different reasons: 1. a man disciplining his wife is only his business and right, 2. if a man takes the role of the abused that is ridiculous and humiliating for him, because that's a feminine role. And the current overfocuse of one should be corrected. Now it seems to me that these campaigns are actually a very effective tool: if the core issue was the absence of a community protecting the wife, they can make up for the lack of societal pressure, and therefore might be the most important measure when it comes to gender equality in rural areas (or where the patrilocality prevails).
that’s really interesting, sort of creating allies for the women via media - but would you be exposing specific abusers? or just giving resources for women to contact? and i’m not sure i understand how you would differ the messaging or strategy regarding men?
You are obviously very intelligent and insightful and have taken a lot of time considering the human condition. At 8:26 of this video, when you said "because we are all selfish gremlins", I think you identified the primary reason that education or political policies will never fix the issue. Culture or necessity may minimize the effects of the pride and selfishness. Many people quote the bible (which it does not seem that you are afraid of based on your video), and blame it for much of the issue, claiming that it promotes male domination and slavery, and sadly, many have quoted it to promote their own pride and selfishness. There are actually many places in the bible that seek to abolish such discriminations, Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.", Matt 22:30 (my own paraphrase) "in heaven there are no male or female, we will be like the angels", Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". I guess my point is that we are all broken and naturally push others down especially if it can be done in a way that lifts us up. The only way to make real change is to accept that God paid for all of our pride and selfishness by absorbing it into himself by dying in our place in order to reconcile our relationship with him. In accepting and believing this God promises to make us new. Pretty wordy, but I hope you will consider it.
if you look at very egalitarian foragers, you’ll see that they share and don’t cheat eachother or rape eachother and discourage violence etc - meanwhile they have very little in terms of moralistic religion. so while religious teaching might be one way to train people to be nice to eachother, it’s not necessary, or the only way.
17:00 yooo i wrote an essay for college in how gender equality in china (and FSS) was way better soon after the revolutions and how it got worse after that. Really wish i had the materialist view back then
@@maxg971 crazy - it’s the most obvious thing, super easy to understand, and can teach you so much about how humanity works and crickets in academia… meanwhile any chinese peasant can tell you why women are devalued.
Really good video. About the laws that favour the working class, the punishment has to be very harsh to make a difference -> I think that would allow the landlords/bosses to play the victim. Liberal carefulness around how the state should not trod on the individual ends up translated into this white culture of lawsuits taking 10 years of multiple appeals and technicalities to get anywhere. Meanwhile (10 years ago when the violation happened) the worker was indeed fired on a pretext
landlords and bosses play the victim if there’s any regulation at all, even if it has no teeth! you can’t waste energy thinking about that, you just need maximal penalties and specialized administrative courts that are properly funded so the time to a hearing is short. with admin courts you normally aren’t waiting 10 years, you have the hearing and the decision all done within about 3-6 months from the time you file a claim. it can definitely be done properly, but most often the courts aren’t funded enough or the penalties aren’t strong enough or both
this was a very good video even though I don't agree with everything you said. a remark or a pro: I couldn't tell what your ideology was until at the end of the video and even after I dint really know jeje
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I though it was a good video because I couldn't really tell if you were a leftie or a conservative at first. At the end I though you were more left leaning. I disagree in the take that a patriarchy is always oppressive to women. For example take England in the Victorian Era or the 1910s in America. Women and Men had the same moral values but very different roles in society but the women weren't really oppressed. But It was because it was clear that women have the same moral value for example you can't kill baby girls because that is amoral. But they were different in roles generally I don't agree with Jordan Peterson theories but there is some truth to them. Anyway good video.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I will share It because it had different point of views, also a point to note is that the societies you mention are either polytheistic or atheist in contrast to the christian worldview were women are to be loved and protected as the weaker vessel.
@@paulamarianaruiz thanks - interesting - what made you think i was conservative? i have to disagree strongly with your description of victorian women - while the ideology stated that men and women were equally valued, women were very much 2nd class citizens - men had most of the power, women had no right to vote and were believed not to be rational enough to vote and were forced to accept subservient status - it was a time of literal patriarchy. american women at the time were shocked when they interacted with native american haudenosaunee women who had political authority and control over their own property etc, and this triggered the sufragette and women’s rights movements.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I thought you were a conservative because your video didn't have 'woke' terms and when you referred to the patriarchy it was meant to be the sociological institution. I don't thing that in those eras especially in te victorian or the American era, women weren't oppressed because they couldn't vote they just had different roles signed to their gender and so did men. I don't think that it is beneficial to give EVERYONE the right to vote in the log term because it creates a resented society where everyone has a right to 'something' . For example today the left claims 'the right to an abortion' even though having a surgical procedure isn't a right. Also I don't think any civilization can distribute power to every of its citizens because some hierarchies are benefitial to society for example a nuclear family. So win some lose some. Besides I don't think women want to have the same power of men, because that requieres more work form their part and they live their other roles of mothers and homemakers a little to the side and that is natural to most women.
Hello ! Thank you for the enlightening videos ! Keep up ! I wonder what you think about the term "patriarchy" or "patriarchal systems" and their relevance today. I know that patriarchy was mainly used to describe social systems were men dominate and have priveleges over women. And while today, men still have priveleges, they are no longer explicitly enunciated or justified : a women can ( is even encouraged by the dominant ideology ) to become CEO or president. And sure, there are more men than women in positions of power, but it's not a difference in principle (it's partly because we inhereted from the more direct type of patriarchy). My point is : Among the 99% of people property is owned and power is used in a rather equal way by men and women + in the past 50years the relations have been getting more and more equal in the private sphere. So what's the point of saying men have all the power when 90% of them don't ? Why not just say capitalists and governments have all the power ? In short, I think that what's maintaining patriarchy (at least, in western societies) is capitalism, so why not include it as one of it's features instead of talking about it as a separate entity ? It seems to be more useful to people who don't want to talk about capitalism than anything else.
what to focus on depends on the issue and what your situation is. if we’re talking about the rich “western” countires, we’re definitely not living in a formal patriarchy anymore, because in a formal patriarchy women are simply not allowed to hold many of these important positions of authority, and are restricted by law or cultural rules from all sorts of rights and privileges retained only for men. this is not the case at all here, like you’re pointing out. But women in general do have some real and important disadvantages, and I’d say that’s a hangover from the period when there was formal patriarchy, and also as a result of how an economy based on renting out labour punishes you for having children, and even the possibility that you might have children in various ways, which like you say is a feature of capitalism, and i believe that this perpetuates cultural discrimination. a lot of cultural sexism and negative gender discrimination today i think is inherited from the past, but also perpetuated by the fact women who want children at some point are very likely to become economically dependent on a man. This creates all kinds of gross power dynamics in dating for example, and office politics which you see much less of this stuff in places like denmark where economic dependence on a man to have a child is much less. So sure, it’s important to talk about that and focus on that but at the same time, if you’re a woman working at a software company or engineering firm, and the ratio of men to women is like 10:1 and all the guys at work are either being completely dismissive of you, or else falling all over themselves trying to flatter you or both, you’re not going to benefit from lecturing them about capitalism, but you will benefit if the men get some sensitivity/empathy training, particularly training from your union (as corporate ones are often anti-solidaristic and shitty).
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 yeah, I see the point that there are many situations were women are disadvantaged because of the strucutre of the male dominated and hierarchical social sphere, I guess I'm just having a problem with a certain tendency to use words in excessive ways and forgetting the political in the economy
@@politikos7683 yes, in general people including scholars, and often just completely unaware of material/economic factors in these sorts of issues, and i think that thise factors are the ultimate long term cause of these problems, but at the same time, the cultural aspect is very important in the short term and smaller scale and we can’t just ignore it in reaction to other people ignoring economics and practical realities.
can you make a video on how homophobia and anti-LGBT are created and perpetuated by material conditions? i assume you can’t just eliminate it with a “rainbow pill” so i’m curious on what creates this discriminatory beliefs in the first place.
i probably won’t do a whole video on it but i should talk about it a bit - it’s like a side effect of patriarchy - when men are dominating women, they need a belief system that justifies it. that creates gender stereotypes and strict gender roles that must be enforced in order to maintain the moral justifications for male domination. behaviour that doesn’t conform to these gender rules is a threat to male dominance, so homosexuality, transgenderism, men being effeminate, women being confident and assertive - these all are threats which must be policed in order to maintain the patriarchal gender ideology. the rules are different per society but that’s basically it, it’s a side effect of patriarchy
@@WHATISPOLITICS69An interesting thing here that some homosexuality has been tolerated but not accepted in societies that on the surface is very opposed to it. 17th century Sweden was in almost perpetual war and was ruled by old testament laws that sort of had the death penalty on everything, including sodomy. But we have suspisiously few examples of people actually brought to trial for sodomy. It is hard to really prove but it seems like some sodomy could be accepted as long as it was done in a discreet manner and the family and general social order was kept intact. I read about a rather obvious lesbian couple including a woman who had run away from home, became a soldier as a man and later wanted to return as a woman with her wife from the war. They seems to avoided all legal repercussion by simply promising not to make a fuss and settle quietly in a cottage owned by an aunt, well outside of the village. The court didn't want a trial, in part because the didn't want to give people ideas. The general ideological condemnation of homosexuality was draconian, but the social practice often seems to have been more pragmatic.
thanks for watching! it’s crazy because this has been well known since before anthropology began as a discipline, but it’s been almost forgotten at this point - today you can get a PhD in anthro in many departments and never have learned this.
What stops matrilineal matrilocal societies becoming matriarchal? Such as refusing child access and divorce whilst demanding child support. In the Mosou the father is unknown and the maternal uncle provides instead. Does that reduced stake stop his exploitation? Absentee maternal uncles are probably as big a problem as absentee fathers. Because if word gets out that you are a deadbeat uncle you can still get laid. Especially if you are a travelling salesman/artisan.
i don’t understand what you’re saying with refusing child access and demanding child support, but matrilineal societies are usually gender egalitarian vs female dominated because men are usually professional warriors and hunters with expertise in weapons and fighting, and also, while women will dominate local politics, men dominate external politics (politics with outside groups) so it tends to balance out many matrilineal societies are still male dominated
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I used those as the examples because those are usually what men's groups complain about. Women in matrilineal societies do dominate household spending. I was making the point that the Mosou men out in their hunting camps with their buddies might not feel that great about it. But given paternity is not known there its a very different case. And usually hunters assumes they are not in advanced societies which is wrong.
@@kimcosmos if i remember correctly the mosou is the group where there’s no marriage? that/s a really unique case - and i forget how that society became matrilineal, but usually it’s because the men are away for long periods on hunting or raiding expeditions. i talk about it in episode 8
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Their name is Lumi Rue. They're a non-binary Twitch streamer, who is knowledgeable especially in intersectional theory and feminist history. I have some moderate disagreements with Lumi, since I mostly come from a Marxist perspective and not so much from a queer theory angle, but they're an incredibly wholesome person, and fairly open to new ideas.
@@vauchomarx6733 cool, just curious about who’s out there in the ecosystem. feminism is definitely stronger with materialist analysis in there… there was a great anthro materialist feminist tradition that’s more or less gone now, eleanor leacock myths of male dominance is a classic if you ever have a chance to check that out.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I agree, and thanks for the recommendation! One feminist anthropologist I'm familiar with, is Evelyn Reed. Her writings are a bit dated, but still very good.
So I always thought "funny that China is so patriachal, yet unlike the West, women at least keep their surname after marriage", but now you made me wonder: maybe that's actually a SIGN or patriarchy, because it labels a women as someone who is not a daughter of the clan, but a "stranger" who need not be listened to. What do you think?
In matriarchal societies all the land passed from mother to daughters. These societies were egalitarian. Why are matriarchal societies egalitarian but patriarchal oppressive? For The majority of human history societies have been matriarchal. You have not talked about how religion shape patriarchal and matriarchal societies.
i talk about this in episode 8 - there are no known matriarchal societies (where women dominate positions of power) but you have many matrilineal societies where women dominate the positions of local power and men will have the positions of leadership in diplomacy. these societies are sometimes male dominated but often gender egalitarian these societies are less egalitarian than immediate return hunter gatherers because those hunter gatherers have no fixed positions of authority, while the matrilineal societies usually have positions of authority - gerontocratic clan mothers, chiefs etc the type of religion is the result of matriliny or patriliny much more than it shapes society. religions are a way of stabiliizing the existing balance of power, to prevent people from spending time energy and blood testing the limits of the balance of power.
that is just not true at all outside for a romp in the hay - in cultures where women have more wealth and are more financially independent, they’re way less interested in dominant powerful men and more interested in good partners.
Why wast time and effort on educating woman for jobs if there main goal is to be mother it is a wast of everyone time and effort. It Would be better to educat them to be better mothers This is a problem that is not going away untill men stop being selfish pick up the slack and start having baby, it the only way to get quality. Stay strong ladies
It totally makes sense. After 2 minutes i am again confirmed in my thoughts which doubt feminism would rise unfortunately. Without crucial system changes. Though I think it could change a lot via only marketing it in a good way everywhere in media. It seems some men simply dont want to loose their superiority. No f hope:/
Of course working conditions, child care duties , lots of rigid systems would need to change SIMPLY by making law changes. Im very sure it would benefit all society - but NO they dont do it - except in some northern civilizations who seems to have the intention too
@@mse5739 i do think there will be more feminism in the future - life is getting worse and worse for so many people, but it really doesn’t have to - i think that once people start to understand that it’s not necessary anymore they won’t tolerate it - IF we can help everyone understand this! and yes, in our time, because material conditions have changed so much, so quickly, we can do a lot of this just with laws.
Thanks for your reply! For why I am pessimistic I think is the tendency of Eastern European countries (where i live now) becoming more and more ideology lead by very very very patriarchal men. Its actually unbelievable - abortion rights are disappearing, nuclear family’s importance is emphasized, national, traditional hero-based history are taught - everything is a mess. And yes - in this environment - opponent voices are louder, the young are more energetic to go to the streets. Online media helps enforcing some sort of sense of community among those against the system. But still….those powerful men have already bought half or more land/property of the country, economy is in their hands. They also benefit from social media and they!! were very very shrewd actually to have started to form their own smaller, local youth groups, supporters, volunteer groups for a political reason long time ago, well before the social media came “to power”. And after, slowly but surely started to buy everything!!!!!! in the country owning political AND economical power. So some people are writing about things they dont like , there are some….independent media (very few remained actually) online that you can read if you care about reality BUT the majority of people see and meet only government propganda - so thats kind of a problem. Well now… due to Ukranian war and other factors prices of evey day products are in the sky , in a very short time they were doubled in price. I guess when its too unbearable an average citizen/villager wont really care about government propaganda - but at the same time they would need to fight for survival, hence having no energy to change the system. Another question in these countries is that it is very far from democracy so if it doesnt lead to anarchy - which is not good but I would support any form of it :) - people could endlessly suffer until they vote for another ruling party…But its at least 10-20-50more years or so. Or who knows?🤔 okay its not very far future but im talking about a country where its mild dictatorship….hiding behind democracy. What about other parts of the world (huge part) where situation is so much worse.. and wont be better - but because of climate change many will try and find homes elsewhere. This again makes nationalistic , patriarchal side rise (as we can see now of course). In more developed countries situations could be better. But in the Eastern part of the world - I just simply cannot imagine. How a North-Korea would change for example?!! A little change is better than nothing for sure. I just cannot imagine an egalitarian culture on most of the Earth in the next 100yrs
3:02 I think your video forgets to look at the following factors. Age of woman Looks of woman. Social status of woman. Family of origin of woman Family of procreation of woman. Woman who are born in lower classes can never become queen, a lower class/status woman maybe a PhD but will never become a queen. Like in UK
I think when you have to attribute so much to human nature being messed up and men being meanies, maybe this branch of your theories are getting thin. but overall I like your stuff. found it recently, and am especially liking your thoughts on "The dawn of everything" which I got about 2/3 through but kept vomiting in my mouth too much. When I first started the book I actually thought they were going to be saying something completely different because I was unaware of the articles that came out before the book.
i didn’t think i was attributing anything to a messed up human nature or men being mean - what do you mean? like if men and women’s positions were revered, women would be doing the same things as men. and human nature is wonderful and terrible, it just depends on context. which part of the book upset and disappointed you so much? love to hear that!
Why do u assume that just because the men were in charge that they treated women like shit? Christianity taught men to treat women and children like precious objects do everything you can to provide them with everything you can to make them happy. Plenty of cultures do the same thing.
i’m not assuming anything, it’s in the ethnographies. women get beatings, have no freedom, eat last even though they made all the food. and in china, everyone knows and will tell you the rural women are treated like shit. it’s one thing to have a division of labour, but when it’s enforced with beatings and abuse is allowed only by men then that’s patriarchy and patriarchy exists to exploit women. and if you just assume it’s always just a happy division of labour then you’re the one who should be questioning your assumptions and why you need to make exuses for abuse and exploitation.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Western hierarchy and East Asian Hierarchy has always been more dominate, but the Indigenous patriarchies were more complex and fluid.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Angola literally honored and allowed third gender women to marry men openly. The Igbo had female husbands and male-daughters. Many more differences in Africa, and America.
you’re more like a caca person i’d say. except caca is funnier. and if you don’t like it, go argue with 100 years of anthropology and 50 years of feminist scholarship…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Considering the field of anthropology is one of the leading sectors of disseminating the concept of “educated” and “erudite” white supremacy, and feminist scholarship has had no less than three distinct waves that each have had blinders for important aspects of feminism and women’s liberation (trans rights, sex worker rights, etc.) then yes, I will absolutely argue with both of them. Thanks for your permission, though?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 “Everyone?” No, just you since you don’t seem to have the historical and cultural understanding that feminist movements haven’t been completely infallible concepts with their own problematic issues, like the fact that many first-wave suffragist feminists contrasted their deserving of the right to vote against the unworthiness of Black people of the right to vote. Please continue to show your ass. It makes this so much more fun. Also, again, not a “he,” meaning not male, meaning, not a “boy.”
This is so amazing! It is so frustrating that these popular books like Sapiens and even Dawn of everything in some sense pretend that patriarchy is just a mystical force or even natural.
yeah, dawn of everything really flubbed it with the patriarchy. the thing is that nowadays you can get a PhD in anthropology or gender studies and not have ever learned this basic simple stuff, it’s amazing. the education system is just not interested in teaching us how anything works
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I think in some sense I lucked out getting a degree in mathematics and reading a lot of political theory, history and economics in my free time from varied sources and spending more time in original text than probably many undergrads in these subjects. Do you have some recommended reading list on many of the topics you cover here? Just found you out from the D Varn podcast - just absolutely sublime content!
@@AsirIset Varn! thanks! there’s a bibliography in the shownotes for every episode - they might be patreon links, but i make it point not to paywall any of my patreon content out of principle, so it’s all there! the bibliography for this one is on the transcript page: worldwidescrotes.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/pinkpilledxcript/
Yeah I read Sapiens thinking it was great. And then I read a critique of it and wow did that open my eyes. I always read critiques now before reading any books. Propaganda is rife out there
@@emmashield1085 Exactly this! Sapiens has a lot of interesting stuff and is very well written but you just have to be aware of the completely misguided sections (well, most sections) it has (especially the section about the birth of colonialism and industrial revolution is horrible. Check out Divide by Jason Hickle for a much better overview). Same with Dawn - it's super informative, but it's neccessary to have this critique in mind
How can we thank you for educating us? I feel my mind opening with every sentence.
love to hear that! if you have some extra money, i can use it, otherwise sharing the videos, but most importantly integrate these ideas into your mind and use them in your life and tell people around you
I have been living in Morocco for more than 30 years. It's a patriarchal patrilocale society and things are exactly as you said. I want to add women are completely submitted to their husband until the first son is able to eventually provide for the mother. Now the wife will feel much more stronger toward her husband but to be sure to get her son support she must do everything to please her son and she will be become his better ally against his bride.
yes exactly - morocco was originally pastoralist berbers and arabs - all pastoralist societies are patrilocal because you need to constantly fight off people stealing your animals.
the wife with an adult son is a really interesting dynamic that gives women more power, excellent point!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 the son gives more power to the mother but this renforce only the hierarchy and helps keep the next generation of woman, the bride, well enslaved
@@cristinadeperfetti7566 When any land has few resources to spare, it is a man's obligation to go out and fight for those resources.This is practical division of labor. It is a woman's obligation to run and provide a home behind the firewall a man provides against the harsh conditions.
Both men and women have strict obligations.
But the woman's obligation is slavery.
The man's obligation is power.
Interesting.
@@ejtattersall156 And, I sure wonder, were the people who made up those arbitrary 'obligations' mostly men, or women? Hmmm...
@@ejtattersall156 If the man has power over his wife is that not power?
If a woman's duty is subservience and to be controlled is that not slavery adjacent...
I tell everyone with half a brain that you are the best politics channel on UA-cam, and though I do not have a platform, i am part of the community of debate bro obsessed internet politics geeks. The platform is growing quickly and we have had destiny and a few other of the bigger political streamers on. I am debating tonight on the channel and just called politically provoked. Life posted on your channel before under a different account name and love everything you are doing. You are like the Thomas Paine of our day in my opinion and I'll do anything I can to help but being that I am visually impaired my financial situation is a very titan. Peace.
thank you so much, i really appreciate all of that! that’s better than money! how do I find this channel?
hey, i found the episode and have been watching it in parts - really interesting, i end up wavering between both your positions, but i think you’re doing a better job articulting them so far. makes me realize i should do an episode on “what are rights?”. good to know there are other gen x people besides me involved in this stuff!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I am very flattered that you are watching the debate. I assume you are watching the one on eugenics. That was a topic that he was passionate about, and he was trying to find other leftists to debate him, and I volunteered but admittedly that is not one of my topics of expertise. I've been a political activist musician for most of my adult life, but more musicians than activists until I went blind at 30 years old back in 2005 and began reading more anarchist literature and really upped my knowledge. I would love to see your episode on rights, and I am very curious to see if you think I was able to communicate about epigenetics and the crazy esoteric stuff I study as an eccentric jazz musician. Again, anything I can do to help you let me know. And yes it is great that there are more generation x people out there trying to guide a lot of these young people who are getting into politics hardcore. Peace
how do i find your channel and be part of the community
@@tachyonprince sadly, the community I was formerly a part of was not good at vetting the people they allowed on their show and unfortunately lost their channel.
You are the greatest discovery I've had on UA-cam in quite a long time, my friend. Great channel and a fresh perspective on important topics.
thanks, dude! this episode is one of my favourites, glad you appreciate it
This is great! Love this and really solid point about essentially dealing with immediate material conditions to improve things and how that feeds back into culture and cultural attitudes👍
thank you! people on the material left talk about this stuff a lot, but I thought it would be good to give a concrete example
Doesn't work, any concern about women's material conditions only reduces the number of children.
I liked the video, however you mentioned that the raising of women in these culture are seen as a material drain of the daughter's family, with them getting nothing at all for the marriage. Which in some sense is true but to claim there is no material gain for the daughter's family is devoid of some context, especially around the prickly subject of "Bride Wealth/Dowry" as daughters are usually "sold" to these families with a type of exchange between the families, livestock, land or money. The poorer the family the more the marriage is seen as a transaction. Daughters are generally disregarded because of the daughter's family is usually on the losing side of that deal. The exchange amongst poorer more rural families is called Bride Wealth, where as richer more urban conclaves receive dowry, a lump sum of money.The economic/material issue around these cultures revolves around these concept so i was surprised to not see it mentioned.
you’re right, bride price is a big part of marriage in rural china (india has dowry - dowry is when the wife’s family gives wealth to the husband’s family, as insurance in case they divorce or abuse her - bride price is compensation for losing the woman). I didn’t get into it in this video because it added a lot of time to it, without really adding anything in terms of the basic point of where patriarchy comes from etc. but yes it is very important.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69given the breadth of topics you’ve covered, I’m sure you already know this…
I only began to understand that there was a distinction between “bride price” and dowry when Graeber talked about what he wrote in “Debt: the first 5,000 years”
@@RumHam5570 sure - did i mix them up or something?
Thank you!
"Material conditions generate culture and then culture often becomes part of the material conditions."
This has been the unarticulated background to some theorizing of mine. The articulated theory being: the modern right has a tendency to conflate the social environment with the general environment (like how economic laws are akin to if not actual laws of nature to some), whereas the modern left tends to keep these things more separate. If anything, the left tends to root the causal background of the social environment in the general environment, which is anathema to many on the right as it undercuts large swathes of human agency (free will) and challenges tradition (-al values).
Hierarchy, while a material thing, is also kind of a social construct. IMO most right wingers believe in a constellation of social constructs related to hierarchy and this might be one of them? Like capitalism is an obvious law of nature rather than a man made system of social relations and resource distribution.
Really really admire this channel. Keep going. Im spreading this to as many people as I can.
wow ur videos are so interesting. i have spent a lot of time at the edges of various internet circles, absorbing and learning in a haphazard way, and i have watched the occasional breadtube channel or whatever. but honestly your stuff is amazing? people toss around the term "video essay" a lot but the videos in question feel more like stream of consciousness. but you organize your thoughts well and always have relevant examples instead of speaking in generalizations. i discovered your channel thru a recommendation from a materialist feminist blog, and now i have to resist the temptation to stay up all night to watch your stuff :P
yes, each one is like writing a mini master’s thesis - and it takes me 6 weeks from writing to editing with the videos for the more complicated ones… so i’m glad you appreciate it! i need to find an easier format! I can’t imagine listening to them all at once, they’re too dense, give yourself a day to absorb each one at least!
came here from r/breadtube this is some really fascinating stuff. subscribed.
thank you!
Really enjoy your videos and get a lot out of them. Please keep making them.
i will thanks to good comments like this!
Hmm
Just one more thought on this because its very interesting..
Being probably the only/or one of the very few women listening to your great channel I can exactly tell how “looking for allies among my female friends/family” went several times I needed some help against a controlling ex partner.
When I felt threatened - though it was my home!!! and all I had to do is to get the ex removed from my property - NO friend of mine took me seriously.
In one case the man was the friend of my friends’ boyfriends and although they were more all less on my side they never stepped up publicly and eventually started not to be bothered by it at all.
For me to get rid of the unpleasant partner would have meant losing a whole community because after I put him out everyone stayed friends with him too. I didnt want to lose everyone so I thought I do the right thing staying in the community - was the worst mistake but I can see why I did it.
In another case when it was a man unknown by my family or friends, the girls I still had as kind of friend were more blaming me for why I am in that situation, and didnt show any concern. And when I asked my sister if I can “use” her husband if needed she started to shout with me “how evil!!” I am to cause her guilt because now she has to think about it and I should know she has got problems as well😵💫😵💫which was quite shocking because I knew she didnt have serious problems at all, but I was threatened to be harmed by a lunatic at the same time.
From these cases I learnt a lot.
In the latter case I then asked for my sister’s husband leaving out my sister completely and he helped.
I could have asked some boys (but not many from one of my girlfriends’ circle because they knew me and liked)
But my original friends never helped, girls and male friends of an abuser have always given shit about supporting in a case like that.
Another question is the family.
Many families are abusive even if you dont live with them any more, you cannot really turn to them in case of emergency.
So for a woman to search for allies in certain places is not that easy even when you can “escape”, when u have your own home. There is NO close safety net by either families or friends, everyone is busy investing in their “love” life instead, and female friendships in general died out.
I know there must be other examples. Or it is diferent in countries where feminism is more marketed…but in places where there are perhaps longer traditions of victim blaming you do not really have much choice , you have to solve it mostly alone. (But not with the help of police either….so its kind of scary🤔 and leaves only one option: to look for as many groups as you can and probably at least some boy would help)
And Im talking about a modern, city environment where pretty much everyone considers themselves free and having normal lives. But thats culture!
Hey, I never got a notification for this and just saw it now.
Wow, that’s really shitty that no one helped you besides you’re wife’s husband - i’m guessing that’s a consequence of some patriarchy hangover (not taking you seriously) plus overly polite pushover culture where everyone is afraid of confronting anyone?
If seen that sort of pathetic passivity culture play out in other ways when intervention was needed which were really gross and shameful. In Canada people seem exceptionally pathetic in this way.
The cultures I was talking about are hunter gatherers who can move around freely.
The immediate return hunter gatherer societies I was referring to don’t have these sorts of inhibitions when it comes to defending your friends and relatives from aggression. People are very quick to defend slights and violations of autonomy. And they’re not stuck with a fixed home.
The more stuck you are in one place and the less allies you have the less freedom you have to escape or defend yourself. If you have allies, but they’re pathetic selfish and afraid of confrontation, they’re not real allies!
I've been going through all these videos, and so far I love that each episode in this series seems to compound on the previous ones, pulling in references and connecting dots.
The issue of "how exactly did class emerge out of forager societies?" has been an issue on my mind for a while. As far as I can tell, before your videos here existed, there hasn't really been a solid material analysis of the issue that also incorporates recent 21st century knowledge from the fields of anthropology, ethnology, archeology, etc.
From what I've read, there had previously been some assumptions about what "primitive communism" was like, but overall these concepts were based on logical assumptions based on modern-day hunter-gathers, and limited (often racially biased) 19th century knowledge. The narrative was sort of "primitive communism -> ??? -> agriculture -> ??? -> slaves -> the rest of history", and it wasn't really elaborated on much deeper than that. The transition from Feudalism to Capitalism is very well documented, but previous epochs not so much.
The very concrete examples you've given here, like in particular, the link between patrilocal marital organization leading to gender hierarchies (aka, males essentially dominating wives as slaves, aka the arising of class distinction out of previously classless egalitarian foragers) makes human history seem much more... tangible, and less abstract. It really gets some of those neurons in my head firing in novel ways, connecting disparate dots that were previously unconnected.
Its makes the issue of class much more salient, seeing you elaborate on how food/resource conditions and specific environmental factors can lead towards hierarchical organization (such as with the salmon), and how that can kind of ripple through the ages to become more institutionalized systems, like formalized property rights, slavery, etc. Its like the term "material conditions" finally fully clicked in place for me.
Part of the issue, I think, is that the concept of "material conditions" can kind of feel abstract in contemporary capitalist society, because we don't live in small nomadic bands (there's nearly 8 billion of us on this planet now!), and most of us are so far removed from any sort of natural environment. I recall a memory of when I was a child, I found some wild berries in the woods and ate them. They were delicious (I used to know how to identify which ones were poisonous and safe, not sure I would be able to do that now). Other than that moment, I don't recall the last time I actually ate food that wasn't "manufactured" and packaged in plastic. Actually getting food from my environment, and being tied to seasonal fluctuations, has become an alien concept. Its sad, really. And since capitalism presents this commodified form of life as "natural", it inversely makes "natural" life seem foreign and alien -- very topsy turvy.
Anyway, amazing work on this. You have a very solid skill of simultaneously presenting a concept in a clear and concise way, connecting multiple dots together, distilling complex concepts into digestible information, and (all the while) presenting all of this in a way that doesn't condescend or belittle the intelligence of viewers. That's a rare combo.
Most other UA-camrs are pretty good at maybe 2 of the above things, but not all of them at once.
thank you so much, these kind of comments really make it worth it for me to keep doing this stuff! i think that political concepts should be easily understandible to people at a high school level. it’s not rocket science, and most political theory we learn is much to confusing and muddled for no reason, which helps keep people passive. there definitely have been authors who have put together ethnography and archaeology to explain the origins of hierarchies, and there’s usually a good deal of material analysis in those, but i do think i’m making certain things clear in ways that other people haven’t, and connecting certain dots that are sort of obvious but for some reason haven’t been connected yet or not very clearly at least. like ive never seen anyone try to explain hierarchy in terms of relative bargaining power, and i think what i’m doing that’s a bit original is putting all this stuff into a very ABC fundamentals of political theory framework.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I agree. You really are connecting some good dots here. Particularly the "bargaining power" aspect you mentioned.
Not only is the "bargaining power" analysis put forth here very sound, but it appears to apply consistently. It also helps draw a clear line from pre-history to the modern day struggles: "What connects hunter-gatherers, gender relations, and modern workers unions? Bargaining power."
That and, obviously, violent force. But "bargaining power" is the underlying "soft force" that permeates all different eras it seems. "Bargaining power" being the particular give-and-take social force between different classes or groups (whether that's productive material classes, gender hierarchies, or even the give-and-take between neighboring tribes vying/warring for the same hunting grounds -- sometimes they fight, sometimes one side "concedes" the land to the other to avoid conflict).
You should probably convert your script for this series into a book when you're done. Personally, I love the video essay format, as the audio/visual synthesis can add a layer of "more than its sum parts" that make learning easier.
But... Unfortunately it seems the academic types don't tend to take video essays as seriously as they do "formally published book" formats. So it might be worth considering, just to make it "official."
Also, I'm sure there's some people who just prefer books, and probably don't spend any real time on youtube. So there's a chance to always reach more people that way too.
@@jameso2290 yes, i do plan on turning this into a book if i can generate enough interest in the channel. as it is i pour an insane amount of time into this for a small number of views a patreon subscribers, but hoping that will grow. written articles and book would definitely expand to a different audience, most people don’t have time for videos and prefer lighter audio podcast chat type shows. i also want to do a series of videos that are even more basic for people without college degrees, I think that’s the most important audience ultimately
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Understandable.
I don't really have anything to add, since I have no idea the amount of work all that takes. But I feel you. I can only say "best of luck and I appreciate the work you've done so far."
Other than that, I think what you have so far has been pretty solid and easy to understand, speaking for my own non-college smooth-brain. Very clear videos with plain-english terminology. I have no real complaints so far.
@@jameso2290 thanks, some people have told me it’s too dense and can be hard to follow
Huge thanks - you've successfully changed my mind. This thought experiment in particular was a really useful, it's logically consistent that changing ideology without changing material conditions prevents long term social change. Thank you! I FINALLY understand your critique of Graeber and Wengrow: like Mao, they place so much emphasis on the _ideological_ dimension that readers are tempted to believe material conditions are also entirely ideological. I didn't see it at first, as I take a materialist view for granted amongst leftists, forgetting that there is a huuuuuge postmodern push to abandon material analysis among fans of identity politics high on ingroup-outgroup tussles.
Ironically, the ideological tool of analogy was what ultimately worked with me, backed up by the logical consistency and anthropological evidence, but still - yay materialism!!!
wow, thank you, it’s not often one gets to hear that they changed someone’s mind! to be fair to graeber he was definitely a critique of postmodernism, but at the same time he was clearly influenced by it. agency is real and important, and advanced industrial civilization gives us power to alter conditions in important ways, but the way we learn political and anthropological theory in our society almost completely ignores material and other factors that shape human ideas and beliefs. it’s crazy that we understand that politicians change their beliefs under the influence of money, or that landlords or bosses think differently than tenants and workers, and that people change ideas if they go from being a tenant to a landlord, but somehow we don’t apply this to traditional societies as if they’re magical space unicorns and not human beings. and the same the people who treat them like space unicorns accuse the people who treat them the same as everyone else like we’re infantilizing them!
btw, which analogy in particular? i’d ideally like to be able to change minds in one shot vs after watching 4 videos!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 'The pink pill' story. I guess it was more of an allegory than analogy but it was really useful as a though experiment. It was so successful because, as a viewer, I get a lot of autonomy to use my imagination and reason in following the logic from the premise, regardless of whether this magical pill is possible or not. Doing that, I recognised the missing element that the pink pill effect could not correct for: ongoing material/structural conditions.
As mentioned earlier, less successful rhetorical methods at changing my mind were hot takes and claims of offence, despite these being sincerely held and even laugh-out-loud funny. These would definitely work with an audience that already agrees with your position, like field experts or embattled anarchists, but for a general audience who have likely already developed some sympathy with the Davids' book, they came across as more of an in-group joke. What was really interesting were where you discuss why you think they avoided talking about it: this omission is telling and deserves a thorough examination that sympathises with their position without endorsing it. Something like, 'identity politics is awful I know, and people get fed up with leftists for pointing out how we're constantly working against our best interests, but that doesn't mean we get to abandon material analysis. Imagine you had a magic pill...' etc.
That way, I also don't lose sight of where you agree. Your focus is on underlying material conditions, while theirs is on disproving particular assumptions such as 'small society = egalitarian, big society = hierarchical' with evidence to the contrary. I understand nobody in the academy is saying that anymore, but the popular discourse is another matter (hi UA-cam: fuck your algorithm). Although these positions are complementary rather than in competition, the Davids fail in taking the opportunity to define 'egalitarian' simply as meaning equality in decision making. Ride this train for all it's worth, my friend!
@@oliverhunter4427 well some people in academia are saying small society can be egalitarian but not a big one (like Peter Turchin) but Graeber and Wengrow pretend that all the revolutionary anthropologists who say the opposite don’t exist, and a lot of the other stuff they claim is in the standard narrative no longer is.
I feel like I've always known this, but never had it all collected in my head like this
I don't really know how to articulate this. I spent my childhood in Saudi Arabia and my family came to the west for education. I suppose it's a near universal experience that being embedded in a different culture makes you rethink a lot of what you thought was normal (turns out I'm gay, who knew), but there was an edge to it being in the US, on some level I felt like I was able to think for the first time in my life because I wasn't surrounded by family members 24/7 who would notice everything you did and immediately enforce correct behavior. The US didn't seem to have those social structures and I think for a long time I figured it was due to the modern economy, that it was hard to keep tribes and large families as political units alive when a lot of people moved away from their tribes and where they grew up to chase job opportunities.
I think now that's probably not quite correct or at least woefully incomplete. I remember telling a friend years ago that societal moral progress (the arc of history bends towards justice thing) seemed like a myth, and technology just happened to shape the world to be a bit kinder to our values than the old one, but I never had anything more than a hazy sense how that actually worked. This series has definitely given me a lot to think about
thanks for the really interesting comment! yes i believe your insights and observations are correct. one of the reasons for the differences in cultures is how the modern economy breaks up tribes and even families for economic reasons, and there is also no need for tribal social structure in a capitalist economy or in the feudal economy that preceded it in europe. The tribal structure in Saudi Arabia is an adaptation to the pastoralist economy of the Beduin. Because capitalism emerged in Saudi Arabia on a foundation of a tribal social structure, circumstances there are more adapted to maintaining those family structures, plus people already live close by etc. when you immigrate somewhere else it’s much harder to stay together. part of my family is from morocco so i see many of the same dynamics in my family as well.
Really interesting video! Thank you for sharing such quality content on UA-cam
thanks, glad you’re getting something out of it!
You're a freaking genius, D.
Thanks for researching and thinking hard on // making // teaching this.
i’ll take it! to toot my own horn, i didn’t make this all up out of nowhere, but i do really think i explained some aspects of it in a way no one has before and connected some as yet unconnected dots. working on another one about racism along the same lines
Thanks to listening to all your episodes up to this one I now know so much more about the basics!! I didn’t even realise I didn’t know this stuff. And importantly I now feel confident in knowing what materialist analysis is! Finally! I started with the Graeber critique and then went back to the beginning. Thanks so much.
This is the most informative piece of info ive gotten to explain patriachy ive been struggling trying to understanding it through biological evolution and everything hope just 100 million people listened to you ...wed literally have a better world.A lot of misinformation out there on gender issues leading to ever deteroriating gender relations.
thanks - yes, this is sadly neglected information. it used to be common knowledge in anthropology, but has been replaced with gibberish. spread the word!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 i will spread the word for sure but there is also to many competing ideas in the scientific community that can confuse ordinary people especially those not grounded in things like anthropology and genetics coupled with religious indoctrination.
@@lugaritzbrown2250 yes for sure - but this is stuff anyone can understand, we need to learn how to explain things simply. and the genetics stuff you can believe it or not, but this still applies
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 thats a big mistake intellectuals make, i can bet many if not most people will get tit bits but wont make much sense of it as its too technical maybe...were talking people who are constantly on instagram getting entertained.Intellect needs to be excercized.In this case quite substantial prerequisite knowledge on history is required.
I listen to your videos again from time to time and I can always hear some super new detail that catches my attention.
The fact that culture is created to help adapt to the environment is the most appropriate statement I have ever heard. Because the definition of culture meaning the customs, art, behavioral norms, religion, etc. of certain individual peoples does not say anything about the WHY and HOW they were formed the way they did and it does not give any explanation for why all ”civilized” culture is very different yet almost the same if examining more closely.
It is a shame we never studied about the still existing egalitarian communities in any school, however it would have been very interesting to explore why they dont have visual art for example. I certainly would have been even more interested in learning about their value system regarding equality too!
But every nation teaches their “culture” as VALUE to their kids so in order to change a corrupted system, one needs to question their own culture first which is a painful process if ever get there. For this to happen it would be inevitable for everyone to learn about the WHYs which is rarely taught anywhere!
indeed! if you want to read more about egalitarian societies read Jerome Lewis’ Egaliarian Social Organization among Hunter Gatherers and then check out the bibliography
@@WHATISPOLITICS69thanks for the recommendation!
I can see your channel is growing but I can see also some assholes arrived and commenting stupid stuff😂
I guess it is a sign of getting famous:)
Keep up the good work, and I appreciate your answer all the time - even if I see the response a year later
@@mse5739 haha, the internet pests … all the kids whose parents did a really bad job of teaching them how to behave in society, pollute all the internet comments in the world
@@WHATISPOLITICS69lol.. the pests:) nice word
Though i must admit I pollute them back very frequently🥴 if I see some very shallow comment
@@WHATISPOLITICS69lol.. the pests:) nice word
Though I must admit I pollute them back if I see a very shallow comment..
I'm a little bit late, but his made me feel very hopeful! Honestly since childhood I was upset being born as a woman. Not that I felt in the wrong body, but I definitely knew that men abuse men, and abused men abuse women. Sure, women could be abusive too, but on a smaller scale statistically. I never felt like there was a way for me to win in this world.
I saw your video almost like a a Universe's birthday present! Definitely need to focus on building personal wealth and education. Only way out for the future generations of girls to stand a chance. I'm more determined and energized than ever, bless you and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
i’m really glad that this had such an impact on you. it is really empowering to understand how these dynamics work, and what we can do to change them and that it’s not just the human condition for women or other people to be in inferior positions!
Being realistic-as in neither valorizing or denigrating-about human nature and human(s) relationship with their material needs' scarcity or abundance really seems to be the key here, the magic tool with which one can rationally discover the truths contained in your videos. This clear-eyed realistic perceiving of human motivation-when and where mutual self-interest happens- is crucial to understanding where today's struggles are delineated, as well as to speculating whether solutions and new forms of conscious politics can be instantiated. Having this understanding would lead any intelligent sincere actor to eventually discover these truths, but thanks for the shortcuts so carefully laid out. NOT having aforementioned understanding means any specific clear glimpse as to the validity of one or the other of your points would be fleeting and impermanent. (I know I sound stuffy, but I'm a sandwich making wage slave without a degree, so, off to work here in a minute)
not 100% sure what you just said but the point of it all is that if you want to change things you need to know how they work and therefore what to change and how to change it
good luck with your work day!
I was pointing out that: over and over, material circumstances interfacing with human responses-both positive and negative-being what cause the relative either hierarchical or egalitarian aspects of a given subject culture, and such analysis is fundamental in your presentation. sorry if I make that sound unnecessarily complicated@@WHATISPOLITICS69
I think this is one of the reasons why the invention of the bicycle was so important for women.
i dont understand, what do you mean?
At the end of the day people tend to respond to incentive structures or disincentive structures.
This is why I think Caroll Quigley made such a big point about externalized control gaining increasing prominence in the American economy. People by and large relocate according to where the jobs are, rather than make their living in a city of their preference. And of course jobs in and of themselves are a form of external control over your life.
yes - and incentive structures can be natural or human-made - what’s interesting today is that we have to means to design incentives in an unprecedented way
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 its why I am fan of making things more democratic. if people find their opinion matters they are more likely to speak up. the more people contribute to the discussion the better the chances a good decision is reached. the problem in american history has always been the privileging of certain voices over others. from two sides democracy can improve, (1) leaders who embody that attitude and (2) large scale organization by those whose opinions aren't being heard. I worry when the masses dream of a benevolent dictator (1) rather than follow the greatest of american traditions (2)
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 There are a bunch of problems of human nature and practical reality that complicate the matter and make your statement seem overly optimistic. Mostly, even if people were all well-intentioned (and we are not), we have a wide array of different perspectives, making each of us acutely aware of the shortcomings of plans that others are devoted to and willfully blind to the failings of the solutions we champion. Then _politics_ comes into it, and we're all fighting over what actually gets done, resulting in a chaotic mishmash of activities and policies that trample on one another and create new problems through incompatibility, as well as compromises that reflect almost nobody's preference nor anything resembling a good idea.
You mentioned in another post here how religion addresses behavior through both societal structure _and_ morality, training individuals to respond appropriately in advance of temptation _or_ hardship. I'd agree that its a good approach, in that respect. Religion works best when it is voluntary and convinces followers to govern themselves, as opposed to when it becomes a _legal_ authority (but, again, even when well-intentioned, people can't help but screw things up, and not all are well-intentioned).
@@crimsonmask3819 i think you misunderstand my point - a well-designed system incentivizes people to behave well, and disincentivized bad behaviour regardless of how good or bad peoples’ intentions are. and it fosters a culture with better intentions and values over time.
if you look at super egalitarian hunter gatherer societies, people are as human and good and bad intentioned as people in our society, but the practical realities of life in their society makes it really hard to do bad thngs and rewarding to do good things.
and about religion i say the opposite. religion emerges to stabilize any system, whether it’s wonderful or awful, to prevent people from challenging the current order and starting battles they can’t win.
it’s not religion that leads to a social order, it’s the social order that shapes what religion will look like,
OK. I was too excited, I just reached the end and now understand. I will take action!
For the landlords not fixing things two factors, on reasonable repair costs (independent and not absurdly marked up) force automatic consent for those to be funded in lue of rent, essentially a lien against the rent, after a reasonable notice. For employment rights making dismissing employees without narrow cause expensive enough that it becomes cheaper to let them assert their rights. Some of these measures would be necessary even if you democratized or socialized workplaces to preserve the rights of those in the minority in any given situation. No one wanting to pitch in to fix the light in an elevator being an antocedot I had heard about it.
Liked! Here's a comment to help you out with the algorithm circus
appreciated!
Your work is so good!
thank you! particularly proud of this epsiode!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I just shared this episode with a couple of friends! This is by far the best leftist content on UA-cam in terms of quality, accessibility, and presentation. Thank you for making it. I'm glad the algorithm picked up, "Why Every Communist Country is a One-Party Dictatorship" so I could find your other stuff. The UA-cam Gods are fickle with quality vs quantity accounts now.
@@ShimmerBodyCream thank you! that’s what im aiming for! yeah, it’s shitty being at the mercy of this algorithm - this particular one didn’t blow up like some of the other, we can only guess why
I really love your channel. But could you maybe cite more resources/literature?
hey, i usually add a bibliography - i forgot to link to it in this episode, but here it is, i’ll add it to the show notes now - was there something else you wanted sources on? i do a lot of the stuff from memory - it takes me 2-6 weeks full time to make these videos as it is, during which time i’m not working or earning money, so anything that adds more labour is gonna kill me - and a lot of the stuff, there’s no good single source on, you need to just read a whole bunch of anthro, and i can’t start making those kinds of lists. similar with the left right videos, it’s a lot of original synthesis of existing stuff worldwidescrotes.wordpress.com/2020/11/26/pinkpilledxcript/
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks a lot. That is all I needed. :)
@@SickDerrick phew!
You're a gem!!!! I've never learned this much at school
It's funny you mention bans in certain subreddits. Not going to declare one side is objectively right or wrong here, but this is the first actual video I've seen exploring the ideas of whether we need to tackle racism, sexism, patriarchy, etc., directly, or if it's a byproduct of class struggle. The Menslib subreddit, as useful as I think it can be for men looking for healthy masculniity, will delete any comments suggesting some of these problems might be a side effect of class struggles, because that's "reductionist". On one hand I understand tightly moderating a community from bad actors, but it does nothing to convince someone who isn't as informed on the topic or on the fence why suggesting the biggest war we fight is a class war is faulty logic, they just say it is and assume anyone who wants to chill in their community already knows and agrees with that, with no room to discuss why they think that logic is faulty.
the idea that focusing on class conflict is somehow a bad thing is such a red flag (pun intended) that the people making that accusation are rich shits. you have the same garbage in feminism and anti-racism circles… see episode 9.2 for a whole rant about this.
for me things like sexism, racism etc are like typhoid or other waterborne diseases. it’s important to treat the symptoms and get sick people medicine (analogous to dealing with racism and sexism etc) but unless you tackle the core of the problem - like cleaning up the water supply ( i.e. dealing with power and wealth inequality) then the problem will never end and you’ll waste 100x as many resources dealing with a never ending epidemic.
You work hard to Analyze complicated topics and still mantain a very open attitude when discussing them.
You are also patient with many callous commenters 😂
Keep up your great work; Honest and Incisive!
haha thanks! i only have patience with people who are arguing respectfully, as soon as someone is condescending or insulting (or hasn’t watched the video!) i have zero patience and then just aim to teach them a lesson!
mix-up at 15:55
Fascinating example with the PRC, you gave there. Another example for patriarchy being caused by material conditions is the difference between chimpanzees and bonobos which came down to whether food had to be foraged in the canopy or was available on the ground. watch?v=Q_izpq0Ar-Y
zoops - thanks for catching that! I wish you could edit the sound in youtube videos after posting them... and yes amazing example with bonobos vs chimps! the link doesn’t work, is that video “PBS Evolution, Why Sex?"
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Yes, it is. It's the end of a youtube link, since I'm never sure whether posting actual links works or gets filtered or whatever.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I will try to post the link to the UA-cam channel, and it can usually be found by searching politically provoked. Fair warning there is a lot of far right fascist kids on there, but the platform is trying to allow extreme views to be discussed. Forgive me if the link does not work because my visual impairment sometimes make sharing things difficult on some platforms, UA-cam being one of the more difficult ones
ua-cam.com/users/PoliticallyProvoked
@@blindteo5808 thanks teo, yes the link works, i will check that out - which video has you in it? i dont mind seeing debates with right wingers, i think it’s important to be exposed to all point of view and to reach out broadly as well. by the way, if you’re visually impaired, you might prefer the audio version of this show! you can search for the term WORBS in your podcast app or click this link if you’re on a mobile device: www.podfollow.com/worbs
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I agree that it's important to debate right wingers and challenge them rather than stay in their own echo chambers. Here is a debate I did that was definitely inspired by the concise information you provided on the Left Right dichotomy and I'm arguing with what I think is a somewhat rational at times neoliberal Republican
ua-cam.com/video/Ds84urMMJX4/v-deo.html
When you return to this subject please consider how male dominance must naturally lead to rapid and sustained population growth. Think what will naturally happen when male sexuality is the basis for population growth compared to female physical stamina. ( Not knocking male sexuality it evolved to be as it is.) I gestated three children in six years, gave birth without drugs, and breast fed each child for a year. I was totally into the whole experience and well supported. I will testify that it is physically draining none the less. My mother gave birth to eight children in 12 years, exhaustion was her middle name. I don't know the literature on the subject, but, even women living the highly active life of subsistence would have great incentive to keep conception to a minimum considering the vast effort involved. If women have the power to control when they conceive, population growth would surely slow to a level sustainable in the environment where they live. Population growth based only on male sexuality would out pace the production of any environment. The feedback loop of endless need for more resources and plenty of extra bodies seems like the perfect recipe for warfare and conquest, not just defense.
Thank you for your huge efforts to put this podcast series together, it is very insightful and succinct, great combination, my husband did the patron thing:) the least we can do to get these ideas out there.
this is an interesting factor to consider - from what I know male domination affects a lot of things (usually for the worse) but population growth is more of a factor of what sort of economy you have. Nomadic hunter gathers tend to have about one kid every four years because having too many kids depletes your resources more quickly which is a net drain, while farmers are incentivized to have as many kids as possible because more kids is more farm labour. This is true for gender equal hunter gatherers as it is for more male dominated ones, so it would seem like the economic system is what’s more important there - BUT - most agricultural societies are male dominated. It would be interested to look at agricultural societies that have more gender equality (like traditional haudenosaunee) and compare their birth rates to societies with similar economies to see if women are deciding to have less kids or not. The big drain and vulnerability of mothers who are rearing and breastfeeding and caring for young infants is one of the factors that give men a bargaining power advantage in many societies - like in capitalism for example, you’re going to be dependant for big chunks of time several times over your life, and unless you’re wealthy enough to support yourself or unless you have a proper welfare state to support you, it usually makes you dependant on a man. You can really see the difference in women’s equality in countries with very strong welfare states for that reason.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 You make good points, as always. More farm labor is an incentive, however an acre of land can only feed so many mouths no matter how much labor is on hand. Yep, devaluing the care of children, d the elderly, sick and disabled, and enslaving women to do that work, (other than gestation it could all be done by males) gives women less bargaining power. But, perhaps the devaluation is a greater factor than the actual time spent. Further thought: A society that valued the work of caring for all people would not have random mass shootings - just short hand for how much more resilient such a society would be. In your podcast about the black lives matter movement you suggested lots of good steps in political bargaining. What if our social movements were social incubators practicing all the interpersonal caring and Contra hierarchy actions we might learn from highly egalitarian societies? What ever the bargaining with the powers that be gained, we'd gain stronger social networks making people feel stronger in their continued bargaining. Two for the price of one movement.
@@rainmako2841 the farm to children incentive is pretty well documented, but it does end up requiring more land, which is why farming societies tend to be very land hungry and engage in more warfare etc. agricultural societies that are closed off like in papua new guinea often do a lot of infanticide once you reach a certain point. hunter gatherers also do, at a much lower point, but they breastfeed until about 4 is a natural form of birth control. in gender egalitarian forager societies men do a lot of childcare - there’s some articles and maybe a book on this I think by Frank Marlowe you can find it online. But still woman are vulnerable during breastfeeding and pregnancy. But in those societies women have enormous power and are basically equal to men and can exile men who misbehave. i talk about it a bit in some of my episodes but i’ll talk about it more specifically in the future. practicing care is great, but you really need to shift bargaining power to have lasting changes and victories. but i think in the world today, it’s very possible. women in social welfare states have much more power than those without, and they get paid more and treated better, and have better sex and relationships too! there’s a book “sex under socialism” about that
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 So here's the question, why do Patrilocal farming societies not balance their birth rate to the carrying capacity of their land? We know other societies do attempt to balance birth rate to resources. But in those societies women have some or a lot of ability to refuse conception. I'm hypothesizing male dominated societies lead to over population because male sexuality is not balance by female ability to refuse conception. I met a Maassai man in Kenya in 2019, he had 16 children by two wives, his father had 20 children by 3 wives. How many hundred children in the third generation? They all know they only have a couple hundred acres of land. Dorothy Hodgson's, "Gender, Ethnicity and the cCultural politics of maasai development" describes several cultural methods to curb male sexuality that leads to conception if you look at them in that light. Also describes how British rule inadvertantly quashed these methods and unleashed exponential population growth. Other changes in medicine and food distribution in times of famine also played a part, of course. Male sexuality is a tender subject, but just like how our bodies evolved to save calories and now lead to obesity in the modern age, male sexuality evolved over millenia when female autonomy and environmental pressures could balance that sexual drive. Now it is out of balance and so is our population.
@@rainmako2841 that makes a lot of sense - both women not having input and men’s biology being unchecked going bananas, but you just said yourself that Hodgson’s book explains that the Maasai did have methods of curbing population growth until recently, no? i could be wrong, and can’t cite anything off hand, besides male dominated hunter gatherers, but I was under the impression that male dominated agricultural and pastoralist societies also curb their populations, depending on circumstances.
Yes, go watch episode 7. It was really good!
Been really enjoying your videos! I have a question I've been coming back when I watch your videos, one especially relevant to this episode: if patrilocality is the social form that gives rise to patriarchy, and since contemporary Western society as a whole is neither patrilocal nor matrilocal for the most part, then what is the social form that preserves it? I think you're right that a "pink pill" of cultural education won't change the material conditions that reproduce patriarchy. Maybe we're a) stuck on old, outmoded baggage and it's only a matter of time before patriarchy dissolves, or b) there is some less visible structure within modern society that punishes "rational" individualistic behavior, and patriarchy is the outcome of that thing, or c) some other explanation.
good question! to be clear, patrilocally is ONE set of conditions that leads to patriarchy, and it’s the one I always talk about because there are so many classic examples. But there can be all sorts of other conditions.
so in the next episode I’ll be talking about how inuit patriarchy existed in the summer because people were separated into individual nuclear families (neolocal residence) living isolated from eachother, and men did the hunting and controlled access to hunting weapons and are physically stronger, and fighting back against that could result in everyone starving.
in the US it was a bit similar in that you had farms that were just one nuclear family or a multigeneration family, isolated from eachother.
today I think mostly the conditions have changed and it is getting washed away BUT there are still some factors that put women at a disadvantage - particularly that having babies lowers your workplace bargaining power, and makes you financially dependant unless you’re rich. So until that changes, like via better welfare benefits and equal pay laws like you see in scandinavia, you’ll still see more male dominance than in other places.
Your the 1st liberal left wing vibed channel ive subscribed too in months. So many of my old go to science,social science & psychology channels have skewed their information to fit an agenda. A huge problem with the liberal activist is they dismiss,ignore are unaware of the root factors you point to as causations of societal structures. Like China America today is teaching gender ideology & quasi crt cirruculums to children hoping it will create a positive change but they're ignoring the hardwired & environmentally ingrained aspects of gender & the deeply wooven causations of racism. This solves nothing & only is making society on the whole worse
i don’t know what china is teaching, but here we ignore structure because they don’t want you changing the structure of anything!
@WHATISPOLITICS69 in your video you referenced China's government began teaching & pushing the message in their society that women are smart & capable & should be valued highly but this didn't stop Chinese parents from committing female infanticide. I believe you were referencing this to point out the fact their were deeper socio-cultural practices that evolved due to Chinese cultural environment & simply teaching Women are great wasn't enough to stop that practice ie: the Chinese government didn't address the root issue so this system wide pro-female propaganda failed where it needed to succeed the most. I'm saying the current liberal establishment is trying to achieve with the diversity equity & social justice agenda its pushing will & is failing for a similar reason. Part of what they are teaching triggers hardwired human instincts to protect off spring & they way they are teaching it doesn't address the causes of inequality & racism.
@@HughEMC oh i see - you were talking about critical race theory before, so i got confused.
Jordan Penerson gets me every time
so classic!
Gender exploitation seems to be minimized in matrilineal societies where the women own the land, houses and distribute inheritance. Some exist to this day and see peaceful cooperation. Physical violence is the main challenge to the whole system usually from the outside.
yes, that’s exactly right - i talk about it a bit in episode 8
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Excellent! I’m on my way over there now then. Enjoying your work so much.
Very Informative. Learning new things everyday.
Gotdammit. I'll buy it. But there is a part of me that knows things will always go from good to bad to good to bad and if the response to bad times is always patriarchy, we also desperately need to work on that response (since there will always be bad times).
well if you look at immediate return hunting and gathering societies, patriarchy doesn’t emerge in bad times, though maybe in very very bad times that could happen, but it would likely lead to societal collapse. for an industrial civilization, it’s really about structuring your incentives and distribution of power so that hard times won’t advantage anyone in particular over other people.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 This strikes me as the "if you're really nice to him and make sure to X, he won't hit you" argument, while not having a better answer atm.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Also, I grapple with this shit like it's a giant black hole in my life. It's bad.... I always appreciate your contributions and hard work and would share on Reddit but I think I'm also shadowbanned and I have no idea why lol.
@@moeg.280 what do you mean? it’s the opposite of that i think - the idea is to structure things so that he never gets to be in a position to do that!
@@moeg.280 shadowbanned from breadtube also? wtf is with them? i put up a video that did well, and then the next video just would not show up on the feed and got no views. and i wrote to the mods and no response... i tried to get a friend to post it but it said “someone already posted this so you can’t do it” so now i’m afraid to post anything there anymore. such a shitshow.
yo, video got me so WET! fantastic analysis
I think there is a Western example: Communications Age. The productive means is turning to communications technology, cooperation, and collaboration. Communication, cooperation, and collaboration is not a traditionally heroic masculine success model and college graduation rates are showing it. Capitalism as a system is still based on dualistic winner and loser, and that will need to be addressed, but as long as we don't blow up the world, top production and prestige positions are going to those that can communicate, cooperate, and collaborate. This does inherently mean cis female, but it hasn't traditionally meant cis male, unless he was a Soldier.
I’m no expert but following from how Graeber speaks of to do with how governance worked in pirate societies, as generally collectively run, but final decision making power would sit with the captain during conflict or when doing raids.
From what I’ve heard about various First Nations cultures, they oscilllated between matriarchal-collectivist-patriarchal depending on the conditions of the moment, more matriarchal during times of peace & harvest . And more patriarchal during times of conflict or clan migration. But this dynamism is often lost when we talk of only dichotomies.
It is worth noting that most ‘hunter gatherers’ did actually ‘farm’ just not in ways that made sense to more ruralised cultures. This is a way of erasing the inter generational knowledge systems that were integral to the 60,000 year success story of indigenous Australians for example. We are only just starting to see these cultures in this positive intelligent light.
i don’t know about the pirates, but the rest of what you’re saying is either wrong, or half baked and not particularly relevant to what i’m trying to describe in these videos.
Very well spoken. Good video
Like your work
Would like to know you thought on mate selection and mating strategies use in the different groups you talke about, i think this may give a better understanding of the difference in lifestyles.
evolved mating strategies or preferences might explain why men might want to dominate and control women to some degree, but it doesn’t explain why they’re able to in some places and not in others - that’s why material analysis is so important
Hi, I've a bunch of questions since you're probably one of the most knowledgeable politics channel owners on UA-cam.. I don't expect you to answer everything since there's a ton and you're probably busy, but I'd appreciate it if you could answer parts the most important parts or just redirect me to read something, maybe recommend a book or an article, or two 😅
So what are the material conditions leading to patriarchy today? Also, are matriarchal societies naturally more egalitarian and less dominating just because of biological behavioural differences or are there other factors? I was thinking maybe men have the means to dominate because of a natural strength advantage so primitive, more tyrannical matriarchies wouldn't be able to withstand retaliation from physically stronger males. Does there really have to be a society where no one can hold more power for us women to be truly equal to men? Is there no other way?
What I understood from this patriarchy video combo was that patrilocality created a lack of social support for women, resulting in a hierarchy, and that while women can support other women, this can't occur. Maybe this is dumb, I just started dabbling in this shit lol, but most mammal species have patriarchies without any of that, right? Meaning, the material conditions of sexual dimorphism, as in testosterone (amplifier for a desire for domination and aggression) and more physical strength would naturally result in patriarchies when the opportunity to dominate anyone is given?
Lastly, and most importantly, what do I read to get rid of internalised misogyny? I've some beliefs rooted in evo psych that really fuck me over 😵Women, on average, have more naturally nurturing, maternal personalities beyond just social conditioning, and men are naturally more domineering, aggressive and status-seeking so I guess the oppression feels natural to some extent, based on sex hormones.. I still struggle to understand how male and female bodies could have evolved to be so different and suited to specific functions without some palaeolithic gender roles in place. I don't know if male and female brains are inherently different to the point of influencing behaviour or disposition,, the literature is conflicting on this topic, but if we have different bodies and hormones (which obviously influence behaviour) why wouldn't we adapt on a broader behavioural extent, to the point of different brains? I'd love to have all of these debunked btw
hey - material conditions for patriarchy: did you see episoide 7? there can be all sorts of situations that lead to patriarchy, but it’s basically anything that results in women being isolated from eachother. the most common example is when people get frequently attacked and then in order to defend themselves organize around related males, meaning women need to marry in from the outside, and local women move away to be marries, thus resulting in women being socially isolated, unable to easily form coalitions. to defend their rights and assert their will.
for matriarchal societies, i think you mean matrilocal matrilineal societies, because with rare exceptions, the women usually don’t rule society the way men do in patriarchy, so it’s not considered “matriarchy” which means domination or rule by mothers.
matrilocal societies are relatively egalitarian because to some extent because of a mix of biological differences and practical circumstance - the practical circumstance is that the reason matrilocal societies arise are because the men have to travel for long periods for war or hunting/fishing etc, so that it makes sense to organize local politics around women - but at the same time it also is practical for men to deal with external politics, trade with the outside, treaties with other groups, etc. So that gives men an extra source of power to counterbalance women’s local power. that’s why the clan mothers will elect a male chief, the chief is the leader of external politics, while the clan mothers rule local politics. the biological aspect is that men are the ones doing the long distance war or subsistence because they dont get pregnant or have to carry vulnerable infants, they’re on average stronger, etc.
Does there really have to be a society where no one can hold more power for us women to be truly equal to men? No, because matrilocal societies have power differentials, clan mothers and elders have more power than young people, heads of families have more power than their kids, chiefs have more power than regular people, etc. See episode 8
And animals don’t just have male dominance because males are stronger, patrilocal vs matrilocal residence plays a big role as well. bonobo males are stronger than females, but females dominate because they’re matrilocal and women form coalitions.
women and female nonhumans also exert power by sexual selection - if you’re a man and you want to have sex ever, you best behave and listen to the women and treat them properly or else no one will sleep with you and they might even chase you out of the camp. and women have the power to decide that because they can act in coalition.
size and strength are more of an advantage for animals because they don’t have projectile weapons, whereas for humans the weakest pee wee herman can kill the strongest he-man with a poison dart from 30 feet away.
and for yes there were palaeolithic gendered division of labour (we have clear evidence of it in archaeology vs neanderthals who didn’t have that division of labour for example) and yes i think humans naturally have on average personality differences based on hormones and sex, and naturally different dispositions (on average) - but that doesn’t have to mean dominance hierarchy. you can be different but also equal in terms of power. differences in traits don’t need to mean differences in power. in our society we have this overwhelming misconception that differences in talent by magic translate into differences of power. that’s just not true. in egalitarian forager societies you have all sorts of differences of talent, but without major power differences.
Or think of this: Donald Trump is half way to being an imbecile, he has no physical strength, no artistic talent, no real skills, isn’t good at business, he has very limited abilities in almost every way, except for some talent at comedy - yet he was president for 4 years and one of the most powerful people in the world - that wasn’t because of any natural ability, it’s because he’s rich and well connected and popped up for election at the right time and got lucky. Circumstances determine power as much as ability.
You said that industralisation that helped women to become more independent and less likely to be exploited by the husband. I feel that could have been true in the past but nowadays capitalism equally opresses both male and female. In most instances, women get exploited more in capitalism as capitalism does not view giving birth and doing housework as real labour which is mostly done by women. Maybe i am misunderstanding your arguments. I feel the real empowerment of women will be achieved when we change how "work" operates in modern society that will cater to both men and women which allow both of them to have a career and also take care of the child equally without sacrificing the other. This is not possible under the current material conditions in capitalism where women mostly might need to scarifice a bit of their career in taking care of the child. I loved the video and gave me a new perspective.
oh yeah, i agree with this 100%. capitalism exploits women, and in patriarchal cultures takes advantage of their subservient position to squeeze more out of them for less than with men. but in a context like in rural china, many women are better off than they were because they have an option out of the patriarchal family structure, and patrilocal residence, and it increases their bargaining power with their families as well. it’s a step up, but we need better - like feudalism is better than slavery, but we need better.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 i feel this can be directly tied to the failure of the feminism movement where it only further divided the gender divide without advocating for liberation of men and women. Feminists only pandering to ideology without talking about material conditions of both men and women really alienated the male group. It has devolved to a culture of making fun of feminists which kinda reinforces the patriachy again.
@@Rihiz1 i think capitalism is way bigger than the feminist movement or any movement - almost every movement becomes idiotic in our society over time because you have all the incentives of capitalism, highlighting and promoting the stupidest most capitalist friendly voices, or voices that sound antagonistic, but are actually very ineffective (see ep 9.2) and then once it gets through the university system you have the rich kid versions of feminism, and every other ideology that turn it into a tool of the ruling class.
Wouldn't the most obvious materialist solution to the landlord-tenant problem be to build more houses?
sure, that’s one solution - but it wouldn’t erase the power imbalance between tenants and landlords, even if there was a huge oversupply of houses (which would at least reduce it)
Good, melikes it.
methanks you
Could you go more into why matriarchal societies are seemingly less coercive? Does it have to do with marriage and gender roles?
did you see episode 8? women have much higher bargaining power so they’re relatively equal, and when bargaining power is relatively equal you have less means of coercion in general. they might still have a lot of coercion if they’re highly stratified class societies, but that’d be class coercion vs gender coercion
Why is patrilocal residence best for preventing attacks? Why would it not be better for everyone to group together?
if everyone stays in the same place you get inbreeding and overpopulation - so you need to marry out.
Brilliant work
Most Australian Aborigine societies were patriarchal and gerontocracies, yet they were immediate return H-Gs. So much for your materialist theory.
haha, ok dr professor einstein - yes aboriginal australian foragers were largely patriarchal gerontocracies despite being immediate return foragers. why? because as opposed to the other immediate return foragers we know about, the australians were in more intense conflict with eachother over resources. and as i point out in this video and the previous one, that’s what incentivizes patrilocal residence and male dominance…
so a very materialist explanation for this. also there’s interesting evidence in the really complicated descent structure of the australians that the patriarchy and gerontocracy are relatively recent innovations.
i personally think that in the palaeolithic, immediate return foragers were switching between gender equality and male dominance as the climate fluctuated into hard times and easier times.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Lol...no they weren't. Aborigines were sparsely populated, especially in the interior outback and Western Australia. Most groups were relatively self contained, and resources were widely dispersed across the landscape, so fighting over resources provided little benefit. The reasons for war were social: i.e. to settle grievances between groups, to assert superiority over other groups, raids for women, as part of religious rituals, and also as revenge for previous raids. see the works of John Connor, and Haratio Hale.
Bros never heard of an outlier
@@smelly1060 A whole continent full of outliers! It's ridiculous, and disproves his thesis.
The number of subs you have is criminally low. This is one of the best analysis Ive come across, with concrete examples that make your case bulletproof. Will be checking out the rest of your content and sharing acordinly. You do amazing work sir, keep it going. Hugs from Chile
i don’t know about bulletproof, but otherwise i agree! thanks!
Hierarchy is more dominant in patriarchal than matriarchal societies.
yes
You said around 4 minutes that in the immediate return hunting gathering society , the woman “can pick up and go live somewhere else.”
I thought that even in those societies you would need to stay with your original group for safety. Is this not the case?
no, different hunter gatherer bands are not in conflict with eachother, so people can just pick up and go wherever they have friends. people will often choose to be with family, but most people in hunter gatherer bands are not related to eachother.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69thank you for the clarification
This got me thinking about anti domestic violence campaigns which only focuses on marital abuse against women in a new way. As in how to adress the critics of it not using more gender neutral perspective, and excluding male victims. Before this video I would say that it is meaningful to separate the two, becouse as a society we ignore and let them grow for two very different reasons: 1. a man disciplining his wife is only his business and right, 2. if a man takes the role of the abused that is ridiculous and humiliating for him, because that's a feminine role. And the current overfocuse of one should be corrected.
Now it seems to me that these campaigns are actually a very effective tool: if the core issue was the absence of a community protecting the wife, they can make up for the lack of societal pressure, and therefore might be the most important measure when it comes to gender equality in rural areas (or where the patrilocality prevails).
that’s really interesting, sort of creating allies for the women via media - but would you be exposing specific abusers? or just giving resources for women to contact? and i’m not sure i understand how you would differ the messaging or strategy regarding men?
am i understanding your opinion correctly? you believe that men cant be victims and its okay for men to abuse their wives.
You are obviously very intelligent and insightful and have taken a lot of time considering the human condition. At 8:26 of this video, when you said "because we are all selfish gremlins", I think you identified the primary reason that education or political policies will never fix the issue. Culture or necessity may minimize the effects of the pride and selfishness. Many people quote the bible (which it does not seem that you are afraid of based on your video), and blame it for much of the issue, claiming that it promotes male domination and slavery, and sadly, many have quoted it to promote their own pride and selfishness. There are actually many places in the bible that seek to abolish such discriminations, Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.", Matt 22:30 (my own paraphrase) "in heaven there are no male or female, we will be like the angels", Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". I guess my point is that we are all broken and naturally push others down especially if it can be done in a way that lifts us up. The only way to make real change is to accept that God paid for all of our pride and selfishness by absorbing it into himself by dying in our place in order to reconcile our relationship with him. In accepting and believing this God promises to make us new. Pretty wordy, but I hope you will consider it.
if you look at very egalitarian foragers, you’ll see that they share and don’t cheat eachother or rape eachother and discourage violence etc - meanwhile they have very little in terms of moralistic religion. so while religious teaching might be one way to train people to be nice to eachother, it’s not necessary, or the only way.
17:00 yooo i wrote an essay for college in how gender equality in china (and FSS) was way better soon after the revolutions and how it got worse after that. Really wish i had the materialist view back then
when you did the research did the stuff you found on it even mention the patrilocal residence at all?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 nope, the studies mainly focused in the out comes like governmental representation
@@maxg971 crazy - it’s the most obvious thing, super easy to understand, and can teach you so much about how humanity works and crickets in academia… meanwhile any chinese peasant can tell you why women are devalued.
Really good video. About the laws that favour the working class, the punishment has to be very harsh to make a difference -> I think that would allow the landlords/bosses to play the victim. Liberal carefulness around how the state should not trod on the individual ends up translated into this white culture of lawsuits taking 10 years of multiple appeals and technicalities to get anywhere. Meanwhile (10 years ago when the violation happened) the worker was indeed fired on a pretext
landlords and bosses play the victim if there’s any regulation at all, even if it has no teeth! you can’t waste energy thinking about that, you just need maximal penalties and specialized administrative courts that are properly funded so the time to a hearing is short. with admin courts you normally aren’t waiting 10 years, you have the hearing and the decision all done within about 3-6 months from the time you file a claim.
it can definitely be done properly, but most often the courts aren’t funded enough or the penalties aren’t strong enough or both
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Good point!
this is quality content
this was a very good video even though I don't agree with everything you said. a remark or a pro: I couldn't tell what your ideology was until at the end of the video and even after I dint really know jeje
what did you disagree with? and what’s my ideology?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I though it was a good video because I couldn't really tell if you were a leftie or a conservative at first. At the end I though you were more left leaning. I disagree in the take that a patriarchy is always oppressive to women. For example take England in the Victorian Era or the 1910s in America. Women and Men had the same moral values but very different roles in society but the women weren't really oppressed. But It was because it was clear that women have the same moral value for example you can't kill baby girls because that is amoral. But they were different in roles generally I don't agree with Jordan Peterson theories but there is some truth to them. Anyway good video.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I will share It because it had different point of views, also a point to note is that the societies you mention are either polytheistic or atheist in contrast to the christian worldview were women are to be loved and protected as the weaker vessel.
@@paulamarianaruiz thanks - interesting - what made you think i was conservative? i have to disagree strongly with your description of victorian women - while the ideology stated that men and women were equally valued, women were very much 2nd class citizens - men had most of the power, women had no right to vote and were believed not to be rational enough to vote and were forced to accept subservient status - it was a time of literal patriarchy. american women at the time were shocked when they interacted with native american haudenosaunee women who had political authority and control over their own property etc, and this triggered the sufragette and women’s rights movements.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I thought you were a conservative because your video didn't have 'woke' terms and when you referred to the patriarchy it was meant to be the sociological institution. I don't thing that in those eras especially in te victorian or the American era, women weren't oppressed because they couldn't vote they just had different roles signed to their gender and so did men. I don't think that it is beneficial to give EVERYONE the right to vote in the log term because it creates a resented society where everyone has a right to 'something' . For example today the left claims 'the right to an abortion' even though having a surgical procedure isn't a right. Also I don't think any civilization can distribute power to every of its citizens because some hierarchies are benefitial to society for example a nuclear family. So win some lose some. Besides I don't think women want to have the same power of men, because that requieres more work form their part and they live their other roles of mothers and homemakers a little to the side and that is natural to most women.
More thort experiminx
Hello ! Thank you for the enlightening videos ! Keep up ! I wonder what you think about the term "patriarchy" or "patriarchal systems" and their relevance today. I know that patriarchy was mainly used to describe social systems were men dominate and have priveleges over women. And while today, men still have priveleges, they are no longer explicitly enunciated or justified : a women can ( is even encouraged by the dominant ideology ) to become CEO or president. And sure, there are more men than women in positions of power, but it's not a difference in principle (it's partly because we inhereted from the more direct type of patriarchy). My point is : Among the 99% of people property is owned and power is used in a rather equal way by men and women + in the past 50years the relations have been getting more and more equal in the private sphere. So what's the point of saying men have all the power when 90% of them don't ? Why not just say capitalists and governments have all the power ? In short, I think that what's maintaining patriarchy (at least, in western societies) is capitalism, so why not include it as one of it's features instead of talking about it as a separate entity ? It seems to be more useful to people who don't want to talk about capitalism than anything else.
what to focus on depends on the issue and what your situation is. if we’re talking about the rich “western” countires, we’re definitely not living in a formal patriarchy anymore, because in a formal patriarchy women are simply not allowed to hold many of these important positions of authority, and are restricted by law or cultural rules from all sorts of rights and privileges retained only for men. this is not the case at all here, like you’re pointing out. But women in general do have some real and important disadvantages, and I’d say that’s a hangover from the period when there was formal patriarchy, and also as a result of how an economy based on renting out labour punishes you for having children, and even the possibility that you might have children in various ways, which like you say is a feature of capitalism, and i believe that this perpetuates cultural discrimination. a lot of cultural sexism and negative gender discrimination today i think is inherited from the past, but also perpetuated by the fact women who want children at some point are very likely to become economically dependent on a man. This creates all kinds of gross power dynamics in dating for example, and office politics which you see much less of this stuff in places like denmark where economic dependence on a man to have a child is much less.
So sure, it’s important to talk about that and focus on that but at the same time, if you’re a woman working at a software company or engineering firm, and the ratio of men to women is like 10:1 and all the guys at work are either being completely dismissive of you, or else falling all over themselves trying to flatter you or both, you’re not going to benefit from lecturing them about capitalism, but you will benefit if the men get some sensitivity/empathy training, particularly training from your union (as corporate ones are often anti-solidaristic and shitty).
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 yeah, I see the point that there are many situations were women are disadvantaged because of the strucutre of the male dominated and hierarchical social sphere, I guess I'm just having a problem with a certain tendency to use words in excessive ways and forgetting the political in the economy
@@politikos7683 yes, in general people including scholars, and often just completely unaware of material/economic factors in these sorts of issues, and i think that thise factors are the ultimate long term cause of these problems, but at the same time, the cultural aspect is very important in the short term and smaller scale and we can’t just ignore it in reaction to other people ignoring economics and practical realities.
amazing
can you make a video on how homophobia and anti-LGBT are created and perpetuated by material conditions? i assume you can’t just eliminate it with a “rainbow pill” so i’m curious on what creates this discriminatory beliefs in the first place.
i probably won’t do a whole video on it but i should talk about it a bit - it’s like a side effect of patriarchy - when men are dominating women, they need a belief system that justifies it. that creates gender stereotypes and strict gender roles that must be enforced in order to maintain the moral justifications for male domination. behaviour that doesn’t conform to these gender rules is a threat to male dominance, so homosexuality, transgenderism, men being effeminate, women being confident and assertive - these all are threats which must be policed in order to maintain the patriarchal gender ideology. the rules are different per society but that’s basically it, it’s a side effect of patriarchy
@@WHATISPOLITICS69An interesting thing here that some homosexuality has been tolerated but not accepted in societies that on the surface is very opposed to it.
17th century Sweden was in almost perpetual war and was ruled by old testament laws that sort of had the death penalty on everything, including sodomy. But we have suspisiously few examples of people actually brought to trial for sodomy.
It is hard to really prove but it seems like some sodomy could be accepted as long as it was done in a discreet manner and the family and general social order was kept intact. I read about a rather obvious lesbian couple including a woman who had run away from home, became a soldier as a man and later wanted to return as a woman with her wife from the war. They seems to avoided all legal repercussion by simply promising not to make a fuss and settle quietly in a cottage owned by an aunt, well outside of the village.
The court didn't want a trial, in part because the didn't want to give people ideas.
The general ideological condemnation of homosexuality was draconian, but the social practice often seems to have been more pragmatic.
Thanks. I never knew the effects of patrilocal organization.
thanks for watching! it’s crazy because this has been well known since before anthropology began as a discipline, but it’s been almost forgotten at this point - today you can get a PhD in anthro in many departments and never have learned this.
What stops matrilineal matrilocal societies becoming matriarchal? Such as refusing child access and divorce whilst demanding child support. In the Mosou the father is unknown and the maternal uncle provides instead. Does that reduced stake stop his exploitation? Absentee maternal uncles are probably as big a problem as absentee fathers. Because if word gets out that you are a deadbeat uncle you can still get laid. Especially if you are a travelling salesman/artisan.
i don’t understand what you’re saying with refusing child access and demanding child support, but matrilineal societies are usually gender egalitarian vs female dominated because men are usually professional warriors and hunters with expertise in weapons and fighting, and also, while women will dominate local politics, men dominate external politics (politics with outside groups) so it tends to balance out
many matrilineal societies are still male dominated
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I used those as the examples because those are usually what men's groups complain about. Women in matrilineal societies do dominate household spending. I was making the point that the Mosou men out in their hunting camps with their buddies might not feel that great about it. But given paternity is not known there its a very different case. And usually hunters assumes they are not in advanced societies which is wrong.
@@kimcosmos if i remember correctly the mosou is the group where there’s no marriage? that/s a really unique case - and i forget how that society became matrilineal, but usually it’s because the men are away for long periods on hunting or raiding expeditions. i talk about it in episode 8
16:00 114 female babies for every 100 male babies? Don't you mean the opposite?
yes, my mistake! i corrected it in the shownotes, but thank you, you’re correct
Just recommended this to my favourite feminist streamer!
thank you! and who is that?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Their name is Lumi Rue. They're a non-binary Twitch streamer, who is knowledgeable especially in intersectional theory and feminist history.
I have some moderate disagreements with Lumi, since I mostly come from a Marxist perspective and not so much from a queer theory angle, but they're an incredibly wholesome person, and fairly open to new ideas.
@@vauchomarx6733 cool, just curious about who’s out there in the ecosystem. feminism is definitely stronger with materialist analysis in there… there was a great anthro materialist feminist tradition that’s more or less gone now, eleanor leacock myths of male dominance is a classic if you ever have a chance to check that out.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I agree, and thanks for the recommendation! One feminist anthropologist I'm familiar with, is Evelyn Reed. Her writings are a bit dated, but still very good.
@@vauchomarx6733 cool ill check her out am not familliar with her
So I always thought "funny that China is so patriachal, yet unlike the West, women at least keep their surname after marriage", but now you made me wonder: maybe that's actually a SIGN or patriarchy, because it labels a women as someone who is not a daughter of the clan, but a "stranger" who need not be listened to.
What do you think?
that makes sense, but i just don’t know if it’s correct or not
Did you read The Great Cosmic Mother or When God Was A Woman?
no
Algorithm Boost!
Beter use outsider males, to make matriarchy
In matriarchal societies all the land passed from mother to daughters. These societies were egalitarian. Why are matriarchal societies egalitarian but patriarchal oppressive? For The majority of human history societies have been matriarchal. You have not talked about how religion shape patriarchal and matriarchal societies.
i talk about this in episode 8 - there are no known matriarchal societies (where women dominate positions of power) but you have many matrilineal societies where women dominate the positions of local power and men will have the positions of leadership in diplomacy. these societies are sometimes male dominated but often gender egalitarian
these societies are less egalitarian than immediate return hunter gatherers because those hunter gatherers have no fixed positions of authority, while the matrilineal societies usually have positions of authority - gerontocratic clan mothers, chiefs etc
the type of religion is the result of matriliny or patriliny much more than it shapes society. religions are a way of stabiliizing the existing balance of power, to prevent people from spending time energy and blood testing the limits of the balance of power.
No, its biological, women always choose men who are more, and those who disagree have fewer children.
that is just not true at all outside for a romp in the hay - in cultures where women have more wealth and are more financially independent, they’re way less interested in dominant powerful men and more interested in good partners.
6:31 men and woman are equal but in divorce they will still get alimony.
inane, non-sequitur
Seeing humans as property is disappointing, but it has slowly been ferreted out of Scandinavia.
It's interesting to read the Ibsen book doll house.
Comment for the algorithm
Why wast time and effort on educating woman for jobs if there main goal is to be mother it is a wast of everyone time and effort. It
Would be better to educat them to be better mothers
This is a problem that is not going away untill men stop being selfish pick up the slack and start having baby, it the only way to get quality. Stay strong ladies
oh dear
It totally makes sense. After 2 minutes i am again confirmed in my thoughts which doubt feminism would rise unfortunately. Without crucial system changes. Though I think it could change a lot via only marketing it in a good way everywhere in media. It seems some men simply dont want to loose their superiority. No f hope:/
Of course working conditions, child care duties , lots of rigid systems would need to change SIMPLY by making law changes.
Im very sure it would benefit all society - but NO they dont do it - except in some northern civilizations who seems to have the intention too
@@mse5739 i do think there will be more feminism in the future - life is getting worse and worse for so many people, but it really doesn’t have to - i think that once people start to understand that it’s not necessary anymore they won’t tolerate it - IF we can help everyone understand this! and yes, in our time, because material conditions have changed so much, so quickly, we can do a lot of this just with laws.
Thanks for your reply!
For why I am pessimistic I think is the tendency of Eastern European countries (where i live now) becoming more and more ideology lead by very very very patriarchal men. Its actually unbelievable - abortion rights are disappearing, nuclear family’s importance is emphasized, national, traditional hero-based history are taught - everything is a mess.
And yes - in this environment - opponent voices are louder, the young are more energetic to go to the streets. Online media helps enforcing some sort of sense of community among those against the system.
But still….those powerful men have already bought half or more land/property of the country, economy is in their hands. They also benefit from social media and they!! were very very shrewd actually to have started to form their own smaller, local youth groups, supporters, volunteer groups for a political reason long time ago, well before the social media came “to power”. And after, slowly but surely started to buy everything!!!!!! in the country owning political AND economical power.
So some people are writing about things they dont like , there are some….independent media (very few remained actually) online that you can read if you care about reality BUT the majority of people see and meet only government propganda - so thats kind of a problem.
Well now… due to Ukranian war and other factors prices of evey day products are in the sky , in a very short time they were doubled in price. I guess when its too unbearable an average citizen/villager wont really care about government propaganda - but at the same time they would need to fight for survival, hence having no energy to change the system.
Another question in these countries is that it is very far from democracy so if it doesnt lead to anarchy - which is not good but I would support any form of it :) - people could endlessly suffer until they vote for another ruling party…But its at least 10-20-50more years or so. Or who knows?🤔 okay its not very far future but im talking about a country where its mild dictatorship….hiding behind democracy.
What about other parts of the world (huge part) where situation is so much worse.. and wont be better - but because of climate change many will try and find homes elsewhere. This again makes nationalistic , patriarchal side rise (as we can see now of course).
In more developed countries situations could be better. But in the Eastern part of the world - I just simply cannot imagine.
How a North-Korea would change for example?!!
A little change is better than nothing for sure. I just cannot imagine an egalitarian culture on most of the Earth in the next 100yrs
3:02 I think your video forgets to look at the following factors.
Age of woman
Looks of woman.
Social status of woman.
Family of origin of woman
Family of procreation of woman.
Woman who are born in lower classes can never become queen, a lower class/status woman maybe a PhD but will never become a queen.
Like in UK
yeah, that has basically nothing to do with anything i talked about
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 yes you are right Ur lecture was about material condition and I agree with you.
I think when you have to attribute so much to human nature being messed up and men being meanies, maybe this branch of your theories are getting thin. but overall I like your stuff. found it recently, and am especially liking your thoughts on "The dawn of everything" which I got about 2/3 through but kept vomiting in my mouth too much. When I first started the book I actually thought they were going to be saying something completely different because I was unaware of the articles that came out before the book.
i didn’t think i was attributing anything to a messed up human nature or men being mean - what do you mean? like if men and women’s positions were revered, women would be doing the same things as men. and human nature is wonderful and terrible, it just depends on context.
which part of the book upset and disappointed you so much? love to hear that!
8:20 reminds me of how domestic violence rose during lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic
Man have to work more, becouse have biger muscules
Woman have to eat more good food to grow muscules
Why do u assume that just because the men were in charge that they treated women like shit? Christianity taught men to treat women and children like precious objects do everything you can to provide them with everything you can to make them happy. Plenty of cultures do the same thing.
i’m not assuming anything, it’s in the ethnographies. women get beatings, have no freedom, eat last even though they made all the food. and in china, everyone knows and will tell you the rural women are treated like shit.
it’s one thing to have a division of labour, but when it’s enforced with beatings and abuse is allowed only by men then that’s patriarchy and patriarchy exists to exploit women. and if you just assume it’s always just a happy division of labour then you’re the one who should be questioning your assumptions and why you need to make exuses for abuse and exploitation.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Indigenous patriarchies pre-colonial differed completely, in abuse and varied in complementary roles and autonomy for women.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Western hierarchy and East Asian Hierarchy has always been more dominate, but the Indigenous patriarchies were more complex and fluid.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 What it meant to be a woman and men, pre-colonial in many indigenous societies weren't rigid and more fluid.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Angola literally honored and allowed third gender women to marry men openly. The Igbo had female husbands and male-daughters. Many more differences in Africa, and America.
Hey it’s funny gay Mohawk man
dude, i have 69 girlfriends bro
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 good answer :)
3:45 “Women’s equality and freedom is directly related to the condition of having men who can protect them. I am very smart.”
you’re more like a caca person i’d say. except caca is funnier.
and if you don’t like it, go argue with 100 years of anthropology and 50 years of feminist scholarship…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Considering the field of anthropology is one of the leading sectors of disseminating the concept of “educated” and “erudite” white supremacy, and feminist scholarship has had no less than three distinct waves that each have had blinders for important aspects of feminism and women’s liberation (trans rights, sex worker rights, etc.) then yes, I will absolutely argue with both of them. Thanks for your permission, though?
listen to the little boy confidently, donkey-splaining feminism to everyone! good stuff!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 “Everyone?” No, just you since you don’t seem to have the historical and cultural understanding that feminist movements haven’t been completely infallible concepts with their own problematic issues, like the fact that many first-wave suffragist feminists contrasted their deserving of the right to vote against the unworthiness of Black people of the right to vote. Please continue to show your ass. It makes this so much more fun.
Also, again, not a “he,” meaning not male, meaning, not a “boy.”
@@matthewlukas2863 very very sorry, please continue donkey splaining feminism to us, you moron-donkey-person of unspecified gender